Church Windows Coats of Arms

[Rock Vacirca]

Whilst still researching the Coats of Arms noted in the stained glass windows of Ellerton Church (formerly Ellerton Priory, East Riding of Yorkshire) in the Visitation of 1584, a couple of questions come to mind:

1. Was the noting of arms in ecclesiastical windows a usual practice during a Visitation, or was this peculiar to Glover's Visitation of 1584-5?

2. What was the purpose of noting arms in abbeys, churches and chapels?


Incidentally, I am nearing the end of my first pass of my research into these 19 coats of arms. Would anyone care to proof read my notes and provide feedback?

[p***@gmail.com]

Post by Rock Vacirca
1. Was the noting of arms in ecclesiastical windows a usual practice during a Visitation, or was this peculiar to Glover's Visitation of 1584-5?

Not peculiar to Glover's visitation.

10. THOMAS BENOLT
... while South Wales and Hereford and the London churches were visited by deputies ...

15. RICHARD LEE or LEIGH
... while on Vis'n of Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire made Church Notes in those counties ...
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=118255

27. FRANCIS SANDFORD
Probably accompanied Dugdale on 1662 Vis'n of Shropshire, of which office copy contains some church notes by him ...
... deputed by Bysshe to visit churches, etc., in London and Westminster ...
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=118258

11. ROBERT TRESWELL
... Church Notes made by him incorporated in Weever's Funeral Monuments ...
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=118260

Post by Rock Vacirca
2. What was the purpose of noting arms in abbeys, churches and chapels?

They had dual interestings (this is MY view):

1) As heralds' duty. The following passage I took from a Commission of Visitation:
... and not only to enter into all churches ... and other places ... to persue
and take knowledge, survey, and viewe of all manner of armes
... to reverse, pull down, or otherwise deface ... as well in coat arms ...
windows
http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=TiUIAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA132

2) As antiquaries' collection. The following passage I took from Dugdale's
autobiography:
In the summer anno 1641, having with him [Dugdale] one Mr. William Sedgwick,
a skillfull Armes-painter, repared first to the Cathedral of St. Paul in the City of London ... and there making exact draughts of all the Monuments in
each of them ... as also all Arms in the Windows ...
https://archive.org/stream/lifediarycorresp00dugduoft#page/14/mode/2up

Post by Rock Vacirca
Incidentally, I am nearing the end of my first pass of my research into these 19 coats of arms. Would anyone care to proof read my notes and provide feedback?

I will have no opinion, but someone may.

Satoru Uemura

[Rock Vacirca]

I can imagine the heralds noting arms displayed on and in homes, and asking by what right they were displaying such arms, and the pedigrees and other evidences being produced.

I can't imagine how that would work with arms displayed in churches etc, where the benefactors of those churches may live in a different county altogether (or have died out). Did the heralds actually tear down or deface any arms in churches? Were churches obliged to keep detailed records of the arms displayed in their churches, in case a herald came knocking?

[Peter Howarth]

Many people could see which way the wind was blowing with the rise of Puritanism and its attendant iconoclasm. They were unfortunately proved right, since during the Commonwealth many tombs and much stained glass were destroyed or defaced. Fortunately, several people like Dugdale and Glover, had taken every opportunity to record as much as possible of what they found in churches, of ancient documents and so on. The reason England has copies of so many mediaeval rolls of arms, far more than any other country, is because Glover in particular, but several other heralds as well, made a point of copying any rolls that they came across in private hands. They also recorded coats of arms found anywhere else. We ought to be truly grateful to them all.

Peter Howarth

[p***@gmail.com]

Post by Rock Vacirca
I can't imagine how that would work with arms displayed in churches etc, where the benefactors of those churches may live in a different county altogether (or have died out). Did the heralds actually tear down or deface any arms in churches? Were churches obliged to keep detailed records of the arms displayed in their churches, in case a herald came knocking?

If my memory serves correctly, Wagner in his _Heralds and Heraldry_ (2nd ed.)
extracted an account by a herald on a visitation of London churches, and in
the account he reported that he ordered to destroy (or tear down or deface)
false arms he found.
Probably you are concerened with those arms whose bearers' names are not given;
I think heralds just recorded such arms and that is all they could do.
However, arms on tombs and effigies could be more easily identified.
And in my understanding there are two kinds of false arms:

a. Using somone else's arms.
b. Use of arms by a non-armiger.

Theoretically, once they identified the arms on tombs etc., at least the heralds
could pick up some of a. arms.
If they kept the list of disclaimers _with_ their arms, b. could be also picked
up. List of disclaimers were like these (Salop 1585 and 1623):
http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=RVl7Y0xUv5kC&pg=PA1

I do not believe that the churches kept detailed records of the arms displayed
in their churches.

Satoru Uemura

[Rock Vacirca]

Post by p***@gmail.com

Post by Rock Vacirca
I can't imagine how that would work with arms displayed in churches etc, where the benefactors of those churches may live in a different county altogether (or have died out). Did the heralds actually tear down or deface any arms in churches? Were churches obliged to keep detailed records of the arms displayed in their churches, in case a herald came knocking?

If my memory serves correctly, Wagner in his _Heralds and Heraldry_ (2nd ed.)
extracted an account by a herald on a visitation of London churches, and in
the account he reported that he ordered to destroy (or tear down or deface)
false arms he found.
Probably you are concerened with those arms whose bearers' names are not given;
I think heralds just recorded such arms and that is all they could do.
However, arms on tombs and effigies could be more easily identified.
a. Using somone else's arms.
b. Use of arms by a non-armiger.
Theoretically, once they identified the arms on tombs etc., at least the heralds
could pick up some of a. arms.
If they kept the list of disclaimers _with_ their arms, b. could be also picked
http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=RVl7Y0xUv5kC&pg=PA1
I do not believe that the churches kept detailed records of the arms displayed
in their churches.
Satoru Uemura

Thanks for that Satoru.

I think the thing that concerns me is that if a coat of arms appears on a tomb, effigy, or with a name in stained glass, and the family was no longer extant in that county (or had died out completely), and so could not be called upon to produce evidences, would the heralds still tear down or deface those arms? I am hoping that in the absence of evidence they simply recorded what they found, and only tore down or defaced arms when they had clear evidence that the arms were not legitimate.

I noticed in Harl. Ms 1394, the arms tricked in churches, chapels and houses during the 1584 Visitation of Yorkshire, that only a small percentage (5-10%) were annotated with a family name.

[Peter Howarth]

Before 1400, it was normal for a knight to adopt any arms he fancied without further authority. Sometimes of course this led to duplication of the same arms, as in the famous case of Scrope v. Grosvenor in 1385. During the 15th century there were moves to control this free-for-all, until in Tudor times we had the Visitations, which suggest that the simple adoption of arms was still prevalent.

In his 'Heralds and Heraldry', 2nd edn, 1956, final chapter 'Visitations before 1530' and Appendix D, Wagner gives details of the original report of a 'visitation of burialls' carried out by Thomas Hawley, Carlisle Herald, as deputy to Clarenceux, at St Paul's and twelve other City churches in 1530. There were two parts to his visitation of St Paul's. The first was "to corecte, deface and take away all maner of Armes wrongfully borne, or being falce Armory". The second part was to make notes of ancient tombs and the heraldry displayed on them. Carlisle's entries for the other churches followed the same plan, sometimes noting that defacements took place, without any details, but always including notes of burials with names. Then when Clarenceux himself carried out a visitation of six other churches in the City in the same year, his entries are limited to descriptions of the older tombs.

My interpretation of this is that the defacements were concerned with recent burials ('the tomb of Doctor Stillington, Archdeacon of Norfolk, lately buried there'), since it would be possible to show that they were newly adopted arms. Older tombs ("John Duke of Langcastre and Dame Blange his wyffe") were accepted as evidence that the arms were of good standing.

In the case of Ellerton, it would seem that Glover thought the windows to be of a sufficient age to count as evidence of good standing. Since his records were to be kept with those from other visitations, it did not matter if the families involved were now based elsewhere. In any case, he would not necessarily know in advance which families he might meet.

Peter Howarth

[Peter Howarth]

Perhaps I should have mentioned that one of the main objections to the free-for-all adoption of arms was that they were sometimes adopted by those who, it was felt, were not of a sufficiently high status to be armigerous. In 1418 Henry V issued a writ about those who '... assumed unto themselves Arms and Coats of Arms, called Coat-Armours, in cases where neither they nor their ancestors in times gone by used such Arms.' In future everyone would have to show his right to bear arms 'those excepted who bore arms with us at the battle of Agincourt.'

As Shakespeare put it:
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gently his condition. (iv, 3)

Peter

[Rock Vacirca]

Post by Peter Howarth
Before 1400, it was normal for a knight to adopt any arms he fancied without further authority. Sometimes of course this led to duplication of the same arms, as in the famous case of Scrope v. Grosvenor in 1385. During the 15th century there were moves to control this free-for-all, until in Tudor times we had the Visitations, which suggest that the simple adoption of arms was still prevalent.
In his 'Heralds and Heraldry', 2nd edn, 1956, final chapter 'Visitations before 1530' and Appendix D, Wagner gives details of the original report of a 'visitation of burialls' carried out by Thomas Hawley, Carlisle Herald, as deputy to Clarenceux, at St Paul's and twelve other City churches in 1530. There were two parts to his visitation of St Paul's. The first was "to corecte, deface and take away all maner of Armes wrongfully borne, or being falce Armory". The second part was to make notes of ancient tombs and the heraldry displayed on them. Carlisle's entries for the other churches followed the same plan, sometimes noting that defacements took place, without any details, but always including notes of burials with names. Then when Clarenceux himself carried out a visitation of six other churches in the City in the same year, his entries are limited to descriptions of the older tombs.
My interpretation of this is that the defacements were concerned with recent burials ('the tomb of Doctor Stillington, Archdeacon of Norfolk, lately buried there'), since it would be possible to show that they were newly adopted arms. Older tombs ("John Duke of Langcastre and Dame Blange his wyffe") were accepted as evidence that the arms were of good standing.
In the case of Ellerton, it would seem that Glover thought the windows to be of a sufficient age to count as evidence of good standing. Since his records were to be kept with those from other visitations, it did not matter if the families involved were now based elsewhere. In any case, he would not necessarily know in advance which families he might meet.
Peter Howarth

Thanks for that explanation Peter. My research so far indicates that the arms are predominately from the 14th century, so that would explain why they were not defaced when some of the families represented in arms were no longer connected with the area in 1582.

[m***@le.ac.uk]

Post by Rock Vacirca
I can imagine the heralds noting arms displayed on and in homes, and asking by what right they were displaying such arms, and the pedigrees and other evidences being produced.
I can't imagine how that would work with arms displayed in churches etc, where the benefactors of those churches may live in a different county altogether (or have died out). Did the heralds actually tear down or deface any arms in churches? Were churches obliged to keep detailed records of the arms displayed in their churches, in case a herald came knocking?

I don't think the heralds often defaced church monuments, but they certainly did it on occasion. College of Arms MS C38, Dugdale's Cheshire Visitation of 1663-4, records that he defaced 51 monuments in 7 parish churches in Chester which he had determined to be fictitious.

I'm sure churches didn't keep records of the arms in their churches - anyone walking round the church could see what was there.

Matt Tompkins