Comments for Cheshire Heraldry Web Journal (Blog)

Comment on A resisted temptation. by Martin Goldstraw

Martin Goldstraw — Wed, 15 May 2013 14:02:58 +0000

I succumbed!

Comment on Rare? Possibly but is it really worth £129? by Martin Goldstraw

Martin Goldstraw — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:36:26 +0000

It didn’t sell. Not surprising really!

Comment on A Jurisdictional Enigma by Mike Oettle

Mike Oettle — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 20:24:32 +0000

The examples you provide are clearly those of identical arms, Martin, which makes me wonder why Randal went to the trouble of acquiring land in Orkney and subsequently obtaining a grant/matriculation of arms.
He cannot have been unaware of the Dunham-Massey arms of Cheshire, since there is no armorial difference whatever.
Randal has also registered a Massey tartan – since my wife is a Massey, this was what first caught my attention in this regard.

Comment on Arms and Parish Councils - Burghwallis (Yorkshire) by Derek Wallis.

Derek Wallis. — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 18:54:58 +0000

What of the le Waleys family’s amorial bearings,
whe were there long before the Ann’s.

Comment on The BBC - George Booth, 2nd Earl of Warrington by Martin Goldstraw

Martin Goldstraw — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 13:06:50 +0000

In response to the question “are they really theirs” perhaps we should split this question into two parts. Does the panel belong to them? I would say that it does. Looking back at the provenance, although originally the contents of the chancel belonged to the Earl of Warrington, he, or more likely, his estate, undoubtedly disposed of the chancel by sale at some point. It can be safely assumed that with the sale of the chancel the contents were included; if not then they would have been removed and ownership retained by the Booths or their heirs.

Ownership of the chancel and its contents was then clearly vested in Mr. Chapman, who removed the armorial and either disposed of it or forgot about it. Either way, it came to be a part of the property which was the mill and its contents which was purchased by McVities in 1980. Therefore McVities have an undisputed claim to the ownership of the panel.

As to their right to display, my view is that they may display the panel as long as they do not claim that the arms are theirs. They can not be accused of usurpation because it is plainly obvious that the arms are those of the Earl of Warrington and they do not claim otherwise.

Comment on The BBC - George Booth, 2nd Earl of Warrington by Dr Bernard JUBY

Dr Bernard JUBY — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:37:07 +0000

Splendid but are they really theirs? The firm has no real right to display them, thus giving the impression that they are entitled to them.

There is probably a legal descendent who has a claim to ownership but I am not a lawyer versed in Property Law.

Comment on A Unicorn resurrected returns home to Lancashire. by Peter Harling

Peter Harling — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:45:59 +0000

Thanks Martin for this lovely emblazon of my badge; which has now been seen by both my wife and son, who are extremely delighted with your rendition.
Kind regards ……….. Peter

Comment on Happy Oak Apple Day by Matthew

Matthew — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 20:07:05 +0000

Just thought I’d let you know about the Royal Oak Day website:

www.royaloakday.org.uk

Comment on Shakerley armorial bearings on a meat dish. by Hollingworth Hall

Hollingworth Hall — Wed, 05 May 2010 06:34:56 +0000

Re: 22nd Qtr - Is this one Sable, a double headed eagle displayed Argent?

I also have this symbol in my own family’s arms: Hollingworth of Hollingworth, Mottram Church window. I believe the arms are the family de Gren or de Grene of Thurgland Yorks. I hope this helps.

Simon Hollingworth

Comment on Less is more - Row of Marfield by peter harling

peter harling — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:00:03 +0000

I agree, simple and most beautiful. I also love the blazon…….. bees diversely volant……!
Kind regards