Difference between revisions of "User talk:JSpuller"
|(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)|
|Line 7:||Line 7:|
Stephen Blois.svg|bow update
Stephen Blois.svg|bow update
Revision as of 16:14, 13 July 2019
New Arms requests
Manuel I - Joint arms of Manuel I of Portugal and his queen-consort Maria of Aragon. I have already made a similar arms which has less castles than the source image so whichever you choose, 8 is more than enough since I believe the castle is just an artistic expression by the author. The arms in question is a cross between Portugal and arms of Maria of Aragon. The half shield of Portugal is from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha arms.
Lago - Arms of Lago - no need for elaboration, the image pretty much speaks for itself
Ornelas - Arms of Ornelas shows shield azure, bend gules with three gold lillies, on each side a siren holding a comb and a mirror
Gil Vantvisyet - Livro image, quartered Or and Azure, not sure what those things are in 1st and 4th quarter but it sure looks like some kind of shoes. 2nd and 3rd quarter a moor's head, over all a cross gules hollow argent
Pachecho Livro - source image. The arms of Pachecho in Livro seems like a hybrid of several cauldron variants we have: Pachecho, Manrique de Lara, Lara Ancient. The elements on the cauldron seem to be vaire nebuly similar to Vasconcelos f.e.
Afonso Garces - Again the source image is pretty straightforward, complicated but clear.
Gabriel Goncalves - source image. Arms is double-headed eagle holding a moor's head, all withing a "rope bordure" similar to Eca i.e. Eça arms.
Bairros Livro - source image. The Livro image shows three branches throughout the arms as opposed to Bairros proper which shows just three plain branches. In Livro branches are literally like three bends
Abul - source image - shield split in two. First half shows an imperial eagle like in the arms of Charlemagne, the other half is azure with a fess gules, fess gules charged with crescent argent, below fess two crescents gules.
Duarte Brandao - source image, shows two dragons Or, intertwined. The dragons/serpents are the same as in Serpa arms for example
Botos - source image shows a shield divided per saltire Or and gules, Or quarters charged with a Moor's head, gules quarters charged with argent towers
Viveiro - source image shows a shield quartered. 1st and 4th quarter are similar to Guzman or Manrique de Lara cauldorns (not so many serpent heads), cauldrons are completely chequy argent and gules on a azure field, bordure ermine. 1st and 3rd quarter are a variant of Fajardo quarters, water part seems smaller on this variant than on the example linked, while the branches are intertwined in a saltire.
Canton of Glarus - Glarus is ususally depicted as a monk, although the exact compositions vary. Similar to the monks in Zurich Roll 4. Sources and examples of Glaurus arms: wikipedia page about the arms, example1, heraldry of the world page
Duchy of Zara - Duchy of Zara located at city of Zara or Zadar. The only coat of arms missing to complete the Austrian Empire page. The arms show Saint Chrysogonus on a horse. This arms has been also described in Arthur Charles Fox-Davies' book of public arms where he describes it as "argent, a mounted knight in full armor, his lance in pale, all proper" and shows an illustration. Current civic arms and dating back to early 20th century also draw directly from the historical arms that was eventually now modern arms of the city and also of the duchy in Austrian Empire. The best way to describe how I feel the shield should look is that it should be f.e. same as Vilnius but the position of the arms and lance correct, and also the rider would not have a helmet but a halo...also would carry a shield in the same manner which would be "argent, cross gules" i.e. as Genoa arms f.e. Colors of the shield in general would be argent, horde sable...adorned gold and red, rider's armor full gold. An example of the rider. I'll probably make an example just show what I mean.
Question...what is happening with these two pages: House of Heuse and House of La Heuze? Shouldn't those two coat of arms be on the same page? Also a small note, I believe this family is in fact connected with the family later referred as De Hoese or Hussey and also to Hussey of Sleaford. There was also a branch in Ireland called Hussey of Galtrim. Finellach (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, I have family at home so I can't do much this week. I made those changes to the page because it didnt look right to me.
- Or/Sable are the arms of the french family (de la Heuze). They are from a "lieu-dit" in Quevilly near Rouen and descended from Jean de la Heuse living around 1000. His son, Pierre accompagnied duke Guillaume in England but came back (obviously).
Those two individuals have no recorded links with Hugues and Guillaume of Tadwick, ancestors of the english family. Hugues and Jean may very well have been brothers or cousins but no author make such claim (afaik, I won't pretend to know that english family very well).
- The Hussey of Harting, desc from that Guillaume/William, have different arms, obviously derived from the Taisson (fitz Erneis) familly. The branch in Charlcombe used those arms or at least a variant as shown on a 1267 seal (John H. of Charlcombe).
- Nicholas de la Heuse is from a third dynastic group. The same as the later lords of Finchampstead. Those Hese/Hoese/Huese of Padworth, Finchampstead, Roudon and Chippenham have different arms in the various rolls. Nicholas in Herald's roll is the son of another Nicholas from lincolnshire who appears to have married a daughter of the Husseys of Charlcombe. His son Peter +1307 married the daughter of William Banastre of Finchampstead. The other daughter married Peter's cousin John said to be desc. from a brother of Nicholas Sr. The arms of that John are figured in many later rolls and are different (fess betw 3 lions) from Nicholas' arms.
- It's entirely possible (even very likely I would say) that the three dynastic groups stem from the same root but it's still conjecture unless there's a record of some sort (or at least a strong hint) or any kind of historical account. It is worth noting that place names like Heuzé/Heuse/Heussé/Houssaye/Houssel and other variants are rather common in Normandy so it's not definite proof. The various accounts on the Hussey family history point to a different origin (from the office of Butler, from La Houssaye or from Heussé in Avranchin which is closer to the Taisson), not that I trust those much.
- There are two seals of a William (of Surrey, 1305 & 42 so it may act. be two generations) in the Catalogue of Seals with a single hose.--Solo (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2019 (CET)
If I may ask why have you restored a separate page for Michalovic when it is clear they were a continuation of the main Markwartide line and it can be easily proven? I don't understand. The only reason why I kept them separate in the first place was because it was easier for me at the time when I made the page to make a meaningful setup, but it was always planned to merge the Michalovic page with the main page. What happened with this family, they divided into 4 main branches in two generations. The division came with sons of Herman (Marshal and Chamberlain of Bohemia) who himself was a son of Markvart (from whom the entire genus got its name), Herman had three sons: Beneš, Markvart and Zaviš. The eldest was Beneš who was Burgrave of Bautzen and from whom in direct line descend the Lords of Michalovice (Pani z Michalovic), Markvart was his 2nd son and who himself had 4 sons: Havel who was progenitor of Lemberk-Zvikovice branch, Chval from whom the Lords of Polna descend, Jaroslav who was progenitor of Waldstein/Wallensten branch and Markvart the youngest son who was progenitor of Wartenberg. The coat of arms was a lion passant, however in about 1246 they were granted a new coat of arms which was the shield split in two...most of the branches accepted this with Waldstein/Wallenstein being the only exception. The main line which became known and referred to themselves by their castle at Michalovice from around 1279-1281 at first used both arms, the old arms with the lion and new one which was black and white split shield, the lion was abandoned completely by the end of 13th and beginning of 14th century, but it was restored again by the mid-end 14th century again. So again, what is going on? Finellach (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2019 (CEST)
So, I've been thinking about the Herald's and Dering continental programs. Those are a bit specific because they are copied from other rolls and riddled with errors. While I'm including invisible comments for most of those it still leaves that part of the roll in a state that is of little value to the average reader (who won't be seeing my comments) and potentially misleading (it happened before with other websites). I have thought of a few different solutions (non exhaustive ofc, if you have something else in mind) and I'd like to know what you think we should do ?
- Leave the material as it is but include a warning at the start of the sequence to warn the reader that most of it was inaccurately copied from other rolls. I really don't think we should leave those without at least a warning that the material must not be mistaken for a primary source (it's a flawed copy and must be treated as such). This is the least intrusive solution but doesn't provide the user with the corrections either.
- Include links to corrections inside the roll for each affected entry. That is what we occasionnaly did in other rolls for unfinished, incomplete or dissolved entries (which are very different cases though). The negative is that it is the most intrusive and time intensive solution while not being very practical for the reader either : you have to click a link to see the corrected proposition and can't see the overall result at once.
- Provide a link to a corrected version of that part (it has to be clear that it is a proposed reconstruction and not the original material). The more I think of it, the more I see this as the best option as it is rather simple to do and gives an overall corrected preview of the sequence in one click. The one negative argument here, is that the result is mostly a repeat of the Compiegne roll.--Solo (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2019 (CEST)