Early Fifteenth Century Coat of Arms - five questions

[1***@gmail.com]

As some of you will know from my previous posts, I have been researching the life of Nicholas Bubwith,(1355-1424), successively Bishop of London, Bishop of Salisbury, and finally Bishop of Bath and Wells until his death. He was also successively Master of the Rolls, Lord Privy Seal, and Lord High Treasurer of England.

Nicholas used a coat of arms, generally blazoned as Arg. a fesse engrailed sable, between three chaplets of holly leaves proper.

These arms are on his chantry and on various other contemporary or near-contemporary buildings in Wells.

I had hoped by researching his Arms it may lead me to discover something of his parentage. Unfortunately, the Arms are not in the recent 4 volumes of Dictionary of British Arms, nor in the General Armoury, but they are in Papworth. One author says his Arms are recorded in the College of Heralds.

So, my questions:

Q1. Was it the case that EVERY member of the House of Lords in the early 15th century would have Arms.

Q2. Nicholas would have had the right to sit in the House of Lords (Spiritual) by virtue of being a Bishop, but did the posts of Lord Privy Seal or Lord High Treasurer also carry this privilege?

Q3. I am trying to ascertain whether Nicholas inherited his Arms, or had them granted, or simply assumed them, and would the motive for having them conferred or assumed be more likely by virtue of his secular positions or his ecclesiastical positions?

Q4. Of course the College of Heralds was not incorporated until later in the 15th century, but did ANY regulation of Arms take place before then?

Q5. Does anyone have any ideas on how I might go about proving the origin of his Arms (inherited, granted, or assumed)?


Does anyone have any thoughts on the use of holly leaves in his Arms?

Thanks in advance for any inputs or comments

Rock

[Peter Howarth]

Post by 1***@gmail.com
As some of you will know from my previous posts, I have been researching the life of Nicholas Bubwith,(1355-1424), successively Bishop of London, Bishop of Salisbury, and finally Bishop of Bath and Wells until his death. He was also successively Master of the Rolls, Lord Privy Seal, and Lord High Treasurer of England.
Nicholas used a coat of arms, generally blazoned as Arg. a fesse engrailed sable, between three chaplets of holly leaves proper.
These arms are on his chantry and on various other contemporary or near-contemporary buildings in Wells.
I had hoped by researching his Arms it may lead me to discover something of his parentage. Unfortunately, the Arms are not in the recent 4 volumes of Dictionary of British Arms, nor in the General Armoury, but they are in Papworth. One author says his Arms are recorded in the College of Heralds.
Q1. Was it the case that EVERY member of the House of Lords in the early 15th century would have Arms.
Q2. Nicholas would have had the right to sit in the House of Lords (Spiritual) by virtue of being a Bishop, but did the posts of Lord Privy Seal or Lord High Treasurer also carry this privilege?
Q3. I am trying to ascertain whether Nicholas inherited his Arms, or had them granted, or simply assumed them, and would the motive for having them conferred or assumed be more likely by virtue of his secular positions or his ecclesiastical positions?
Q4. Of course the College of Heralds was not incorporated until later in the 15th century, but did ANY regulation of Arms take place before then?
Q5. Does anyone have any ideas on how I might go about proving the origin of his Arms (inherited, granted, or assumed)?
Does anyone have any thoughts on the use of holly leaves in his Arms?
Thanks in advance for any inputs or comments
Rock

My answers, such as they are:

Q1. Was it the case that EVERY member of the House of Lords in the early 15th century would have Arms.
'Membership' of the Lords, in its modern sense, did not exist. A man was simply summoned to a particular session of Parliament. One man, for example, was summoned but once. Only much later was such a summons interpreted as granting 'membership' of the Lords. Those summoned were normally important enough to be already armigerous. But I can imagine an abbot being summoned who did not come from an armigerous family and who did not bother to assume any arms of his own. Unfortunately I can't quote an example off hand.

Q2. Nicholas would have had the right to sit in the House of Lords (Spiritual) by virtue of being a Bishop, but did the posts of Lord Privy Seal or Lord High Treasurer also carry this privilege?
There was no 'right' to sit in the Lords. You came because you were summoned. Indeed, some men when summoned asked if they could be excused from coming. Some officers of the King attended Parliament, not because they received a formal summons, but because it was part of their job to hear what was decided and if appropriate to act on the decisions.

Q3. I am trying to ascertain whether Nicholas inherited his Arms, or had them granted, or simply assumed them, and would the motive for having them conferred or assumed be more likely by virtue of his secular positions or his ecclesiastical positions?
I doubt whether it's possible to ascertain this, we just don't have the evidence. However, I think it extremely unlikely that there would have been a formal grant of arms this early on. Wagner, in 'Heralds and Heraldry in the Middle Ages' (1956) chap viii The Granting of Arms, says that grants by the Crown are very rare. They usually involved permission to use a variation of the royal arms, grants to corporations, or formed a secondary part of making someone a gentleman. My guess is that, being from an unknown family, Nicholas assumed a new coat of arms. He appears to have become an officer of the Crown before his preferment as bishop.

Q4. Of course the College of Heralds was not incorporated until later in the 15th century, but did ANY regulation of Arms take place before then?
Any regulation that took place was in the Court of the Constable and Marshal (see Wagner, op.cit., pp 20-24). They decided, for example, at the siege of Calais (1345-8) between Robert Morley and Nicholas Burnell, who should bear 'argent, a lion rampant sable, crowned or'.

Q5. Does anyone have any ideas on how I might go about proving the origin of his Arms (inherited, granted, or assumed)?
Sorry, I haven't a clue. There are many cases where there is just no information about the origin of a coat of arms.

Peter Howarth

[1***@gmail.com]

Thanks for the response Peter. I had feared that your replies would be the case.

With regards to Q2., I think I did not phrase that well. Indeed there was no right to sit in the House of Lords (if there was such a thing at that time), perhaps a pre-qualification would have been better. I can imagine all the peerage get summoned (unless you were out of favour) and the Archbishops, Bishop and Abbots (but presumeably only of the greater monasteries), but the point of my question was: did holders of high state offices, such as Lord High Treasurer, get such a summons (where he was not a peer or a high ranking cleric)?

With regard to Q4. I have now found the following quote from the website of the College of Arms: "In 1417, King Henry V commanded the Sheriffs of Hampshire, Wiltshire, Sussex and Dorset not to allow any men to bear arms on the forthcoming expedition to France unless by ancestral right or by grant from a competent authority." That begs the questions, what was a 'competent authority', and do records of that competent authority survive?

With regards to Q5. I was also hoping for negative evidence. I would like to write: As there is no evidence of anyone else ever holding these arms, it is doubtful that Nicholas inherited them, and there is no evidence of any grant either. The likelihood is that he assumed those arms.

Rock

[Peter Howarth]

Post by 1***@gmail.com
Thanks for the response Peter. I had feared that your replies would be the case.
With regards to Q2., I think I did not phrase that well. Indeed there was no right to sit in the House of Lords (if there was such a thing at that time), perhaps a pre-qualification would have been better. I can imagine all the peerage get summoned (unless you were out of favour) and the Archbishops, Bishop and Abbots (but presumeably only of the greater monasteries), but the point of my question was: did holders of high state offices, such as Lord High Treasurer, get such a summons (where he was not a peer or a high ranking cleric)?
With regard to Q4. I have now found the following quote from the website of the College of Arms: "In 1417, King Henry V commanded the Sheriffs of Hampshire, Wiltshire, Sussex and Dorset not to allow any men to bear arms on the forthcoming expedition to France unless by ancestral right or by grant from a competent authority." That begs the questions, what was a 'competent authority', and do records of that competent authority survive?
With regards to Q5. I was also hoping for negative evidence. I would like to write: As there is no evidence of anyone else ever holding these arms, it is doubtful that Nicholas inherited them, and there is no evidence of any grant either. The likelihood is that he assumed those arms.
Rock

There is an interesting article on the composition of the House of Lords at http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1386-1421/survey/iv-composition-house-lords

In the first paragraph it says: 'By the end of the 14th century their two main categories were being described as 'the lords spiritual' and 'the lords temporal'; and, even if they happened to be high officials of state or members of the King's continual Council, these lords were summoned by individual writs, issued by the Chancery under the great seal, attendance being owed as a directly personal obligation (unless it was formally excused).' The rest of the article is also worth reading.

As mentioned in my previous post, Wagner refers to grants of arms by the king as a secondary part of making someone a gentleman. In other words, by the fifteenth century the bearing of arms was essentially a symbol of status. 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 gentle his condition. (iv, 3)

Thus the king could make someone a gentleman and therefore entitled to a coat of arms.

It is true of Bubwith that 'there is no evidence of anyone else ever holding these arms'. Given that grants of arms were rare at this time, the absence of a grant means little. Of more importance is that his family are unknown and his rise at court was not based on any contacts. This would suggest that he was the first in his family to achieve armigerous status.

Peter Howarth

[1***@gmail.com]

Thanks again Peter.

That article was really informative.

I am close now to completing my study of Nicholas Bubwith, and have noticed some clues concerning his family and possible parentage.

Now if I can find some proof-readers to go over my notes.... :)

Rock