Jump to: navigation, search

Difference between revisions of "User talk:Solo"

 
Line 125: Line 125:
  
 
Well from what I read from Stirnet and several other sources the original Fawley branch was actually the branch of Buckhurst. The line starts with Herbrand who had three sons: Jordan (who stayed in Normandy), William (middle son) and Robert (younger). Jordan the eldest son might have been the progenitor of the Sacquenville family in Normandy but I have no proof of this, would make sense since the earlier spelling of their name is almost identical, Sackville being the anglicized version of that name...plus if the arms with chevrons gules on ermine was indeed the ancient arms it would also correlate with the Sacquenville arms which was eagle displayed gules on ermine. William the 2nd son was described "of Mount Bures and Great Braxted" in Essex and he had a son who apparently died without issue and three daughters so that "branch" if we can even call it such failed before it even started. The youngest Robert had a son also named Jordan who married the heiress of Bukchurst and from him the Sackville's in England continued in Buckhurst (and Fawley) until they separated. As for Powell I never said there is anything wrong with "your" version, in fact I actually prefer the "corrected" version as opposed to version with blank files for John of Gaunt and so on. But since one is based on Clemmensen there is no really a big issue of having two different variants since they basically differ in only minor details but sufficiently so they can remain separated. [[User:Finellach|Finellach]] ([[User talk:Finellach|talk]]) 15:13, 22 August 2021 (CEST)
 
Well from what I read from Stirnet and several other sources the original Fawley branch was actually the branch of Buckhurst. The line starts with Herbrand who had three sons: Jordan (who stayed in Normandy), William (middle son) and Robert (younger). Jordan the eldest son might have been the progenitor of the Sacquenville family in Normandy but I have no proof of this, would make sense since the earlier spelling of their name is almost identical, Sackville being the anglicized version of that name...plus if the arms with chevrons gules on ermine was indeed the ancient arms it would also correlate with the Sacquenville arms which was eagle displayed gules on ermine. William the 2nd son was described "of Mount Bures and Great Braxted" in Essex and he had a son who apparently died without issue and three daughters so that "branch" if we can even call it such failed before it even started. The youngest Robert had a son also named Jordan who married the heiress of Bukchurst and from him the Sackville's in England continued in Buckhurst (and Fawley) until they separated. As for Powell I never said there is anything wrong with "your" version, in fact I actually prefer the "corrected" version as opposed to version with blank files for John of Gaunt and so on. But since one is based on Clemmensen there is no really a big issue of having two different variants since they basically differ in only minor details but sufficiently so they can remain separated. [[User:Finellach|Finellach]] ([[User talk:Finellach|talk]]) 15:13, 22 August 2021 (CEST)
 +
 +
A question...can you still upload files on the site? [[User:Finellach|Finellach]] ([[User talk:Finellach|talk]]) 11:25, 27 August 2021 (CEST)

Latest revision as of 11:25, 27 August 2021

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)


Out of interest, what is your source for the Herald's Roll? It seems to differ quite a bit some compared two these two versions:
- https://web.archive.org/web/20140117020612/http://briantimms.fr/Rolls/heralds/heralds01.html
- http://www.aspilogia.com/HE-Heralds_Roll/index.html

JSpuller (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

James Greenstreet's edition (1886, published in The Genealogist, as Planché's Roll). This is a well known edition of the FitzWilliam version (Cambridge FW ms.297) and is available online. Like most rolls, there are many versions from successive copies (that's also why the roll has so many different names) but I really can't tell which source was used for Timms or Aspilogia (both a FitzWilliam, not Greenstreet and not the same either for sure). I think a way of representing differences between versions could possibly be something to think about in the long term ... although for that we'd need access to another source (one ed. from Brault, two from Humphery-Smith + others) first.
Also, forgot to ask : do you have stirrups anywhere ? Those are used both in the Herald's and Bigot.--Solo (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I've uploaded the missing Valoynes/Valognes arms from HR/FWR...I did coz I actually had this one made a while a go...so hope you don't mind. However I was wondering, is it in fact possible that the arms is in fact fretty ermine rather than just fretty "sown" with ermine? Or is this version correct?
Also I wanted to ask you about some arms you uploaded but have not linked, what is to be with them...are they here for the future or you forgot about them....I am trying to reduce the number of unused files to a minimum. The files in question: Aymon de Savoie, Quarante, Montolieu, Villeneuve, Laudun, Gayet de Maille, Buoconvillers. I would've linked some of them myself but I'd rather you do it as you maybe intended something different with them. Finellach (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Yup I've noticed thanks, I just left that entry blank because I thought there could be an already existing model (although I searched the other potential families and didnt find any). It is indeed the right version. Those should be similar to Einsford and the Saint Léger of Artois (Bergshammar 2622 & 2783). I believe the entry in Dering is just a previous (could have decorated it at some point) or simplified variant or more likely has the spots erased (many instances of ermine disappearing in that roll and those would have been smaller than most) + He's also represented with those arms in the Camden roll so there's no doubt.
The unlinked arms are mostly for the paintings of Pont-Saint-Esprit. You can of course already use them regardless - for their lordships in France (the lordships of Quarante, Montolieu and Laudun in county of Toulouse held by families of the same name). Maillé and Savoie, I must have forgot to add to their respective pages (an instance in a roll and a seal obviously - I have a lot of the house of Savoie in my books and I've been delaying the task of looking at what's missing). Bouconvillers can also be added as its lordship in France, it's a cadet branch of the Maudétour family that were lords of the place and gave several baillifs to the king (I did those on a whim when we had the discussion about Guy de Clermont, cf above). They left several seals so I may set up a page later, plus we already have those later arms of Gasce de Bouconvillers that were attributed to Guy de Clermont on wikipedia.
I sometimes see something you edit and lack the time to start a proper discussion about items of interest I could provide (lately Gonesse and Ufford for ex).--Solo (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Well I haven't really added anything to Ufford but the page I made for the family is just a temporary and rather rudimentary base to be surely expanded in the future as I know there are quite a few personal arms out there, plus the inscription for Thomas there is most likely incorrect except the fact he was a knight of the garter. I would have to look into it at a later period which doesn't mean you can't do it in the meantime as well ofc if you wish to do so. I have some other families on my mind for some time now but just can't seem to finally take on them...namely I want to finish some Scottish families such as Hay, Gordon and Hamilton then I would presume to be done with Scottish families...at least those ones...and be free for other stuff. However, as now seems to be the usual, I tend to diverge my attention on other stuff so things get delayed all the time. Finellach (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't think there actually is an eagle ermine on the site. This is kinda funny as I was looking around for it since I was planning to make the arms for Tufton as Earls of Thanet which is sable, eagle ermine within a bordure argent. I was planning to make them though. Finellach (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2019 (CEST)

Ok. Well I guess that's no so surprising. Other than Tufton and Piers de Bedingfield in FW (I don't think there's any other instance of this one and the later arms are inverted), there aren't many other cases that I can think of (medieval ones at least, maybe one of the castellan families in Hainaut iirc). I'll simply wait on the Tufton version then. FW671 is Gules an eagle Ermine if you feel like uploading them both in a batch is quicker.Solo (talk) 11:24, 7 September 2019 (CEST)

Hey, regarding House of Ailly you are free to do with it as you want. All I actually did there is link back the arms with two beams so I do not overlook them...the page was never meant to stay like that...not in the least. Also if you look at the note I left below that arms you will see that I do not really disagree with you...the Picquigny branch was indeed a cadet as the progenitor of that line was a younger brother of who did not inherit his paternal possessions but they went to the heiress and daughter of the eldest brother so you're basically repeating what I said in my note previously. Anyway I actually made bunch of arms so, and as said, you're free to incorporate them on the page as you see fit...in fact I would prefer you do it anyway as it seems you know more about it, my knowledge about that family is really rather limited and superficial. In fact the arms I made were based on your notes you left on that page. Oh and regarding the Rumes line, it would be good if you edit that page as well adding Ailly-Rumes branch there as matrilineal cadets linking back to Ailly page...it is standard procedure. ;) Finellach (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2019 (CEST)

Yup, it's not always easy to debate in that format with content editing interfering in the middle of it (the whitebeam arms being reintegrated I mean) and limited back & forth. I will edit (& clean) the pages later today with all of that. There's a few more branches I've tried to find more info about in the meantime but those are not very well documented (I tend to be very cautious about arms given in modern armorials as they are often riddled with mistakes).
Have you thought about the viscounty page ? I'm not sure there's a translation for a vidamé in english (is there? kind of reaching my limit on english vocabulary here). Maybe just an italic commentary on top saying Vidames of Amiens ? That's easy enough to use in any other similar cases when need be without disturbing things too much (nominal Vidamés translated to Viscounty later in the modern era so it's not too much of a stretch but it's a completely different title with different powers in the middle ages). I understand this is french specific title but this is a problem to adress because there are situations when both a viscount and a vidame existed (Amiens being precisely one of those).--Solo (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2019 (CEST)

Yes I have thought about the Vidame/Viscounty thing before...the thing is in modern English both Vidame and Vicomte translate as Viscount so I am unsure (as I was before) how to handle that. We have a similar case with Vidames of Chartres as well which is even more famous case. Perhaps a note on the on the page above or perhaps there is an alternative in spelling it "Vidamate of Amiens" for example as this term was sometimes employed in English language in earlier period, however very rarely. Finellach (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2019 (CEST) Edit: I have decided to rename/move respective pages of Chartres and Amiens from being named "Viscounty" to "Vidamate" as the latter seems to be the proper name (in English) for those specific entities in French peerage. "Viscounty" is not an adequate term for it most definitely. The reason why it is probably very often translated as "Viscounty" is more of a convenience rather than anything else. Finellach (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2019 (CEST)

It probably comes from the fact that those titles were later made equivalent to viscounties in France so the distinction became more or less obsolete. Even if the terms vidame/vidomne (vidamé, vidamat, vidomnat ... french is also very ambiguous on the title) remained in use, they had long been honorary titles by then. In any case, problem solved. Solo (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2019 (CEST)

Do you have any sources on Masny, Mauny, Manny family? I've actually came up on this arms which I uploaded. The same arms was actually quartered by the 3rd Earl of Pembroke (also 3rd Baron Manny) as his mother was Anne Hastings nee Manny, 2nd Baroness Manny (daughter of Walter). However the arms of the town of Masny (which is claimed to derive from lords of Masny) and also attributed personal arms of Walter Manny, 1st Baron Manny (in some English armorials) both seem to be that of Hainaut, three black chevronels on gold. You also claim they used lions. Would be good to "cook something up" and create a separate page. Sources seems scarce. Finellach (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2020 (CEST)

I was actually gonna create a page for them while I'm at it yes. Those arms with the cross voided in Burke could perhaps be the arms of the descendants of Thierry who had issue in England ? The famous Wautier/Walter himself had his arms on a couple seals and many armorials which all show that he alternated from his personal to the plain arms of the family (as did his brother). If Walter changed his arms later in his life, none of the many english armorials he's featured in appeared to acknowledge that change. In any case those were not used by the french family from Artois. Their claim to be descendants of the counts of Hainaut if not pure fantasy could very well come from the first house of Mauny (extinct c 1200 when the two heiresses married brothers from the Douai family, founder of the Mauny and Auberchicourt branches) or directly from the Douai family which, as likely descendants of the former counts of Douai, certainly had to have a number of dynastic alliances of that importance themselves. --Solo (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2020 (CEST)

Nope, the cross voided is attributed to the same Walter, 1st Baron Manny and his daughter. Although it may be a mistake since it is said there his daughter was named "Mary" but we know his daughter was actually named Anne. The three chevronels and the lion reguarduant is listed as well but not attributed to anyone, along with another arms being: Or, two chevrons sable. So it might have been a mix up or he used several different arms. Finellach (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2020 (CEST)

That's what I understood but was merely conjecturing that he may have mixed them (I dont even how far this line went tbh). I didnt look at Burke, I just know it's referenced from him and didnt occur anywhere else (plus that design is rather rare). Did he include the quartered arms too ? bc those arent documented in armorials (John de Hastings' quartered arms are simply the Valence-Hastings variant afaik) so they may only be a personal contribution on wikipedia (reusing those arms from Burke and making new quartered arms based on those wo/ any specific historical basis for them). The two chevrons are indeed a variant encountered in one armorial (Thomas Jenyns' Book but I'm afraid I dont have much more than that and its apparently not listed in DBA either).--Solo (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2020 (CEST)

The quartered arms of Hastings-Manny are not from Wikipedia but from Europeanheraldry and that specific site (I know this for a fact since I confirmed it several times) uses mostly Burke's Peerage, Debrett's Peerage, etc. (i.e. it uses acknowledged sources) as its sources. BTW what is your source on Neville of Rearsby being a cadet branch of Essex-Langham branch? I also have to say I've seen it several times looking around genealogy sites where the Neville family is discussed and never saw anything about it....in fact I've even come across someone referring to Neville's as "a black hole of genealogy" because there are historical references to them all being related but without any specific as to how they were related. So considering how I handled similar case before I would rather link the Scotton and Rearsby branches on main page of Neville under "Uncertain cadets" section...unless ofc you have a specific reference where they are referred as cadets of Essex-Langham. Finellach (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2020 (CEST)



Brault and Clemmensen both list them as cadets of the Neville-Forester dynastic group. Rearsby was one of the manors of the Curcy inheritance held by Hugh de Neville dit le Forester +1234 (from his wife Joan de Cornhill) so there isnt much of a doubt who they descend from. We dont have more than the names of the successive (mostly unconnected) individuals after that : Hugh the first mentionned is probably a younger son of Hugh and holds it in 1244, while William is the last mentionned in connection to Rearsby in 1353. We have a couple of testimonies too : John, who left a seal (1300 : a chief indented), and Ralph who appears in a couple rolls (Ralph de Neville of Cleatham) with Ermine a chief ind. Azure. Also finally we have that 1379 seal of Alice de Nerford widow of John de Neville of Essex so those possessions prob. had reverted to the main line after William.
There's a lot of uncertainty indeed with a lot of unconnected individuals (a few of the dozens of seals in Birch are difficult to properly attribute to any of those families). Some of them like Piers de Neville dit le Forester (a keeper of the forest of Leicestershire so that's very much a dynastic occupation) & his relatives can still be traced back to this family and are a matrilineal branch from a daughter of Allan (Alice who married a Piers Athelston, Athelaston, Athlakston etc later dit Neville) but there's no record of their arms (afaik) so it's a bit useless to us.
Neville of Scotton (+ their Enderby & King's Walden cadets) on the other hand I can say for certain are absolutely unrelated. They descended from a Raoul de Neuville temp. conquest (radulfus de nevile in domesday) who already held Scotton & Manton of the abbots of Peterborough and doesnt have any documented dynastic or political relationship with the homonym family at that time. It's not very surprising to be honest (even expected I'd argue), since it's a common place name with several other unrelated families on the french side. Their arms are also derived from Aubigny of Belvoir (later bought Enderby from them too). There's a good deal of recorded iconographic testimonies for the various lines so there'll be enough to justify making a page for them (will be a good use of your warning header about the lack of connection too).
For the third dynastic group (Wymeswold, w/ arms derived from the Cantelou dynasty), I never really had a proper look at them, so I have no idea if they are related to one or the other (I doubt they appeared of thin air in the 13th c. but like always we'll probably never know for lack of documentation).--Solo (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2020 (CEST)

Cool, ok so I made a note that they are issued from that certain Hugh and listed him as son of Hugh le Forester (d.1234) which is the Hugh I think you're talking about. I've also added an invisible note in reference to Brault and Clemmensen. Please correct it if I made a mistake. Finellach (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2020 (CEST)

Hey, I saw your edit on Parroye page...now since you already involved yourself :)) I was wondering...do you know anything about the other arms, the one with the bordure engrailed? It seemed to me (and it still very much does) like a really weird case where the main family would supposedly use the arms with a bordure and their cadets the arms without it. So I am wondering if you know where does it really come from? The sources online usually refer (rather obscurely) to "French armorials" but do not list which "armorials" would those be? I've also failed to notice there already is Parroye arms uploaded on Wijnbergen page so thx for that...must've been that Meinhardiner/Graben/Askanier page review I was doing past few days that completely dulled me up... Cheers. Finellach (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2020 (CEST)

Hi, saw this one in passing yes. And since I tried to understand and better identify those items myself at the time I made a quick edit to add those. Among several late 15th c. roll of arms, the Armorial du Héraut Berry is the earliest one I found referenced for the late arms (segments in those later rolls like Rineck and Savelli are probably derived from Berry). Sadly I don't have the seal catalog for Lorraine in which this familly's numerous seals are inventoried. It would of course give a better picture of the evolution of those arms.
What I do know though is that the main line of this dynasty ended around (probably just before) the Wijnbergen's timeframe with Simon (let's call him the son, I wouldnt even try to number them given the gaps in the genealogy but they are often number III, IV and V) de Parroye who isnt represented in the roll. Aubert is his cadet half brother and the ancestor of the familly using the arms with the border engrailed. That cadet line held Taintrux and Haudonville and other places including some places in Champagne from Aubert's mother while Parroy and the main estate of the familly went to the descendance of his father's first wife (then to Haraumont mid 14th c.). What I guess hapenned is that after Simon's grandson, another Simon de Parroye lord of Maxéville and Parroy, had (later) adopted the name and arms of his mother's dynasty, Aubert and his line in turn adopted new arms featuring that additionnal border. Aubert's nephew must have been a minor at the time so it's completely plausible that Aubert viewed himself as the head of the dynasty for a time (plus his mother's relationship to the ducal line granted him some standing and probably a place in the duke's entourage which explains the various possessions he was awarded during his life).
In any case, I concluded that the legend in the roll is probably for Beulay, where the familly's ancestral Spitzemberg castle was located (lords of Froville). Aubert and Jean precisely represented in the roll would both be the sons of Alix de Nogent, third wife of Simon (the father) and half brothers of Ferry du Chastelet.--Solo (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2020 (CEST)



BTW this arms is actually the arms of the same Bolebec family but interpreted and used by their De Vere successors. There was another Bulbeck family which appeared around 16th century or so in the records but they have a different coat of arms...that family was based in Hampshire (Kingston, East Meon, Ropley, etc.) and as far as I know had no connection with Bolebec/Bulbeck family of Essex and Buckinghamshire. Also Angerton, Doddington and Heddon were all northern possessions and as such passed to Styford (northern) branch of the family issued from younger son of Walter de Bolebec of Whitchurch. Oh and just for the sake of it...the Whitchurch this branch held is a different place than Whitchurch held by Giffards of Weare Giffard...that Whitchurch is now referred to as Whitchurch Canonicorum. Cheers. Finellach (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2021 (CEST)

I don't know that they're related or not. Seems rather likely though given the similarity of those arms (vulned lions aren't exactly a common design), plus adopting an Azure variant doesnt make much sense as pretense. There are plenty enough of unconnected or undocumented branches of the family that outlived the main branch. The main suspect I think would be the branch in Kingsey that ended in a dispute and the sale of that manor, but there's also a trail of smaller Bolbec dynastic groups in Yorkshire (several Ralphs, still mentionned in Pickering 14th c.) and in Essex. The exact Bulbeck of Kingston variant in Azure (that they seem to later use in escutcheon overall the Sandford arms Argent 3 bars wavy Azure) appears in a c. 1450 roll (Mandeville MLI376 Azure a lion Argent vulned on shoulder Gules) which is probably the earliest testimony of a vulned lion associated with the Bolbecs (there's no legend in the roll but it's also unlikely that such a unique design would have had two users). Was it a Vere addition or just borrowed/inspired from a variant used by surviving cadets of the family (the later is my bet), the only thing I know for sure is that the wounded feature can't be descended from the original Bolbecs as the design simply didnt exist in primitive heraldry.
Also, you're right for the possessions : I have a tendency to put everything under the main item as a sort of recap of all possessions of all branches and then repeat them down but there's probably more clarity in only listing them under their respective branches. For Bolbec you probably meant Bolbec castle rather than Bolbec in France (which was a Giffard possession but again some people make the Giffard cadets of the Bolbec with a direct line from Osbern - The level of extrapolation needed to connect those two groups makes anything justifiable anyway), I only realized that afterwards.--Solo (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2021 (CEST)




Hey. Regarding the Sackville's of Fawley, do you have any more information? I was aware of that family but I was not aware of any connections with the other family from Buckhurst (Earls and Dukes of Dorset)? Usually when I link I write from whom they issued, if it is not known but was generally accepted I write that the cadency is uncertain but mentioned as cadets. Also the arms, I wasn't aware of it...the British History Online website shows their arms as the default arms of Sackville with a bend vair but the vair is ancient variant which seems to be the only difference....similar to the arms of Andrew Sackville you posted. Any information? Also regarding the Powell Roll it would be better if you actually move the page you now have under the default name while we keep that page for the links which would point to both yours and Clemmensen version. Finellach (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2021 (CEST)

Ok, I've looked into the Sackville family again and came up to a conclusion the Fawley branch is descended from certain Bartholomew who is mentioned as younger son of Jeffrey/Geoffrey. Looking at the BHO website it mentions that this Bartholomew held it around 1234-36, so considering what Stirnet came up with it, it would all fit perfectly. Both the years they separated (late 12th century, early 13th century) along with no other Bartholomew de Sackville being alive at that time except that one. As for Powell one version would be fine with me, I mean you started that project anyway but there are some differences between your corrected version and how the armorial actually appears and can be seen from the online variant...so I guess two versions is not such a big deal tbh. Finellach (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2021 (CEST)

Well from what I read from Stirnet and several other sources the original Fawley branch was actually the branch of Buckhurst. The line starts with Herbrand who had three sons: Jordan (who stayed in Normandy), William (middle son) and Robert (younger). Jordan the eldest son might have been the progenitor of the Sacquenville family in Normandy but I have no proof of this, would make sense since the earlier spelling of their name is almost identical, Sackville being the anglicized version of that name...plus if the arms with chevrons gules on ermine was indeed the ancient arms it would also correlate with the Sacquenville arms which was eagle displayed gules on ermine. William the 2nd son was described "of Mount Bures and Great Braxted" in Essex and he had a son who apparently died without issue and three daughters so that "branch" if we can even call it such failed before it even started. The youngest Robert had a son also named Jordan who married the heiress of Bukchurst and from him the Sackville's in England continued in Buckhurst (and Fawley) until they separated. As for Powell I never said there is anything wrong with "your" version, in fact I actually prefer the "corrected" version as opposed to version with blank files for John of Gaunt and so on. But since one is based on Clemmensen there is no really a big issue of having two different variants since they basically differ in only minor details but sufficiently so they can remain separated. Finellach (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2021 (CEST)

A question...can you still upload files on the site? Finellach (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2021 (CEST)