Matt Thank you once again for another interesting and comprehensive explanation. It's fascinating to see how the meanings of words change over the centuries. I thought the second quote from Thomas de Quincey was very apt. I don't think it is necessarily correct to say that all gentlemen were armigerous. This might have been the case in the sixteenth century but certainly in the early 1600s I have a number of examples where the younger sons of an armigerous father are described in parish registers as gentlemen. I was rather under the impression that all the children of an armigerous person were automatically entitled to call themselves gentleman or mistress but it is of course only the eldest son who inherits the right to bear arms. I also have some people who are described as gen. [generosus] in the burial registers. I understand that this simply means "of noble birth" rather than suggesting that they have any right to bear arms. Debbie Kennett

<<I don't think it is necessarily correct to say that all gentlemen were armigerous. This might have been the case in the sixteenth century but certainly in the early 1600s I have a number of examples where the younger sons of an armigerous father are described in parish registers as gentlemen. I was rather under the impression that all the children of an armigerous person were automatically entitled to call themselves gentleman or mistress but it is of course only the eldest son who inherits the right to bear arms. I also have some people who are described as gen. [generosus] in the burial registers. I understand that this simply means "of noble birth" rather than suggesting that they have any right to bear arms.>> Well, no, the English system has always been that all legitimate children are entitled to use their father's arms, and so are all their children, and all their children, and so on ad infinitum - but with two qualifications. First, that daughters cannot pass the arms on to their descendants unless they are heraldic heiresses (that is, they have no surviving brothers) and Second, that only the eldest son (or heraldic heiresses) can pass on the father's arms unchanged - all other children must add some small item to the arms 'for difference'. Here is a quote from Boutell's Heraldry, revised by JP Brooke-Little (1978 edition), p 108: "In English heraldry, all persons descended in the legitimate male line from an armigerous ancestor inherit and bear his arms. Nevertheless, it is the essence of heraldry that armorial bearings should be distinctive not only of the family as a whole, but also of its several branches and individual members. ... To render the common arms of a family distinctive of its various branches and members, a method has been evolved termed "differencing for cadency," ie a minor differencing of the arms to indicate the position of the cadet in relation to the head of the family, or of a branch in relation to the senior line." In the medieval period differencing was achieved by a variety of methods, such as changing one of the colours in the arms, or one of the major items in them, or adding various extra items, but in the 16th century a system of regular marks of cadency was developed. This was for the first son to add a label (a kind of sideways E near the top of the shield - he would drop it when his father died, since he could then use the basic arms without difference); the second son a crescent; third a molet (a star); fourth a martlet (a bird); fifth an annulet (a ring; and so on. The system would start again with the next generation, each child adding the appropriate mark to his father's arms. It can be seen that after a few generations the system would break down, and anyway it was ignored as often as it was followed. But the point is that all the descendants of an armigerous person could bear arms, which reflects the theoretical rule was that all gentlemen had arms and only they could have them (plus those superior to them, of course). But that rule also wasn't always strictly observed, especially in the later 18th and 19th centuries, when interest in heraldry waned and many newly arrived gentlemen didn't bother with it. Matt

Would anyone know what the word "sithence" would have meant in the late 1500's? It was used as follows: "...by a duly levied fine, to the said --------, then of Stoke-Nayland, sithence of Thorpe, which fine was duly levied in Easter term following in the Common Pleas." and "By due conveyances in law said meadows later came to -------- of Stoke-Nayland, sithence deceased, brother of said..." Thank you, Debi Coe

Hello both Debi and Liz I generally translate this for myself as being a dialect way of saying "since then". It generally makes sense of the rest of the sentence if you substitute these two words for "sithence". Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Debi" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 7:03 AM Subject: [OEL] Meaning of sithence > Would anyone know what the word "sithence" would have meant in the late > 1500's? It was used as follows: > > "...by a duly levied fine, to the said --------, then of Stoke-Nayland, > sithence of Thorpe, which fine was duly levied in Easter term following in > the Common Pleas." > > and > > "By due conveyances in law said meadows later came to -------- of > Stoke-Nayland, sithence deceased, brother of said..." > > Thank you, > Debi Coe > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.13.1/470 - Release Date: 10/10/2006 > >

Hi Debi, A short answer is Sithence = sith = since A longer answer from the OED is As an adverb: 1. Then, thereupon; afterwards, subsequently. 2. Continuously or ever from or since that time. Freq. with ever or alway. 3. At some or any time(s) since 4. Ago; before now. sith ago, long ago; long since As a preposition: 1. Continuously or ever from (a specified time, etc.) till now 2. During the period, at some or any time(s), since (a specified time) As a conjunction: 1. From, subsequent to, or since the time that. Also rarely with that. 2. Seeing that. Very common from c 1520 to c 1670, being freq. used to express cause, while since was restricted to time. An even longer answer would include lots of citations and alternative spellings but methinks the above is enough!! :-) Liz in Melbourne > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:old-english- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Debi > Sent: Monday, 16 October 2006 4:04 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [OEL] Meaning of sithence > > Would anyone know what the word "sithence" would have meant in the late > 1500's? It was used as follows: > > "...by a duly levied fine, to the said --------, then of Stoke-Nayland, > sithence of Thorpe, which fine was duly levied in Easter term following in > the Common Pleas." > > and > > "By due conveyances in law said meadows later came to -------- of > Stoke-Nayland, sithence deceased, brother of said..." > > Thank you, > Debi Coe >