GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-01 > 1043779970


From: (Hans Vogels)
Subject: Re: Amie de Gaveston Rebuttal
Date: 28 Jan 2003 10:52:50 -0800
References: <F61f26wPE3tZkJHHIiT00019d76@hotmail.com> <3E33BAA0.8080801@otenet.gr> <003801c2c56d$27cb3090$0201a8c0@peirce> <3E343384.8040403@otenet.gr>


Richard and Renia,

[knip]
> > Do you happen to know when the first examples of
> > that are to be found? Also, I believe there are examples in English
> > heraldry in which a son borrowed elements, tincture, for example, from the
> > arms of his mother's family. (This is different from impaling or
> > escutcheons of pretence.) Are there no examples of this so early either?
>
> I don't know, but adopting a mother's arms is often associated with
> inheriting her lands, in which case, her surname was often adopted as
> well, but this was particularly in the later period. I do not know about
> the earlier period.

Though not an answer to a English situation I can state that in the
Dutch (read Noord-Brabant) 14th century this frequently happened. I am
familiar with several examples in which sons exanged their fathers
arms for the arms of their grandfather on the mothers side of the
family. This was not always associated with inheriting her ancestral
lands. As far as I can tell the logical explanation for this was that
mothers family was held in higher esteem or were in the possession of
a lordship.

I'm not aware to the English translations of the heraldic terms so
I'll try to describe it in simpel terminology. Where the older son
adopted the arms of his father, younger sons would adopt heraldic
elements from mothers side of the family in their family arms or adopt
the arms of mothers side with their paternal arms reduced to a
heraldic quarter.

I am even aware of the following strange situation:
Grandfather Elias Pannicida, a wealty town artisan, pocessed a set of
arms similar to other families but without known genealogical links.
His son John married ca. 1320 a lady Mabelia van Gemert. This lady was
probably of noble descent of some younger branch of the family Van
Gemert. The main branch of this family were the lords of the villages
Gemert en Geldrop. The children and descendants of John and Mabelia
adopted the familyname of Mabelia but with a set of arms totally
different from that of grandfather of the family Van Gemert. The most
likely explanation is that the arms the grandchildren adopted were
similar to that of Mabelia and her family, and that Mabelia was named
after a grandmother [Mabelia van Gemert].

With regards,
Hans Vogels, Helmond

[knip]
> >>The arms of Piers Gaveston being so totally different from the arms of
> >>the effigy initially implies that Piers Gaveston was not related to the
> >>man in the effigy. The question is, why would the son of an armigerous
> >>father, adopt totally different arms? Surely, this would only be done if
> >>a) the son was not the son of the accepted father or b) the son was in
> >>some way distancing himself from his father and wanted to establish
> >>himself as armigerous in his own right.
> >


This thread: