Thx for identifying the arms in Toison d'Or I uploaded earlier. ;) BTW do you have any "transcript" of the armorial? I am sure I had one before but cannot find it anywhere if my life depended on it...the armorial is now fully digitized but can't decipher everything being written there since it's quite archaic way of writing. I am quite sure some of the names there are wrong or in plural, etc. Great job on Dering Roll btw...really awsome. ;D Finellach (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Sure, I thought it was worth a quick check, plus it's a family that's also represented in the Bergshammar (683 maybe iirc ? in the vassals of Austria section in any case, which isn't done yet).
I could take care of the full legend without problem and help with identifications if some needed corrections or improvements (also adding the numbering). I have a modernized transcript but unless we don't have the original material available online (Wijnbergen for ex I had to trust Clemmensen & E. de Boos transcripts & ordinaries, and from the few pictures I have I know it's gonna need a lot of minor corrections for both aspects the day it's avil. online) I really prefer doing the verbatim transcript from scratch anyway (full blazon like the Vermandois would be another story I admit). I was gonna suggest fixing that missing aspect for various already completed rolls like the Segar's, Zurich, etc ... I may aswell start with this one and help finishing it (I'm not sure what's its completion right now ?).--Solo (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Well both Toison d'Or or rather Great armorial of Europe and Bergshammar armorial are now fully digitized and available online so those two can be finished here since now we have original material. We also have unfinished Livro armorial but the problem with the latter is that it has some rather unique CoA's there with elements that would have to be drawn from scratch and Joakim said he will be on that one but he seems to have been busy lately or something so all those remain unfinished. I have been busy as well but I got more time recently so I decided to start looking into the Toison d'Or and Bergshammar eventually...and also fixing what can be fixed in Livro...some CoA's are rather unique there (Livro) though so only one person can do those I guess for them to be in line with the rest of the site. Finellach (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Working on one is working on both since there are whole segment that are copied over so it may be motivating to see some progress being made and gaps in the illustrations left to be filled. I've completed the first segment for Austria/Tyrol (12-186) which is also the same as Berghsammar 643-817. I'll leave what I have as identification or modernized spelling (a few items not form. id.) as comments when I edit all that in.--Solo (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey, can you elaborate on what you meant on the Mathefelon page? What would you put for their arms before the adoption of six escutcheons? I knew obviously about the arms with 7 pals but I did not know the year or anything. I find it kinda weird they would use the same arms as Mayenne, especially since they were still around...when they were gone it would be kinda normal if they adopted their arms or arms identical to theirs. Finellach (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
My guess is that they adopted an inverted variant of Mayenne (Or three or six esc. Gules, possibly simplifying the design depending on the support or period) when they married into the dynasty (Thibaud I, in the late 12th c.). Thibaud was both the brother in law and the tutor of younger Juhel III de Mayenne and yes, it's rather unlikely he would adopt the exact same arms at the time. They had many other possessions and it's really not wild to think they already had arms of their own before 1190 so the pals could just refer to any other of those lordships. The chevrons on the other hand are surely adopted after Thibaud III married Lucie de Laigle (for Beaumont, being the widow of Richard, viscount of Beaumont) and are attested alongside the escutcheons (act of 1273 has both seal designs).
Thibaud IV still used both designs but later settled on the escutcheons and ultimately abandonned the chevrons in the late 13th c. (last used in Herald's, Compiègne and Wijnbergen ? at least for the main line). The later armorials and the 14th c. funerary effigies (Thibaud V and his son) have the tinctures as gu/or but Vermandois (c. 1285, 6 esc.) and Ost de Flandre (1297, 3 esc.) are still or/gu so I'd guess they inverted the colours around 1300 or so (at a time when nobody could object anymore, harmless change to underline their ancestry).
So I'd put Or six escutcheons Gules as their primitive arms, with three esc. as the primitive variant (it could be the other way around in the chronology but it doesn't really change the point), plus Gules six esc. Or as the modern/definitive arms in the 14th c. - This is what I think makes the most sense in this case without any extrapolation : the primitive arms before 1300 (at least since 1273 although probably older) and the inversion in the 14th c.
Hmm...so I figured. Ok so what I was thinking is: renaming/moving this arms to Mathefelon Ancient and use that for their ancient variant. The one with three esc. we already have on the article among the personal arms so I am figuring that would do [edit: reason being - I think as you say this is a simplification of their arms, so for certain occasions they would revert from 6 pieces to 3 so since we already have it as a personal arms I think that would suffice IMO] ...simplicity is the best way to go. Ofc you can move it around yourself as well...you seem to know more about the family than I do tbh. ;) Finellach (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me, I agree with your point about keeping it simple. It's sometimes confusing to decide between personnal arms and variants of the dynastic arms. Also closely related is, whether we prioritize the first occurence of individual arms (in case there are several I mean) or just don't add/correct if there's already one listed. We have a concrete example here with the three esc. variant that appears earlier on the seal of Alix (1273) but is already listed for Thibaud (1297). Solo (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Regarding Clermont...I see you did some updates there. I've restored the quartered arms attributed to Guy I since it exists so no reason why not include since I already made it some time ago...it also seems to be the arms of the Mello/Offemont branch in later period at least. Anyway what I wanted to ask you since you seem to have better sources for these french families is: would you say that the Offemont branch perhaps in general used this arms at first and then reverted to the base arms quartering it or none of those? And also I've come up on another arms some time ago which is the same arms (i.e. Clermont-Nesle) but on blue background and it is attributed to certain Raoul of the same Nesle branch...now could this be the arms of Raoul who was the younger brother of Simon II and progenitor of the Tartigny branch or some of his descendants of him since there were several of them named Raoul as well? Cheers. Finellach (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay no worry. That said I think you should still mention that those are attributed in the description since those couldnt reasonably have been his arms. I mean he lived in the 13th c. so it really is just not remotely possible. Also, the canton in the other quarters is for Montmorency-Breteuil, a cadet branch that doesn't exist at the time and has little to do with the Clermont family (the Montmorency married into the Muret family and inherited Beausault and Breteuil from them). So maybe ... Bouconvilliers-Montmorency ? That would exactly fit the arms of Gasce de Bouconvilliers, Maître d'Hôtel of Charles VI ? Maybe someone in the Nesle family married into the Bouconvilliers later and used those arms I don't know but that wouldn't be before at least the mid 15th c.
In any case, I think it's confusing for the reader when we include something we know is not right in the first place and is not from an iconographic testimony. That was the reason I removed those. For me it's only a wikipedia attribution with the wrong Breteuil family/association in the second quarters.
The later lords of Offémont & Mello used the plain arms on their seals but the colour is always Gules in the roll of arms they appear in : Bergshammar/Toison, Leblancq, Lyncenich, Cour Amoureuse (at least those four) so up to about 1450, Guy III & Guy IV (beyond that I have no idea). Those arms in azure are I think just (sadly as they would have been interesting) confounded by B.Timms in his translation (from gueules in fr. to azure in eng.) of the CPF because that's the only instance I've ever seen of those anywhere (I've seen these with Timms' artwork on the web, in a few family trees).--Solo (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that why I was asking...in fact when I first came upon that CoA I was skeptical but I kept running into that arms on several sites, some of which were semi-reliable so I decided to make it. But you're right, it is wrong for the period...too early for quartered arms at that time not to be said such complex quarters with cantons that have the arms with cantons (!!)...lol. I think I'll add the fact it was attributed in later periods...it seems it was indeed the case in later period so since I cannot really identify it positively I'll just put a note underneath how and why. One more question before I go...I would do some small correction to Bardonneche/Bardonnechia arms (some small line fixes) but would also add the golden clasps on the fretty as well as is described by you in the note....the question is I would also add the version with standalone fretty (example) having golden clasps/buckles as well...the question is: should I upload that one separately from this one so there is both one with and one without clasps? Maybe upload the one without under "ancient" and one with claps under current name? Also what about their cadets? Did they use the golden clasps on fretty as well? Cheers. Finellach (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Well the second quarter is indeed for Bouconvillers after verification (Armorial Orléans c. 1390-1400), Gasce de B. changed the canton of Bouconvillers (bendy of 8 Or and Gules, a canton Argent overall, 13th c. constables of Vexin) to Montmorency-Breteuil after marrying the grand-daughter of Erard de Montmorency who used those arms (in Armorial Vermandois, which became the arms of Montmorency-Beausault/Breteuil) at the time of Guy. Why those arms were reproduced on wikipedia and how they came to be attributed to Guy himself still eludes me.
This is actually a good question for Bardonnechia but you should add the clasps to all three arms as it is what's precisely known about those emblems. I see you already did both Bardonnêche and the cadets of Les Ambrois also used the nailed fretty indeed.
Sadly I don't know of any testimony of their arms in the middle ages (maybe in Piémont, but I couldn't find any at the time). Modern armorials only confirms that the chief was added later but that's hardly surprising. For the story, this is a very ancient dynasty so they probably adopted their arms at the same time as other families in that area (around 1200-1220 mostly) and they would have been a simple fretty of course.
There are five other later branches that I'll add if I can ever find what branch goes with which variant (I havent looked into it yet tbh, it may not be possible to tell).
Another good example of decorated fretty in the Alps is Villeneuve (a more extreme one even).--Solo (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
BTW I just noticed your post on my talk page about Maille arms alternative variant...sorry for the delay in answering...completely missed it... Anyway I decided to put it back and the reason why is not because of Wikipedia but because it in fact as you say appears in at least two armorials, plus it is also present as arms of Urbain de Maille (Marshal of France) in the armorial of the Order of the Holy Spirit by Hozier in 1633 of the. Also the same variant is present as an attributed arms of Folques de Maille in "Salles des Croisades"...so all in all it is an established alternative variant even if it was never actually used by them...although from everything I've seen there seems to be a strong indication this variant started appearing in late 16th and from the beginning of 17th century for Breze branch as well. Also the idea of family pages was to include as many arms as possible in one place, this is why (if you look at my pages) I write as much information undearneth every coat of arms. Just writing a number under the arms is lacking IMO, you should emphasize and elaborate...f.e. instead of writing "1183" you should write "Seal of 1183". Also attributed variants are welcome as well...as long as they are noted as such, etc, etc. If possible it is desirable to write from which person stems a certain branch and so on and on. You can f.e. go look at what I did with the Stewart branches and pages (or Capet which was done in cooperation with one other editor on the site some time ago). Cheers. Finellach (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Edit: Forgot to mention, Chifflet-Pinet and Flandre arms still contain that very variant of Maille so both armorials now have two variants of Maille arms...I would edit them myself but am on the run atm...so if you see this you can go re-check it and change...doesn't really make sense to have one variant for Hardouin IV and one for Hardouin V...I had minimal involvement in making those armorial pages so I know very little about them.
I missed the second entry in the CPF/OST my bad, I should probably redo a full blazon check on this one (already doing so on WIN so I'll see after). Now about those arms, the problem is without detail I think it is confusing the reader into thinking there's no context for that (late) variant when there is (I wrote details on the timeline in the comments you may have missed it). In the middle ages if you encounter it, it's worth noting that it's different (for ex in the Urfé roll where two other individuals with the plain arms precedes it - NB: the other armorial is just a poor copy with many mistakes which may be interesting for studying it but makes it a poor historical record of anything). There's also one medieval seal (1383 iirc) with that design which I would have included to complete the personal arms (the artisan was probably responsible for that one) but I can't if it's already listed as a global variant. On the other hand there's a remarkable consistency in the use of the barry everywhere else, on their seals, sculpture or in the rolls, which is actually rare when there are that many medieval testimonies. A variant in my mind is something that you can expect to encounter without having a specific meaning other than the design not being clearly established while the Maillé family is actually an example of the contrary.
A fair bit of warning about the Salle des Croisades (and everything written by french "erudits-savants" of that period). It's not considered an historical document as it is a 19th c. monument where arms were painted with the help of historians and erudites based on who they thought were the crusaders and what their arms were. It is flawed in the sense that the 19th c. view on heraldry was very different than what we know today (it also had a political agenda which is never good for science). Any shield painted there doesnt confirm anything other than what the specialists of the time thought they knew. What I mean with all that (which I trust you already knew) is that you can't use any of those painting to confirm or disprove anything against the actual testimonies as this is basically a modern armorial or "nobiliaire" only put on the walls of the palace.
I absolutely don't mean that you shouldn't be including those as attributed arms in the dynastic pages, it's not my place to say even. I just honestly wouldn't include them myself as I think it leads too easily to the justification of any other attributed arms from that time - when fabrication and fantasy werent uncommon (case in point : La Chambre) and mistakes based on a partial knowledge of the complete seal record were easily made (case in point : Senlis). To me it seems that medieval attributed arms and at least the first recorded testimony (we already disagreed on this one I know) are more important to include in the personal arms but I realize I may be trying to steer you too much from a wikipedia-like view (anything written by anyone is fair game and proves anything) to my purely own very academic view (I worked on that subject of modern authors vs medieval testimonies so I probably sound too passionate of the subject).
The format also worries me aswell and you surely remember we discussed it & that I even suggested a format which would allow to set context more precisely to the testimonies. Since back then, you said you were worried about changing everything back and the workload it would be and Joakim wouldn't voice his opinion, I just continued to use the existing format without change. In any case I don't mind you editing things back to the way you want it : even if you defend yourself from saying so, you're the one setting the tone for those and I merely trying to edit things in a way that doesn't conflict & w/ enough info that you can edit the proper way in a second time if need be. Also, the past weeks when I edited those few families the website was awfully slow for me, almost refusing to open any page in less than a couple minutes so it was rather difficult to browse and compare anything when it would already take an hour to do a couple modifications. It's better now (I don't know what J. did but it is night and day) so I may try to start a new roll (I've wanted to do Vermandois for quite some time but Bigot would be much less work) and make some progress on la Diana.--Solo (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Question: I have been recently looking into finishing the Home/Hume family from Scotland and I came upon surprising discovery there was a French branch that was fully naturalized in France. Interestingly there is almost no record of their arms or of them at all in any British historical record...at least in modern times...would be no surprise though since they actually fought against the British in several wars in fact. The branch issued from certain George Home who was the 2nd son of David Home 2nd Lord of Wedderburn who went to France with Stuart king as an officer of the Scottish guard and stayed there. He was naturalized and raised to a peer (Count) by Francis I and his descendants continued there from early-mid 15th century all the way until French Revolution in 1783 when the last descendant died in battle. Now looking for the arms I couldn't find any illustration or notion of their arms except a reference to "Dictionnaire de la noblesse" so I went and looked and found this here. Now it seems to me your french is much better than my own (which is rudimentary at best) so I am wondering what do you make of the blason...it seems quite odd and I am not really clear if Hume/Home is quartered with other arms or is it an escutcheon above the quartered arms described there...it seems the latter to me from the description but I am not fully certain...not to mention Dunbar (it's bordure with 8 roses not 10) and Stuart (fess chequy azure and argent not just argent) are wrongly described there but that is another story... Cheers. Finellach (talk) 03:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey. Well, it's not very clear in any case but he actually gives two different versions here rather than a single blazon (french blazon never omits anything, it's actually much easier than english). I went and look in Hozier, Jougla and Lainé. All three give : Humes (de Humes de Chérisy), lords of Chérisy, La Gesse and Villedieu in Champagne & Bourgogne as "de sinople au lion d'argent, armé et lampassé de gueules". The second entry I think is just an attempt at giving the scottish arms (like all the "érudits-savants" of the 17th and 18th c. La Chesnaye des Bois isn't exactly known for being very reliable and often doesn't give a full context - or sometimes any at all - in his work).--Solo (talk) 11:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, ok...good to know he is not really a reliable source. It seems to me a lot of these French "heraldists" from that period dabble too much in fantasy which makes it so hard sometimes. So anyway it's two arms instead of one...but the 2nd quartered variant would never be used unless it had an escutcheon of the first or was quartered in some fashion, it would make no sense...that is really really weird. Well since I am here, what do you think I should do here? I guess I am thinking to keep the quartered arms I made and write it's conjectured from the variant given by Chesnaye while uploading the "small arms" i.e. the lion argent, armed and langued gules on vert. Should I keep this variant and upload the lion as separate or should I just upload the lion over this one? I need a 2nd opinion. :) Finellach (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
They had a conception of emblems that is very outdated today, one that makes heraldry a very rigid and dynastic only system rather than an everchanging and individual one. The worst thing is that those misconceptions are still repeated again and again to this day. Diffusion on the internet via wikipedia or personal pages makes it worse even (the early arms of the counts of Geneva is a good example on how it's now impossible to revert the damage done - I just moved on without insisting but WW is now contributing to that phenomenon too). On the other hand, they also set the stage for the later excellent french authors like Bouly de Lesdain, Roman or Demay so it's not all that bad either (Pastoureau wouldn't be Pastoureau without all those authors before).
Your solution (keeping the quartered variant as conjectured) seems reasonable and I can't think of a reason why not (if anything because there must have been an explanation for this mix up). All I can say, is that for all his failings La Chesnaye doesn't do bad blazon, he's usually very thorough and precise in the language and an escutcheon overall would be clearly worded "& sur le tout de ...". Now there were always tons of printing mistakes and it's worth a check in the annexes, so I'll have a look at them, just in case.--Solo (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)