I would be grateful for some pointers. I am resarching family history and apparently it has a heraldic dimension. The Hewitts of Killamarsh (/Hewet/Hewit/Huit etc) in the 1500s bore a shield with white lions and some wading birds (pewits presumably for a cant, or tyrwhits). In 1599 William Hewitt died and the heraldic procession used Gules, three owls and a chevron engrailed argent, which were apparently the ancient and correct arms of Hewet. The Dictionary of British Arms gives some references, which I would like to look up but have struggled to locate -- some armorials apparently have several names. Can anyone tell me (a) where I would find and (b) how I would access the armorials? They are LH “Letter H Roll” SOL MS476 c1520 aka Pedegrees Hereldry Armes painted and Inblason; XV “Wriothesley's Chevrons” c1525; SK “Starkey's Roll”. I gather none are available online. Rhys from Australia

On Wednesday, 24 May 2017 11:21:31 UTC+1, Rhys Howitt wrote: > I would be grateful for some pointers. I am resarching family history and apparently it has a heraldic dimension. The Hewitts of Killamarsh (/Hewet/Hewit/Huit etc) in the 1500s bore a shield with white lions and some wading birds (pewits presumably for a cant, or tyrwhits). In 1599 William Hewitt died and the heraldic procession used Gules, three owls and a chevron engrailed argent, which were apparently the ancient and correct arms of Hewet. > > The Dictionary of British Arms gives some references, which I would like to look up but have struggled to locate -- some armorials apparently have several names. Can anyone tell me (a) where I would find and (b) how I would access the armorials? They are LH “Letter H Roll” SOL MS476 c1520 aka Pedegrees Hereldry Armes painted and Inblason; XV “Wriothesley's Chevrons” c1525; SK “Starkey's Roll”. I gather none are available online. > > Rhys from Australia I'm afraid mediaeval heraldry does not have the facilities that are made available to genealogists, and accessing the sources you quote are likely to be so difficult that you will probably not bother. But here are the details anyway. As a preliminary point, the Dictionary of British Arms refers to these three sources under the sub-heading 'Gu chev betw 3 owls Arg', in other words the chevron is not treated as engrailed. It is possible that this is a mistake, but for it to have occurred three times is really not likely. The first reference is to the Letter H Roll (c.1520) no. 924, which is part of MS 476 at the Society of Antiquaries of London, Burlington House, Piccadilly, Mayfair, London W1J 0BE. The second reference is to Wriothesley's Chevrons (c.1525) Part I no.361, which is MS 4406 in the Norfolk Record Office, The Archive Centre, Martineau Lane, Norwich NR1 2DQ The third reference is to Starkey's Roll (c.1460) no. 856, the original of which has been lost and which, according to Wagner's CEMRA p 103, now exists as three different manuscripts: (a) MS. Gybbon's Ordinary of Arms, pp 227-83 (total of 1124 shields in trick) at the College of Arms, 130 Queen Victoria St, London EC4V 4BT (b) MS. Vincent 164, ff. 59b-83b (total of 771 shields in trick) also at the College of Arms (c) MS. 158, ff. 225-95 (total of 1124 shields in trick, but not exactly the same as (a)) at Queen's College, High St, Oxford OX1 4AW None of these manuscripts have been published, in print or on line. The Society of Antiquaries (an independent charity) and the Norfolk Record Office (run by Norfolk County Council) allow outside visitors by appointment; expect to provide evidence of identity (passport, driving licence) and current address (bank statement, utility bill). Queen's College normally also allow outside visitors, but they are in the process of moving their collections between now and the end of the Long Vacation in September. The College of Arms is unsupported from public funds and access to its records is therefore limited. However, the heralds do undertake searches in its records on payment of professional fees, and if an enquirer wishes to consult a particular manuscript 'appropriate arrangements can be made' (presumably for a price). As you can see, it would not be easy to look at any of these manuscripts (which are totally outside my period of interest). In comparison, genealogists are thoroughly spoiled! Peter Howarth