I found this today thanks to Pinterest:
http://www.thedigitalwalters.org/Data/WaltersManuscripts/html/W847
http://www.thedigitalwalters.org/Data/WaltersManuscripts/html/W847/description.html
Here is a sample page:
The book was completed around 1589 and belonged originally to belonged to the Earls Spencer. It contains a very incomplete record of the arms of prominent nobility and knighthood of every reign from William I (attributed arms of course) to Elizabeth. It would be interesting to discover who was responsible for its execution, a herald, or perhaps an interested amateur?
[edited by MG to reduce the size of the image]
A Book of English Heraldry (1589)
- Chris Green
- Posts: 3621
- Joined: 10 Jul 2012, 13:06
- Location: Karlstad, Sweden
A Book of English Heraldry (1589)
Chris Green
IAAH President
Bertilak de Hautdesert
IAAH President
Bertilak de Hautdesert
- Chris Green
- Posts: 3621
- Joined: 10 Jul 2012, 13:06
- Location: Karlstad, Sweden
Re: A Book of English Heraldry (1589)
A word of warning - do not assume that the all arms depicted are correct. I have already spotted a couple of errors.
Chris Green
IAAH President
Bertilak de Hautdesert
IAAH President
Bertilak de Hautdesert
- Arthur Radburn
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: 11 Jul 2012, 09:56
Re: A Book of English Heraldry (1589)
Very interesting, Chris. Thanks for posting.
Regards
Arthur Radburn
Arthur Radburn
- JMcMillan
- Posts: 613
- Joined: 13 Jul 2012, 22:33
- Location: United States
Re: A Book of English Heraldry (1589)
Given the origins of the Spencers' own arms, it seems somehow fitting that they would commission an armorial containing similarly...shall we say creative...bearings.
Joseph McMillan
Alexandra, Virginia, USA
Alexandra, Virginia, USA
- Chris Green
- Posts: 3621
- Joined: 10 Jul 2012, 13:06
- Location: Karlstad, Sweden
Re: A Book of English Heraldry (1589)
JMcMillan wrote:Given the origins of the Spencers' own arms, it seems somehow fitting that they would commission an armorial containing similarly...shall we say creative...bearings.
For the curious, the Spencers claimed to be descended from the prominent medieval Despencers and assumed differenced Despencer arms in 1595. It is said that the "arms deal" was brokered by Richard Lee, Clarenceux King of Arms (and it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the book was put together by him).
Despencer: Quarterly 1st & 4th: Argent; 2nd & 3rd: Gules, a fret or, over all a bendlet sable
The Spencer arms were in fact: Azure a fess Ermine between 6 sea-mews’ heads erased Argent. But those clearly didn't pass muster for a nouveau riche family on the rise. So the arms became:
The Spencer who assumed the Despencer arms was Sir John Spencer Kt (1549-1600). He bore them with the original arms, as his funerary display shows:
Robert Spencer MP, was shortly after his father's death created a Knight of the Garter (1601) and 1st Baron Spencer of Wormleighton (1603). It may well have been he who arranged for the original arms to be assigned to obscurity.
Chris Green
IAAH President
Bertilak de Hautdesert
IAAH President
Bertilak de Hautdesert
- JMcMillan
- Posts: 613
- Joined: 13 Jul 2012, 22:33
- Location: United States
Re: A Book of English Heraldry (1589)
Yes, indeed, although are the arms "assumed" if they're usurped with the connivance of a king of arms?
Horace Round exposed all this (and more) back in the early 1900s. See "The Rise of the Spencers" at https://books.google.com/books?id=-MZsA ... &q&f=false
(I recently had a conversation with a fairly eminent heraldist who suggested that the College of Arms was remiss in not having the Queen read Round's essay before she permitted her son to marry into such a family. Instead, she had to find out the hard way.)
Horace Round exposed all this (and more) back in the early 1900s. See "The Rise of the Spencers" at https://books.google.com/books?id=-MZsA ... &q&f=false
(I recently had a conversation with a fairly eminent heraldist who suggested that the College of Arms was remiss in not having the Queen read Round's essay before she permitted her son to marry into such a family. Instead, she had to find out the hard way.)
Joseph McMillan
Alexandra, Virginia, USA
Alexandra, Virginia, USA
- Chris Green
- Posts: 3621
- Joined: 10 Jul 2012, 13:06
- Location: Karlstad, Sweden
Re: A Book of English Heraldry (1589)
Yes, indeed, although are the arms "assumed" if they're usurped with the connivance of a king of arms?
I would say that they were assumed. Clarenceux may well have been bribed and had no legal grounds for his ruling. His position was no different from that of a judge bribed to reach a not guilty verdict. Even if he was not bribed, he still had no legal justification for his decision.
Chris Green
IAAH President
Bertilak de Hautdesert
IAAH President
Bertilak de Hautdesert
- JMcMillan
- Posts: 613
- Joined: 13 Jul 2012, 22:33
- Location: United States
Re: A Book of English Heraldry (1589)
Round's take was that Clarenceux Lee was the instigator, seeing an opportunity to suck up to someone who stood well at court as well as to collect the fees for the new grant and all the pedigrees that had to be researched, or rather invented, to justify it.
I agree that what Lee did was a gross violation of the law of arms, but his successors have known for more than a century that the grant was fraudulent and have done nothing to correct the matter.
As for the terminology, it seems to me that if they were "granted," that precludes their being "assumed." Usurped, yes, but not assumed.
I agree that what Lee did was a gross violation of the law of arms, but his successors have known for more than a century that the grant was fraudulent and have done nothing to correct the matter.
As for the terminology, it seems to me that if they were "granted," that precludes their being "assumed." Usurped, yes, but not assumed.
Joseph McMillan
Alexandra, Virginia, USA
Alexandra, Virginia, USA
- Chris Green
- Posts: 3621
- Joined: 10 Jul 2012, 13:06
- Location: Karlstad, Sweden
Re: A Book of English Heraldry (1589)
As for the terminology, it seems to me that if they were "granted," that precludes their being "assumed." Usurped, yes, but not assumed.
Neither assumed nor usurped seems precisely to fit the bill in this case. The crime was really Lee's not Spencer's.
I agree that what Lee did was a gross violation of the law of arms, but his successors have known for more than a century that the grant was fraudulent and have done nothing to correct the matter.
That they did not (and it is clearly far too late now to do anything - think of the number of important people whose arms would need to be amended, starting with the Spencer-Churchills!) underlines the fundamental problem that the College of Arms has had since its inception: Is it a Court and an authority, or is it a sort of specialised service industry for the well-heeled?
The College made some effort to act as an authority, but the Visitations ended at the end of the 17th century. The Court of Chivalry met seldom and seemed to have slid into oblivion when it was resurrected in 1954 (and then the Court had first to rule as to whether it in fact still existed!). No-one could now bring a case against the Spencers. They would in effect be asking the College of Arms to try itself.
The "business arm" of the College has however been its mainstay for the last 500 years. This is hardly surprising, since the Kings of Arms and their colleagues receive remuneration only from fees. The income from the Sovereign has included non-heraldic work (coronations, weddings, funerals, etc), but this is irregular. Regular fee income has been derived from those seeking Grants of Arms and from research and recording of pedigrees.
For most of its history the College's juicy income no doubt came from those whose stars were in the ascendant - the nouveau riche, the newly enobled and similar. There is no doubt that in the late 16th century the Spencers were both well off and going places. Lee as Clarenceux would not have been unusual for his time (or indeed any time until Victorian morality began to bite) in wishing to use his position to improve his finances. No-one in the general public would have been in a position to question his heraldic decisions (no heraldic or antiquarian societies back then!). He had merely to avoid antagonising his colleagues, who may well have been in on the affair, or at least have been involved in similar "business". Once the deed was done, time would paper over any irregularities. Lee wouldn't care, being dead. His successors might spot the irregularities, but what could they do? Alienate their customers? Call into question their own infallibility?
Chris Green
IAAH President
Bertilak de Hautdesert
IAAH President
Bertilak de Hautdesert
- Chas Charles-Dunne
- Posts: 624
- Joined: 10 Jul 2012, 15:48
- Location: England - TL 80102 93862
- Contact:
Re: A Book of English Heraldry (1589)
I was told by Norroy & Ulster that three differences were required to create new arms out of old (fewer if the differences were major). The Spencer arms have four differences - the change from bendlet to bend and the addition of three charges there on.
I fail to see the problem.
I fail to see the problem.
Last edited by Chas Charles-Dunne on 24 Apr 2015, 15:26, edited 1 time in total.
Regards
Chas
IAAH Fellow
Chas
IAAH Fellow
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests