Comments for Cheshire Heraldry Web Journal http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk/weblog A journal of the activities of an Amateur Armorist. Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:25:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 Comment on Less is more - Row of Marfield by peter harling http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk/weblog/2010/02/09/less-is-more-row-of-marfield/#comment-57 peter harling Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:00:03 +0000 http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk/weblog/2010/02/09/less-is-more-row-of-marfield/#comment-57 I agree, simple and most beautiful. I also love the blazon........ bees diversely volant......! Kind regards I agree, simple and most beautiful. I also love the blazon…….. bees diversely volant……!
Kind regards

]]> Comment on Marbury of Marbury by Robert Leftwich http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk/weblog/2009/07/11/marbury-of-marbury/#comment-55 Robert Leftwich Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:16:44 +0000 http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk/weblog/2009/07/11/marbury-of-marbury/#comment-55 Hi Martin, Here are the details on Augustine Leftwich, Description of CofA was found in a book called "Virginia Heraldica" being "A Registry of Virginia Gentry entitled to Coat Armor" edited by William Armstrong Crozier" -Virginia County Records series Vol. V- 1908. This book is still available on Amazon.com The Leftwich Information is on Page 89 and reads as follows: "Leftwich. New Kent Arms: Azure, three garbs Or, on a fesse engrailed Argent. Crest: Five leaves conjoined at base, Vert Motto: Ver-non Semper Floret The Virginia immigrant was Ralph Leftwich who received grants of land as early as 1658. Owing to the destruction of the New Kent and Caroline county records, a gap occurs in the pedigree of at least two generations. The arms borne by the descendants of Augustine Leftwich are the same as those of Leftwich county of Cheshire". As you can see these are not exactly like the Cheshire arms, thats why I'm trying find out if someone has recorded these in error or if Augustine tried to Difference his arms by changing the colors which as resulted in the metal on metal as described above. As for Leftwich arms 1283, I found it very unusual for the king to Grant a new CofA to a family that already had One, Isn't there an augmentation or Charge added existing arms for service to the king? or was still to early in Heraldic history for that. Thanks again for such a quick response, this is such a great web site! so well done and full of tons of information. Robert Hi Martin,
Here are the details on Augustine Leftwich, Description of CofA was found in a book called “Virginia Heraldica” being “A Registry of Virginia Gentry entitled to Coat Armor” edited by William Armstrong Crozier” -Virginia County Records series Vol. V- 1908. This book is still available on Amazon.com
The Leftwich Information is on Page 89 and reads as follows: “Leftwich. New Kent
Arms: Azure, three garbs Or, on a fesse engrailed Argent.
Crest: Five leaves conjoined at base, Vert
Motto: Ver-non Semper Floret
The Virginia immigrant was Ralph Leftwich who received grants of land as early as 1658. Owing to the destruction of the New Kent and Caroline county records, a gap occurs in the pedigree of at least two generations. The arms borne by the descendants of Augustine Leftwich are the same as those of Leftwich county of Cheshire”. As you can see these are not exactly like the Cheshire arms, thats why I’m trying find out if someone has recorded these in error or if Augustine tried to Difference his arms by changing the colors which as resulted in the metal on metal as described above. As for Leftwich arms 1283, I found it very unusual for the king to Grant a new CofA to a family that already had One, Isn’t there an augmentation or Charge added existing arms for service to the king? or was still to early in Heraldic history for that.
Thanks again for such a quick response, this is such a great web site! so well done and full of tons of information. Robert

]]> Comment on Marbury of Marbury by Martin Goldstraw http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk/weblog/2009/07/11/marbury-of-marbury/#comment-54 Martin Goldstraw Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:03:53 +0000 http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk/weblog/2009/07/11/marbury-of-marbury/#comment-54 Hi Robert, I would be interested to see the details of the grant to Agustine Leftwich of Virginia. As to my opinion of it, it's probably unfair to give one; opinions such as this are entirely subjective. Some people are greatly offended by what they see as a violation of the tincture rule but I can't see why they need be so disturbed. I would be interested in the detail simply to attempt to establish the origin of the arms. if it was a grant from the College of Arms then clearly the heralds concerned weren't bothered by any tincture rule. As I said earlier, I haven't extensively researched these lines so I can't say that I have come across any tales of a Leftwich being rewarded with a coat of arms for services to the King but I would caution against taking such statements as gospel - there are many such unsubstantiated tales. Without corroborated evidence, I tend to take such claims with a pinch of salt. Regards, Martin Hi Robert, I would be interested to see the details of the grant to Agustine Leftwich of Virginia. As to my opinion of it, it’s probably unfair to give one; opinions such as this are entirely subjective. Some people are greatly offended by what they see as a violation of the tincture rule but I can’t see why they need be so disturbed. I would be interested in the detail simply to attempt to establish the origin of the arms. if it was a grant from the College of Arms then clearly the heralds concerned weren’t bothered by any tincture rule.

As I said earlier, I haven’t extensively researched these lines so I can’t say that I have come across any tales of a Leftwich being rewarded with a coat of arms for services to the King but I would caution against taking such statements as gospel - there are many such unsubstantiated tales. Without corroborated evidence, I tend to take such claims with a pinch of salt.

Regards,
Martin

]]> Comment on Marbury of Marbury by Robert Leftwich http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk/weblog/2009/07/11/marbury-of-marbury/#comment-53 Robert Leftwich Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:51:59 +0000 http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk/weblog/2009/07/11/marbury-of-marbury/#comment-53 Hi Martin, Thank you for your quick response, I have studied the Visitations of both Leftwich and vernon and I know that first Leftwich CofA's is the same as Winnington with a Cross Pattee for difference, At this same point in time the Vernons CofA was-Or, a fesse Azure. No Garbs. I have seen a statement that said the Leftwich's were rewarded a new CofA (Argent, on a fesse engrailed Azure 3 Garbs Or) In 1283 as reward for service to the King. I believe 1283 was also second time the Crown took control of Cheshire. The Vernon's did not add the three Garbs to their Arms until sometime in the 1300's by Ruafe Vernon (the old). Now unless the king granted all the Families of Cheshire that took part in this battle against the Welsh in 1283 these same Arms, Then the Leftwich's would have had their CofA's with the 3 Garbs before the Vernons! I've also checked the Marburys Visitations and know they also have ties to the Norman earls of Cheshire. Being over here in the U.S. I have limited information on this subject, . The reason I was asking about the Metal on Metal rule is because I have come across an American Coat of Arms granted to Agustine Leftwich of Virginia pre Revolutionary War that reads: Azure, on a fesse engrailed Argent, 3 garbs Or. What is Your opinion of this CofA? Thanks Again, Robert Hi Martin,
Thank you for your quick response, I have studied the Visitations of both Leftwich and vernon and I know that first Leftwich CofA’s is the same as Winnington with a Cross Pattee for difference, At this same point in time the Vernons CofA was-Or, a fesse Azure. No Garbs. I have seen a statement that said the Leftwich’s were rewarded a new CofA (Argent, on a fesse engrailed Azure 3 Garbs Or) In 1283 as reward for service to the King. I believe 1283 was also second time the Crown took control of Cheshire. The Vernon’s did not add the three Garbs to their Arms until sometime in the 1300’s by Ruafe Vernon (the old). Now unless the king granted all the Families of Cheshire that took part in this battle against the Welsh in 1283 these same Arms, Then the Leftwich’s would have had their CofA’s with the 3 Garbs before the Vernons!
I’ve also checked the Marburys Visitations and know they also have ties to the Norman earls of Cheshire.
Being over here in the U.S. I have limited information on this subject, . The reason I was asking about the Metal on Metal rule is because I have come across an American Coat of Arms granted to Agustine Leftwich of Virginia pre Revolutionary War that reads: Azure, on a fesse engrailed Argent, 3 garbs Or. What is Your opinion of this CofA? Thanks Again, Robert

]]> Comment on Marbury of Marbury by Martin Goldstraw http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk/weblog/2009/07/11/marbury-of-marbury/#comment-52 Martin Goldstraw Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:04:46 +0000 http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk/weblog/2009/07/11/marbury-of-marbury/#comment-52 Hello Robert, You are applying a modern thought (one man one coat) to families who, more often than not, adopted their coats of arms before a time of regulation. Unlike the famous Scrope Vs Grosvenor case where there was no relationship between the two and therefore no reason to use identical arms, there may actually be a relationships between Vernon, Marbury and Leftwich (there is certainly a relationship between Leftwich and Vernon) which may explain why the families have used the same arms. I have not made a detailed study of this case however the arms of Vernon are Argent, on a fess Azure three garbs Or. If we look at the Leftwich family we can see that their family tree starts with Sir Richard de Wilburgham who marries Matilda, daughter and co heir of Warin de Vernon, baron of Shipbrook. This is where the Vernon connection comes in. Their daughter married Robert de Winnington who was the founder of the Leftwich line. It would have been very prestigious to have indicated a relationship with the Vernons hence the similar coat. I have been unable to find a Vernon connection with the Marburys but don’t discount it. As to the metal on metal / colour on colour rule (which is actually often broken see Twemlow ancient for but one example) it is but guidance for better visibility and just means that it is best not to put the same on top of the same. If you have a shield of metal you don’t place something of another metal directly on top of it. If you have a shield of colour it is Ok to put a charge or ordinary of a metal directly on top of it. So, for example, you can have a metal shield upon which is a chevron of a colour and upon the chevron there can be a charge of a metal. This rule does not apply to furs and there are other acceptable exceptions. I believe that such a “rule” is unknown to continental heraldry. Regards, Martin Hello Robert,
You are applying a modern thought (one man one coat) to families who, more often than not, adopted their coats of arms before a time of regulation. Unlike the famous Scrope Vs Grosvenor case where there was no relationship between the two and therefore no reason to use identical arms, there may actually be a relationships between Vernon, Marbury and Leftwich (there is certainly a relationship between Leftwich and Vernon) which may explain why the families have used the same arms.
I have not made a detailed study of this case however the arms of Vernon are Argent, on a fess Azure three garbs Or. If we look at the Leftwich family we can see that their family tree starts with Sir Richard de Wilburgham who marries Matilda, daughter and co heir of Warin de Vernon, baron of Shipbrook. This is where the Vernon connection comes in. Their daughter married Robert de Winnington who was the founder of the Leftwich line. It would have been very prestigious to have indicated a relationship with the Vernons hence the similar coat.
I have been unable to find a Vernon connection with the Marburys but don’t discount it.
As to the metal on metal / colour on colour rule (which is actually often broken see Twemlow ancient for but one example) it is but guidance for better visibility and just means that it is best not to put the same on top of the same. If you have a shield of metal you don’t place something of another metal directly on top of it. If you have a shield of colour it is Ok to put a charge or ordinary of a metal directly on top of it. So, for example, you can have a metal shield upon which is a chevron of a colour and upon the chevron there can be a charge of a metal. This rule does not apply to furs and there are other acceptable exceptions. I believe that such a “rule” is unknown to continental heraldry.

Regards,
Martin

]]> Comment on Marbury of Marbury by Robert Leftwich http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk/weblog/2009/07/11/marbury-of-marbury/#comment-51 Robert Leftwich Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:42:44 +0000 http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk/weblog/2009/07/11/marbury-of-marbury/#comment-51 I'm a bit confused with the Vernon, Marbury & Leftwich Coat of Arms with the 3 Garbs. What about the one man one Coat of Arms rule? Vernon-Or, on a fesse engrailed Azure 3 garbs of the field. The same as Marbury! Also Leftwich-Argent, on a fesse enrailed Azure 3 garbs Or. Burkes also shows a Marbury branch with this same Arms as Leftwich! I know the Garbs represent the earls of Chester are these fuedal arms? In an unrelated Question, could you please clerify the metal on Metal rule does this only effect the placement of a charge or ordinary placed on the field or does it also effect a charge placed on a ordinary such as a fesse or bend? Robert I’m a bit confused with the Vernon, Marbury & Leftwich Coat of Arms with the 3 Garbs. What about the one man one Coat of Arms rule?
Vernon-Or, on a fesse engrailed Azure 3 garbs of the field. The same as Marbury!
Also Leftwich-Argent, on a fesse enrailed Azure 3 garbs Or. Burkes also shows a Marbury branch with this same Arms as Leftwich! I know the Garbs represent the earls of Chester are these fuedal arms? In an unrelated Question, could you please clerify the metal on Metal rule does this only effect the placement of a charge or ordinary placed on the field or does it also effect a charge placed on a ordinary such as a fesse or bend? Robert

]]> Comment on Talbot coat of arms - eBay - again! by Artstudio1 http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk/weblog/2007/11/08/talbot-coat-of-arms-ebay-again/#comment-50 Artstudio1 Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:23:36 +0000 http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk/weblog/2007/11/08/talbot-coat-of-arms-ebay-again/#comment-50 My father - David Farrow Talbot has an original Letters Patent of the armorial bearings of Sir William John Talbot and I have a hand painted copy of the Coat of Arms as does my sister Victoria Talbot Hatcher. We also have a nearly full length portrait of Sir William Talbot. I am currently designing a 'closed visor' version of the Coat of Arms so that my son and I can use it. We love our family history and would love to hear back from any relatives. Elizabeth.Talbot@Artstudio1.co.uk My father - David Farrow Talbot has an original Letters Patent of the armorial bearings of Sir William John Talbot and I have a hand painted copy of the Coat of Arms as does my sister Victoria Talbot Hatcher. We also have a nearly full length portrait of Sir William Talbot. I am currently designing a ‘closed visor’ version of the Coat of Arms so that my son and I can use it.
We love our family history and would love to hear back from any relatives.
Elizabeth.Talbot@Artstudio1.co.uk

]]> Comment on Talbot Letters Patent sold on Ebay by Artstudio1 http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk/weblog/2007/10/29/talbot-letters-patent-sold-on-ebay/#comment-49 Artstudio1 Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:16:15 +0000 http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk/weblog/2007/10/29/talbot-letters-patent-sold-on-ebay/#comment-49 This is my great grandfather - Sir William Talbot. My father David Farrow Talbot has a great portrait of him. This is my great grandfather - Sir William Talbot. My father David Farrow Talbot has a great portrait of him.

]]> Comment on The 15th Baron Dudley by Fitzw http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk/weblog/2009/04/13/the-15th-baron-dudley/#comment-45 Fitzw Sat, 30 May 2009 16:58:56 +0000 http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk/weblog/2009/04/13/the-15th-baron-dudley/#comment-45 I notice the longer article in Tak Tent (April 2009). What are the twelve quarters in the bookplate of Ferdinando Dudley Lea-Smith, four quarters of which appear in the new version of the arms of the 15th Lord Dudley? I notice the longer article in Tak Tent (April 2009). What are the twelve quarters in the bookplate of Ferdinando Dudley Lea-Smith, four quarters of which appear in the new version of the arms of the 15th Lord Dudley?

]]> Comment on A very confused escutcheon. by Martin Goldstraw http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk/weblog/2009/03/04/a-very-confused-escutcheon/#comment-40 Martin Goldstraw Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:54:57 +0000 http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk/weblog/2009/03/04/a-very-confused-escutcheon/#comment-40 <p>What you suggest appears to be an incomplete blazon. It suggests that there is an orle within eight martlets but does not indicate how the martlets are set out. If we look at the problem you set in reverse and, in our mind, draw eight martlets the first problem is that it is an even number so the default 3,2,1 doesn't work and the blazon doesn't give us any clues. Even if the blazon stated, for example, eight martlets 4,2 and 2 (or any other combination) it would then have to tell us how the orle fitted in to the blazon. If the martlets were laid out 2,2,2,2 it may be possible to draw a decent shield with an orle in the middle but such a design would, I suggest, require a more accurate blazon. The blazon "Agent an orle within eight martlets sable" is unhelpful and therefore, I suggest, has to be incomplete.</p> <p>Compare this with the Winnington blazon. The Winnington blazon could be given to any number of armorists and they would all draw roughly the same achievement. </p> <p>The purpose of a blazon is to make the job of emblazoning a shield practically foolproof.</p> What you suggest appears to be an incomplete blazon. It suggests that there is an orle within eight martlets but does not indicate how the martlets are set out. If we look at the problem you set in reverse and, in our mind, draw eight martlets the first problem is that it is an even number so the default 3,2,1 doesn’t work and the blazon doesn’t give us any clues. Even if the blazon stated, for example, eight martlets 4,2 and 2 (or any other combination) it would then have to tell us how the orle fitted in to the blazon. If the martlets were laid out 2,2,2,2 it may be possible to draw a decent shield with an orle in the middle but such a design would, I suggest, require a more accurate blazon. The blazon “Agent an orle within eight martlets sable” is unhelpful and therefore, I suggest, has to be incomplete.

Compare this with the Winnington blazon. The Winnington blazon could be given to any number of armorists and they would all draw roughly the same achievement.

The purpose of a blazon is to make the job of emblazoning a shield practically foolproof.

]]>