What happens when you 'disinherit' yourself?
Katheryn_Swynford
I am wondering if the family arms are similarly let go when the family
lands are.
Specifically, the Lords of Roeulx, who bore Or, three lions rampant,
gules, ended in the lack of a male heir for Eustace, last Lord of
Roeulx. His brother, Fastre, sells his holdings in Trith by marriage
to the Count of Hainault ca. 1322 (he gets 'usufruct' usage in return)
and in 1325 'disinherits' himself of all his other holdings to the
same count. He leaves Hainault and joins in an English expedition
against the Scots in which he died, in apparently 'pecuniary straits',
in 1331.
Does anyone know what bearing, if any, this 'disinheritment' had on
his right to bear the arms of Roeulx?
I am wondering inasmuch as the Payne Roet, father of Katherine
Swynford, does seem to have passed down to his daughter the arms of
three wheels, 2 and 1, with a pierced mullet for difference (3rd
son??), and yet Lindsay Brook has made a case for Payne being one of
the last, younger, brothers of the last Eustace, Lord of Roeulx.
Whence then, came he by these arms with a difference indicating birth
order?
Kindest thanks for any insights,
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> Hi all,
>
> I am wondering if the family arms are similarly let go when the family
> lands are.
No. Not in England or Scotland.
>
> Specifically, the Lords of Roeulx, who bore Or, three lions rampant,
> gules, ended in the lack of a male heir for Eustace, last Lord of
> Roeulx. His brother, Fastre, sells his holdings in Trith by marriage
> to the Count of Hainault ca. 1322 (he gets 'usufruct' usage in return)
> and in 1325 'disinherits' himself of all his other holdings to the
> same count. He leaves Hainault and joins in an English expedition
> against the Scots in which he died, in apparently 'pecuniary straits',
> in 1331.
>
> Does anyone know what bearing, if any, this 'disinheritment' had on
> his right to bear the arms of Roeulx?
Arms are borne in a heraldic jurisdiction. You can have different arms
in England to those in France. It might be that your French arms are
used by someone else in England so you have to use something different
in England.
> I am wondering inasmuch as the Payne Roet, father of Katherine
> Swynford, does seem to have passed down to his daughter the arms of
> three wheels, 2 and 1, with a pierced mullet for difference (3rd
> son??), and yet Lindsay Brook has made a case for Payne being one of
> the last, younger, brothers of the last Eustace, Lord of Roeulx.
>
> Whence then, came he by these arms with a difference indicating birth
> order?
This is a genealogical question. But some difference marks are not
always indications of a difference, they may be a different family.
Viz the label where it is, for instance, used as a charge on the arms
of the Barringtons of Hatfeild Broadoak, Essex but is also used as a
difference mark.
I know nothing of French heraldic practices of those times, of course.
You might get a better answer on the rec.heraldry newsgroup.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
WJho...@aol.com
> Swynford, does seem to have passed down to his daughter the arms of
> three wheels, 2 and 1, with a pierced mullet for difference
Glancing through "Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe" Jiri Louda and
Michael Maclagan, 1981
I don't see any of the descendents of Katherine adopting her three wheels or
any wheels for that matter. Maybe they didn't want to point out that they
were illegitimate :)
Will Johnson
Leo van de Pas
Which descendants are you looking at? Surely the Beaufort children received
their own coat of arms, and I think the Swynford ones also had one already.
Why should they look via a female link, legitimate or illegitimate?
Leo
Tony Hoskins
Swynford, does seem to have passed down to his daughter the arms of
But, did he really? Was he known to have used those arms, or were they
perhaps designed allusively for his daughter Katherine- "Katherine
wheels"?
Tony
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
WJho...@aol.com
leov...@netspeed.com.au writes:
<< Which descendants are you looking at? Surely the Beaufort children
received
their own coat of arms, and I think the Swynford ones also had one already.
Why should they look via a female link, legitimate or illegitimate? >>
Maybe I'm under the false impression that a descendent might show both his
paternal and maternal lineage ?
Anne Mortimer, dau of Roger, Earl of March and wife of Richard, Earl of
Cambridge, seems to be showing her great-grandmother Elizabeth of Burgh's red cross
on a yellow background on two quarters of her own shield.
Unless there is some other way that Anne gets those two quarters.
And Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury is showing his father's White x on a
red background along with a blue and white cross-hatched bar like thing ...
that appears to be coming possibly fom his mother's side. His uncle John
Beauford shows a blue-and-white border to differentiate his own shield.
Will Johnson
Leo van de Pas
For me heraldry and its rules (which differ from coutnry to country) is a
magic world I know nothing about. When I was very young I thought I would
get involved but as I cannot draw I thought it the better to stay away from
it. Also there are so many factors that come into play, siblings having
different ones, then distant descendants assuming c-o--a because they
inherit properties and so on. It is hard enough (for me) to stick to the
genealogy of these people. Yes I do have a few heraldic books, my prize
possessions in that area are
The Heraldry of the Campbells by G. Harvey Johnston, but only because of the
genealogy contained in this book.
Wilczek, Wappen und Ahnentafeln, by Ferdinand Graf Wilczek, Franz Joseph von
Haussler and Hanno von Halem. This book is not only visually a joy, it also
gives a great deal of central European genealogy hard to find elsewhere.
And a Dutch book
256 Kwartieren en Kwartierwapens van H. W, van Woelderen, by W. Wijnaendts
van Resandt. This books is also visually very beautiful but it also goes
into great detail into the ancestry of Helene Wilhelmina van Woelderen who
was only twelve (in 1939) when this book was published.
With best wishes
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJho...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: What happens when you 'disinherit' yourself?
Jwc...@aol.com
" Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe"
daughter of John Beaufort, Marquess of Dorset, son of John of Gaunt by
Katherine( Roet ) Swynford (see same arms by him, England Table 4) The Fleur de lis
and Leopards quartered as for the Royal Plantagenet arms surrounded by a
border of alternating argent and azure sections.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Leo van de Pas
I do have this book as well. It must have been a nightmare for the authors
to make sure all was done properly. This really is a milestone book to me.
On Table 4 have you noticed the slight difference in the c-o-a of John
Beaufort 1373-1410 and that of Edmund Tudor 1430-1456? And then on Table 5
that of Edmund Tudor and that of his father?
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <Jwc...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: What happens when you 'disinherit' yourself?
WJho...@aol.com
> Europe" by Louda and MacLagan on Table 13 shows the following arms for
Joan
> Beaufort, daughter of John Beaufort, Marquess of Dorset, son of John of
Gaunt by
> Katherine( Roet ) Swynford (see same arms by him, England Table 4) The
> Fleur de lis and Leopards quartered as for the Royal Plantagenet arms
surrounded by a border of alternating argent and azure sections. >>
They hide her under the Scotland section ...
It actually says "Joan Beaufort, d of John E of Somerset" by the way.
But you're right it does show the same shield as her father, which is shown
on Table 5. Interesting that on Table 4 it gives him the fuller name "John
Beaufort, E of Somerset, M of Dorset" as you stated.
Also note Table 10 where Margaret Beaufort, d of John D of Somerset has the
same shield
Will Johnson
Katheryn_Swynford
Whilst waiting to see what folks had to say on the issue, I went back
to re-read (for a different reason) the FMG article on the Robessart
tomb at Westminster and came upon the following statement:
"Like so many arms at this period, which were territorial rather than
personal..."
I wonder if this means that perhaps in Hainault arms were attached to
the land rather than the person or family?
Kindest thanks,
Katheryn_Swynford
I recently found some reference or other for the funeral of Henry VIII
that included plans to display Katherine's arms! Unfortunately, I
didn't bookmark it :(
Katheryn_Swynford
Weever noted that his arms were on his tomb in Old St. Paul's but
didn't bother apparently to note what they were.
The 1332-ish grant of arms by the Guyenne Herald to the brothers
Andrewe didn't name Roet but had affixed his seal, described
_textually_ having Catherine wheels with a pierced mullet. The
documented has been pronounced "a fake" but nobody ever states _why_
they consider it a fake.
Katherine herself did empale three wheels with a pierced mullet with
those of Swynford in 1377 (the notice is in Birch's Catalogue of
Seals...; kindest thanks to Douglas Richardson for sharing this
information with me!).
I'm cautiously of the opinion that the spiked wheels as opposed to
plain wheels may well have been adopted creatively in allusion to
Katherine's name (Seton tells a pretty tale on this account) but that
Payne's own arms may well have been plain wheels (one source on the
Andrewe's grant has a sketch of said arms and they were sans both
pierced mullet and spoked wheels).
Kindest thanks for your thoughts,
Katheryn_Swynford
different one post legitimation:
"Before 1397, John Beaufort bore Per pale argent and azure, on a bend
gules, three lions of England ensigned with a label of France. The
colours silver and blue are those of the House of Lancaster (ironically
the livery of John of Gaunt's first wife's family), while the bend
shows England with France almost as an afterthought (in the form of a
label, rather than as the first quarter, as it was then borne by the
English king).
After legitimation, John (by then Earl of Somerset) bore the quartered
arms of France and England within a border compony - retaining the
Lancastrian silver and blue in the border"
--http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:4bu6rokW1KIJ:uk.geocities.com/barensteel/famarms/bastardy.html+tudor+beaufort+arms+legitimation&hl=en&client=safari
I've seen this elsewhere, as well.
Cheers!
WJho...@aol.com
katheryn...@yahoo.com writes:
<< "Before 1397, John Beaufort bore Per pale argent and azure, on a bend
gules, three lions of England ensigned with a label of France. The
colours silver and blue are those of the House of Lancaster (ironically
the livery of John of Gaunt's first wife's family), >>
I'm not so sure about this.
John's first wife Blanche of Lancaster shows as her shield
Three gold lions on a red background with a blue bar across the top and three
short lines hanging from it (in blue) showing fleur de lis in gold again.
Sorry I'm not quite up on how to say this in heraldic terms. But the point
is there is no white in her shield.
Table 5.
Will Johnson
WJho...@aol.com
katheryn...@yahoo.com writes:
<< "Before 1397, John Beaufort bore Per pale argent and azure, on a bend
gules, three lions of England ensigned with a label of France. The
colours silver and blue are those of the House of Lancaster (ironically
the livery of John of Gaunt's first wife's family), >>
Further on this idea. Blanche's father is shown in Table 4 with the same
shield as I just described for Blanche. Again no silver (white) in his shield.
His wife Isabel of Beaumont does have silver, but only as a third or
fourth color. Her shield being a gold lion on a blue background with gold fleur de
lis surrounding the lion, and then a horizontal bar of red and silver.
That is also on Table 4.
Will Johnson
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> Thank you, Tim!
>
> Whilst waiting to see what folks had to say on the issue, I went back
> to re-read (for a different reason) the FMG article on the Robessart
> tomb at Westminster and came upon the following statement:
>
> "Like so many arms at this period, which were territorial rather than
> personal..."
>
> I wonder if this means that perhaps in Hainault arms were attached to
> the land rather than the person or family?
Of course, I had forgotten about arms of an office. The earldom of
Gloucester, for instance, had its own arms, though the practice is not
totally clear. I think some of this only appeared in the early years
of heraldry when people were trying out different concepts. But
bishoprics definitely have their own arms and will be impaled to the
personal arms of an individual bishop.
WJho...@aol.com
writes:
<< Of course, I had forgotten about arms of an office. The earldom of
Gloucester, for instance, had its own arms, though the practice is not
totally clear. >>
I mentioned earlier that Anne Mortimer, dau of Roger Earl of March and also
wife of Richard of Conisburgh, Earl of Cambridge, shows (Table 5) as her shield
In the first and fourth quarter the same shield as her grandfather Edmund
Mortimer, Earl of March which is a rather elaborate thing that I'm unable to
describe adequately but is not germane to my next point.
In the second and third quarter of her shield she is showing the same shield
as, previously I had said her great-grandmother Elizabeth de Burgh, dau of
William Earl of Ulster. This shield is a red cross on a gold background.
Now on further research I see that this shield (red cross on a gold
background) is shown (as a complete shield, not quartered) by :
1) Elizabeth de Burgh, mentioned above;
2) William de Burgh 1312-33, Earl of Ulster, father of 1)
3) Elizabeth de Burgh d 1327 , dau of Richard, Earl of Ulster and wife of
Robert, K of Scots 1306
And as second and third quarter by
Elizabeth of York, wife of Henry VII, great-granddaughter of Anne Mortimer.
This same Elizabeth by the way, shows one of the remaining quarters of Anne's
shield in her own shield as a quarter. The final quarter of Elizabeth's
shield (the first quarter) is the normal England one of three lions and the fleur
de lis.
It's interesting to me that she is apparently loudly proclaiming her descent
from the Mortimer/de Burgh's here, and ignoring other descents from Lancaster,
Neville, Rivers, Luxembourg ...
By the way what is the relationship between Richard, Earl of Ulster and
William, Earl of Ulster?
Thanks
Will Johnson
WJho...@aol.com
writes:
<< Now on further research I see that this shield (red cross on a gold
background) is shown (as a complete shield, not quartered) by :
1) Elizabeth de Burgh, mentioned above;
2) William de Burgh 1312-33, 3rd Earl of Ulster, father of 1)
3) Elizabeth de Burgh d 1327 , dau of Richard, Earl of Ulster and wife of
Robert, K of Scots 1306 >>
Dear Will you incompetent peon.
3) Elizabeth de Burgh ( or "of" Burgh as you insist on calling her in your
pedantic and witless manner) was the Aunt of 2) William de Burgh, 3rd Earl of
Ulster
William's parents were John de Burgh and Elizabeth de Clare, dau of Gilbert,
3rd Earl Gloucester and Joan of Acre.
If you weren't such a lazy oaf you'd have figured this out by now!
So apparently this shield of a "red cross on a gold background" as you stated
it, in your silly fashion, must have been also born by the ancestor of all
these people, namely Richard, Earl of Ulster.
Will "Evil Twin" Johnson
"I have enough friends, I'm here to make enemies!"
Jwc...@aol.com
According to MCA pp 152-153 William de Burgh, Earl of Ulster
was the son of Sir John de Burgh, Kt by Elizabeth, daughter of Gilbert de
Clare, Earl of Clare, Hertford and Gloucester and Joan d`Acre, daughter of King
Edward I of England by Eleanor of Castile. Sir John was heir apparent to
Richard de Burgh, Earl of Ulster by his wife Margaret. (see MCA p 151) He dvp 1313.
William de Burgh succeeded on his grandfather`s death in 1326 and in 1327 was
married to Maud, daughter of Henry de Lancaster, 3rd Earl of Lancaster by his
wife Maud de Chaworth. They had one surviving daughter Elizabeth de Burgh born
July 6, 1332 Carrickfergus Castle, Ireland. William was murdered at Belfast,
Ireland in 1333
Peter G R Howarth
>______________________________
Anne Mortimer's political significance was as heiress to the Clarence claim
to the throne and her arms were intended to show this.
Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence and jure uxoris Earl of Ulster, was the
second surviving son of Edward III and so had a better claim to the throne
than John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, who was the third. Unfortunately,
his only issue was a daughter, Philippa. The dukedom ended with Lionel's
death, but Philippa became Countess of Ulster and quartered the red cross on
gold of Ulster with her father's arms (quarterly France ancient and England,
over all a silver label with a red canton on each point). Philippa married
Edmund de Mortimer, Earl of March, who also became Earl of Ulster in right
of his wife. Edmund had a seal in which he quartered his father's Mortimer
arms with his wife's Ulster arms. This later became the symbol of the
Clarence claim to the throne.
Edmund's grandson, also Edmund, was made heir to the throne by Richard II.
He was only eight when Richard abdicated, lived quietly in Ireland and died
without issue. His heir was his elder sister Anne, who married Richard of
Conisburgh of the House of York. She bore the same coat of arms as her
brother, father and grandfather, quarterly Mortimer and Ulster. Her son,
Richard, Duke of York, the first to adopt the surname of Plantagenet, had a
better right to the throne than the Lancastrian Henry VI, but through his
mother rather than his father, who was only the son of Edmund of Langley,
Duke of York and the fourth surviving son of Edward III.
Anne had no need to augment her arms with any other, less significant,
family's arms. However, her grandson, Edward IV, was the first to give
royal approval to the artificial augmentation of arms when he tried to
bolster his wife's family background by granting them quarters derived
unjustifiably from Elizabeth's mother, Jacqueline of Luxemburg.
Peter G R Howarth
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/88 - Release Date: 01/09/2005
WJho...@aol.com
pgrho...@tiscali.co.uk writes:
<< Edmund's grandson, also Edmund, was made heir to the throne by Richard II.
He was only eight when Richard abdicated, lived quietly in Ireland and died
without issue. His heir was his elder sister Anne, who married Richard of
Conisburgh of the House of York. She bore the same coat of arms as her
brother, father and grandfather, quarterly Mortimer and Ulster. >>
I cannot speak of her brother or father , but the shield of her grandfather
Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March and as you say Count of Ulster jure uxoris
is shown in "Heraldry of the Royal Families" (op.cite.) as simply Mortimer
not Ulster.
I do not know how to describe this shield, it's a bit complex, but regardless
it shows no red cross on a gold background on it.
Will Johnson
Peter G R Howarth
_________________________________________
Edmund became Earl of March on the death of his father, Roger, on 26 Feb
1359. He would therefore have adopted his father's arms at that time. For
what it is worth, they are usually blazoned as barry of six or and azure, on
a chief or, two pallets between two gyrons azure, over all an escutcheon
argent.
Edmund later became Earl of Ulster after the death of his father-in-law,
Lionel of Antwerp, on 17 Oct 1368. On a seal of his from 1372, he bears the
quartered arms of Mortimer and Ulster (illustrated in J P Brooke-Little,
_Boutell's Heraldry_, rev edn 1978, p 178). He therefore used his father's
arms for at least nine years and the quartered arms for possibly longer.
It was quite common in mediaeval heraldry for someone to bear more than one
coat of arms, either consecutively or even simultaneously. The tomb of
Edward, the Black Prince, has both a shield for war (his father's arms with
a silver label) and a shield for peace (black, with three silver ostrich
feathers with their quills piercing scrolls inscribed 'ich dien'). The
second shield, with matching surcoat and horse trappings, is a far more
likely explanation for his by-name than the suggestion that he wore black
armour.
Peter G R Howarth
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/89 - Release Date: 02/09/2005