House of Léon: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:42, 11 April 2021

Coat of Arms
House of Léon
Viscounts of Léon
House of Léon
Attributed arms
According to Guy le Borgne

Personal Arms
Hervé VI de Léon
as Lord of Noyon-sur-Andelle
Richard de la Roche
Viscount of Dreux

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 <gallery caption="Coat of Arms" align=center style= "color: #292929;font-size:1.2em;font-weight: normal;text-align:center;font-style: normal;">
 Hervé II de Léon.svg| House of Léon<br><span style="font-size:88%; line-height: 1.3em;">Viscounts of Léon</span>
-De Léon.svg| House of Léon<br><span style="font-size:88%; line-height: 1.3em;">Attributed arms according to Guy le Borgne</span><!-- This is apocryphal of course : abated lions didn't even exist as a separate design at that time and this is just the common way to represent just any lion in the 13th c. - There are many more attributions reg. this family's arms (prob half a dozen at least). Le Borgne claimed that such a lion orig. belonged to the counts of Flanders and that meant the viscounts had to have adopted it from them. Other authors later built on that claim and theorised that this surely meant that King Henry II had abated that lion after putting down Guyomarch's rebellion (both families had yet to even adopt heraldry at that time). To complete this Le Borgne also theorised that the ancient arms of the viscounts were "Or a fess Gules" with another convoluted reasoning based on a supposed cadet branch (Penchoët). Both those claims made it into his 1667 armorials which being the first work of this kind for the region, gave them some cachet that lasted to this day. -->
+De Léon.svg| House of Léon<br><span style="font-size:88%; line-height: 1.3em;">Attributed arms<br>According to Guy le Borgne</span><!-- This is apocryphal of course : abated lions didn't even exist as a separate design at that time and this is just the common way to represent just any lion in the 13th c. - There are many more attributions reg. this family's arms (prob half a dozen at least). Le Borgne claimed that such a lion orig. belonged to the counts of Flanders and that meant the viscounts had to have adopted it from them. Other authors later built on that claim and theorised that this surely meant that King Henry II had abated that lion after putting down Guyomarch's rebellion (both families had yet to even adopt heraldry at that time). To complete this Le Borgne also theorised that the ancient arms of the viscounts were "Or a fess Gules" with another convoluted reasoning based on a supposed cadet branch (Penchoët). Both those claims made it into his 1667 armorials which being the first work of this kind for the region, gave them some cachet that lasted to this day. -->
 </gallery>