Chatham/Pitt Arms
Turenne
Illustrious Personages'. On each portrait are the arms of the sitter.
For both William Pitt and his father, the Earl of Chatham, the blason
reads 'Sa. a fess chequy ar. and az. betw. 3 bezants' (or maybe sable,
a fess compony counter-compoy ar. and az. betw. 3 bezants)
Strangely enough, in my books Chatham has two rows of chequy and his
son has three! I wonder whether as a younger son, William Pitt had a
new grant of arms with an extra row for difference.
Also; a friend in Germany sent me this:
http://www.welt-der-wappen.de/temp/Chatham-Earl.jpg
...which shows the field to be gules. Sable surely......??
What are the correct arms for the 1st Earl of Chatham? Did William
Pitt the Younger bear the same arms?
Richard L
Derek Howard
100, gives the arms of William Pitt, Earl of Chatham (1708-1778) as
Sable a fess chequy Argent and Azure between three bezants. This was
said to have been granted in 1604 by William Camden as Clarenceux KoA
to William Pitt of Stepleton, co. Dorset. The fess is illustrated at
Plate XXII with three rows.
The arms of William Pitt (1759-1806) are given at p 89, no 114 with
the same blazon and for cadency a crescent as he was second son of the
above. There is no printed illustration of these arms in the book so I
have no way of telling whether the original model of the arms had 2 or
3 rows. The designs of the arms in the book were by Gerald Cobb under
Wagner's direction.
Derek Howard
Turenne
rows...
Richard
Philip Cheyney
>I wonder why the arms are often represented with 2 rows...
Perhaps because at that time it didn't matter how many rows there
were.
It doesn't seem to matter how many squares there are in a row; nor how
many rows there are, for example, in the arms of Warenne.
In medieval heraldry artists were not concerned about the number of
stripes in a barry field, often not worrying whether there were an odd
or even number. On the other hand, they did refer to both barry and
barruly, so perhaps they thought there was a difference between 'some'
and 'lots'.
It seems to have been the Victorians who wanted to know the exact
number of things.
Philip
Derek Howard
I suspect it is merely artistic licence reflecting balance and
proportion or the space available.
Incidentally, I note that Edmondson: "The Complete Body of Heraldry",
1780, v 1, under Peers of England, gives the arms of the (then) Earl
of Chatham as including "a crescent within a crescent for difference".
I find this confusing as it must relate to John Pitt, the 2nd Earl,
who was an eldest son. Any ideas?
Derek Howard