Eve McLaughlin wrote: > Personally,. I am getting extremely bored with this nitpicking, based > on errors in the College of Arms' explanations. And I suspect so are > others who have to pay for downloading what is not relevant to the > original query and not exactly interesting to the vast majority of > readers. Forget it, as I shall Yes, I agree, people must be getting very bored with this, and it will be my last message on the subject (barring any more genuine queries). However, I do think it's unfair to characterise the pursuit of accuracy in these matters - or genealogical matters in general - as "nitpicking". Of course, the point in question can be very important in practice when interpreting heraldic evidence. Just to be clear, I think the only error that has been _suggested_ in the College of Arms material is the claim about when the system of cadency marks was introduced. Doubt was cast on this because the label was in use some time earlier than the date suggested for the introduction of the system. I suspect the web page was referring to the "system" as a whole - label, crescent, mullet, martlet, annulet and so on - not to individual elements. Chris Phillips

In message <000401c46e7f$814fa940$9c2586d9@oemcomputer>, Chris Phillips <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> writes >Eve McLaughlin wrote: >> which confirms what was stated - the grant is to a person, and if the >> person has no descendants, it does not then go to other members of his >> family unless they pay for a new grant. > >Just in case anyone is confused by this, what was stated was that the arms >passed > undifferenced > to the eldest son, Personally,. I am getting extremely bored with this nitpicking, based on errors in the College of Arms' explanations. And I suspect so are others who have to pay for downloading what is not relevant to the original query and not exactly interesting to the vast majority of readers. Forget it, as I shall -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Knowing how knowledgeable you all are, perhaps you can help me with a query raised by my visit to France. In mitigation for it not being English, I have to say that it was the Aquitaine part that Eleanor brought to the English crown. The question is this: does anyone know why so many towns in the Perigord region of France have 'ac' at the end of their names, e.g. Bergerac; Issyjac; and many others? There are even quite small places like Cahujac and many of the place names end in 'ac'. I am hopeless at surfing the Net and, despite trying, have found nothing to tell me the answer to this. If you can just point me in the right direction to find the answer, I'd be very pleased indeed. It's like an itch in an unreachable part of the body at the moment. Audrey

----- Original Message ----- From: "Eve McLaughlin" <eve@varneys.demon.co.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 6:24 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] question Doctors Commons > In message <004a01c46e29$129cd8c0$ba2c86d9@oemcomputer>, Chris Phillips > <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> writes > > > >Chris Bartlett wrote: > >> We have an interesting situation in my Meakin line where a James Meakin (d > >> 1842) > >> who was a prebendary of Worcester Cathedral applied for and was approved a > >> coat of arms. It was the only coat of arms ever given to a Meakin. > >> He never married and had no children but I found that whether > >> right to wrong some later relatives (around 1880) used his crest. > >> > >> A member of my generation decided he wanted to use the coat of arms and I > >> understand that this was possible but it was going to cost him quite > >> a lot of money so he decided not to go ahead. Does money bend the rules. > > > >I suppose that in that case a second grant would have been necessary, as the > >original grantee died unmarried. > > > > which confirms what was stated - the grant is to a person, and if the > person has no descendants, it does not then go to other members of his > family unless they pay for a new grant. > > -- > Eve McLaughlin > > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > To UNSUBSCRIBE from list mode -- > Send the one word UNSUBSCRIBE to > OLD-ENGLISH-L-request@rootsweb.com >

Eve McLaughlin wrote: > which confirms what was stated - the grant is to a person, and if the > person has no descendants, it does not then go to other members of his > family unless they pay for a new grant. Just in case anyone is confused by this, what was stated was that the arms passed only to the eldest son, which - as has been shown - was incorrect. Chris Phillips

In message <004a01c46e29$129cd8c0$ba2c86d9@oemcomputer>, Chris Phillips <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> writes > >Chris Bartlett wrote: >> We have an interesting situation in my Meakin line where a James Meakin (d >> 1842) >> who was a prebendary of Worcester Cathedral applied for and was approved a >> coat of arms. It was the only coat of arms ever given to a Meakin. >> He never married and had no children but I found that whether >> right to wrong some later relatives (around 1880) used his crest. >> >> A member of my generation decided he wanted to use the coat of arms and I >> understand that this was possible but it was going to cost him quite >> a lot of money so he decided not to go ahead. Does money bend the rules. > >I suppose that in that case a second grant would have been necessary, as the >original grantee died unmarried. > which confirms what was stated - the grant is to a person, and if the person has no descendants, it does not then go to other members of his family unless they pay for a new grant. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Chris Bartlett wrote: > We have an interesting situation in my Meakin line where a James Meakin (d > 1842) > who was a prebendary of Worcester Cathedral applied for and was approved a > coat of arms. It was the only coat of arms ever given to a Meakin. > He never married and had no children but I found that whether > right to wrong some later relatives (around 1880) used his crest. > > A member of my generation decided he wanted to use the coat of arms and I > understand that this was possible but it was going to cost him quite > a lot of money so he decided not to go ahead. Does money bend the rules. I suppose that in that case a second grant would have been necessary, as the original grantee died unmarried. Chris Phillips

In message <001c01c46d5f$92786160$0200a8c0@bob>, John Barton <bartonlander@free.net.nz> writes >Whilst on heraldry, apparently what most people call a star is actually a >mullet. So the Star-spangled Banner should be the mullet-spangled banner. Doesn't have quite the same ring, does it? >ot that my family has arms- we fell on hard times in the 18th century, when >Bartholomew Barton lost his fortune at Walton-on-the-Naze. He owned 600-acre >Horsey Island off the east coast, but the sea broke in and flooded it This sort of inundation is happening now, from time to time, and is currently blamed on global warming (rather than the Ebglish climate). Just shows, doesn't it? And there was precious little insurance, other than against fire loss. >permanently. >I'd be interested if there is a history of this island, try Google - should be > which I think has >only one house. Also re Vauxhall 'cars; are they pronounced 'Vokesel' or >'Vohsle'? Vox 'all -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

John, I'd say it was Vocksall, Lyn B

Whilst on heraldry, apparently what most people call a star is actually a mullet. So the Star-spangled Banner should be the mullet-spangled banner. A star always has wavy rays; a mullet (as in the coat of the De Vere's, for example) is the disc of a spur-rowel, though nearly always without a central hole. The stars and stripes ought to be the mullets and bars. Not that my family has arms- we fell on hard times in the 18th century, when Bartholomew Barton lost his fortune at Walton-on-the-Naze. He owned 600-acre Horsey Island off the east coast, but the sea broke in and flooded it permanently. I'd be interested if there is a history of this island, which I think has only one house. Also re Vauxhall 'cars; are they pronounced 'Vokesel' or 'Vohsle'? (mine's a Raleigh).His Lordship owned Vauxhall Gardens in London, I believe. John Barton

Hello Chris We have an interesting situation in my Meakin line where a James Meakin (d 1842) who was a prebendary of Worcester Cathedral applied for and was approved a coat of arms. It was the only coat of arms ever given to a Meakin. He never married and had no children but I found that whether right to wrong some later relatives (around 1880) used his crest. A member of my generation decided he wanted to use the coat of arms and I understand that this was possible but it was going to cost him quite a lot of money so he decided not to go ahead. Does money bend the rules. regards Chris Bartlett > > I wrote: > > >Yes - this is precisely the misconception I meant. The use of cadency > marks > > >isn't compulsory. > > Eve McLaughlin replied > > But Ulster King of Arms made sure that Westenra had the crescent > > incorporated to show his precise descent. Whatever the theory, in > > practice this is normally done. (why pass up a fee for issuing arms, by > > letting all and sundry in the family use the same coat>: Money talks.) > > The last remark really has me foxed. Presumably no one is going to claim > that the College of Arms requires younger sons to pay them for > fresh grants > of arms, incorporating cadency marks? > > Chris Phillips

what is the cost of downloading? i do not understand...??? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Barlow" <barlow@candw.ky> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 9:01 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] question Doctors Commons > > Eve McLaughlin wrote: > > > Personally,. I am getting extremely bored with this nitpicking, based > > > on errors in the College of Arms' explanations. And I suspect so are > > > others who have to pay for downloading what is not relevant to the > > > original query and not exactly interesting to the vast majority of > > > readers. Forget it, as I shall > > > With all respect to Eve: I cannot be alone in finding digressions of this > sort often fascinating, and I would hate for them to be ruled out of order - > or even discouraged. OE-List is much, much more interesting than the vast > majority of similar Lists, and its nature is to be cherished, I think. I > once belonged to a "History of English" List that became moribund purely > because it discouraged all digressions. The infinitesimal marginal cost of > downloading each extra posting is a price worth paying if it avoids such a > fate. > > Eve: please relent! > > Gordon Barlow > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > To contact the list administrator: > OLD-ENGLISH-admin@rootsweb.com > >

I wrote: > >Yes - this is precisely the misconception I meant. The use of cadency marks > >isn't compulsory. Eve McLaughlin replied > But Ulster King of Arms made sure that Westenra had the crescent > incorporated to show his precise descent. Whatever the theory, in > practice this is normally done. (why pass up a fee for issuing arms, by > letting all and sundry in the family use the same coat>: Money talks.) The last remark really has me foxed. Presumably no one is going to claim that the College of Arms requires younger sons to pay them for fresh grants of arms, incorporating cadency marks? Chris Phillips

>Yes - this is precisely the misconception I meant. The use of cadency marks >isn't compulsory. But Ulster King of Arms made sure that Westenra had the crescent incorporated to show his precise descent. Whatever the theory, in practice this is normally done. (why pass up a fee for issuing arms, by letting all and sundry in the family use the same coat>: Money talks.) -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Whilst agreeing with most of what Chris says with regards to every legitimate child being entitled to bear their father's Arms (even females) under English rules, it should be pointed out that the College of Arms web page contains a very basic interpretation of the rules of heraldry which in some cases it gets wrong. Arthur Charles Fox-Davies in his Complete Guide to Heraldry gives a rather more accurate statement with regards to Arms when he states.- "Every landowner was at one time required to have his seal - presumably, of arms - and as a result arms were naturally then considered to possess something of a territorial character. I do not by this mean to say that the arms belonged to the land and were transferable with the sale and purchase thereof. There never was in this country a period at which such an idea held; nor were arms originally entirely personal or individual. They belonged rather to a position half-way between the two. They were the arms of a given family, originating because that family held land and accepted the consequent responsibilities thereto belonging, but the arms appertained for the time being to the member of that family who owned the land. ..." Labels which are a mark of cadency may be shown to extend back into the 13th century therefore it is wrong to claim "Cadency marks _may_ be used to identify the arms of brothers, in a system said to have been invented by John Writhe, Garter, in about 1500." The use of a mark of cadency under the English system is voluntary not compulsory and is a matter of courtesy. Cheers Guy Chris Phillips wrote: > I wrote: > >>>which normally allow transmission only through the male line. The arms of > > a > >>>man pass equally to all his legitimate children, irrespective of their > > order > >>>of birth. ... > > > Eve McLaughlin wrote: > >>But not undifferenced ... > > > [and elsewhere] > >>Undifferenced arms > > only descend to the male heir anyway. The rest would have to use arms > with a device on them (in the case of Westenra, a crescent, and a > different motto) > > Yes - this is precisely the misconception I meant. The use of cadency marks > isn't compulsory. (The motto isn't part of the coat of arms, and is neither > here nor there.) > > If you look at the College of Arms web page I referred to you'll see that > the part I quoted previously ("The arms of a > man pass equally to all his legitimate children, irrespective of their order > of birth") is immediately followed by this: > > "Cadency marks _may_ be used to identify the arms of brothers, in a system > said to have been invented by John > Writhe, Garter, in about 1500." > [my emphasis] > > Chris Phillips > > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > SEARCHABLE archives for OLD-ENGLISH: > http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=OLD-ENGLISH > > -- http://freespace.virgin.net/guy.etchells Transcripts, Parish Records, Calendar, Scaleable Map of Uk. Link to LDS website, Abbreviations, Returns of Owners of Lands etc. http://www.framland.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ Worldwide Cemetery Links, Monumental Inscriptions, War Graves, etc.

Hey, my son is John BARTON! Ruth At 9:40 AM +1200 7/18/04, Hez Lander wrote: >I missed earlier mail on this, but an interesting case is the Montagu arms; >argent, three fusils in fesse. A fesse is slightly fatter (more >rhombus-shaped) than a lozenge. Even then, in fesse (a conjoined row) they >are usually termed lozenges; but the Montagu arms are an exception. >My wife's 2gtgrandfather, Rev. Octavius Freire Owen, born 1816, had a >bookplate with the Owen arms quartered with Travers impaled per pale with >those of his wife, Emily Montague. (Montagu quartered with Stephens). Maybe >this entitles us to patent the sandwich or lay claim to the Sandwich isles >(Hawaii), since they derive from Lord John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich! >Does anyone know how heraldically valid such victorian bookplates are likely >to be? Were they occasionally fudged a bit? > >John Barton -- Ruth Barton mrgjb@sover.net Dummerston, VT

I missed earlier mail on this, but an interesting case is the Montagu arms; argent, three fusils in fesse. A fesse is slightly fatter (more rhombus-shaped) than a lozenge. Even then, in fesse (a conjoined row) they are usually termed lozenges; but the Montagu arms are an exception. My wife's 2gtgrandfather, Rev. Octavius Freire Owen, born 1816, had a bookplate with the Owen arms quartered with Travers impaled per pale with those of his wife, Emily Montague. (Montagu quartered with Stephens). Maybe this entitles us to patent the sandwich or lay claim to the Sandwich isles (Hawaii), since they derive from Lord John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich! Does anyone know how heraldically valid such victorian bookplates are likely to be? Were they occasionally fudged a bit? John Barton ----- Original Message ----- From: <emagar@hotkey.net.au> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 12:41 AM Subject: RE: [OEL] question Doctors Commons > Throat lozenges got their name from the shape they were originally made in - > a lozenge being a diamond shape - 4 sides, 2 acute angles and 2 obtuse. > :-) > > Cheers, > > Liz in Melbourne > > Quoting Ruth Barton <mrgjb@sover.net>: > > > The lozenges confuse me, here a lozenge is a sore throat med you suck on so > > it slowly disolves. Ruth > > > snip > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > >

I wrote: > >which normally allow transmission only through the male line. The arms of a > >man pass equally to all his legitimate children, irrespective of their order > >of birth. ... Eve McLaughlin wrote: > But not undifferenced ... [and elsewhere] > Undifferenced arms only descend to the male heir anyway. The rest would have to use arms with a device on them (in the case of Westenra, a crescent, and a different motto) Yes - this is precisely the misconception I meant. The use of cadency marks isn't compulsory. (The motto isn't part of the coat of arms, and is neither here nor there.) If you look at the College of Arms web page I referred to you'll see that the part I quoted previously ("The arms of a man pass equally to all his legitimate children, irrespective of their order of birth") is immediately followed by this: "Cadency marks _may_ be used to identify the arms of brothers, in a system said to have been invented by John Writhe, Garter, in about 1500." [my emphasis] Chris Phillips

In message <003801c46ab1$88481ec0$8a2186d9@oemcomputer>, Chris Phillips <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> writes >Eve McLaughlin wrote: >> no such thing as a generalised 'family crest'. A crest is the device >> above the helmet attached to a shield containing a coat of arms. There >> are coats of arms issued to a particular person, by the College of >> Arms, which descend to the eldest son of that person. > >I'm afraid this erroneous view is so deeply ingrained in family history >circles that I despair of it ever being uprooted. mainly because it is nor erroneous. You have misunbderstood the statement. > >Of course it's true that coats of arms don't belong to surnames, but >particular families. Not families, persons. The grant of arms to one brother does not entitled his brothers or cousins to use it, only his male descendants, while they exist. The rest of the quotation has apparently not been properly understood and does not apply in this case. Undifferenced arms only descend to the male heir anyway. The rest would have to use arms with a device on them (in the case of Westenra, a crescent, and a different motto) >ling List ==== >OLD-ENGLISH Web Page >http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Throat lozenges got their name from the shape they were originally made in - a lozenge being a diamond shape - 4 sides, 2 acute angles and 2 obtuse. :-) Cheers, Liz in Melbourne Quoting Ruth Barton <mrgjb@sover.net>: > The lozenges confuse me, here a lozenge is a sore throat med you suck on so > it slowly disolves. Ruth > snip