Arms of the Heir Apparent Mystery

[Rock Vacirca]

Now that Glover's Visitation of 1584 is available for download, I wonder if anyone can clear up a little mystery for me.

The Visitation took in the church of Ellerton in the East Riding, which prior to the Dissolution was Ellerton Priory, of the Gilbertine order.

The medieval church window glass was rescued from this decaying church in 1984, and was preserved in a window in the nave of Selby Abbey where it can be seen today.

One coat of Arms that was rescued was that of the heir apparent, which Glover did not record or mention (Harl. Ms. 1394, and the published Visitation, both checked)

The arms were: Gules three lions passant guardant in pale or, a label of three points azure.

I have been curious for a while about two things:

1. can anyone suggest a reason why Glover did not record this coat?

2. and which heir apparent bore this coat, given that the normal coat of English royal heirs apparent had a label of three points argent?

All the other coats in the Priory were 14th century, if that helps.

Rock

[Peter Howarth]

Post by Rock Vacirca
Now that Glover's Visitation of 1584 is available for download, I wonder if anyone can clear up a little mystery for me.
The Visitation took in the church of Ellerton in the East Riding, which prior to the Dissolution was Ellerton Priory, of the Gilbertine order.
The medieval church window glass was rescued from this decaying church in 1984, and was preserved in a window in the nave of Selby Abbey where it can be seen today.
One coat of Arms that was rescued was that of the heir apparent, which Glover did not record or mention (Harl. Ms. 1394, and the published Visitation, both checked)
The arms were: Gules three lions passant guardant in pale or, a label of three points azure.
1. can anyone suggest a reason why Glover did not record this coat?
2. and which heir apparent bore this coat, given that the normal coat of English royal heirs apparent had a label of three points argent?
All the other coats in the Priory were 14th century, if that helps.
Rock

The arms of the heir apparent to England (as opposed to France and England combined post-1340) was England with a label azure. These arms were borne in turn by those who also bore the title of Earl of Chester: the Lord Edward (also called Longshanks) (1254-72), Alphonso his (second) son (1274-84), Alphonso's brother Edward of Carnarvon (1301-07), and Edward's son Edward of Windsor (1312-27). Was Ellerton ever part of the Chester estates? Or was it perhaps part of the Lancaster estates? It may be that yellow fleurs-de-lis painted onto the glass of the blue label have disappeared over time.

The arms of England with a label argent were used by Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk and half-brother of Edward of Carnarvon (Edward II). These arms were inherited by his great-grandson, Thomas Mowbray, first Duke of Norfolk and Earl Marshal. The Brotherton arms are still borne as the second quarter by the present Duke of Norfolk and Earl Marshal.

I can only guess at why Glover did not mention these arms. Perhaps he was not interested in royal arms and was only looking for evidence for those of commoners.

Peter Howarth

[Rock Vacirca]

Post by Peter Howarth

Post by Rock Vacirca
Now that Glover's Visitation of 1584 is available for download, I wonder if anyone can clear up a little mystery for me.
The Visitation took in the church of Ellerton in the East Riding, which prior to the Dissolution was Ellerton Priory, of the Gilbertine order.
The medieval church window glass was rescued from this decaying church in 1984, and was preserved in a window in the nave of Selby Abbey where it can be seen today.
One coat of Arms that was rescued was that of the heir apparent, which Glover did not record or mention (Harl. Ms. 1394, and the published Visitation, both checked)
The arms were: Gules three lions passant guardant in pale or, a label of three points azure.
1. can anyone suggest a reason why Glover did not record this coat?
2. and which heir apparent bore this coat, given that the normal coat of English royal heirs apparent had a label of three points argent?
All the other coats in the Priory were 14th century, if that helps.
Rock

The arms of the heir apparent to England (as opposed to France and England combined post-1340) was England with a label azure. These arms were borne in turn by those who also bore the title of Earl of Chester: the Lord Edward (also called Longshanks) (1254-72), Alphonso his (second) son (1274-84), Alphonso's brother Edward of Carnarvon (1301-07), and Edward's son Edward of Windsor (1312-27). Was Ellerton ever part of the Chester estates? Or was it perhaps part of the Lancaster estates? It may be that yellow fleurs-de-lis painted onto the glass of the blue label have disappeared over time.
The arms of England with a label argent were used by Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk and half-brother of Edward of Carnarvon (Edward II). These arms were inherited by his great-grandson, Thomas Mowbray, first Duke of Norfolk and Earl Marshal. The Brotherton arms are still borne as the second quarter by the present Duke of Norfolk and Earl Marshal.
I can only guess at why Glover did not mention these arms. Perhaps he was not interested in royal arms and was only looking for evidence for those of commoners.
Peter Howarth

Thanks for that Peter. I found a webpage today that confuses me a little, perhaps you could comment. It is the heraldica.com website, where they give the following:

Edward I (1239-1307)
until 1272: label azure

Alphonso, earl of Chester (1273-84)
label azure
Edward II (1284-1327)
until 1307: label azure
Edward III (1312-77)
until 1327: label azure
Edward, Prince of Wales 1343 (1330-76)
label argent
Edward (1364-72)
Richard II (1367-1400)
until 1376: label argent on the center point a cross gules
Prince of Wales: label argent

From this, it looks like the only time in the 14thC when a label azure was used by heirs apparent, was by Edward II during 1300-1307; and Edward III during 1312-1327, and during the rest of the 14thC a label argent was used. Do I read that right?

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/cadency.htm

[Peter Howarth]

Post by Rock Vacirca

Post by Peter Howarth

Post by Rock Vacirca
Now that Glover's Visitation of 1584 is available for download, I wonder if anyone can clear up a little mystery for me.
The Visitation took in the church of Ellerton in the East Riding, which prior to the Dissolution was Ellerton Priory, of the Gilbertine order.
The medieval church window glass was rescued from this decaying church in 1984, and was preserved in a window in the nave of Selby Abbey where it can be seen today.
One coat of Arms that was rescued was that of the heir apparent, which Glover did not record or mention (Harl. Ms. 1394, and the published Visitation, both checked)
The arms were: Gules three lions passant guardant in pale or, a label of three points azure.
1. can anyone suggest a reason why Glover did not record this coat?
2. and which heir apparent bore this coat, given that the normal coat of English royal heirs apparent had a label of three points argent?
All the other coats in the Priory were 14th century, if that helps.
Rock

The arms of the heir apparent to England (as opposed to France and England combined post-1340) was England with a label azure. These arms were borne in turn by those who also bore the title of Earl of Chester: the Lord Edward (also called Longshanks) (1254-72), Alphonso his (second) son (1274-84), Alphonso's brother Edward of Carnarvon (1301-07), and Edward's son Edward of Windsor (1312-27). Was Ellerton ever part of the Chester estates? Or was it perhaps part of the Lancaster estates? It may be that yellow fleurs-de-lis painted onto the glass of the blue label have disappeared over time.
The arms of England with a label argent were used by Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk and half-brother of Edward of Carnarvon (Edward II). These arms were inherited by his great-grandson, Thomas Mowbray, first Duke of Norfolk and Earl Marshal. The Brotherton arms are still borne as the second quarter by the present Duke of Norfolk and Earl Marshal.
I can only guess at why Glover did not mention these arms. Perhaps he was not interested in royal arms and was only looking for evidence for those of commoners.
Peter Howarth

Edward I (1239-1307)
until 1272: label azure
Alphonso, earl of Chester (1273-84)
label azure
Edward II (1284-1327)
until 1307: label azure
Edward III (1312-77)
until 1327: label azure
Edward, Prince of Wales 1343 (1330-76)
label argent
Edward (1364-72)
Richard II (1367-1400)
until 1376: label argent on the center point a cross gules
Prince of Wales: label argent
From this, it looks like the only time in the 14thC when a label azure was used by heirs apparent, was by Edward II during 1300-1307; and Edward III during 1312-1327, and during the rest of the 14thC a label argent was used. Do I read that right?
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/cadency.htm

You're right. The website is in general correct as far as it goes, but it only looks at the labels used, without mentioning the main coats of arms they were placed on, which varied considerably over the years. In 1340 Edward III claimed the French throne and changed his arms to quarterly France (azure, semy-de-lis or) and England (gules, three lions passant guardant or). A blue label worked well on the red and gold of England alone, but with the inclusion of the blue and gold of France the label had to be changed to white. Hence why Edward of Woodstock (alias the Black Prince) and all subsequent label-holders had white labels. By 1801, when the French arms were eventually abandoned, the tradition was so strong that all the labels remained white.

Thus the arms of England with a blue label can only refer to someone living before 1340. That is part of the reason why I mentioned the arms of the earls of Lancaster, England with a label of France (azure, semy-de-lis or). The earls continued to use the arms from c.1265 until the death of Henry of Grosmont in 1361. Henry's daughter and co-heiress, Blanche, married John of Gaunt, third surviving son of Edward III, created Duke of Lancaster in 1362. John of Gaunt used Edward III's quarterly arms with a label ermine. His son, Henry of Bolingbroke (later Henry IV), at an early stage during his father's lifetime may have borne his mother's arms, England with a label of France.[1] But by 1394 he was using a seal of the royal arms with a label half ermine (on the French quarter) and half France (on the English quarter).[2] He then threw the label away when he took the throne by force from Richard II in 1399.

Unfortunately, however fascinating I might find all this to be, it does very little to help with your stained-glass window. The only other arms at all similar are Giffard (of Gloucs and Wilts!), gules three lions passant argent, but John, 2nd Lord Giffard, died without issue in 1322. So we are still left with the question why the temporary arms of the heir to the English throne should appear in this, or any other, stained glass. I find it a complete anomaly.

Peter Howarth

[1] C W Scott-Giles, Shakespeare’s Heraldry (1950) p 70, but without giving a source.
[2] illustrated, R H Ellis, Catalogue of seals in the Public Record Office, vol ii (1981) P1533

[Peter Howarth]

On thinking a bit more about the details, there are problems if the arms are those of the heir apparent. We have to look for a reason to have the heir's arms in the stained glass rather than the royal arms. Presumably, it was for a favour granted -- and acknowledged -- before the heir became king. That definitely excludes two holders of the arms: Alphonso died at the age of ten, and Edward III was only fourteen when his father abdicated and he became king in 1327. Edward of Carnarvon (b.1284) was using a seal with these arms in 1299,[1] and was on campaign with his father in Scotland in 1300. But he did not come of age until 1305, giving two years for him to make a grant and for his arms to be put into the window before he became king. After that date, they would surely have used the royal arms. On the other hand, the Lord Edward (later Edward I) was of age and still heir to the throne from 1260 to 1272, when he was very active in making grants to his supporters against Simon de Montfort and the other barons.

And yet the glass is dated to the fourteenth century. Even 1307 is only just within the limits. So how firm is the dating? Edward III was too young to have done anything significant in the 1320s, and then by 1340 the royal arms had changed. And if the arms recognise a favour done before 1300, then why not the royal arms for the king, even though the favour may have been done before he ascended the throne? Whichever way I look at it, the arms do not make sense as they stand. Do they really belong with all the other coats of arms? Are they in the place of honour? Or is it after all significant that Glover does not mention them?

Peter Howarth

[1] Douët d’Arcq, Collection de sceaux, no. 10126, his seal added to the Treaty of Montreuil between his father and Philip IV of France for his betrothal to Philip's daughter, Isabel.

[Rock Vacirca]

Post by Peter Howarth
And yet the glass is dated to the fourteenth century. Even 1307 is only just within the limits. So how firm is the dating?

Good question Peter. It was Dr P. A. Newton, an expert on medieval Stained Glass (several published books on the subject) who dated the arms to the 14th century, but whether he would argue that this particular coat (the first coat in the first window of Ellerton Priory Church), could not date from the latter part of the thirteenth century, I could not say.

Ellerton Priory was founded around 1207, so quite possibly this coat could be that of Lord Edward (later Edward I).

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by Rock Vacirca
Now that Glover's Visitation of 1584 is available for download, I wonder if anyone can clear up a little mystery for me.
The Visitation took in the church of Ellerton in the East Riding, which prior to the Dissolution was Ellerton Priory, of the Gilbertine order.
The medieval church window glass was rescued from this decaying church in 1984, and was preserved in a window in the nave of Selby Abbey where it can be seen today.
One coat of Arms that was rescued was that of the heir apparent, which Glover did not record or mention (Harl. Ms. 1394, and the published Visitation, both checked)
The arms were: Gules three lions passant guardant in pale or, a label of three points azure.
1. can anyone suggest a reason why Glover did not record this coat?

The Visitations generally did not concern themselves with the arms of Royalty nor with the Peerage as the purpose was to record and regularise the arms used by the rest of the gentry (including baronets, knights and esquires). There was simply no need to regularise the arms of Royalty because they were already (obviously) "on the record"; the same applies to the Peerage. Put simply, the Visitations were an official attempt to bring into line and record the proliferation of arms used so that the College of Arms could regain control of an otherwise spiralling mass of unregulated arms.

Regards,
Martin
http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk