"The lettering suggests a 16/17th century date for this heraldic pendant, perhaps for horse harness. Probably belonged to the original William Waldegrave, born 1507, died 1554 or his son, also William, who died 1617, fathered 12 children and has a large tomb in Bures church, Suffolk."
The lettering on this tomb may be seen about halfway down the page at
The accompanying transcription gives a death-date of 1613 rather than 1617, but the last digit is not shown in the photo. And only ten children are mentioned; was there perhaps a previous marriage?
At any rate, this period would be called late mediaeval or early modern, depending on one's choice of an epochal date. ISTM that historians tend to place this boundary later for Britain than for southern Europe, by as much as a century or so -- but no later than the accession of James I & VI, I should think.
> "The lettering suggests a 16/17th century date for this heraldic
> pendant, perhaps for horse harness. Probably belonged to the original
> William Waldegrave, born 1507, died 1554 or his son, also William, who
> died 1617, fathered 12 children and has a large tomb in Bures church,
> Suffolk."
> The lettering on this tomb may be seen about halfway down the page at
> The accompanying transcription gives a death-date of 1613 rather than
> 1617, but the last digit is not shown in the photo. And only ten
> children are mentioned; was there perhaps a previous marriage?
> At any rate, this period would be called late mediaeval or early modern,
> depending on one's choice of an epochal date. ISTM that historians tend
> to place this boundary later for Britain than for southern Europe, by as
> much as a century or so -- but no later than the accession of James I &
> VI, I should think.
> --
> Odysseus
...Thank you, that's a pretty good guesstimate!
so approx. date 1507 - 1617, this should roughly be the time,
when they changed from shield to emphasize the crest...maybe I'm
wrong?
On Saturday, 19 May 2012 23:12:22 UTC+1, Odysseus wrote:
> In article > <1bd89d7b-8ed3-4ae4-8bfb-ea0b7fcd2...@w10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
> Matt Tompkins <ml...@le.ac.uk> wrote:
> > On May 15, 7:12 pm, for Nicolai <imagemakers...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > S ? W.
> > > WALDEGRAVE
> "The lettering suggests a 16/17th century date for this heraldic > pendant, perhaps for horse harness. Probably belonged to the original > William Waldegrave, born 1507, died 1554 or his son, also William, who > died 1617, fathered 12 children and has a large tomb in Bures church, > Suffolk."
> The lettering on this tomb may be seen about halfway down the page at
> The accompanying transcription gives a death-date of 1613 rather than > 1617, but the last digit is not shown in the photo. And only ten > children are mentioned; was there perhaps a previous marriage?
> At any rate, this period would be called late mediaeval or early modern, > depending on one's choice of an epochal date. ISTM that historians tend > to place this boundary later for Britain than for southern Europe, by as > much as a century or so -- but no later than the accession of James I & > VI, I should think.
> -- > Odysseus
It would be very difficult to find a historian who would categorise any part of Elizabeth I's reign as medieval, in fact you'd be pushed to find one who placed its end any time after about 1525 - and many would argue for an even earlier date. The Portable Antiquities Database itself plumps for a very typical 1500 (see its 'period timeline'), though for some purposes it treats the whole of Henry VII's reign as medieval (eg numismatics). The categorisation of the Waldegrave pendant in the database as 'medieval' is clearly an error.
> "The lettering suggests a 16/17th century date for this heraldic
> pendant, perhaps for horse harness. Probably belonged to the original
> William Waldegrave, born 1507, died 1554 or his son, also William, who
> died 1617, fathered 12 children and has a large tomb in Bures church,
> Suffolk."
> The lettering on this tomb may be seen about halfway down the page at
> The accompanying transcription gives a death-date of 1613 rather than
> 1617, but the last digit is not shown in the photo. And only ten
> children are mentioned; was there perhaps a previous marriage?
> At any rate, this period would be called late mediaeval or early modern,
> depending on one's choice of an epochal date. ISTM that historians tend
> to place this boundary later for Britain than for southern Europe, by as
> much as a century or so -- but no later than the accession of James I &
> VI, I should think.
> Odysseus
[reposted with clarification of obscure phrasing!]
It would be very difficult to find a historian who would categorise
any part of Elizabeth I's reign as medieval, in fact you'd be pushed
to find one who placed its end [meaning the end of the medieval
period] any time after about 1525 - and many would argue for an even
earlier date. The Portable Antiquities Database itself plumps for a
very typical 1500 (see its 'period timeline'), though for some
purposes it treats the whole of Henry VII's reign as medieval (eg
numismatics). The categorisation of the Waldegrave pendant in the
database as 'medieval' is clearly an error.
