Dead men don't get married: the end of Sir Walter Griffith
jeffchip9
EAST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE
"This Stately tombe in Alabaster is missing its pictures of Sir
Walter Griffith knight & Joane Nevill his wife and theire Yonge Sonne &
Daughter Mary died in the seconde year & is yet in this toome to be
seene in ye church of Agneys Burton" [Note above the drawing of the
Griffith/Neville tomb in St. Martin's, Burton Agnes, E. Riding of
Yorks.]
An astute observer viewing the old drawing of Sir Walter and Jane
(Neville) Griffith's tomb on the SAL Griffith material (a copy of
which I sent to Douglas Richardson, so there is hope this family will
be straightened out in some future volume of medieval genealogy) will
note that Jane Neville's arms on the left side of the drawing clearly
show a "lozenge charged." This means that she was a widow and that
the "lozenge" was on the shield, not the shape of the shield
itself, both of which were allowable forms of display; therefore, her
husband cannot possibly have married Agnes Constable. This explains
why Griffith did not impale Neville on that tomb, and why the Constable
arms weren't on display there. I have been through the Hailwood
article on the heraldry of Burton Agnes, and I haven't seen anything
which "violated" the rules. I think people like this were only too
eager to display their arms and wanted it done in the correct way (at
least the accepted way for their time) for maximum impact.
Anytime you have two or more men in succeeding generations bearing the
same name (in this case Walter), and the chronology is also suspect,
you run the risk of this kind of thing. Since modern descriptions of
this tomb do not mention the lozenge or the portraits of the children,
I think whatever was used to source this note was very old and
authentic. Like the herald's visitations which it resembles, the
scroll does contain some errors. It's possible that the picture of
the son is my ancestor, Rhys Griffith (d. 1489), although the validity
of the pedigree from Edward III doesn't depend on that being true.
I hope I have "rehabilitated" heraldry in the minds of some who are
inclined to dismiss it; it can be a powerful tool for the genealogist.
I greatly appreciate the responses to my original post.
Jeff Chipman
Douglas Richardson
I have the drawing of the tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and
his wife, Joan Neville, which you kindly sent me. I understand the
drawing of this tomb is taken from the Griffith pedigree dated c. 1600,
a copy of which is kept by the Society of Antiquaries of London (SAL).
The drawing shows the effigies of Sir Walter Griffith and his wife,
Joan, as they appear in the church of Burton Agnes, Yorkshire. The
effigies are accompanied by a young daughter to Joan's left and a young
son to Walter's right. So, it would appear that Sir Walter and Joan
had at least two children who died in young adulthood.
The caption accompanying the drawing of the tomb reads as follows:
"This stately tombe in Aleblaster with theis pictures of Sir Walter
Griffith knight & Joane Nevill his wife with theire yonge sonne &
daughter which died in there tender yeres is yet in this forme to be
seene in the church of Anneys Burton." END OF QUOTE.
I believe I have transcribed the caption correctly, although a letter
here or there is blurry in the copy that I received. Please note that
there is no reference to a daughter Mary who died in her second year.
The depiction of the two children on Walter and Joan's tomb is typical
for children of a couple who died in young adulthood. As such, they
would not at all be representative of Walter's adult brother, Rhys
Griffith, who is your ancestor.
Elsewhere, the Griffith pedigree clearly states that Sir Walter
Griffith married twice, first to "Jane" Neville, and second to Agnes
Constable. There is an indication by the pedigree that Sir Walter
Griffith had issue by both marriages, but the names of the children are
not listed for either marriage.
At the present time, my own position is that there was only one Walter
Griffith, which individual married (1st) Joan/Jane Neville and (2nd)
Agnes Constable. This agree with the Griffith pedigree you sent me.
The evidence in hand indicates that Walter Griffith had issue by both
wives. However, it appears that Walter Griffith had surviving issue
only by his second marriage to Agnes Constable.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
mj...@btinternet.com
jeffchip9 schrieb:
> Jane Neville's arms on the left side of the drawing clearly
> show a "lozenge charged." This means that she was a widow and that
> the "lozenge" was on the shield, not the shape of the shield
> itself, both of which were allowable forms of display
Sorry to be dim, Jeff, but I don't understand what you mean by "a
lozenge charged" and "the lozenge was on the shield, not the shape of
the shield".
Do you mean that there is a coat of arms (in the forms of a shield)
which bears as its charge a single lozenge?
Michael
jeffchip9
Thank you for your resonse; however, your interpretation is incorrect.
That is definitely a lozenge in the middle of Jane Neville's arms. A
lozenge denotes either a spinster or a widow. Since we know that she
was not a spinster, she was a widow. Since she was a widow, her
husband cannot possibly have married Agnes Constable.
his second wife. While I know such May/December marriages did take
place, nonetheless even in those days that gap would have raised some
eyebrows.
I think you also need to review your transcription of the note above
the tomb drawing. Remember, this was during the heyday of the Catholic
church in England; these tombs were painted and decorated.
Jeff Chipman
mj...@btinternet.com
jeffchip9 wrote:
> That is definitely a lozenge in the middle of Jane Neville's arms. A
> lozenge denotes either a spinster or a widow.
Jeff
I wonder if you might be muddling things. A lozenge does indeed
normally indicate that the arms are those of either a spinster or a
widow, but the essential element here is that a spinster's/widow's arms
are *displayed* on a lozenge (rather than on a shield), rather than
that they *display* a lozenge.
Thus, a single coat displayed on a lozenge denotes an unmarried woman;
a single coat displayed on a shield denotes a man (often an unmarried
man); two coats displayed within a lozenge denote a widow, and two
coats displayed on a shield denote a married man. (Curiously, there is
no specific way of displaying the arms of a married woman, other than
as for her husband - i.e. two coats displayed on a shield). Where two
coats are displayed, husband's on the left as we look at it, and wife's
on the right, the coats are said to be impaled [you probably know all
this, so apologies for telling you how to suck eggs].
I have never heard of a lozenge being used as a charge on a coat to
indicate a spinster or a widow.
I don't currently have access to the documents in question, so perhaps
I am misinterpreting what you say. Are you able to give a more
detailed description of the heraldic illustrations or the records of
the heraldry from the monument under discussion?
Kind regards
Michael
mj...@btinternet.com
jeffchip9 wrote:
> I haven't seen anything
> which "violated" the rules. I think people like this were only too
> eager to display their arms and wanted it done in the correct way (at
> least the accepted way for their time) for maximum impact.
>
> inclined to dismiss it; it can be a powerful tool for the genealogist.
It can, but you need to know (a) what the rules were, and (b) how they
were applied at the time.
Having re-read the posts, it seems that there is a monument with two
brasses: a man and his wife. There are likewise two shields, one
presumably his, and the second presumably hers. The second shield
bears a quarterly coat 1 & 4. Neville and 2 & 3. Boteler.
This second coat represents a violation of the modern rule of arms, viz
that a quartering may only be brought in by displaying any other
quarterings to which it 'belongs'. In this case, Ralph Nevill married
Mary Ferrers, whose grandmother was a Boteler heiress. Thus, according
to the modern rules, the quartered shield should be marshalled 1 & 4.
Nevill, 2. Ferrers (as Ralph Nevill's wife was a coheiress to her
father, Robert Ferrers) and 3. Boteler.
It is not uncommon, however, in early heraldic displays to see the
intermediate quarterings omitted.
>From a review of many other mediaeval monuments, including brasses, the
most obvious explanation is that the first shield displays the arms of
the man portrayed on the monument, and the second his wife; the fact
that it is displayed within a shield rather than a lozenge is, at this
time period, largely irrelevant. (If we did want to draw some
significance from it, the use of a shield rather than a lozenge to
display her arms would indicate that she died a married woman - i.e.
her husband outlived her - but I think this is too much reading-in
under the circumstances. Where monuments sought to display the arms of
families, it was common to do this using shields only.
Thus, it seems to me that there is nothing in the monument to suggest
that Jane Nevill was the only wife of her husband.
I look forward to further details of the "lozenge" charge in case this
changes things or sheds additional light.
Kind regards
Michael
Douglas Richardson
Reviewing the drawing of the tomb of Sir Walter Griffith and his wife,
Joan Neville, I see that both his arms and her arms are borne on large
shields on one side of their table tomb. As you know, the shield for
her arms displays Neville quartered with Boteler. The Ferrers arms are
missing.
Elsewhere, my notes show that Joan (Neville) Griffith's father bore
these arms:
Tonge, Vis. of Northern Counties 1530 (Surtees Soc. 41) (1863):
28-29 (Neville pedigree: "Rauff [Neville], ii'de son") [Neville
arms: Gules, on a saltire argent, a lily (?) azure].
I can clearly see the saltire (cross) in the drawing of Joan Neville's
shield of arms, but it appears to be displayed without the lily.
As for my rendering of the note which accompanies the drawing, I have
reviewed my transcription and it stands as I have written it in my last
post. There is no reference whatsoever to a daughter Mary who died in
her second year. Rather, it distinctly reads:
"which died in there tender yeres."
If this is clear on my copy, I presume it would be clear in your
original copy as well. If I was not able to read it, I would tell you
so. I can read it, and my transcript is correct.
I'm not sure what you mean by a "lozenge charged" on Joan Neville's
shield of arms which proves she was a widow. So, I'm sending my copy
of the drawing of the Griffith tomb to a friend who is especially
knowledgeable about heraldry. I will report back whatever he tells me.
Lastly, insofar as the marriage date of Walter Griffith and Joan
Neville is concerned, as Brad Verity has pointed out, the record which
tells us of their marriage is an indenture between Joan Beaufort,
Countess of Westmorland (grandmother of Joan Neville) and Sir John
Griffith (father of Walter Griffith) dated at York 23 September 1435.
It does not state when the couple were to be married. Rather, it only
stipulates that Sir John Griffith is to settle on the couple lands in
Burton Agnes and elsewhere in Yorkshire worth 100 marks a year. Such
an agreement can have been done when Walter and Joan were small
children. I've seen as young as aged two. However, in the normal
course of things, we would expect that Walter and Joan were both at
least aged 10 or 11, and that the marriage was to take place within 2
or 3 years of the indenture. But, this is not certain. Thus, it is
impossible to state when Walter Griffith was born from this record, or
when the couple were actually married. My own feeling is that Walter
and Joan were probably close to age 12 to 14 when the indenture was
drawn up and that their marriage took place soon after the date of the
indenture, as there is no mention of any delay in the settlement of the
lands on the couple which would be the case if the couple were small
children. If so, we could "approximate" that Walter Griffith was born
about 1421/3. If so, I fail to see how this makes him 30 years older
than his second wife, Agnes Constable, as you place Agnes' birth as
about 1445. Using these estimates, Walter and Agnes would be 22-24
years apart, and possibly less if Walter was younger in 1435 than I
have estimated. As such, I find no impediment here whatsoever. The
marriage of a widowed middle aged knight to a younger wife is common
place in this time period, especially when the man's first wife died
without surviving issue and the man still needed to produce heirs.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Wesbite: www.royalancestry.net
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 11/8/2005 5:14:12 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jeff...@hotmail.com writes:
, Sir Walter would have been some 30 years older than
his second wife.
What are you basing your guess on the age of Agnes on ?
Will Johnson
jeffchip9
Guide to Heraldry," p. 62 the lozenge is "a diamond shape with four
equal sides, best known not as a charge but in the place of the shield
as a vehicle on which to display the arms of a spinster or widow...."
Note that the paragraph admits that sometimes the lozenge was used as a
charge, as it was in this case. I am not going to argue over the
Boteler arms, except to note that the Boteler in question was an
heraldic heiress, and her descendants were perfectly in their rights to
quarter her arms. She brought the barony of Wem to the Ferrers family
as shown by CP. As for the lozenge, even my elderly mother was able to
pick out the lozenge without my help.
Since Agnes Constable's parents married (according to Richardson) ca.
1442, by any calculation she was decades younger than her putative
husband. I'm not saying that such marriages never took place, just
that it was something I filed away as another reason to take a hard
look at this line, along with the lousy chronology and lack of
documentation. Where is the proof that Rhys Griffith was the son of
John Griffith and Catherine Tyrwhitt?
As for the pedigree, I have a herald's visitation which shows that John
of Gaunt's second wife was Katherine Swynford. I am not going to lose
sleep over a discrepancy on a family pedigree roll. Ther heraldic
evidence is clear in this case. There really isn't anything to argue
about. The only purpose of a lozenge is to indicate that the woman is
unmarried. Period. This is completlely supported by the two books on
heraldry I have (the above, plus Slater's "The Complete Book of
Heraldry" pp. 112-3, which discusses the lozenge, and gives an example
of a granddaughter of Edward I). The reason this error happened in the
first place is because there were three Walter Griffith's in succeeding
generations. This kind of thing happens all the time. I have "broken"
this line and come up with a better one, at least in terms of its royal
connections.
I don't think Doug mentioned the fact that the Neville arms as
discussed in the Hailwood article are different than the drawing shown
in the 1604 scroll. I think the reason is that the paint that was on
them has long since faded away. The reason I sent the material to Doug
was that I was hoping somebody would straighten out what (for the
Sancha de Ayala descent alone) is an interesting family.
Doug, I am sorry that you stand by your trancription. I am not going
to argue about it. I will say this, though, and this comes from
someone who likes your books: you have made 3 errors in my lines:
Browne, Willoughby, and the Katherine Carter line (which strictly
speaking, isn't mine, but she was a sister of my ancestor; your
continuing support of this line in spite of the evidence has brought
unfair ridicule on the whole Diana Skpwith line).
What are you looking at? The Beaufort/Griffith marriage indenture
specifically states that the marriage is to be solemnized on 6 Nov
1435.
I do not agree with your transcription; I can make out the word "Mary."
Jane Neville's mother was Mary Ferrers, so I think my rendering makes
perfect sense. As for the rest of it, so what? It doesn't support
your case at all. Didn't you just get through telling me you didn't
know when Griffith and Neville got married? It shows that Jane Neville
was capable of having children. The reason Jane Neville has the
lozenge on her shield is because she was a widow. Therefore her
husband could not marry Agnes Constable. Why do you have a problem
with that?
Jeff Chipman
WJho...@aol.com
jeff...@hotmail.com writes:
<< Folks, I don't know what to tell you here. According to The Oxford
Guide to Heraldry," p. 62 the lozenge is "a diamond shape with four
equal sides, best known not as a charge but in the place of the shield
as a vehicle on which to display the arms of a spinster or widow...."
Note that the paragraph admits that sometimes the lozenge was used as a
charge, as it was in this case. I am not going to argue over the
Boteler arms, except to note that the Boteler in question was an
heraldic heiress, and her descendants were perfectly in their rights to
quarter her arms. She brought the barony of Wem to the Ferrers family
as shown by CP. As for the lozenge, even my elderly mother was able to
pick out the lozenge without my help.>>
After going over this three dozen times you still don't get it. A modern
definition has *nothing* whatsoever to do with what they might have done in 1480.
Please quote a source *from* the medieval period that backs up your claim of
what is or isn't a lozenge and what such a thing does or does not mean.
<< Since Agnes Constable's parents married (according to Richardson) ca.
1442, by any calculation she was decades younger than her putative
husband. I'm not saying that such marriages never took place, just
that it was something I filed away as another reason to take a hard
look at this line, along with the lousy chronology and lack of
documentation. Where is the proof that Rhys Griffith was the son of
John Griffith and Catherine Tyrwhitt? >>
Wrong. By my estimate Sir Walter was born 1420/30. If Agnes was born just
after her parent's marriage, they could have been as little as 12 years apart.
You are focused on proving your case, your argument from heraldry is not
convincing. If you re-present your case without the dogmatic focus you might win
a few more adherents. Do you hear anyone agreeing with you? Do you think
maybe that might imply anything ?
Will Johnson
Jwc...@aol.com
Jeff can`t be right because some evidence appears to disagree
with his claim ? I for One am not totally convinced that He is wrong. You say
that this lozenge being an unmarried woman (spinster/ widow) is only a modern
heraldic idea, but when it comes to heraldry, how modern is modern ? I don`t
know. We know that Rhys II ap Griffith was born 1325- died 1380. Douglas
estimates that his son Thomas was born in 1376, but We appear not to have an exact
marriage date for Rhys II and Margaret la Zouche of Haryngworth. We know it
preceded 1380 but by how many years ? Admittedly Margaret`s death in 1430 has to
be taken into account. She survived Rhys II by 50 years, so perhaps She
married him 1370 / 5 as Douglas believes, but it could be a couple years earlier
and she 20 or less at this marriage. If John is son of Thomas and Anne his
birthdate is perhaps 1390-95. He died in 1471. Next We have Walter born between
1415 and 1430- died ? 1481 married ? 1435 indenture Joan / Jane Neville by 1457,
who was either widow? or deceased by 1472 when Agnes Constable say 1445?-
died 1505 who married 1st Walter Griffith and 2nd Gervase Clifton by whom Walter
Griffith say 1473- died 1531 and a daughter Agnes. This Walter in a tablet
dated 1511 says his father had previously married a Johanna and was son of John
and Catherine (Tyrwhitt) Griffith. very convincing stuff. Who would disavow a
grandmother with royal connections? Then again, Henry`s headsman was getting
a workout at that time so You might downplay it if You could.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
PS Does anyone know of any reference to any Walter or Rhys Griffith as "
King`s Kinsman'
jeffchip9
example from the 1300s concerning a lozenge (e.g. the granddaughter of
Edward I) to answer your objection. I think you fall into a segment
of genealogist who seems to think that heraldic customs were invented
by the College of Arms. What the college did was take customs and
traditions that had been observed (as the example I quoted shows) for a
long time and codify them. Of course there were people who ignored
them; you did not offer an example of any. Frankly, what are you
basing your asserition that Sir Walter Griffith was b. ca. 1420/30 on?
Where is that estimate from? His parents? Where is the evidence that
this marriage (which by the way, Doug Richardson transcribed and
apparently forgot the date of solemnization of) was a child marriage?
There is nothing in the document to suggest that. In other words, I'm
challenging you to produce some evidence that your argument is correct.
Nothing wrong with that, is there?
A lozenge is a "shape," specifically a diamond shape. In heraldry it
has never meant anything but the fact that the woman in question was
single, either a spinster or a widow. The lozenge displays her arms.
A coat can itself be diamond shaped, or it can be a charge on the coat.
This fact is not going to change no matter what anybody says. That's
the way it is. I am concerned that you would make a couple of
unsubstantiated statements yourself and apparently tell me to take them
seriously. Part of the problem here is that you are not looking at the
same thing that Douglas Richardson and I are. You are reading
Hailwood's description of these arms. We are looking at a drawing made
in 1604.
I am not crazy about genealogical arguments that take terms or
situations which have a usual and customary meaning and ascribe to them
some other meaning, which just happens to support an argument we're
making and usually without any proof that it should mean what we want
it to. The point I'm getting at is that the only use for the shape
I've described ever (and there are a couple of ways it can be
displayed; I have pictures of them) is to show that the woman is either
widowed or a spinster, i.e. in a single state. If you have a problem
with it take it up with a herald, don't yell at me.
However, in order to correct the erroneous impression you've made, I
want to quote from "The Complete Book Of Heraldry," by Stephen Slater
(Lorenz Books, 2002) pp. 112-113:
"The Lozenge
A shield, being an article of warfare, was traditionally associated
with men, and as such it was not considered appropriate for women.
>From the late medieval period, a diamond -shaped device--the
lozenge--came into use for the armigerous lady although, like so much
in heraldry, just when the diamond was first used in this way is not
clear. A remarkable English seal has survived from around 1347 for
Joan, daughter of Henrie Count de Barre, widow of John de Warenne, Earl
of Surrey. Included in the seal's complex design are five tiny
lozenges; the central lozenge bears the arms of Warenne, the lozenges
in the flanks, of de Barre, and those above and below the arms of
England--Countess Joan's mother was Eleanor, daughter of King Edward I
of England....
By the 15th century the diamond or lozenge had become the normal
platform for the display of the single woman's arms in Britain, France
and the Low Countries, and so it continues to this day, the somewhat
harsh shape being softened at times into the oval. However, whereas
the oval has sometimes been used by men, the lozenge seems an entirely
female device."
I have to defer to these people; they're experts in the field, and I
should note that the other heraldry book I have "The Oxford Guide" says
the same thing. I like the Slater book because it has a better index
and it is easier to find things.
For the reasons I've discussed in my posts, Sir Walter Griffith,
husband of Jane Neville, died before she did and thus could not
possiblly have married Agnes Constable.
Jeff Chipman
WJho...@aol.com
writes:
<< She survived Rhys II by 50 years, so perhaps She
married him 1370 / 5 as Douglas believes, but it could be a couple years
earlier
and she 20 or less at this marriage. If John is son of Thomas and Anne his
birthdate is perhaps 1390-95. He died in 1471. Next We have Walter born
between
1415 and 1430- died ? >>
If we fix Thomas Griffith's birthyear at 1377 then his son John could have
been born as early as 1394. There is no tight restriction on his mother Anne
Blount who's father died 21 Jul 1403 at Shrewsbury.
The right restriction on the top comes in from John's son Walter who has
marriage document in 1435. If we allow him to be at least five, then his father
has an upper bound date of 1413, allowing John to be at least 17 at the birth
of his son Walter.
So Sir John Griffith of Wychnor has a birth range of 1394/1413 while his son
Walter gets the range 1411/30
I've already worked out the chronology in my database, and with just what
we've had so far on this thread there is no problem with Walter having two wives,
just as there is none with him having one.
We need more documents. And maybe we should question the birthyear of Thomas
Griffith at 1377
Will Johnson
WJho...@aol.com
writes:
<< Jeff can`t be right because some evidence appears to disagree
with his claim ? I for One am not totally convinced that He is wrong. You
say
that this lozenge being an unmarried woman (spinster/ widow) is only a
modern
heraldic idea, but when it comes to heraldry, how modern is modern ? I don`t
know. >>
1) I'm not saying "[he] can't be right". I'm saying his argument is not
convincing. That makes me agnostic on the argument.
2) I did not say the "... lozenge being an unmarried woman was a modern
idea". What I said, was an argument on medieval usage, quoting as authority a
*modern* dictionary, is not a valid argument. Esp. as we have quotes that
specifically state, that medieval usage did *not* conform to the rules that we might
wish.
Will Johnson
Douglas Richardson
Margaret Zouche's 2nd husband, William Walsall, is on record as being
Sheriff of Shropshire and Staffordshire several times in the period,
1377 to 1407 [see Roskell, House of Parliament, 4 (1992): 753]. As a
general rule, men were about 40 when they first served as sheriff.
This provides us a rough estimated birthdate for William Walsall of
circa 1347. In correct, Margaret Zouche's 2nd husband was about 20
years younger than her first husband, Sir Rhys ap Griffith, who was
born in 1325.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson
In an earlier post, you wrote the following:
"The marriage of Walter Griffith and Jane Neville is well-proved by a
marriage indenture dated 23 Sep 1435 between Sir John Griffith, father
of Walter Griffith, who is his son and heir, and Joan, countess of
Westmorland (Joan Beaufort), grandmother of Jane Neville;
the marriage to take place on 6 Nov 1435." END OF QUOTE.
I can't see that you provided us a reference for the indenture document
you cited for the marriage. When time permits, can you post a full
transcript of this item, along with its source? Also, I'm curious to
know if this indenture is the same document as the defeasance bond
involving this marriage which is mentioned in the A2A Catalogue.
mj...@btinternet.com
jeffchip9 schrieb:
> Folks, I don't know what to tell you here. According to The Oxford
> Guide to Heraldry," p. 62 the lozenge is "a diamond shape with four
> equal sides, best known not as a charge but in the place of the shield
> as a vehicle on which to display the arms of a spinster or widow...."
> Note that the paragraph admits that sometimes the lozenge was used as a
> charge, as it was in this case.
Thanks Jeff. Unfortunately you have misinterpreted this. Sometimes,
indeed, the lozenge is used as a charge; that is to say, it appears as
an element within a coat of arms. But when it appears as a charge, it
has no particular significance: it is just part of the design, in the
same way that a cross might be, or a cup, or a wheel etc etc.
Occasionally charges do have sigificance: e.g. the use of a label on
the arms to indicate an elderst son during his father's lifetime; the
use of 'cadency' marks. In this case, though, it doesn't seem that
this is the case (although if someone could provide me with a blazon of
the arms so I could tell where the lozenge is displayed, perhaps we
could be more certain).
Where the lozenge *does* have significance is when it is used "in place
of the shield" to "display the arms of a spinster of widow". In the
instant case, it is not so used, because the arms in question appear
within a shield.
We cannot conclude that the arms displayed on the Burton Agnes tomb are
those of a widow or spinster.
Kind regards
Michael
Douglas Richardson
jeffchip9 wrote:
> I do not agree with your transcription; I can make out the word "Mary."
I've had a lot of experience reading the Elizabethan script, including
documents which are faint or stained. The document you provided me is
quite legible and written in a good hand. There is no word Mary in the
caption which accompanies the drawing of the Griffith tomb at Burton
Agnes. The word you are reading as Mary is "w'ch" [which]. The first
letter "w" is clearly formed. It is the same exact letter that
commences the word "wife." It is not in any sense a capital M. The
same letter "w" also precedes the word "w'th" [i.e., with] twice
elsewhere in the text. In all four instances, the letter "w" is
clearly legible. The caption states that Sir Walter and his wife
Joane had a son and daughter who "died in there tender yeres." The
names of the two children are not stated.
As for Sir Walter Griffith, the Griffith pedigree you supplied me with
the drawing states the following:
"Sir Walter Griffith of Anneys Burtone in Yorkshire knight died in the
Twentye one Yeare of King Edward ye 4 in ye yeare of Christ 1481 on ye
9 of August."
This death date agrees perfectly with the death date for Sir Walter
Griffith which is given in the other Griffith pedigree published in
Misc. Gen. et Heraldica, 1 (1868): 64, namely the vigil of St. Laurence
Anno 1481, which is August 9, 1481.
The pedigree you provided with the drawing of the tomb states that Sir
Walter Griffith married (1st) Jane Neville and (2nd) Agnes Constable.
The order of the marriages agrees perfectly with the Griffith pedigree
published in Misc. Gen. et Heraldica, 1 (1868): 64.
> As for the rest of it, so what? It doesn't support your case at all.
I merely stated my opinion that Sir Walter Griffith married both
Joan/Jane Neville and Agnes Constable. That is all. I wasn't trying
to make a "case."
> Jeff Chipman
jeffchip9
"The Oxford Guide" was written by a herald and the Fitzalan Pursivant
Extrordinary. These people are experts and their discussion of the
lozenge makes it easy to understand. Jane Neville did not invent the
lozenge, she simply followed a custom that had been observed for at
least 100 years. It is an absolute genealogical fact that her husband
died before she did, and therefore could not have married Agnes
Constable. The only purpose of a lozenge is to indicate that a woman
is single, either a spinster or a widow and it is still in use today.
This is not some esoteric practice. Now we have people saying that her
husband could have been born anywhere between 1411 and 1430. I say he
was born ca. 1415. A few years one way or the other is not going to
make much difference. We know that Jane's brother John was born in
1418, so that gives us a loose idea of what we're working with here.
Again, a few years isn't going to sink the ship.
The manor of Burton Agnes, which came into the Griffith family through
marriage with an heiress of the Somerville family which had failed in
the male line, was passed from father to son for many generations. I
have proved that there were 3 Walter Griffiths. Walter Griffith I
beget Walter II who beget Walter III, which is proven by the chain of
holding the manor.
This is not a subjective situation. I am not taking a poll of who
agrees with me and who agrees with somebody else. I am stating a
genealogical truth in a public forum so that members of my family and
others who descend from these people won't have to deal with this
situation again. We should bear in mind that the people in the books
that Doug Richardson writes and other similar volumes deal with real
people who are somebody's relations, and as such deserve an accurate
accounting.
Doug, of course you are trying to make a case. In this instance you
are wrong. Nitpicking with my transcription (which I think is better
than yours) isn't going to change that. It's not Elizabethan, it's
Stuart, although very early Stuart (James I having become king in
1603). I urge you and others who seem to have difficulty understanding
the heraldic evidence in this situation consult some reliable
reference. Jane Neville's husband Sir Walter Griffith I did not marry
Agnes Constable because he was dead. I am not an expert in either
medieval genealogy or heraldry, but as a genealogist for many years I
know when I don't know, and find answers to my questions using the best
material I can. What I see here is a complete lack of understanding of
the heraldic evidence at the Griffith/Neville tomb or worse, ignoring
it. Again, I must say the only reason a woman then or now displays a
lozenge in whatever form is to indicate she was single. It has
absolutely no other purpose than that and I again hope that people will
research this topic.
As far as I'm concerned, this settles the matter. Descendants of these
people have the right to claim a descent from Edward III.
Jeff Chipman
mj...@btinternet.com
jeffchip9 wrote:
> This is it. I have posted relevant quotes from two books on heraldry.
> "The Oxford Guide" was written by a herald and the Fitzalan Pursivant
> Extrordinary. These people are experts and their discussion of the
> lozenge makes it easy to understand.
Sorry, Jeff, but you have clearly misunderstood it. As explained, and
as made clear in your extract from "The Oxford Guide", with whose
author I am well acquainted, the lozenge is used to display the arms of
a widow or a spinster; it is not used as a charge to indicate this.
> It is an absolute genealogical fact that her husband
> died before she did
Whoa!
> The only purpose of a lozenge is to indicate that a woman
> is single, either a spinster or a widow and it is still in use today.
In place of the shield, not placed on the shield. The lozenge is used
(as the Oxford Guide states) as a symbol on shields, and as such has no
particular meaning. For instance, a lozenge features on the Montagu
arms - are you suggesting this means each member of the Montagu family
is several times a widow?
> This is not some esoteric practice. Now we have people saying that her
> husband could have been born anywhere between 1411 and 1430. I say he
> was born ca. 1415. A few years one way or the other is not going to
> make much difference. We know that Jane's brother John was born in
> 1418, so that gives us a loose idea of what we're working with here.
> Again, a few years isn't going to sink the ship.
> The manor of Burton Agnes, which came into the Griffith family through
> marriage with an heiress of the Somerville family which had failed in
> the male line, was passed from father to son for many generations. I
> have proved that there were 3 Walter Griffiths.
With respect, you have not "proved it"; you have argued it. Some of
your evidence is misguided, and some of it is contradicted by other,
good evidence.
> This is not a subjective situation. I am not taking a poll of who
> agrees with me and who agrees with somebody else. I am stating a
> genealogical truth in a public forum so that members of my family and
> others who descend from these people won't have to deal with this
> situation again. We should bear in mind that the people in the books
> that Doug Richardson writes and other similar volumes deal with real
> people who are somebody's relations, and as such deserve an accurate
> accounting.
Agreed. But unfortunately you are doing the opposite of what you state
is your intention when you miscontrue the evidence.
> Doug, of course you are trying to make a case. In this instance you
> are wrong. Nitpicking with my transcription (which I think is better
> than yours) isn't going to change that. It's not Elizabethan, it's
> Stuart, although very early Stuart (James I having become king in
> 1603). I urge you and others who seem to have difficulty understanding
> the heraldic evidence in this situation consult some reliable
> reference. Jane Neville's husband Sir Walter Griffith I did not marry
> Agnes Constable because he was dead. I am not an expert in either
> medieval genealogy or heraldry,
Clearly; but why won't you accept the expertise of those who might be
more knowledgeable than yourself? That, it seems to me, is the truly
blinkered position in this debate.
> What I see here is a complete lack of understanding of
> the heraldic evidence at the Griffith/Neville tomb or worse, ignoring
> it.
Agreed, but you have been given the opportunity to reassess your
misunderstanding. I hope you will do so.
> Again, I must say the only reason a woman then or now displays a
> lozenge in whatever form is to indicate she was single. It has
> absolutely no other purpose than that and I again hope that people will
> research this topic.
I have researched it, extensively, for many years - not just by reading
two "beginners' guides". Again, you are mistaken in your apprehension.
Perhaps you should do some further research, examining actual
instances relevant to the time period etc, if you are not prepared to
accept the advice of others. Can you quote one other actual instance
of a lozenge being displayed on a shield to indicate viduity or
spinsterhood?
>
> As far as I'm concerned, this settles the matter. Descendants of these
> people have the right to claim a descent from Edward III.
Sorry Jeff, but I have to disagree, with the greatest of respect. In
making statements such as this you are perpetuating the bad genealogy
you purport to rail against.
Kind regards
Michael
Brad Verity
I was glad when you said a few days ago that you were going to stick to
your guns because I thought that would lead to more evidence on the
Griffiths coming to light. More evidence did come to light - namely,
the 1511 tablet from the Burton Agnes church, transcribed in
'Miscellanea Genealogica et Heraldica', Volume 1.
But now sticking to your guns has led you to ignore this piece of
evidence and back into the area of heraldic interpretation. A few days
ago you were insistent that the heraldry on the tomb had to mean the
knight was the son of Jane Neville. Now that idea's gone, and you are
insisting that the heraldry on the tomb has to mean Jane Neville (at
least she's back in the tomb) survived her husband.
jeffchip9 wrote:
[snip]
> The manor of Burton Agnes, which came into the Griffith family through
> marriage with an heiress of the Somerville family which had failed in
> the male line, was passed from father to son for many generations.
Yes - no one is saying otherwise.
> I
> have proved that there were 3 Walter Griffiths.
No you have not. You have insisted on this, in spite of mounting
evidence to the contrary.
> Walter Griffith I
> beget Walter II who beget Walter III, which is proven by the chain of
> holding the manor.
You would actually need IPMs to prove the descent of the manor
possession. To date, you haven't produced any, though you now know
that one apparently existed, in some form, for Sir John Griffith (d.
1471).
> This is not a subjective situation. I am not taking a poll of who
> agrees with me and who agrees with somebody else.
I never thought you were.
> I am stating a
> genealogical truth in a public forum so that members of my family and
> others who descend from these people won't have to deal with this
> situation again.
I hate to disillusion you, but the case is never closed - on any line
of descent - when it comes to medieval genealogy. New evidence
continually surfaces.
> We should bear in mind that the people in the books
> that Doug Richardson writes and other similar volumes deal with real
> people who are somebody's relations, and as such deserve an accurate
> accounting.
Everyone is trying to provide such an accurate accounting. In this
case, however, accuracy is not on your side - there were not three
Walter Griffiths.
[snip]
> Jane Neville's husband Sir Walter Griffith I did not marry
> Agnes Constable because he was dead.
This is a rather incredible statement. Jeff, you have the testimony of
the son of the entombed Sir Walter Griffith, per the tablet he
commissioned in 1511. The son states that his mother was Agnes
Constable (d. 1505), and that his father died in 1481 and is buried in
the tomb with his wife Jane. Further, that his father was the son in
turn of Sir John Griffith (d. 1471). Even further, he calls himself
the second Walter Griffith and his father the first Walter Griffith.
Some of these facts are backed up by independent evidence (Agnes's
will, Sir Walter's 1531 will, Rhys Griffith's 1494 IPM).
Sir Walter Griffith (d. 1531) would not have made a mistake in the
identities of his parents and grandparents. As eager as you are for a
descent from Edward III for your family, so would be Sir Walter, and he
would have gotten it correct if it had occured as you propose.
> I am not an expert in either
> medieval genealogy or heraldry, but as a genealogist for many years I
> know when I don't know, and find answers to my questions using the best
> material I can.
Great.
> What I see here is a complete lack of understanding of
> the heraldic evidence at the Griffith/Neville tomb or worse, ignoring
> it.
What I see is you completely ignoring the evidence of Sir Walter's
tablet.
> Again, I must say the only reason a woman then or now displays a
> lozenge in whatever form is to indicate she was single. It has
> absolutely no other purpose than that and I again hope that people will
> research this topic.
Yet you have not even acknowledged John Higgins, who did take the
trouble to research this topic and transcribe some very helpful
genealogical details on your Griffith ancestors.
> As far as I'm concerned, this settles the matter. Descendants of these
> people have the right to claim a descent from Edward III.
I can't help but wonder, given your last statement here, just how many
other proposed (and published) lines of descent from Edward III and
Edward I would fall apart as this one does under close scrutiny. I'm
researching from the other direction - Edward I forward - and have not
yet reached the gateway ancestors to colonial America.
Cheers, -------------Brad
mj...@btinternet.com
jeffchip9 schrieb:
> I specifically noted an example from the 1300s concerning a lozenge
> (e.g. the granddaughter of Edward I) to answer your objection... I want
> to quote from "The Complete Book Of Heraldry," by Stephen Slater
> (Lorenz Books, 2002) pp. 112-113:
>
> A shield, being an article of warfare, was traditionally associated
> with men, and as such it was not considered appropriate for women.
> From the late medieval period, a diamond -shaped device--the
> lozenge--came into use for the armigerous lady A remarkable English
> seal has survived from around 1347 for Joan, daughter of Henrie Count de
> Barre, widow of John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey. Included in the seal's
> complex design are five tiny lozenges; the central lozenge bears the arms
> of Warenne, the lozenges in the flanks, of de Barre, and those above and
> below the arms of England--Countess Joan's mother was Eleanor, daughter
> of King Edward I of England....
Jeff, just to show that the example you quoted earlier doesn't show
what you think it shows, note the wording here:
"a shield was... not considered appropriate for women" so "the lozenge
came into use"
- i..e. as the vehicle for the display, as the shape on which the arms
were displayed instead of a shield.
"included in the seal's complex design are five tiny lozenges: the
central lozenge bears the arms of..."
- note each lozenge has the respective coats of arms displayed within
it - i.e. the lozenge is not displayed on the field of the arms as a
symbol, but rather, the arms are displayed on and within the lozenge.
This is quite different to your description of the heraldry on the
Burton Agnes tomb, of which you say "the lozenge was on the shield, not
the shape of the shield itself".
> By the 15th century the diamond or lozenge had become the normal
> platform for the display of the single woman's arms in Britain, France
> and the Low Countries, and so it continues to this day,
Here's the nub of it: "the lozenge (is) the normal platform for the
display of the single woman's arms."
If you make a study of funereal or monumental heraldry you will find
many, many instances of the *arms* displayed a *lozenge* to indicate
this status; so far as any of the authorities with which I am familiar
is concerned, you won't find one which displays a *lozenge* on the
*arms* to convey this.
I hope this makes things a bit clearer. We're all here to learn!
Kind regards
Michael
mj...@btinternet.com
Apologies - that was careless typing by me. I meant to write:
> If you make a study of funereal or monumental heraldry you will find
> many, many instances of the *arms* displayed ON a *lozenge* to indicate
> this status; so far as any of the authorities with which I am familiar
> is concerned, you won't find one which displays a *lozenge* on the
> *arms* to convey this.
MA-R
WJho...@aol.com
royala...@msn.com writes:
<< William Walsall, is on record as being Sheriff of Shropshire and
Staffordshire several times in the period, 1377 to 1407 [see Roskell, House of
Parliament, 4 (1992): 753]. As a general rule, men were about 40 when they first
served as sheriff. This provides us a rough estimated birthdate for William
Walsall of circa 1347. >>
I doubt any such general rule existed. The most we can know is that William
was an adult by 1377, and "able-bodied" enough to still be Sheriff in 1407 so
probably not in his eighties for example. But giving him a birth of "circa
1347" is just going to lead to more silly logic of the type of which we've seen
too much :)
Will Johnson
WJho...@aol.com
royala...@msn.com writes:
<< I can't see that you provided us a reference for the indenture document
you cited for the marriage. >>
E 326/3571 Indenture between Jane, countess of Westmoreland, and Sir John
Gryffyth, knight, for the marriage of Walter, son and heir of the latter, with
Jane, daughter of Sir Ralph Neville, knight, and of Mary, the countess's
daughter, the espousals to be solemnized on the sixth of November next. Sir John is
to settle on Walter and Jane lands in Anneys Burton (Burton Agnes) and
elsewhere in Yorkshire to the yearly value of 100 marks. &c.: York. 23 September, 14
Henry VI.
E 327/181 Defeasance of a bond concerning the marriage of Walter son and heir
of John Griffith, knight, and Joan daughter of Ralph Neville, knight 14 Hen VI
Tim Powys-Lybbe
<snip>
> A lozenge is a "shape," specifically a diamond shape. In heraldry it
> has never meant anything but the fact that the woman in question was
> single, either a spinster or a widow. The lozenge displays her arms.
> A coat can itself be diamond shaped, or it can be a charge on the coat.
<snip>
I trust I have not snipped beyond meaning but this looks like the core
proposition.
What I am not sure of is what the original arms you are referring to
were like: were they arms on a lozenge? Or were the arms on a shield
with a lozenge as a charge?
If the former they are definitely the arms of a maiden or a widow.
If the latter, there is no reference I can find that says the bearer was
a maiden or a widow.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
WJho...@aol.com
jeff...@hotmail.com writes:
<< Jane Neville did not invent the
lozenge, she simply followed a custom that had been observed for at
least 100 years >>
This statement is utterly absurd. You have given absolutely zero evidence
that a lozenge was used for any purpose whatsoever in this period of time. You
have only quoted a modern heraldry dictionary to "prove" your case of what
they did or didn't do five hundred years previously.
When this is pointed out, over and over, you simply argue your "opinion" more
without posting *any* new evidence to back it up. Do you think by repeating
yourself a hundred times, we'll finally agree?
Will Johnson
WJho...@aol.com
bat...@hotmail.com writes:
<< Sir Walter's 1531 will, >>
Does someone have the text of this will that they can post?
Thanks
Will Johnson
Brad Verity
> Does someone have the text of this will that they can post?
Dear Will,
The following paragraph is taken from the website
http://www.boyntons.us/yorkshire/people/lineage/collier/06early.html
"Her son, the second Sir Walter Griffith, was knighted in Scotland in
1497 by the Earl of Surrey when he repelled the invasion of James IV at
the time of Perkin Warbeck's insurrection. He was High Sheriff'of
Yorkshire in 1501,and at the time of his death in 1531 he was Constable
of Scarborough Castle. His will, which is full of interest, provides
that his body " be beried in the new Chappell, annexed to the Churche
of Sancte Martyn at Annas Burton, where my ladie, my moder lieth." He
wills that "a priest be wadged to pray for the leth of my soull, my
fader's and moder's--in the Church and Chappell of Annas Burton, where
my said moder is beried, for the space of fortie yeres after my
decesse, and to have yerely for his wages eight marces, supposing that
by such space as thies yeres shal be ended myne heires, of there
charitable mynd will devise for the helth of theire soulls and ours in
likewise; and so from heire to heire for ever, so to be continued,
whiche I pray God grante them grace for to do, according to the good
example of my moder that this did begyn." He refers to lands in Wales
which he sold to Sir Ryse ap Thomas, Kt., a fact of which we are
reminded by some modern glass in the Church."
Sir Walter's will was apparently printed in 'Testamenta Eboracensia'
Volume 5, p. 287.
Cheers, ---------Brad
jeffchip9
afternoon and I appreciate that he left John Higgins' comments
appended. This tablet is not mentioned in the Francis Thynne material
I sent Doug. John uses the phrase "uncertain provenance" and "if this
is in fact valid" and "appears to be a transcription," etc.
I have stated my case as well as I can. There is no doubt that the
diamond emblem on Jane Neville's tomb is a lozenge. Any other
interpretation is not supported by the literature or anything else. I
am confident that the College of Arms would agree that the emblem is a
lozenge and further that it means that the woman is single, and in this
case, a widow. Frankly, I think they would be the proper authority to
settle the question. For what it's worth, nobody has ever been able
to prove that Thomas Griffith was the grandson of Nicholas la Zouche.
The error that gives Sir Walter Griffith a second wife is a very old
one. It has been repeated in a variety of ways over the years, but
it's interesting to note that nobody has actually ever proved it by
means of a contemporary legal document. Walter and Jane were not of
the class of people who would have made a child marriage. Jane brought
no title and no estate to the marriage. She was not an heiress or the
daughter of a peer who was entitled to some sort of inheritance.
Someone suggested (and I don't remember who) that a financial
consideration was involved, and though that is not proven, it seems a
good theory to explain why the wealthy Joan Beaufort was involved,
rather than Jane's parents who were alive and well at the time.
The restoration of the church at Burton Agnes was begun in the
mid-1800s.
John's notes say that the tablet says that the Sir Walter living in
1511 was the second Sir Walter. He does not date the tablet to 1511.
Since I have no idea where the tablet is, and can't have anybody look
at it, and the SAL material says nothing about it, what do you want me
to say, Doug? 1791 notes by a country rector are great, but like
anything else should be traced back to the source, if possible.
Sometimes such things are all that is available on an event, and we
have to weigh the source and decide how much credence we want to give
it. What you have here is a 1791 and an 1868 source commenting (I
guess) on something that was evidently much earlier. Agnes Constable
was not an heiress either, but had an interesting baronial background
and is worth studying. We all know that herald's visitations, which
again are sometimes the only source for an event, are to be used with
caution. Any material generated by a family (and I don't mean wills,
deeds, IPMs, in other words what we would call today "court records")
need to be used with caution. John concludes his comments by saying
"obviously it would be desirable to have more information on this
tablet and its history...."
I don't have a problem with that, if possible. I will say that John's
assessment of it is considerably less enthusiatic than Doug's. Unless
Doug can produce this thing, we're relying on heresay.
What is not heresay is the lozenge on Jane Neville's coat. This is
something she did herself. I have explained that there are a variety
of ways to display a lozenge. Sometimes I wonder if people really read
the stuff I post. An example of a grandaughter of Edward I using the
lozenge of 1347 was apparently ignored. The main thing about the
lozenge is its shape. Sure there are other parts of it, but what
identifies a lozenge as a lozenge, regardless of how it is displayed is
the diamond shape. What is so difficult about that? The statement
that the lozenge can only be used as a coat is simply not true. Jane
Neville's lozenge on her coat on her tomb is complete proof that her
husband was dead when she died. I know the provenance of the drawing of
her arms and can date it, and can further say where you can find it and
get a copy of it. Doug seems to think that the fact that the tablet
was not at St. Martin's proves something; what it says to me is that
that gives us even more reason to scrutinize this evidence carefully,
since it was not in situ.
Since I do not believe it is going to do any good to keep telling
people (and by the way, where is the proof that this Walter Griffith
who m. Neville was a knight? Maybe he was, I don't know.) that Jane
Neville's husband Walter could not have married Agnes Constable because
he was dead, I have a proposition: let's let the College of Arms
decide what it means. Going around in circles will accomplish nothing.
Since we have a drawing of Jane's arms made in 1604, let's see what
the real experts have to say about it. I can at least tell them where
it came from and who has custody ot the material (as to what happened
to the original scroll, I have no idea, but the rendering of her tomb
is actually a photograph of the scroll with a ruler inserted to provide
a sense of scale).
Evidently this matter has stirred up a hornet's nest which has spilled
over into several threads, so let's put it to rest.
Jeff Chipman
R. Battle
<snip>
> Unless Doug can produce this thing [the 1511 tablet/obit list-RB], we're
> relying on heresay.
>
> What is not heresay is the lozenge on Jane Neville's coat. This is
> something she did herself.
Presumably you don't mean that she carved it herself. :-) As you've
described the source, though, it is as much hearsay as the 1511 item--one
is a purported drawing of a monument, and the other is a purported
transcription of an inscription.
> I have explained that there are a variety
> of ways to display a lozenge. Sometimes I wonder if people really read
> the stuff I post. An example of a grandaughter of Edward I using the
> lozenge of 1347 was apparently ignored. The main thing about the
> lozenge is its shape. Sure there are other parts of it, but what
> identifies a lozenge as a lozenge, regardless of how it is displayed is
> the diamond shape. What is so difficult about that? The statement
> that the lozenge can only be used as a coat is simply not true.
No one has made that claim as far as I can tell from the posts I've read.
Lozenges can indeed be used in several ways; the problem is that you
appear to be claiming that no matter how a lozenge is used it means the
same thing. A lozenge within a shield says nothing about the gender or
marital status of the person represented by the arms; it is only when a
lozenge is used instead of a shield that that is the case.
-Robert Battle
mj...@btinternet.com
R. Battle schrieb:
> Lozenges can indeed be used in several ways; the problem is that you
> appear to be claiming that no matter how a lozenge is used it means the
> same thing. A lozenge within a shield says nothing about the gender or
> marital status of the person represented by the arms; it is only when a
> lozenge is used instead of a shield that that is the case.
Robert
Thank you for showing that someone reads and understands what I have
taken the trouble to write! Jeff unfortunately does not appear to
engage at all, but to stick with his own peculiar mis-reading of what
ought to be a basic position.
Regards
Michael
Tim Powys-Lybbe
<snip>
> I have a proposition: let's let the College of Arms decide what it
> means. Going around in circles will accomplish nothing. Since we
> have a drawing of Jane's arms made in 1604, let's see what the real
> experts have to say about it.
<snip>
May I add a warning or two here? In 1996 my father got a herald to do
some work for him. The result was some genealogy that showed at least
five serious errors in either genealogy or heraldry for the early middle
ages. If they had bothered to check against even CP they would have
found some of these errors. I suspect that one problem is that the
Visitation documents have the status of court records as they were
produced by command of the sovereign; therefore the heralds accept
anything that is on Visitation documents as gospel.
The other warning is that the fees will be heavy as the English heralds
have no salaries and have to earn a living from their customers.
Douglas Richardson
jeffchip9 wrote:
> John's notes say that the tablet says that the Sir Walter living in
> 1511 was the second Sir Walter. He does not date the tablet to 1511.
Stebbing Shaw states that the tabula obituum (list of deaths) was made
["facta"] by Sir Walter Griffith II {"secundo"] in 1511. Thus it
would appear that the document tells its maker and gives the date for
its creation.
The transcript of the document in Miscellanea Genealogica et Heraldica
1:64 which John Higgins already posted commences with the following
statement:
"Obitus et propagationes antecessorum secundi Walteri Griffith militis
qui hanc tabulam fieri fecit 26° die Septembris A° d'ni 1511 A° 3°
Henrici 8."
I think that is rather plain. Don't you?
> Since I have no idea where the tablet is, and can't have anybody look
> at it, and the SAL material says nothing about it, what do you want me
> to say, Doug?
Shaw indicates that the Griffith tabula obituum is part of Harleian
Manuscript 1077, f. 94a. You should be able to obtain a copy of this
document at a nominal charge from the British Library. Good luck in
your sleuthing!
Blair Southerden
I am intrigued by your statement about the 'general rule' for the age of
first service as sheriff: particularly because of the position of Sheriff
(or more properly deputy Sheriff of Westmorland) held by Sir Gilbert
Kirketon in 1247 and later. Could you elaborate further on this rule,
please?
Regards
Blair