User talk:Solo

I actually answered on the discussion page. There are two sources for Savoy and Geneva which I will be using to expand those pages : Detraz, Gérard "Catalogue des sceaux médiévaux des Archives de la Haute-Savoie" 1998 Galbreath, Donald "Inventaire des sceaux vaudois" 1937

Comment

Please write centuries in numerals on the site, instead of letters. JSpuller (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

What is the source to the change of the arms of the house of Geneva? To my knowledge they changed their arms around 1280.

Les armes ancienne de la maison de Genève se blasonnent ainsi : D'argent à la bande d'azur accompagnée de deux lions du même.38,2,39,40. Blason utilisé à partir de Aymon Ier de Genève.

Les armes de la maison de Genève se blasonnent ainsi : D'or à quatre points équipolés d'azur. Armes adoptées depuis Amédée II de Genève vers 1280. Elles apparaissent dans des sceaux de 1288 et 1289 sur des actes du comte. APTE NON ARCTE (« Justement mais non étroitement. »).

JSpuller (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Great work on the 'Maison des Loives'! I've found some sources that looks interesting,

Guillaume Mitte, bordure seems to be Azure rather than Sable, compare it to the St. Anthony's Cross.

[[1]] [[2]]

---

- Thanks, I've tried to keep everything consistent with your style (as best as I could, so you don't have too much to fix afterwards :p).

Those paintings were restored in 1701 but were already heavily damaged at the time and are almost unreadable now (I went there almost 20 years ago and it was hard to read most shields, even with your nose on it). I took some pictures but you can see from the couple ones available online that the paintings have been fading away since the two first studies.
Gustave Vallier made the first study and depict the border of both shields of those abbots as sable, so does Joseph Roman in the XIXth century. I think we'd better trust them on this rather than the watered down remains.
The traditionnal arms given to Guillaume Mitte by Allard and Rivoire de la Bâtie (authors of the two armorials of Dauphiné) are : "... à la bordure de sable, chargée de huit fleurs de lis d'or" (it's a well known family from Forez).

I have three shields to change still so it's not completely done yet : Sassenage is barry of eighteen pieces and there's no crown or claws of course (I just borrowed the modern version from the salle des croisades temporarily). St Geoirs is barry of six pieces rather than three fesses and Romestang is cotised of twelve pieces (rather than fives pieces) according to G.Vallier.

I'll give you the complete references for the three books (Vallier, Roman and Bricault) so you can add them to the sources if you want.
Also Roman's description is available online on Gallica : http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k206212r/f794.image.r=roman%20peintures%20loives?rk=300430;4
That link also includes a depiction of the paintings in the palace of the archbishops in Embrun, another small corpus of paintings I could include in the future (see p.764, it's in french but you'll get the idea).

---

I'm fine with that. :)

Another thing, about Clermont, no. 26. Two sources state that the arms is depicting two keys in a saltire:

Réunion des sociétés savantes des départements à la Sorbonne.... Section des beaux-arts Chauvat, François. Auteur du texte Auteur : Charvet, Léon (1830-1916). Auteur du texte http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k206212r/f796.image.r=roman%20peintures%20loives 26° Clermont. - De gueules á deux clefs d'argent en sautoir.

Les Peintures Murales des Loives de Montfalcon von Gustave Vallier https://www.forgottenbooks.com/de/books/LesPeinturesMuralesdesLoivesdeMontfalcon_10607192 XXVI. LE VICOMTE DE CLERMONT. Mêmes armes que celles du n° XI I . Néanmoins, quoique j'aie laissé le champ de gueules, je dé clare n’êt re pas certain de cet, qui paraît êt re différent sur cet é cusson,sans que l’on puisse déterminer d’une mani ère assurée quelle en est la nuance. En l’état, on dirait d’un gr is azuré (P) ; mais ce renseignement ne peut êt re un indice.

Perhaps you have another source?

- Yes I have. Those are Vallier and Roman's studies I was citing earlier. The first link is the same one I gave you, it's a review in which Joseph Roman's description of those paintings was published (multiple authors so Gallica only list the first ones alphabetically).
Like I said, Roman didn't change any of the readings from Vallier, as he didn't correct the obvious mistakes like number 9 which is very easy (100% sure I mean) to read as "or three bends azure". I'll look for my pictures (not sure where they are, those were bad ones, since I couldn't use any flash) if you don't believe me. I don't doubt Roman went there but he obviously didn't make a second reading of the shields.
A real complete study was published by G.Bricault. It's the one I used in my works on heraldry of Dauphiné at the university of Grenoble. The author is a specialist of the antonin order so it's a serious and well documented work (her husband also made better reconstitutions of the room and its paintings). It's not public domain though.

Here are the complete references for those three studies :
Gustave Vallier : "Les peintures murales des Loives de Montfalcon", Valence, 1891.
Joseph Roman : "Description de trois salles décorées d'armoiries XIVe-XVe siècles", Paris, 1894, Plon.
Gisèle Bricault : "Un décor pour l'histoire dauphinoise. Fresques et blasons de la maison des Loives en pays de Chambaran", Lyon, 1998, Bellier.

Totally unrelated : did you know that Gallica has a full version (in colour) of the Bellenville ?

BTW this coa is exactly the same thing as this coa. Different spelling. Also if you don't mind I will start uploading some arms that are still missing from Wijnbergen and correct some others. Finellach (talk)
I've missed this one in my search because of the spelling, you can switch the link. Previous studies didn't identify this one because of the weird spelling in the manuscript.
I have all missing entries of the Wijnbergen already done (except for Dareines in 1072) but if I upload them before reviewing the identifications I will have to rename those entries and I'm sure you don't want me to leave a hundred redirects (plus it's a lot more work to upload with one temporary or unchecked name then change it later). I switched to the roll_number_name format after Joakim told me it was the preferred format but that means I can't just make the illustrations, upload them and correct them in a second time. That I missed that corrupted spelling for Beusichem is proof that uploading things without being sure will just make searching for entries harder in the long term.
Of course if you need to correct the style or want to switch links to a previously existing entries (or just properly rename them for inclusion under dynastic pages) you can go ahead as usual really. Just please, don't correct anything based on Timms' version of the roll I have assumed that Boos is correct on most entries (one or two exceptions I think because it didn't make sense but I'll probably make a list of the various differences between the two). --Solo (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

BTW if you want my email or discord, it would be much easier to chat on things like that and would probably prevent me from magistrally misunderstand things :p --Solo (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

If I upload we can still move/correct them but ok. At least I can so it's not such a big issue tbh. But there are a couple of things I wanted to ask you about some arms. First, are there any major differences in the Brabant or Rois part of the armorial that you know of? If you know which they are, can just post it on my talk page and I will rename/move some of the arms and so on. As for the notes below ofc you can do that yourself. Second question is: I have noticed that on Timms former site where he used Adam-Even's and Jequier's blason that some of the arms with martlets acually have them specified. So for example on Cuyck arms (and it's derivatives) I've noticed that 8 martlets are specified there and also on Dargies it is specified as "orle of 9 martlets". Can you confirm this? It would make sense for Cuyck in a way though because that arms is literally identical to Dreux de Mello. Oh and for Dareines there already is an arms but it's not used, vertically inverted one is for Historia Anglorum so if you missed it -> here it is. Oh and discord is fine if you wish...am on discord anyway as I use it for World of Warcraft :p Finellach (talk)

I see what you mean, well in those cases Boos simply reads an "orle de merlettes" (which is the correct interpretation : the number only matches the geometry of the shield and skill of the artist, not a set number) so if the number doesn't match the blazon in Timms it can certainly be corrected to match perfectly the listed number. I just didn't always go out of my way to use a less fitting number in such cases. Semis and orles are one of the differences between AE/J and Boos. Labels aren't detailled in the ordinary either which is more of a problem, spec. when Timms forgot one like he did for n°1110 (made it the same as the previous but chances are it's not the same number).
These are the differences in the kings section between Boos & Timms :
- 1264, the bezants argent (the colour may be hard to read).
- 1286, semé de croisettes d'or (Timms illustration also show regular crosses)
- 1294, semé d'étoiles (Timms draws a semis of 5p stars but all stars are six pointed unless very specifically said so in a french 13th c roll).
- 1301 is probably the most divergent : "de gueules au léopard lionné couronné d'or une croix patriarcale mouvant de son dos" means the cross is issuant from its back (doesn't really work with rampant). Timms' illustration struggle with this contradiction (lion halfway betw rampant & passant). For Boos it's a léopard (lion passant guardant). So it's probably rather similar to Armenia

I'll have a detailed look at Brabant tomorrow. There's at least, 1187 & 1188 = six pointed stars.--Solo (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

For Armenia if it's like that then yes, I definitely agree that it's probably the same as the arms we already have, with maybe the only difference being the cross...or not even that, but completely identical which I think it is IMO. No matter, I think we should go with Armenia arms we already have and I'll use the one that is on the page as a base for one Russian arms we are currently missing anyway. Other arms are not a problem, I'll see if I can correct them tonight. And just to confirm then, you are alright if I correct the Dargies and Cuyck arms? Pretty easy to correct and we already have the arms with orle of 9 martlets which is Gaudechart. Finellach (talk)