Coats of Arms have nothing to do with clothing

While tracing along the tree of my ancestors, I ran across one Sir John de Greystoke, listed in the genealogy as the third baron of Greystoke, but elsewhere online he is generally referred to as the fourth baron of Greystoke.

Now the name Greystoke may strike you as familiar. Hmm, where have I heard that before? Oh, yes. In the Tarzan story. Tarzan is a Greystoke in a 1984 film about the famous "apeman" and is referred to as the sixth earl of Greystoke. 

Whether this has any ties at all to the real Greystokes matters not except that if Tarzan really were part of the Greystoke family of Cumberland, England, from which my lineage descends, then he would have attained a higher rank in the peerage than my ancestor, given that earls rank higher than barons.

In a post to come in a couple of weeks, I'll discuss the peerage system in England, not just because of John. No, in the family tree I'm working with lords and ladies, earls and countesses, and other assorted peers appear with a disturbing frequency and date back as far as the 12th century, perhaps farther. I don't really know that much about the peerage and intend to obtain at least a rudimentary understanding of how it works.

Now great-great to the x grandfather John actually had a sort of distinguished career in the ambassadorial service and could have known James I of Scotland as a result. We'll look at all that next week.

So, what are we talking about this week? Simple, the coat of arms pictured above. 

As with the peerage, I know nothing about coats of arms, so I spent my time this week learning a bit about them. 

The College of Arms is "the official heraldic authority for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and much  of the Commonwealth," according to their website. Heraldry encompasses coats of arms, but the college is responsible for much more:  "The College maintains registers of arms, pedigrees, genealogies, Royal Licences, changes of name, and flags. The heralds, besides having ceremonial duties, advise on all matters relating to the peerage and baronetage, precedence, honours and ceremonial as well as national and community symbols including flags."

Whew.

Coats of arms were first used in the 1100s in England as means of identification. Knights in full armor weren't recognizable and developed what became coats of arms as a way of identifying who they were in battle or in competition.

The Normans, who conquered England in 1066, were responsible for naming the various elements of a coat of arms and used French terms because, well, because. The background colors were "gules" or red, "azure" or blue, "vert" or green, "sable" or black, and "purpure" or purple. Metals were "or" or gold and "argent" or silver. Two other backgrounds were ermine, which suggested the white fur and black tail tips of stoats, and vair, supposedly suggesting squirrel skins, but the colors are blue and white. Blue squirrels?

On theses backgrounds you could place "ordinaries,' simple shapes such as stripes, chevrons or crosses, and "charges," crosses (more elaborate than simple + designs), balls, rings, crescents, diamonds, or flowers. Or the "charges" could be animals, real or legendary. Each animal represented some sort of quality. 

So the coat of arms for the Greystokes is described as "Barry argent and azure three chaplets of roses gules." Now "Barry argent" isn't a color. Instead, the barry is reputed to be a form of the French "bari" or bars. So that translates to silver and blue bars with three rings of red roses. Don't know why they can't just say that. 

During the medieval period, coats of arms became popular with the upper classes, though some in the lower classes adopted them as well. The main charge was usually the main design of the seals used to verify the origin of a document. 

The College of Arms has, since the 15th century, been responsible for granting new coats of arms. The college's website also makes this point: "Coats of arms belong to specific individuals and families and there is no such thing as a coat of arms for a family name."

Information taken from:

* www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/

* www.english-heritage.org.uk/guide-to-heraldry

* www.heraldryandcrests.com/blogs/news/english-heraldry

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Road not Taken

Image
I mentioned last week that I would check to see if I was related to Robert Frost or Robert Burns. I meant it as a joke, but as the week progressed, I decided I would follow up on the idea, including another couple of famous poets, W.B. Yeats and John Keats while I was at it.  As I've said before, if you broaden your search beyond direct ancestors -- your great and great-to-the-X grandparents, the chances you are related to someone famous multiply greatly, and some of the genealogy sites make the search pretty easy. Give them enough information to pinpoint the person you're looking for, click an icon, and voila, the information pops up.  The program I use won't identify relations beyond 15 generations, but you can still go back pretty far. I ran the four men I cited above and found that our family is related to two of them -- Yeats, who married a 10th cousin, three times removed, and Frost, a 6th cousin, three times removed. I'll skip which side of the family is related ...
Read more

TJ and the Liberties: That infamous letter

Image
A letter such as the one sent by the Danbury Baptist Association to a sitting president needed to be answered. When I first read it, I was a little confused because the letter doesn't seem to indicate that the writers knew anything about the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment, which were ratified a decade before they contacted President Jefferson.  Now I wonder if they were testing the President. How committed was he to religious freedom? After all, his politics trended to a "states' rights" perspective. Now that he held the president, would he commit to defending religious rights for everyone as part of the duties of his office, or might he side with states that had enacted establishment legislation and defer to them in the hopes that they, like his home state, might see the light and disestablish their Christian denominations? I've not read widely enough to settle these questions. But keep them in mind when you consider the contents of the letter. Take a min...
Read more

TJ and the Liberties: Who were those pesky Baptists

Image
I neglected to mention last time the outcome of the "Bill Establishing a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion" -- it failed. Perhaps you already guessed that.  I should also point out Patrick Henry's reasoning on the bill. Simply put people who follow religion -- and yes, I know that whole argument about how "Christianity's not a religion, etc." -- and who regularly attend churches for religious instruction tend to be the kind of citizens we want to foster: prone to follow rules (laws), not given as much to being quarrelsome, more generous than the average unchurced person, regular nice people. And government should want to prop up an institution that creates these law-abiding, somewhat passive citizens. I see this reasoning quoted in an annual ad by a commercial business that used to appear in the papers I read. Ben Franklin -- hardly a Christian icon -- and George Washington -- pretty much your standard Anglican churchgoer -- believed the same ...
Read more