Right to supporters amongst commoners
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Perceval (d. 1691), senior male heir of the great house of Yvery.
Burke's 'A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Commoners of Great
Britain and Ireland 1838 (Vol. IV, p. 614) states that 'The several
branches of this family have the unusual privilege of bearing
supporters to their arms, as is evident from the ensuing authority
copied from the original entry from the Office of Arms, London. "This
is to certify [to] all it may concern that it appears from the ancient
paintings and glass windows in the house of Weston in the county of
Somerset, that the family of Perceval, of which the Earl of Egmont is
chief, have borne and used supporters to their arms, two eagles sable,
as depicted and blazoned in the book marked 3d. D. 14 p. 182 and 186,
(in the Office of Arms, London) from the time of King Edward I.
Witness our hands as waiters of the month, this 16th day of April, in
the 13th year of the reign of George II, King of Great Britain, France
and Ireland, Annoque Dom. 1740. Signed Charles Green, Lancaster.
Richard Mawson, Portcullis."'
Does anyone know of any other examples of commoners having the right
to supporters or where ALL branches of a family, not just the main
line, have the right to supporters?
Graham
StephenP
<gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Does anyone know of any other examples of commoners having the right
> to supporters or where ALL branches of a family, not just the main
> line, have the right to supporters?
>
> Graham
One example is in the same volume, Page 158 Fulford of Great Fulford.
I don't think the right to supporters extends to all family members.
The current incumbent, Francis, is an erstwhile colleague of mine and
- it would appear - a distant cousin. I might drop him a line to see
if he knows.
http://www.heraldry-online.org.uk/fulford/fulford-arms.htm
Yours aye
Stephen
Croft
> Does anyone know of any other examples of commoners having the right
> to supporters or where ALL branches of a family, not just the main
> line, have the right to supporters?
I'm not sure your above example proves very much. Burkes is not an
official authority and the quote given can be read to mean different
things.
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Thanks Stephen. I didn't mean to imply that all descendants had the
right to bear supporters, but the quote implies that all male
descendants in the male line or male-line descendants of heraldic
heiresses of the family have the right. Anne Perceval was such an
heiress but I haven't worked it out beyond that.
I saw Francis Fulford on television and read his book (can't remember
the title at the moment). Sound opinions with the added benefit of
being hilarious. I am a great admirer. His wife throwing the TV in the
lake was one of the all-time greatest moments on TV. Interesting that
both the Fulfords and the Percevals are from the West Country.
Graham
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
No-one said Burke's is an official authority but the College of Arms
is and two Heralds have gone to the lengths of signing a 'to whom it
may concern' letter confirming the right to supporters. There is no
reason to do otherwise than take the statement at face value (i.e. it
is an accurate quote of the stated document). If you have some reason
to believe that the whole thing is a fabrication then please give your
reasons. If you do not then you have added precisely nothing to the
debate, merely asserting an irrelevant fact that we already know. And
while Burke's is not an official authority, it is an authority (like
CP) and the Heralds of the College of Arms frequently cite Burke's
publications. Also, saying that something can be interpreted different
ways adds precisely nothing to the debate either.
Croft
rubber stamped or colluded in the wholesale fabrication of pedigrees
rights privileges and the like over the centuries. The wealthy had
remarkable 'luck' in finding that they could 'trace' their lineage
back to improbable ancestors. Even in more modern time errors in
official, approved and researched pedigrees happen.
Anytime I see arms/supporters etc claimed to be 'from the time of King
Edward' I'm deeply suspicious. It just flags up likely later invention
especially when confirmed so much later.
As to the quote: a 250 yr old letter and a 150yr old book. It would
frankly be far more useful to see how many if any of the male agnates
proved the right to supporters in the rolls. You can read that quote
to mean the head, cadet branches or all agnates. Perhaps you have to
hand how many proved lines are even on the college records. The Egmont
line is heading for extinction so it would a line in the C17 at best.
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
One minute you say that the heralds invent stuff for rich people, the
next you refer to 'proved lines' in the College records. You can't
have it both ways. Presumably you regard all information held by the
College as unreliable. So what is your position?
Croft
> College as unreliable. So what is your position?
Yes I could have put quotes around various phrases. If a right for
supporters can be shown at the earliest possible date in the records
credited by different heralds to more than just the head of the house
at earlier dates then - while not stopping that being false - you have
at least some greater confidence that it was not a later fabrication
than you would by relying on a letter written hundreds of years later.
If the actions of the college in grants earlier then the letter
clearly shows they did not act as the letter suggests they would have
then it is a good case for disregarding the letter entirely. You've
said nothing so far to suggest you have any evidence that anyone but
the earl had supporters.
I regard the college records are a starting point not an end point for
any information they have too many errors to be trusted as gospel.
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
You've
> said nothing so far to suggest you have any evidence that anyone but
> the earl had supporters.
Nothing? This is utter nonsense. I have quoted a letter quoted in
Burke's signed by two heralds which does precisly that. Really, I am
not interested in discussing the matter further with you.
And by the way, I never actually asserted that the right definitely
existed; I merely asked whether there were other examples of commoners
with the (apparent) right to supporters or where that right devolved
on all heraldic heirs. But, clearly, you are not interested in
answering that question.
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Turenne
>I saw Francis Fulford on television and read his book (can't remember
>the title at the moment). Sound opinions with the added benefit of
>being hilarious. I am a great admirer.
I assume that you're being ironic....
Richard Lichten
Turenne
>Does anyone know of any other examples of commoners having the right
>to supporters or where ALL branches of a family, not just the main
>line, have the right to supporters?
The following baronets were, by Royal Warrant granted supporters to
descend with the baronetcy:
Guise (1863)
Prevost (1816)
Guiness ((1867)
Halford (1827)
Otway (1845)
and Laking
Non-Baronets
Mr George Watson-Taylor (1815)
Capt John Hanning-Speke (1867) posthumously
Some baronets have applied to Lyon for supporters and some claim them
by prescriptive right:
Titchborne
De Hoghton
Scroope of Danby
Stapylton
Luttrel
Hilton
Though some of these probably weren't sanctioned...
Richard L
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Thank you. Now I come to think about it, a cousin of mine, Sir Andrew
Duff-Gordon, was offered supporters by the Lord Lyon, though I am not
sure why.
Graham
Have you read Fulford's book?
Turenne
>Have you read Fulford's book?
It was enough watching him on the television. He seemed irredeemably
awful. With apologies to Stephen, he appears to be really quite vile.
Richard
barrassie
As far as I know the only case where supporters are correct for
another member of the family is in Scotland where the son and heir
apparent or presumptive bears the hereditary supporters, this would be
the only case. I have included the son and heir presumptive since it
is possible in Scotland to nominate the heir so I should also add the
heiress preumptive.
In case I am not accurate the caee would be for peers of Scotland and
their heirs.
Barrassie
news...@mailinator.com
"it appears from the ancient paintings and glass windows in the house
of Weston in the county of Somerset, that the family of Perceval, of
which the Earl of Egmont is chief, have borne and used supporters to
their arms"
It states a fact about what they HAVE done. It does not say what
they, or their descendants, are legally entitled to do or would be
permitted to do by the law of arms. Lots of people have done things
in the past which are now recognised as heraldically unacceptable -
the bearing of multiple crests without specific grant or licence for
example.
The gloss put on it by Burke which you quote is from the very first
edition of what later became known as Burke's Landed Gentry. It was
an extremely unreliable book written to stroke the vanity of those
included and it was chock full of bogus history and self
aggrandisement. It was not until much later in the 19th century that
it was gradually purged of this sort of thing and became the more
scholarly reference which grew into the authoritative volumes of the
20th century. So I wouldn't read too much into that either if I were
you.
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
When the heralds describe what the Perceval family have done, they are
(of course) describing what they have lawfully done. If there had been
any suggestion that the practice was unlawful then the heralds would
hardly have put their signatures to such a document. So much should be
obvious. And regardless of whether the first edition of Burke was
reliable or not, that publication is quoting a document signed by two
heralds of the College of Arms. On the basis of your argument, you
would discount the American Declaration of Independence if it happened
to be quoted by a publication you regarded as unreliable.