Discussion:
Significance of finding the Wichenford Washbourne Crest at Bengeworth
(too old to reply)
AJB
2019-07-14 05:56:22 UTC
Permalink
According to the College of Arms and the acknowledged authority on crests, “Fairbairn's Book of Crests,” the only person entitled to use a crest is the person, to whom the crest is originally granted, and the direct male descendants of said person. The Herald’s records indicate that the Washbourne Crest is described thus: “On a wreath a bundle of flax argent, surmounted by another wreath and thereon flames of fire proper.” This crest was first granted to John Washbourne, Knight of Wichenford who died circa 1430 and whose tomb Habingdon described: “A man armed all saving his head, under which lyeth his helmet with a wreath and thereupon a flame of fire…”. We know the grantee was John because John’s father Peter was not a knight and so could not be granted a crest that rested upon a wreath during this time period. Peter’s father John, married to Isabella de la Mare, was a knight but he was dead before the use of crests became widespread under Edward III. Further, the Harleian Manuscripts never show this John’s arms with the crest. In addition to appearing upon John c. 1430’s Wichenford tomb, the crest is also often included in renderings of the Washbourne coat of arms when shown quartered with Poher in the Harleian Manuscripts. John had two sons with Margaret Poher: Norman, father of John of Wichenford (1517) and John.

Subsequently, a male Washbourne, descended from the original grantee of the crest, the John Washbourne who was buried at Wichenford in c. 1430, placed the Washbourne of Wichenford Crest into the glass of a small church window in old St. Peter’s Church, Bengeworth Worcestershire. The church was demolished in 1872 but the then Vicar preserved fragments of the windows, including the one bearing the Washbourne crest. E.A.B. Barnard, FSA, documents the survival of the crest for us in his book “Some Notes on the Evesham Branch of the Washbourne Family.” He tells us that the only pieces of the window that survived were the “wreath with flames proper thereon.” Barnard also tells us that the glass was subsequently taken to London and subjected to "expert examination" which verified that it was indeed a fragment of the Washbourne of Wichenford Crest. The remounting of the surviving fragments of glass, in a surround of glass pieces not original to the window, is unfortunate because it gives the impression that the wreath is seated upon a shaft, which the original surviving pieces did not include. Further, the remounted window appears to have been mounted reversed, as it would have been seen from outside of the church. However there are six windings or turns, which is proper for a heraldic wreath. The form of the wreath is specific to heraldic crests. Fairbairn describes it thus: “The wreath is a skein of colored silk and a cord of gold or silver twisted together in six turns.” The colors of the wreath should have been argent and gules with argent coming first, in accord with the field of the Washbourne arms. Barnard tells us that the first color is instead of a greenish tint but dismisses this as a typical shift of tincture often encountered in reproductions of heraldic glass. I rather suspect that the artisans may have used clear glass to represent the argent (silver), resulting in glass with a greenish cast. This is sometimes encountered in medieval glass and is usually due to the presence of too much iron oxide in the batch ingredients used. We observe this same corruption in another piece of heraldic glass that also survived the St. Peter’s demolition. While the crest may have been placed in the church at any time between 1430 and 1872, the most likely time period will have been sometime in the early 1600s when the use of crests alone, removed from the helm, became widely popular in England. Here is a link to Barnard.

https://archive.org/details/somenotesonevesh00barn/page/80

The presence of the Wichenford Washbourne Crest in a window of old St. Peter’s Church Bengeworth, Worcestershire, proves that a direct male descendant of Sir John Washbourne, Knight, dead c. 1430, placed the Washbourne Crest there and provides us with substantial evidence that a direct familial connection did exist between the Washbournes of Wichenford and those of Bengeworth, Worcestershire. AJB
Peter Howarth
2019-07-14 09:10:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by AJB
According to the College of Arms and the acknowledged authority on crests, “Fairbairn's Book of Crests,” the only person entitled to use a crest is the person, to whom the crest is originally granted, and the direct male descendants of said person. The Herald’s records indicate that the Washbourne Crest is described thus: “On a wreath a bundle of flax argent, surmounted by another wreath and thereon flames of fire proper.” This crest was first granted to John Washbourne, Knight of Wichenford who died circa 1430 and whose tomb Habingdon described: “A man armed all saving his head, under which lyeth his helmet with a wreath and thereupon a flame of fire…”. We know the grantee was John because John’s father Peter was not a knight and so could not be granted a crest that rested upon a wreath during this time period. Peter’s father John, married to Isabella de la Mare, was a knight but he was dead before the use of crests became widespread under Edward III. Further, the Harleian Manuscripts never show this John’s arms with the crest. In addition to appearing upon John c. 1430’s Wichenford tomb, the crest is also often included in renderings of the Washbourne coat of arms when shown quartered with Poher in the Harleian Manuscripts. John had two sons with Margaret Poher: Norman, father of John of Wichenford (1517) and John.
Subsequently, a male Washbourne, descended from the original grantee of the crest, the John Washbourne who was buried at Wichenford in c. 1430, placed the Washbourne of Wichenford Crest into the glass of a small church window in old St. Peter’s Church, Bengeworth Worcestershire. The church was demolished in 1872 but the then Vicar preserved fragments of the windows, including the one bearing the Washbourne crest. E.A.B. Barnard, FSA, documents the survival of the crest for us in his book “Some Notes on the Evesham Branch of the Washbourne Family.” He tells us that the only pieces of the window that survived were the “wreath with flames proper thereon.” Barnard also tells us that the glass was subsequently taken to London and subjected to "expert examination" which verified that it was indeed a fragment of the Washbourne of Wichenford Crest. The remounting of the surviving fragments of glass, in a surround of glass pieces not original to the window, is unfortunate because it gives the impression that the wreath is seated upon a shaft, which the original surviving pieces did not include. Further, the remounted window appears to have been mounted reversed, as it would have been seen from outside of the church. However there are six windings or turns, which is proper for a heraldic wreath. The form of the wreath is specific to heraldic crests. Fairbairn describes it thus: “The wreath is a skein of colored silk and a cord of gold or silver twisted together in six turns.” The colors of the wreath should have been argent and gules with argent coming first, in accord with the field of the Washbourne arms. Barnard tells us that the first color is instead of a greenish tint but dismisses this as a typical shift of tincture often encountered in reproductions of heraldic glass. I rather suspect that the artisans may have used clear glass to represent the argent (silver), resulting in glass with a greenish cast. This is sometimes encountered in medieval glass and is usually due to the presence of too much iron oxide in the batch ingredients used. We observe this same corruption in another piece of heraldic glass that also survived the St. Peter’s demolition. While the crest may have been placed in the church at any time between 1430 and 1872, the most likely time period will have been sometime in the early 1600s when the use of crests alone, removed from the helm, became widely popular in England. Here is a link to Barnard.
https://archive.org/details/somenotesonevesh00barn/page/80
The presence of the Wichenford Washbourne Crest in a window of old St. Peter’s Church Bengeworth, Worcestershire, proves that a direct male descendant of Sir John Washbourne, Knight, dead c. 1430, placed the Washbourne Crest there and provides us with substantial evidence that a direct familial connection did exist between the Washbournes of Wichenford and those of Bengeworth, Worcestershire. AJB
Are you able to explain how Fairbairn became ‘the acknowledged authority on crests’? Why did Fairbairn's work later need to be revised, first by Laurence Butters and later still by A C Fox-Davies? And are you sure that nobody ever did something different from what Fairbairn describes? What were the penalties for disobeying his rules?

The difficulty is that all the 'rules' in heraldry get broken from time to time -- just as all the rules for languages always have exceptions. Fairbairn wrote in 1859, describing the most common ways that he thought crests were used. The problem is that the Washbournes had never read Fairbairn and did not know about his rules. They did whatever they fancied doing. It was therefore open to the Washbournes of Bengeworth to use the crest of Washbourne of Wichenford without being related.

The Nevilles of Pickhill adopted a version of the Neville of Raby arms even though they were not related to Robert fitz Meldred of Raby, the original bearer of the arms. Similarly, the Greys of Rotherfield used a version of the Grey of Codnor arms even though they were not related.

So, unfortunately, the use of the Washbourne of Wichenford crest by the Washbournes of Bengeworth does not, by itself, prove anything.

Peter Howarth
AJB
2019-07-14 21:54:42 UTC
Permalink
PH is absolutely correct, the laws of heraldry were often broken but they were also often enforced. Further, they were not Fairbairn’s “rules”, they were Sovereign laws. One of the reasons Visitations of Counties were first established in England was precisely for the enforcement of the laws pertaining to the use of arms, including the display of crests. “Between 1530 and 1689 the Kings of Arms were given Royal Commissions to visit English and Welsh counties, to establish that arms were borne with proper authority. Anyone found using arms without entitlement was forced to make a public disclaimer.” “Royal control was firmly established by 1530, when the Visitation Commission directed Clarenceux King of Arms to ‘reform all false armory and arms devised without authority’”. COA If the Heralds found a violation of the law, the offending monument, window etc. could be destroyed. Arms were an important signifier of rank and status and jealously guarded. Had an illegitimate use of the Wichenford Crest by the Washbournes of Bengeworth taken place, the Wichenford Washbournes, located just 25 miles down the road, would almost certainly have objected; the records are full of legal cases contesting the right to arms. The window displaying the Wichenford Washbourne Crest remained intact until the demolition of old St. Peter’s in 1872, standing as a testament to the fact that no such challenge was ever initiated.

PH offers the Nevilles and Rabys as examples of families using versions of arms even though they were not related. First of all let’s define our terms precisely: The legitimate use of a crest is limited to use by direct male descendants of the person to whom the crest was first granted. The use of a coat of arms, without the crest, does not have to follow this strict line of direct male descent from the original grantee so the Neville and Grey families may have been using versions of arms to which they were entitled.

The use of the Wichenford Washbourne Crest, if legitimate, does absolutely prove that the person using the crest was in direct descent from the first male Wichenford Washbourne to whom the crest was granted. But, please don’t take my or Fairbairn’s word for it, ask the Officer Pursuivant of the COA – I’m certain he will be happy to share the facts and history of the laws regarding the legal use of crests in England.

The copy of “Fairbairn’s Book of Crests” that I use as a reference is 4th Edition published 1905 which is the version edited by Fox-Davies and includes the previous revisions by Butters. When I say "Fairbairn" I refer to this edition of that book and not to the individual James Fairbairn. AJB
taf
2019-07-15 04:56:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by AJB
PH is absolutely correct, the laws of heraldry were often broken but they
were also often enforced. Further, they were not Fairbairn’s “rules”,
they were Sovereign laws. One of the reasons Visitations of Counties were
first established in England was precisely for the enforcement of the laws
pertaining to the use of arms, including the display of crests.
And one of the reasons they had to established visitations was the degree to which the 'rules' were being flouted.
Post by AJB
Had an illegitimate use of the Wichenford Crest by the Washbournes of
Bengeworth taken place, the Wichenford Washbournes, located just 25 miles
down the road, would almost certainly have objected; the records are full
of legal cases contesting the right to arms.
Your certainty is nothing but question-begging. Cite for me every case of which you are aware from the 16th and 17th centuries in which the use of a crest was challenged in court.
Post by AJB
The use of a coat of arms, without the crest, does not have to follow this
strict line of direct male descent from the original grantee
OK, now you are just redefining the rules to match the answer you want.
Post by AJB
The use of the Wichenford Washbourne Crest, if legitimate, does absolutely
prove that the person using the crest was in direct descent from the first
male Wichenford Washbourne to whom the crest was granted.
It is tautological to conclude that 'if legitimate' it proves they are have that descent, when you have already argued that only those with such a descent are legitimately bearing it. The descent proves legitimacy, which proves the descent, which proves legitimacy, which proves descent, . . . . .
Post by AJB
But, please don’t take my or Fairbairn’s word for it, ask the Officer
Pursuivant of the COA – I’m certain he will be happy to share the facts
and history of the laws regarding the legal use of crests in England.
Pretty pointless, since it is based on the central assumption that the 21st century rules of crest inheritance were invariably followed that way in the 16th and 17th centuries. For all of the modern COA heralds you can get to attest to what the rules should have been in Tudor and Stuart times, I can show you historical COA heralds that didn't follow those rules (for example the one who allowed the Spencers to use a differenced Despencer coat).

I think you are applying anachronistic concepts of heraldry here.

taf
Peter Howarth
2019-07-15 05:51:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by AJB
PH is absolutely correct, the laws of heraldry were often broken but they were also often enforced. Further, they were not Fairbairn’s “rules”, they were Sovereign laws. One of the reasons Visitations of Counties were first established in England was precisely for the enforcement of the laws pertaining to the use of arms, including the display of crests. “Between 1530 and 1689 the Kings of Arms were given Royal Commissions to visit English and Welsh counties, to establish that arms were borne with proper authority. Anyone found using arms without entitlement was forced to make a public disclaimer.” “Royal control was firmly established by 1530, when the Visitation Commission directed Clarenceux King of Arms to ‘reform all false armory and arms devised without authority’”. COA If the Heralds found a violation of the law, the offending monument, window etc. could be destroyed. Arms were an important signifier of rank and status and jealously guarded. Had an illegitimate use of the Wichenford Crest by the Washbournes of Bengeworth taken place, the Wichenford Washbournes, located just 25 miles down the road, would almost certainly have objected; the records are full of legal cases contesting the right to arms. The window displaying the Wichenford Washbourne Crest remained intact until the demolition of old St. Peter’s in 1872, standing as a testament to the fact that no such challenge was ever initiated.
PH offers the Nevilles and Rabys as examples of families using versions of arms even though they were not related. First of all let’s define our terms precisely: The legitimate use of a crest is limited to use by direct male descendants of the person to whom the crest was first granted. The use of a coat of arms, without the crest, does not have to follow this strict line of direct male descent from the original grantee so the Neville and Grey families may have been using versions of arms to which they were entitled.
The use of the Wichenford Washbourne Crest, if legitimate, does absolutely prove that the person using the crest was in direct descent from the first male Wichenford Washbourne to whom the crest was granted. But, please don’t take my or Fairbairn’s word for it, ask the Officer Pursuivant of the COA – I’m certain he will be happy to share the facts and history of the laws regarding the legal use of crests in England.
The copy of “Fairbairn’s Book of Crests” that I use as a reference is 4th Edition published 1905 which is the version edited by Fox-Davies and includes the previous revisions by Butters. When I say "Fairbairn" I refer to this edition of that book and not to the individual James Fairbairn. AJB
I am slow off the mark and Todd has made most of the comments I wanted to say. Nonetheless, I will post what I had prepared.

I am concerned with the correct interpretation of heraldry. There were too many books written, especially in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, by those who made up rules that they thought ought to apply. They also mixed up their chronology. They tried to apply fashions from one century to a different one. In this case we are concerned with heraldry in the 1430s.
I have inserted ny comments below.
Post by AJB
PH is absolutely correct, the laws of heraldry were often broken but they
were also often enforced. Further, they were not Fairbairn’s “rules”,
they were Sovereign laws.
They were not laws of the same status as Statutes, with detailed provisions, such as the Statute Concerning Diet and Apparel of 1363 (37 Edw. III c. 1, 3 - 19), which was a sumptuary law that tried to stop lower classes from emulating their 'betters'. Members of the aristocracy and gentry were used to adopting their own arms, but later that century too many of the lower orders started to do the same. Henry V issued a writ in 1418 requiring everyone to show their right to bear arms (normally by long usage) 'those excepted who bore arms with us at the battle of Agincourt.' Unfortunately, the writ does appear to have been enforced very well, since the Tudor visitations were ordered precisely because unsuitable people were still using coats of arms. Please note that this was all about entitlement to any coat of arms, not about the details of which arms were used.
Post by AJB
One of the reasons Visitations of Counties were
first established in England was precisely for the enforcement of the laws
pertaining to the use of arms, including the display of crests. “Between
1530 and 1689 the Kings of Arms were given Royal Commissions to visit
English and Welsh counties, to establish that arms were borne with proper
authority. Anyone found using arms without entitlement was forced to make a
public disclaimer.” “Royal control was firmly established by 1530, when the
Visitation Commission directed Clarenceux King of Arms to ‘reform all false
armory and arms devised without authority’”. COA
As you say, the visitations only started in 1530, and the Washbourne heraldry is from a century earlier. For the commissioning of the visitations, I use A R Wagner, 'Heralds and Heraldry in the Middle Ages', 2nd edn (London: OUP, 1956), pp 100-120, and especially Appendix E 'Instructions to Somerset Herald and Rouge Dragon as deputies to Clarenceux King of Armes', and, for the effects of the visitations, Appendix D 'A booke of visitations made by T. Hawley alias Carlill Herauld marshall to T. Benolt in divers churches in and about London in the xxii yere of K. H. VIIIth'.
Post by AJB
If the Heralds found a
violation of the law, the offending monument, window etc. could be
destroyed. Arms were an important signifier of rank and status and
jealously guarded.
You are right. It's because arms were 'an important signifier of rank and status' that those of insufficient status had their monuments etc destroyed. Once someone had established their armigerous status, the heralds took on trust the details of their arms and crests. But in any case, the visitations are a century too late.
Post by AJB
Had an illegitimate use of the Wichenford Crest by the
Washbournes of Bengeworth taken place, the Wichenford Washbournes, located
just 25 miles down the road, would almost certainly have objected; the
records are full of legal cases contesting the right to arms. The window
displaying the Wichenford Washbourne Crest remained intact until the
demolition of old St. Peter’s in 1872, standing as a testament to the fact
that no such challenge was ever initiated.
The visiting heralds were very interested in monuments and stained glass in churches, but as evidence of long user rather than as a means of checking whether the details were correct. By the time of the visitations, the stained glass was at least a century old and therefore good evidence of status.
Post by AJB
PH offers the Nevilles and Rabys as examples of families using versions of
arms even though they were not related. First of all let’s define our terms
precisely: The legitimate use of a crest is limited to use by direct male
descendants of the person to whom the crest was first granted. The use of
a coat of arms, without the crest, does not have to follow this strict line
of direct male descent from the original grantee so the Neville and Grey
families may have been using versions of arms to which they were entitled.
What evidence is there that the Washbourne crest was granted? Normal practice at this time was for arms and crests simply to be adopted. That is what was causing all the fuss - too many unsuitable persons doing exactly that. And if arms didn't have to follow any 'rules' at this time, why should crests?
Post by AJB
The use of the Wichenford Washbourne Crest, if legitimate, does absolutely
prove that the person using the crest was in direct descent from the first
male Wichenford Washbourne to whom the crest was granted. But, please
don’t take my or Fairbairn’s word for it, ask the Officer Pursuivant of the
COA – I’m certain he will be happy to share the facts and history of the
laws regarding the legal use of crests in England.
As it happens, I am in touch with an officer of the College. He was Rouge Croix Pursuivant when I first met him and he is now Garter Principal King of Arms. He is certainly an authority on the present use of crests, but he would not claim to know everything about how crests were used when they were first introduced. He can only do what the rest of us do, and examine what actually happened.
Post by AJB
The copy of “Fairbairn’s Book of Crests” that I use as a reference is 4th
Edition published 1905 which is the version edited by Fox-Davies and
includes the previous revisions by Butters. When I say "Fairbairn" I refer
to this edition of that book and not to the individual James Fairbairn.
AJB
Fairbairn is a useful work for looking up crests and their families, especially as the 'Dictionary of British Arms' only deals with arms, although with both of them I try to check the primary sources, since both works contain errors of detail. But how do you know what period Fairbairn was referring to when he writes about 'direct male descendants of the person to whom the crest was first granted'? I suggest that it was the nineteenth century, when he was probably correct, but that does not mean it was correct for the fifteenth century.

I am not suggesting anything about the Washbourne genealogy. I am only concerned that mediaeval heraldry should be based on contemporary evidence and that it should not be used as though it were subject to the 'rules' made up in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Peter Howarth
p***@yahoo.ca
2019-07-15 12:42:01 UTC
Permalink
I'm finding this discussion very enlightening as I have no clue about crests and arms. One of the reasons I keep an eye on this group is to learn and this certainly fits the bill.
AJB
2019-07-15 17:30:59 UTC
Permalink
A male Washbourne, descended from the original grantee of the crest, the Knight, Sir John Washbourne who was buried at Wichenford in c. 1430, placed the Washbourne of Wichenford Crest into the glass of a small church window in old St. Peter’s Church, Bengeworth Worcestershire, probably in the early 1600s.

If the male Washbourne who placed the crest at St. Peter’s was doing so legitimately, i.e. he had a lawful right to use the crest, it does absolutely prove that the person using the crest was in direct descent from the first male Wichenford Washbourne granted the crest. This use was governed by Sovereign law.

Had the use of the crest not been a legitimate use, the Wichenford Washbournes would almost certainly have complained at this usurpation of their privilege had the Heralds not removed it first. Neither happened.

“Fairbairn”: “The question of the right of any particular person to the crest to which a claim is made depends upon proof of descent from the original grantee.” AJB
Peter Howarth
2019-07-15 17:49:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by AJB
A male Washbourne, descended from the original grantee of the crest, the Knight, Sir John Washbourne who was buried at Wichenford in c. 1430, placed the Washbourne of Wichenford Crest into the glass of a small church window in old St. Peter’s Church, Bengeworth Worcestershire, probably in the early 1600s.
If the male Washbourne who placed the crest at St. Peter’s was doing so legitimately, i.e. he had a lawful right to use the crest, it does absolutely prove that the person using the crest was in direct descent from the first male Wichenford Washbourne granted the crest. This use was governed by Sovereign law.
Had the use of the crest not been a legitimate use, the Wichenford Washbournes would almost certainly have complained at this usurpation of their privilege had the Heralds not removed it first. Neither happened.
“Fairbairn”: “The question of the right of any particular person to the crest to which a claim is made depends upon proof of descent from the original grantee.” AJB
I disagree completely with what you have just written about heraldry. You have chosen to ignore all the evidence I set out in my previous post and have made no attempt to rebut any of it. All I can do is ask you to read it again.

Peter Howarth
taf
2019-07-15 19:30:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by AJB
A male Washbourne, descended from the original grantee of the crest, the
Knight, Sir John Washbourne who was buried at Wichenford in c. 1430, placed
the Washbourne of Wichenford Crest into the glass of a small church window
in old St. Peter’s Church, Bengeworth Worcestershire, probably in the early
1600s.
That this crest was placed in the glass by a descendant of Sir John is entirely your assumption.
Post by AJB
If the male Washbourne who placed the crest at St. Peter’s was doing so
legitimately, i.e. he had a lawful right to use the crest, it does
absolutely prove that the person using the crest was in direct descent from
the first male Wichenford Washbourne granted the crest.
Again with the tautology. Of course if they bore it legitimately (as you view it) it proves the descent, because you have defined 'bearing it legitimately' as having the descent. When you start by establishing that X is a necessary prerequisite for Y to be the case, then of course if Y is the case, X must have been satisfied, but it doesn't get you anywhere, because it is inherently self-fulfilling.
Post by AJB
This use was governed by Sovereign law.
This use governed by a circular argument, nothing more.
Post by AJB
Had the use of the crest not been a legitimate use, the Wichenford
Washbournes would almost certainly have complained at this usurpation of
their privilege had the Heralds not removed it first. Neither happened.
You think? I asked you for a court case over a crest from this period. I am not seeing you cite any.
Post by AJB
“Fairbairn”: “The question of the right of any particular person to the
crest to which a claim is made depends upon proof of descent from the
original grantee.”
Heraldic law and practice was not uniformly uniformly applied from the 12th century through the 21st century. Instead there was a progressive codification of a simplified understanding of prior simple practice. Fairbairn and his ilk tell you about the practice in the authors' time, and even what they thought practice was centuries earlier, but not what it actually was.

taf
AJB
2019-07-15 18:23:42 UTC
Permalink
PH Wrote “In this case we are concerned with heraldry in the 1430s.”

Not really. We are concerned with a crest that first was granted in the 1400s and was then carried on by the male descendants of the family, as evinced by representations of that exact same crest in the Harl. notes through the 1600s and later in the family monuments at Wichenford, placed in the 1600s.

The laws governing heraldry are Sovereign laws – whether they are laws of the same status as Statures is de minimis in the extreme.

Crests were most certainly granted, from the beginning of their use under Edward III and only families of knightly descent could place the crest upon a wreath, as we see in the Wichenford Crest. A person purporting to have as deep and broad knowledge of heraldry as you should know this.

The quote from “Fairbairn” does not appear to have been limited to any particular time period addressing instead the entire history of crests as distinct from the complete coat of arms.
AJB
2019-07-15 18:24:48 UTC
Permalink
PH Wrote “In this case we are concerned with heraldry in the 1430s.”

Not really. We are concerned with a crest that first was granted in the 1400s and was then carried on by the male descendants of the family, as evinced by recreations of that exact same crest in the Harl. notes through the 1600s and later in the family monuments at Wichenford, placed in the 1600s.

The laws governing heraldry are Sovereign laws – whether they are laws of the same status as Statures is de minimis in the extreme.

Crests were most certainly granted, from the beginning of their use under Edward III and only families of knightly descent could place the crest upon a wreath, as we see in the Wichenford Crest. A person purporting to have as deep and broad knowledge of heraldry as you should know this.

The quote from “Fairbairn” does not appear to have been limited to any particular time period addressing instead the entire history of crests as distinct from the complete coat of arms. AJB
AJB
2019-07-15 18:53:30 UTC
Permalink
PH Wrote “In this case we are concerned with heraldry in the 1430s.”

Not really. We are concerned with a crest that first was granted in the 1400s and was then carried on by the male descendants of the family, as evinced by recreations of that exact same crest in the Harl. notes through the 1600s and later in the family monuments at Wichenford, placed in the 1600s.

The laws governing heraldry are Sovereign laws – whether they are laws of the same status as Statutes is de minimis in the extreme.

Crests were most certainly granted, from the beginning of their use under Edward III and only families of knightly descent could place the crest upon a wreath, as we see in the Wichenford Crest. A person purporting to have as deep and broad knowledge of heraldry as you should know this.

The quote from “Fairbairn” does not appear to have been limited to any particular time period addressing instead the entire history of crests as distinct from the complete coat of arms. AJB
taf
2019-07-15 19:56:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by AJB
Crests were most certainly granted, from the beginning of their use under
Edward III
You have a high degree of certainty about these things. but simply declaring that something not otherwise supported is 'certainly' the case really doesn't prove all that convincing.
Post by AJB
The quote from “Fairbairn” does not appear to have been limited to any
particular time period addressing instead the entire history of crests as
distinct from the complete coat of arms.
'It doesn't say to what period it relates, so it must be unchanging practice since the dawn of time'? No.

Just like other elements of heraldry, crests did not arise, fully formed from the head of Zeus. It was a response to practice, rather than giving rise to it. Some of the earliest equestrian seals (late 12th/early-13th centuries) show crests.

taf
AJB
2019-07-15 20:15:46 UTC
Permalink
TAF is confusing tautology with circular reasoning, which demonstrates that he is absolutely ignorant of propositional logic – i.e. he just likes to throw big words around to muddy up what is otherwise quite straight forward and also to attempt to intimidate those incapable of actually parsing his discourse.

Neither apply to the evidence and argument I have presented in this thread.

Seals are another category of insignia entirely and should not be introduced into this discussion. Crests, in broad terms, were even present during Roman times. Let us try and confine ourselves to the crests in use from Edward III forward and specifically those placed upon wreaths. AJB
taf
2019-07-15 21:47:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by AJB
TAF is confusing tautology with circular reasoning,
No, he actually doesn't confuse them. As you have framed it, 'legitimately held' and 'having a descent from the person to whom it was granted' are exactly the same thing. That you say one them proves the other is completely tautological because they mean exactly the same thing. Establishing one by definition establishes the other.
Post by AJB
Seals are another category of insignia entirely and should not be introduced
into this discussion.
Seals are contemporary illustration of heraldic practice, and as such have every business being part of a discussion of crests, when they illustrate the use of crests a full century and more before you claim they were conjured into existence by Edward III.
Post by AJB
Crests, in broad terms, were even present during Roman times.
Yes, they were. Which should be telling you that the same rules do not apply across all time, and that it is perhaps unwise to take a generic statement of practice from the early 20th century and assume it is equally applicable to actual practice (not law, but practice) centuries earlier.

You are also making a legalistic fallacy. Not everybody follows the rules, not now, not ever. The existence of a law need not, in and of itself, imply that a specific example of usage is 'certainly' in accordance with that law.

taf
AJB
2019-07-15 22:47:13 UTC
Permalink
In circular reasoning. the so-called "final proof" relies on unproven evidence set forth initially as the subject of debate. Basically, the argument goes in an endless circle, with each step of the argument relying on a previous one, which in turn relies on the first argument yet to be proven.

But in the case I have presented, the initial evidence is a tomb at Wichenford that actually did exist and actually did bear the crest under discussion. The initial existence of said tomb is not unproven evidence so the subsequent argument upon which it is based cannot, by definition, be circular. Such a charge fails a priori.

Crests attached to arms came into common use under Edward III. Study up.

Seals are quite idiosyncratic, not subject to the constraints of hereditary.
Thus, they have nothing material to contribute to this discussion of crests. AJB
Peter Stewart
2019-07-15 23:30:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by AJB
In circular reasoning. the so-called "final proof" relies on unproven evidence set forth initially as the subject of debate. Basically, the argument goes in an endless circle, with each step of the argument relying on a previous one, which in turn relies on the first argument yet to be proven.
But in the case I have presented, the initial evidence is a tomb at Wichenford that actually did exist and actually did bear the crest under discussion. The initial existence of said tomb is not unproven evidence so the subsequent argument upon which it is based cannot, by definition, be circular. Such a charge fails a priori.
Crests attached to arms came into common use under Edward III. Study up.
Seals are quite idiosyncratic, not subject to the constraints of hereditary.
Thus, they have nothing material to contribute to this discussion of crests. AJB
The argument - including the patent circularity of your reasoning on one
side - is about the interpretation of evidence, not about its existence.

Peter Stewart
taf
2019-07-16 00:03:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by AJB
But in the case I have presented, the initial evidence is a tomb at
Wichenford that actually did exist and actually did bear the crest under
discussion. The initial existence of said tomb is not unproven evidence
so the subsequent argument upon which it is based cannot, by definition,
be circular. Such a charge fails a priori.
Except this is not the _entire_ argument you are making. The existence of the glass is not in dispute, it is the conclusion you draw from this that is the problem.
Post by AJB
Crests attached to arms came into common use under Edward III. Study up.
Crests associated with arms predated the reign of Edward III. Study up.
Post by AJB
Seals are quite idiosyncratic, not subject to the constraints of hereditary.
Thus, they have nothing material to contribute to this discussion of crests.
Seals that show heraldic devices are contemporary evidence of the use of those heraldic devices. If a seal shows a crest being used, it is direct evidence that crests (or at least one crest) were in use at that time. If you want to argue that it shows that crests existed, but not that they were hereditary, that is exactly the point - that crests could exist outside of codified hereditary heraldry.

taf
AJB
2019-07-16 00:17:15 UTC
Permalink
Peter Stewart - I have utmost respect for your scholarly work. Please elucidate for me what is circular about the following argument:

A tomb exists. Upon that tomb is a helmet and crest.

That exact crest is then noted for 220 years in constant use by the same family to which the person in the tomb belonged.

A family of the same surname and located 25 miles away from the site of the original tomb places that exact crest into a window of their parish church.

If the laws of heraldry with respect to male descent apply and are not violated in this case then why is there not a very strong case to be made that the male who placed the crest in the window was not a direct descendant of the original grantee of the crest?

Where is the circularity in this argument? Where is the flaw? Kindly and Respectfully, AJB
taf
2019-07-16 01:13:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by AJB
If the laws of heraldry with respect to male descent apply and are not
violated in this case then why is there not a very strong case to be made
that the male who placed the crest in the window was not a direct descendant
of the original grantee of the crest?
Where is the circularity in this argument? Where is the flaw?
Right there, where you limit the question to those cases in which the there is a descent as the law dictates, then use it to argue that under these circumstances, there is a descent of the type the law dictates. Well, Yeah. No kidding. 'If X, then X'.

taf
Peter Stewart
2019-07-16 02:04:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by AJB
A tomb exists. Upon that tomb is a helmet and crest.
That exact crest is then noted for 220 years in constant use by the same family to which the person in the tomb belonged.
A family of the same surname and located 25 miles away from the site of the original tomb places that exact crest into a window of their parish church.
If the laws of heraldry with respect to male descent apply and are not violated in this case then why is there not a very strong case to be made that the male who placed the crest in the window was not a direct descendant of the original grantee of the crest?
Where is the circularity in this argument? Where is the flaw?
How do you know that for 220 years the family didn't wrongly suppose
that their ancestor who used the crest in the early 1600s was entitled
to it? That they didn't simply think they were complying with the rules
when all along they were actually not?

How do you know that the head of a family named Washburn at Bengeworth
in the early 17th century didn't get away with accelerating a social
climb by displaying his assumed name's-alike relationship to the
Washbournes of Wichenford, behaving rather like Hyacinth Bucket calling
herself Bouquet?

Peter Stewart
AJB
2019-07-16 03:46:41 UTC
Permalink
If the laws of heraldry with respect to male descent apply then the person using the arms is entitled to use them. If said laws apply and said person is not in proper male descent then he is not entitled to use them and is committing fraud. There is nothing circular about this line of reasoning.

We don’t know if the Bengeworth family was using the crest without a right to do so but, in order to consider that a reasonable assumption, one does have to consider the social and legal milieu. What were the odds that a person, not entitled to use the arms, placed them in a church window at a time when laws existed to prevent this, Heralds were deployed to prevent this and the family entitled to use the arms was 25 miles down the road and likely to take umbrage and seek redress?

The preponderance of the evidence suggests that illegitimate use of the crest would not have been tolerated; that proper use of arms and or crest was the rule and officially condoned – by Herald, by neighbors and by the Vicar of the Parish of Bengeworth.

Your contra argument appears to be that the rule was that rogue usurpers were allowed to run amuck, using arms and or a crest to which they were not entitled. You must bring forward a statistically sound number of examples in which rogue and fraudulent arms or crest users got away with their frauds in the early 1600s in Worcestershire for your argument to be sound. Otherwise it remains a highly speculative Hypothesis Contrary to Fact. AJB
Peter Stewart
2019-07-16 04:09:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by AJB
If the laws of heraldry with respect to male descent apply then the person using the arms is entitled to use them. If said laws apply and said person is not in proper male descent then he is not entitled to use them and is committing fraud. There is nothing circular about this line of reasoning.
We don’t know if the Bengeworth family was using the crest without a right to do so but, in order to consider that a reasonable assumption, one does have to consider the social and legal milieu. What were the odds that a person, not entitled to use the arms, placed them in a church window at a time when laws existed to prevent this, Heralds were deployed to prevent this and the family entitled to use the arms was 25 miles down the road and likely to take umbrage and seek redress?
The preponderance of the evidence suggests that illegitimate use of the crest would not have been tolerated; that proper use of arms and or crest was the rule and officially condoned – by Herald, by neighbors and by the Vicar of the Parish of Bengeworth.
Your contra argument appears to be that the rule was that rogue usurpers were allowed to run amuck, using arms and or a crest to which they were not entitled. You must bring forward a statistically sound number of examples in which rogue and fraudulent arms or crest users got away with their frauds in the early 1600s in Worcestershire for your argument to be sound. Otherwise it remains a highly speculative Hypothesis Contrary to Fact. AJB
I asked how you know the rules were followed and your answer is "those
were the rules". That is circular reasoning.

Heralds made visitations in part to catch rule-breakers, and like all
other people heralds could be prone to error and credulity.

There may be any number of reasons why an armigerous family 25 miles
away would not know for sure who might be their distant (in both senses)
relatives, or why they might not choose to make an issue of a minor
heraldic imposture. One family could have been indebted to the other for
all I know, or have countless other reasons for not inviting closer
scrutiny from heralds.

Peter Stewart
r***@yahoo.com
2019-07-16 04:19:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
There may be any number of reasons why an armigerous family 25 miles
away would not know for sure who might be their distant (in both senses)
relatives, or why they might not choose to make an issue of a minor
heraldic imposture. One family could have been indebted to the other for
all I know, or have countless other reasons for not inviting closer
scrutiny from heralds.
Peter Stewart
Profound indifference, too much other stuff to do, incorrect assumptions that the fraudsters were actually related "in some way" ...
Vance Mead
2019-07-16 05:07:43 UTC
Permalink
It's not possible to calculate how often people used arms illegitimately, but it seems to have happened fairly often and spurious use of arms was accepted by the heralds and others.

Here is a real-life example. The Meade family of northwestern Essex (Clavering, Great Easton, Elmdon) used the arms shown here (as well as similar arms):

https://archive.org/details/visitationcambr00britgoog/page/n82

These are the same as on the Mede chantry in St Mary Redcliffe, Bristol, (dating from 1475), so it has been assumed, going back to genealogists in the 19th century, that the two families were related. It was also assumed that the Meades in Essex were descended from a Thomas Meade of Clavering (PCC will 1504) who was somehow related to Philip and Thomas Mede in Bristol.

In fact, there had been people named Mede or Meade living in that part of Essex back at least to the early 15th century. They were usually described (for example in Common Pleas) as husbandman and sometimes yeoman, so they were not armigerous. But some of them were fairly prosperous and acquired freehold land, particularly after the Dissolution of the monasteries. By the end of the 16th century another Thomas Meade, of Elmdon (PCC will 1585) was a Common Pleas judge and there are several heralds visitations showing various branches of this family.

But they were not originally from Bristol; the family had been living in Essex all along.

I haven't studied this family. It's quite possible that the family in Bengeworth is related to the Washebournes in Wichinford. A coat of arms in a church is evidence, but it isn't proof. In order to prove the case you have to make the connections step by step.


"The preponderance of the evidence suggests that illegitimate use of the crest would not have been tolerated; that proper use of arms and or crest was the rule and officially condoned – by Herald, by neighbors and by the Vicar of the Parish of Bengeworth."
Peter Stewart
2019-07-16 08:37:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@yahoo.com
Post by Peter Stewart
There may be any number of reasons why an armigerous family 25 miles
away would not know for sure who might be their distant (in both senses)
relatives, or why they might not choose to make an issue of a minor
heraldic imposture. One family could have been indebted to the other for
all I know, or have countless other reasons for not inviting closer
scrutiny from heralds.
Peter Stewart
Profound indifference, too much other stuff to do, incorrect assumptions that the fraudsters were actually related "in some way" ...
These suggestions probably hold more water for the early 17th-century
than at most other times in English history - although the minor gentry
were normally competitive and ambitious, by the decade after 1600 they
had suffered a long series of shocks to established family pride: the
extirpation of the Plantagenets, the suppression of Catholicism that had
ruined many recusant families, the arrival of new-rich neighbours in the
counties following the dissolution of the monasteries and rapid social
change in the market towns, and lately the accession of a new dynasty
with Scottish favourites and handsome English mediocrities wielding
power and influence at court. I doubt that a purloined crest would have
made for a major trauma around then.

Peter Stewart
AJB
2019-07-16 04:03:52 UTC
Permalink
If the laws of heraldry with respect to male descent apply then the person using the arms is entitled to use them. If he is not in proper male descent then he is not entitled to use them and is committing fraud. There is nothing circular about this line of reasoning.

We don’t know if the Bengeworth family was using the crest without a right to do so but, in order to consider that a reasonable assumption, one does have to consider the social and legal milieu. What were the odds that a person, not entitled to use the arms, placed them in a church window at a time when laws existed to prevent this, Heralds were deployed to prevent this and the family entitled to use the arms was 25 miles down the road and likely to take umbrage and seek redress?

The preponderance of the evidence suggests that illegitimate use of the crest would not have been tolerated; that proper use of arms and or crest was the rule and officially condoned – by Herald, by neighbors and by the Vicar of the Parish of Bengeworth.

Your contra argument appears to be that the rule was that rogue usurpers were allowed to run amuck, using arms and or a crest to which they were not entitled. You must bring forward a statistically sound number of examples in which rogue and fraudulent arms or crest users got away with doing so in the early 1600s in Worcestershire for your argument to be sound. AJB
taf
2019-07-16 14:01:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by AJB
If the laws of heraldry with respect to male descent apply then the person
using the arms is entitled to use them. If he is not in proper male descent
then he is not entitled to use them and is committing fraud. There is
nothing circular about this line of reasoning.
Your proposition was that if they were bearing it legitimately (i.e. they had the descent), then it is proof that they had the descent. When one predicates the conditional on the conclusion being true, it is of no value to then conclude that under these conditions, the conclusion is true.
Post by AJB
What were the odds that a person, not entitled to use the arms, placed them
in a church window at a time when laws existed to prevent this, Heralds were
deployed to prevent this . . . .
The very need to deploy heralds to prevent misuse demonstrates that misuse was happening.

taf
p***@yahoo.ca
2019-07-16 14:33:00 UTC
Permalink
Here's a story similar to the one Vance Meade told. It concerns the Skipwiths of St. Albans of Hertfordshire, who believed they were related to the Skipwiths of Yorkshire. They weren't. However, in 1507 they were granted arms similar to the Yorkshire Skipwiths. There is a twist to the story. The oldest known of the St. Albans's Skipwiths is John, who was the husband of Ellen Godfrey. Her grandmother was a Meppershall and her grandfather was a Broughton. They were members of the lesser aristocracy.
AJB
2019-07-16 05:43:40 UTC
Permalink
Vance Mead: "I haven't studied this family. It's quite possible that the family in Bengeworth is related to the Washebournes in Wichinford. A coat of arms in a church is evidence, but it isn't proof. In order to prove the case you have to make the connections step by step."

You are absolutely correct. This is but one step and more will follow. AJB
Peter Howarth
2019-07-17 06:51:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by AJB
Vance Mead: "I haven't studied this family. It's quite possible that the family in Bengeworth is related to the Washebournes in Wichinford. A coat of arms in a church is evidence, but it isn't proof. In order to prove the case you have to make the connections step by step."
You are absolutely correct. This is but one step and more will follow. AJB
Let's try a different approach. I have had a closer look at Barnard's book on the Washbourne family. Here are two quotes.

"Tindal, in his History of Evesham (published
in 1794) notes, quoting Habingdon, that in the west
window of the south aisle of Old St. Peter's
Church, Bengeworth, were the names of John Washbourne
and Richard Cawie,* benefactors ; and
he also refers to a coat of arms in the same window
which was not associated in any way with these
benefactors." p 37

"It certainly seems as if Tindal himself copied
the inscriptions from the originals in the church,
and then turned to Habingdon (1) for the heraldic
description, for he appends a note that he himself
" must not be considered as responsible for all these
heraldic notices : being utterly ignorant of the
science. All he (Tindal) could do has been to
copy the MS. notes of Habingdon."

(1) Habingdon compiled his MSS. during the period 1606-1607.
Nash, in his History of Worcestershire, published in 1781,
does not mention these inscriptions in Bengeworth
Church. Tindal published his History of Evesham in
1794, so that nearly one hundred and fifty years may have
elapsed between the times when Habingdon and Tindal
respectively made their copies." p 39

We therefore have mention of a John Washbourne as benefactor, but no mention of his arms or crest. Who was this John Washbourne? Was he of Bengeworth or of Wichinford? There is no evidence one way or the other, so we can only guess. And what was this anonymous coat of arms doing? What was it intended to signify if it had nothing to do with either benefactor? There is no evidence one way or another, so we can only guess.

Following that, we have a newspaper parcel containing some stained glass including what could well be a representation of the Washbourne crest. But we have no context for this glass. We don't know how it was used. We don't know whether it was intended to represent the Bengeworth family or the Wichinford family. We don't know whether it was put there out of neighbourliness,[1] or perhaps whether a younger son of the Wichinford family came to live in Bengeworth (as incumbent?) and died there. We have also seen how an unrelated family could use another family's arms or crest and get away with it. In all of this, we just don't know how the glass was used. There is no evidence one way or another, so we can only guess.

And if all you have are guesses, then it cannot be proof of anything. It doesn't prove that the two families are not related; but equally it doesn't prove that they are.

So it is still possible that the two families are in fact related. But you cannot use this little piece of stained glass as proof, one way or the other. You have got to keep looking.

Peter Howarth

[1] In Beverley Minster, East Riding, the Percy canopy was built 1340-49 over a tomb, probably that of Eleanor, daughter of Richard Fitzalan, earl of Arundel, and widow of Henry Percy (d.1314). She died 1328. On each side of the canopy, there are six angels carrying shields of arms, including the royal arms, Percy, Fitzalan, Warenne, and eight other families known to the Percys.

In Elsing church, Norfolk, is a monumental brass for Sir Hugh Hastings (d.1347) which had eight 'weepers' or mourners (seven still survive) set either side of the figure of Sir Hugh. They include Edward III, Thomas Beauchamp, earl of Warwick, and others with or under whom he fought against the French.

Norbury church, Derbyshire, has eight beautiful grisaille stained glass windows in the chancel, dating c.1306. They are filled with shields of arms representing warriors Sir Henry Fitzherbert knew (or wished he knew). There are a total of 25 different arms including Fitzherbert and the royal arms.

These are ones I have seen for myself. There is somewhere else another church, where the patron had his neighbours' arms dotted around the building. Unfortunately I did not make a proper note at the time I read about it. I now try to treat the omission as an object lesson in making immediate notes, with sources, about everything that might be of interest!
Peter Howarth
2019-07-17 09:00:45 UTC
Permalink
A long shot that may possibly be of help.

The National Archives have for a long time held a manuscript card-index of seals from the old Public Record Office. It has now been scanned and made available online for download in sections. I find it very useful. One of the cards refers to a Washbourne seal which matches the arms given in Barnard's book on the Washbourne family.

QFA 1/28: Index to seals: Personal Armorial: Men T-Z.
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C14505594

QFA-1-28_571.jpg: Wassheburn, Norman, Esq 7 Edw IV Shield of arms, 'a fesse and six martlets with three cinqfoils (?) on the fesse' (legend illegible) E329/351; another impression equally poor BS 354 (= E329/354)

E 329/351 Norman Wassheburn, esquire to John Chokke and William Sargeaunt, esquires, and others: Appointment of attorneys to deliver seisin of half the manor of Ashton Theynes and messuages and land in Long Ashton: Som. Date: 7 Edw.IV.

E 329/354 Norman Wassheborne, esquire to John Chokke and others (as in B.S.351): Grant of half the manor of Theynes Court, alias Ashton Theynes, in Long Ashton, and of land, etc., there.:(Som.) Date: 7 Edw.IV.

Peter Howarth
Vance Mead
2019-07-17 11:17:33 UTC
Permalink
I have a question. What is the first contemporary record of John Washbourne in Bengeworth? Is it his will in 1546? From the link below that seems to be the case. The date of his marriage to Emma seems to a be a guess.

If this is the case, is he found in, for example, the lay subsidies of the 1520s and 1540s? Muster rolls? Manorial court rolls? These might establish how long he had been in Bengeworth.

http://www.maltbyfamily.net/genealogies/washburn/washburn_england.html
p***@yahoo.ca
2019-07-17 12:32:12 UTC
Permalink
There's another possibility besides the one earlier proposed that there may never be evidence to settle the matter one way or the other. That possibility is that there may be records out there that could settle this that have not been put online or that may not have been searched.
Vance Mead
2019-07-17 13:23:59 UTC
Permalink
There's a John Washborne who occurs a couple of times in Common Pleas, but always in Wichenford.

1516
John Wasborne, esquire, trespass at Wychynford
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/H8/CP40no1013/aCP40no1013fronts/IMG_0173.htm

1525
John Washborne, of Wychynford, gent, trespass at Wychynford
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT3/H8/CP40no1046/bCP40no1046dorses/IMG_0309.htm
p***@yahoo.ca
2019-07-17 16:01:36 UTC
Permalink
This raises another question. When is the earliest we can place the John of Bengeworth? We know he and his both died there.
taf
2019-07-17 15:26:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@yahoo.ca
There's another possibility besides the one earlier proposed that there may
never be evidence to settle the matter one way or the other. That possibility
is that there may be records out there that could settle this that have not
been put online or that may not have been searched.
. . . or searched and not recognized for the evidence that it is. Yes, that the evidence does exist in some form is implicit in positing that no such evidence exists as only a possibility, else it would be a certainty. I was only pushing back against 'the evidence is out there and we just need to find it' being expressed as if it could be taken for granted to be the case.

taf
AJB
2019-07-17 17:24:19 UTC
Permalink
Vance Mead Posts:

If this is the case, is he found in, for example, the lay subsidies of the 1520s and 1540s? Muster rolls? Manorial court rolls? These might establish how long he had been in Bengeworth.

On the Lay Subsidy for 1525 Bengeworth, John Washeborne appears paying 4s on 8 pounds value of goods.

A John Washbourne also appears on the Military Survey and LSRs from other locations in the 1520s in Worcestershire, but as he is shown holding lands at these various locations that were long known to be holdings of the Wichenford family and which he had inherited from the John Washbourne who died in 1517, it is fairly safe to assume that this John is of Wichenford and is 1517's grandson and heir.

Prior to the 1520s we have a mention of a John Washbourne in 1502 on a list of tenants and free holders in the Alstone/Teddington area of Worcestershire. Property at Alstone/Teddington had been held by the armigerous Worcestershire Washbournes ever since Roger de Washbourne made a Covenant with the Prior and Convent of Worcester in 1258. This land was still held by 1517 and would have presented a convenient location to place his second son from his first marriage (with Joan Mytton) as 1517 turned his attention to a new wife (Elizabeth Monington) and the new sons he was then having by her. The possibility that the John Washbourne on the tenant list was 1517 himself certainly comes up; however, the observation that, on subsequent tenancy lists at Alstone, no further Washbournes appear, calls this idea into question as the land there appears to have been held by 1517's heir. It is more likely that the Washbournes ordinarily farmed out Alstone to various tenants as we see them doing at Little Washbourne and other family properties over the years. But in 1502, a John Washbourne is there. In 1502, 1517 is still alive and his grandson is too young so there is a possibility that this John is the John we later find at Bengeworth. It is also possible that the 1502 John is 1517's second son who dies and falls off the records and that the John at Bengeworth is an entirely different John Washbourne.

We know that 1517 did place his son Walter on the family lands in Lower Slaughter, Glou. This Walter appears on the Glou Military Muster of 1522 with income of 50s. AJB
AJB
2019-07-17 18:04:41 UTC
Permalink
Peter Howarth Posts:
"Tindal, in his History of Evesham (published
in 1794) notes, quoting Habingdon, that in the west
window of the south aisle of Old St. Peter's
Church, Bengeworth, were the names of John Washbourne
and Richard Cawie,* benefactors ; and
he also refers to a coat of arms in the same window
which was not associated in any way with these
benefactors." p 37

(1) Habingdon compiled his MSS. during the period 1606-1607.

The coat of arms upon which the name of John Washbourne appeared and which Habingdon erroneously ascribed to Boteler, was actually the coat of arms of the Salters Company; These arms were granted by Thomas Benolt in 1530 so we can say, with some degree of certainty, that this John Washbourne, benefactor of the Parish of St. Peter’s had his name inscribed in that window at some point after 1530. The Salters also placed their arms in the church of St. Eaburga, Broadway, Worcestershire. Broadway is interesting as it is the Parish in which John Washbourne of Wichenford, Esq.'s (died 1517), second great grandson, John Washbourne, Esq.dead in 1633, baptized three of the children by his first wife, Mary Savage, while the couple was apparently living there, probably in the home of Mary’s brothers who held property there.

Habingdon also sites numerous instances in which names were inscribed in windows as benefactors or builders of the church – instances in which there is no apparent connection between the arms displayed and the person or person’s names there inscribed. So, we cannot say if there was a connection between this John Washbourne and the Salters. He may simply have paid to have the window installed or some other work done in the church. We can say that Worcestershire was the site of important salt pans at Droitwich, an interest in which the Arm. Washbournes had historically held. AJB
AJB
2019-07-17 18:24:32 UTC
Permalink
Peter Howarth Posts:
"Tindal, in his History of Evesham (published
in 1794) notes, quoting Habingdon, that in the west
window of the south aisle of Old St. Peter's
Church, Bengeworth, were the names of John Washbourne
and Richard Cawie,* benefactors ; and
he also refers to a coat of arms in the same window
which was not associated in any way with these
benefactors." p 37
(1) Habingdon compiled his MSS. during the period 1606-1607."

The coat of arms upon which the name of John Washbourne appeared and which Habingdon apparently erroneously ascribed to Boteler, was apparently rather the coat of arms of the Salters Company; These arms were granted by Thomas Benolt in 1530 so, if this is the coat of the Salters, we can say, with some degree of certainty, that this John Washbourne, benefactor of the Parish of St. Peter’s had his name inscribed in that window at some point after 1530. The Salters also appear to have placed their arms in the church of St. Eaburga, Broadway, Worcestershire. Broadway is interesting as it is the Parish in which John Washbourne of Wichenford, Esq.'s (died 1517), second great grandson, John Washbourne, Esq.dead in 1633, appears to have baptized three of the children by his first wife, Mary Savage, while the couple was apparently living there, probably in the home of Mary’s brothers who absolutely held property there.

Habingdon also sites numerous instances in which names were inscribed in windows as benefactors or builders of the church – instances in which there is no apparent connection between the arms displayed and the person or person’s names there inscribed. So, we cannot say if there was a connection between this John Washbourne and the Salters. He may simply have paid to have the window installed or some other work done in the church. We can say that Worcestershire was the site of important salt pans at Droitwich, an interest in which the Arm. Washbournes had historically held. AJB
AJB
2019-07-17 19:49:59 UTC
Permalink
Vance Mead Posts:

“If this is the case, is he found in, for example, the lay subsidies of the 1520s and 1540s? Muster rolls? Manorial court rolls? These might establish how long he had been in Bengeworth.”

On the Lay Subsidy for 1525 Bengeworth, John Washeborne appears paying 4s on 8 pounds value of goods.

Records from Bengeworth do not appear in the Military Survey of Worcestershire, 1522.

A John Washbourne also appears on the Military Survey and LSRs from other locations in the 1520s in Worcestershire, but as he is shown holding lands at these various locations that were long known to be holdings of the Wichenford family and which he had inherited from the John Washbourne, Esq. who died in 1517 and who I refer to as “1517,” it seems to be fairly safe to assume that this John is of Wichenford and is 1517’s grandson and heir.

Prior to the 1520s we have a mention of a John Washbourne in 1502 on a list of tenants and free holders in the Alstone/Teddington area of Worcestershire. Property at Alstone/Teddington had been held by the armigerous Worcestershire Washbournes (of Little Washbourne, Stanford-on-Teme, Wichenford, et al) ever since Roger de Washbourne made a Covenant with the Prior and Convent of Worcester in 1258.

Sources: Worcester Cathedral Muniments: B Class: Leases and Charters; Charter B607 (1258)
“Covenant to appoint a hayward annually in turn in the fields of Alseston and Wasseburn… Roger and his heirs are to hold 2 plots: one called Paroke, the other enclosed by an old ditch and lying between Parroke and Mulcroft…”

Annales Monastici Vol.4, pa.445
Annales de Wygornia
MCCLVIII

Convenit inter nos et abbatem Radingis super tenementis apud Tydintone, et inter nos et Roger de Wasseburne super questionibus motis apud Tedintone, scriptis inde confectis.

This land was still held by 1517 and may have presented a convenient location to place his second son from his first marriage (with Joan Mytton) as 1517 turned his attention to a new wife (Elizabeth Monington) and the new sons he was then having by her. The possibility that the John Washbourne on the tenant list was 1517 himself certainly comes up; however, the observation that, on subsequent tenancy lists at Alstone, no further Washbournes appear, calls this idea into question as the land there appears to have continued to be held by 1517's heir. It is more likely that the Washbournes ordinarily farmed out Alstone to various tenants as tax records show them doing at Little Washbourne over the years. But in 1502, a John Washbourne is there. In 1502, 1517’s grandson and heir is too young to be this John so there is a possibility that this John is the John we later find at Bengeworth. It is also possible that the 1502 John is 1517's second son who dies and then disappears from the records and that the John at Bengeworth is an entirely different John Washbourne whose father has yet to be discovered.

We know that 1517 did place his son Walter on the family lands in Lower Slaughter, Glou. (evidence provided in 1517’s heir’s will dated 1532). This Walter appears on the Glou Military Muster of 1522 as Walter Wassheborne 40s Lower Slaughter. Whether the 40s designated goods or income, I am not certain as I don’t have the records at hand at the moment. AJB
w***@gmail.com
2019-07-18 05:09:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by AJB
“If this is the case, is he found in, for example, the lay subsidies of the 1520s and 1540s? Muster rolls? Manorial court rolls? These might establish how long he had been in Bengeworth.”
On the Lay Subsidy for 1525 Bengeworth, John Washeborne appears paying 4s on 8 pounds value of goods.
Records from Bengeworth do not appear in the Military Survey of Worcestershire, 1522.
A John Washbourne also appears on the Military Survey and LSRs from other locations in the 1520s in Worcestershire, but as he is shown holding lands at these various locations that were long known to be holdings of the Wichenford family and which he had inherited from the John Washbourne, Esq. who died in 1517 and who I refer to as “1517,” it seems to be fairly safe to assume that this John is of Wichenford and is 1517’s grandson and heir.
John is here referred to as 1517's cousin and heir:

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/3ce529c5-9702-4273-b1b6-6074abac7ba2

How does he fit in?
AJB
2019-07-17 20:25:31 UTC
Permalink
Peter Howarth Posts:

"Tindal, in his History of Evesham (published
in 1794) notes, quoting Habingdon, that in the west
window of the south aisle of Old St. Peter's
Church, Bengeworth, were the names of John Washbourne
and Richard Cawie,* benefactors ; and
he also refers to a coat of arms in the same window
which was not associated in any way with these
benefactors." p 37
(1) Habingdon compiled his MSS. during the period 1606-1607."

The coat of arms upon which the name of John Washbourne appeared and which Habingdon apparently erroneously ascribed to Boteler, was apparently rather the coat of arms of the Salters' Company; These arms were granted by Thomas Benolt in 1530 so, if this is the coat of the Salters, we can say, with some degree of certainty, that this John Washbourne, benefactor of the Parish of St. Peter’s had his name inscribed in that window at some point after 1530. The Salters also appear to have placed their arms in the church of St. Eadburga, Broadway, Worcestershire. Broadway is interesting as it is the Parish in which John Washbourne of Wichenford, Esq.'s (died 1517), second great grandson, John Washbourne, Esq.dead in 1633, appears to have baptized three of the children by his first wife, Mary Savage, while the couple was apparently living there, probably in the home of Mary’s brothers who absolutely held property there.

Habingdon also sites numerous instances in which names were inscribed in windows as benefactors or builders of the church – instances in which there is no apparent connection between the arms displayed and the person or person’s names there inscribed. So, we cannot say if there was a connection between this John Washbourne and the Salters. He may simply have paid to have the window installed or some other work done in the church. We can say that Worcestershire was the site of important salt pans at Droitwich, an interest in which the Arm. Washbournes had historically held. AJB
Peter Howarth
2019-07-18 04:25:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Howarth
"Tindal, in his History of Evesham (published
in 1794) notes, quoting Habingdon, that in the west
window of the south aisle of Old St. Peter's
Church, Bengeworth, were the names of John Washbourne
and Richard Cawie,* benefactors ; and
he also refers to a coat of arms in the same window
which was not associated in any way with these
benefactors." p 37
(1) Habingdon compiled his MSS. during the period 1606-1607."
The coat of arms upon which the name of John Washbourne appeared and which Habingdon apparently erroneously ascribed to Boteler, was apparently rather the coat of arms of the Salters' Company; These arms were granted by Thomas Benolt in 1530 so, if this is the coat of the Salters, we can say, with some degree of certainty, that this John Washbourne, benefactor of the Parish of St. Peter’s had his name inscribed in that window at some point after 1530. The Salters also appear to have placed their arms in the church of St. Eadburga, Broadway, Worcestershire. Broadway is interesting as it is the Parish in which John Washbourne of Wichenford, Esq.'s (died 1517), second great grandson, John Washbourne, Esq.dead in 1633, appears to have baptized three of the children by his first wife, Mary Savage, while the couple was apparently living there, probably in the home of Mary’s brothers who absolutely held property there.
Habingdon also sites numerous instances in which names were inscribed in windows as benefactors or builders of the church – instances in which there is no apparent connection between the arms displayed and the person or person’s names there inscribed. So, we cannot say if there was a connection between this John Washbourne and the Salters. He may simply have paid to have the window installed or some other work done in the church. We can say that Worcestershire was the site of important salt pans at Droitwich, an interest in which the Arm. Washbournes had historically held. AJB
Thank you very much for the information about the previously anonymous coat of arms. I can understand anyone mistaking the Salters' covered salts for covered cups since the only difference is the grains of salt escaping from under the covers of the salts. I see from William Tindal, 'The History and Antiquities of the Abbey and Borough of Evesham' (Evesham, 1794) p 239, copying from the manuscripts of Habington, the main east window contained the arms of Beauchamp of Powick (gules, a fess between six martlets or). These are of course the arms on which the Washbournes based theirs: gules, on a fess between six martlets or, three cinquefoils argent. So we have at least two coats of arms in the church that don't belong to the local Washbournes.

You say that Habington cites numerous other instances where names of benefactors were inscribed next to unconnected arms. Where can I find the citations, please?

Peter Howarth
AJB
2019-07-18 05:51:30 UTC
Permalink
wbld...asks: John is here referred to as 1517's cousin and heir:

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/3ce529c5-9702-4273-b1b6-6074abac7ba2

How does he fit in?

Remember that the word "cousin" in this time period was often loosely applied. In this case the "cousin" is actually John Washbourne, Esq dead in 1517's grandson and heir John. The Hornyolds and Cornwalls are seen here fighting over who had the right to this John's wardship - and the income and rights that would have entailed. By 1526, this John is already 26 so this appears to have been a retroactive fight in an attempt to claw back value already paid. Cornwall was the plaintiff so Hornyold may have originally claimed the wardship. AJB
AJB
2019-07-18 17:23:29 UTC
Permalink
Peter Howarth writes: You say that Habington cites numerous other instances where names of benefactors were inscribed next to unconnected arms. Where can I find the citations, please?

Here are several citations. Of course, we cannot know for sure if the Weares were or were not Grocers; just as we cannot know, for sure, if John Washbourne was or was not a Salter.


https://archive.org/details/asurveyworceste00amphgoog/page/n11

Ribbesford: p. 31 In the highest southe windowe the Grocers* Armes. Vnder-
neathe Benefactors, but onely Roger of Weare and Anne his wyfe
namely remayninge.

In the secound southe windowe Fraunce and
England quarterly. Vnderneathe Benefactors, namely Woddale
Southall, Thomas Haylles et Aliciae uxoris eius, et pro anima,
Isabellas, the rest broaken out.

Kidderminster: p. 167 Lastly I must not forget a famous Benefactor named Simon Rise, who buylded a fayre Chappell, nowe chaunged to a Schole, at the east end of thys Churche. The Armes in the myddest and
northe syde of this place are (as I conceave) the Marchaunts
Venturers and three acres of Rye, alludinge to his name.


Worcester – St. Andrew’s Church: p. 121 In the east wyndowe of the southe Ile Gules, a fess between syx martlets Or ; Lord Beauchamp of
Powyke. And in the next wyndowe of the same Ile, Richard
Brewar, some benefactor


St. Martin’s: p.. 421 In the wyndoves of thys churche weare
the memoryes of auntient benefactors, but [they] are defaced saving
Henry Dene, with Thomas Steuard et Agnes uxor eius ; the others
confused.
Peter Howarth
2019-07-18 18:45:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by AJB
Peter Howarth writes: You say that Habington cites numerous other instances where names of benefactors were inscribed next to unconnected arms. Where can I find the citations, please?
Here are several citations. Of course, we cannot know for sure if the Weares were or were not Grocers; just as we cannot know, for sure, if John Washbourne was or was not a Salter.
https://archive.org/details/asurveyworceste00amphgoog/page/n11
Ribbesford: p. 31 In the highest southe windowe the Grocers* Armes. Vnder-
neathe Benefactors, but onely Roger of Weare and Anne his wyfe
namely remayninge.
In the secound southe windowe Fraunce and
England quarterly. Vnderneathe Benefactors, namely Woddale
Southall, Thomas Haylles et Aliciae uxoris eius, et pro anima,
Isabellas, the rest broaken out.
Kidderminster: p. 167 Lastly I must not forget a famous Benefactor named Simon Rise, who buylded a fayre Chappell, nowe chaunged to a Schole, at the east end of thys Churche. The Armes in the myddest and
northe syde of this place are (as I conceave) the Marchaunts
Venturers and three acres of Rye, alludinge to his name.
Worcester – St. Andrew’s Church: p. 121 In the east wyndowe of the southe Ile Gules, a fess between syx martlets Or ; Lord Beauchamp of
Powyke. And in the next wyndowe of the same Ile, Richard
Brewar, some benefactor
St. Martin’s: p.. 421 In the wyndoves of thys churche weare
the memoryes of auntient benefactors, but [they] are defaced saving
Henry Dene, with Thomas Steuard et Agnes uxor eius ; the others
confused.
Many thanks. I have Habington, but I misunderstood and thought you were still referring to the church at Bengeworth. It is interesting that two City livery companies and the Society of Merchant Venturers from Bristol were involved with these churches, presumably as patrons of the livings. Thanks again.

Peter Howarth
AJB
2019-07-19 18:30:41 UTC
Permalink
Peter Vance: "There's a John Washborne who occurs a couple of times in Common Pleas, but always in Wichenford."

1516
John Wasborne, esquire, trespass at Wychynford
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/H8/CP40no1013/aCP40no1013fronts/IMG_0173.htm

1525
John Washborne, of Wychynford, gent, trespass at Wychynford
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT3/H8/CP40no1046/bCP40no1046dorses/IMG_0309.htm

John in the 1516 CP is the John of Wichenford who died in 1517. The 1525 John is his grandson and heir who died in 1532. This second John also appears again in 1526: Defendant: John Wassebourne, of Wynchynford, esq

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT3/H8/CP40no1049/aCP40no1049fronts/IMG_0538.htm

AJB
AJB
2019-07-19 18:47:34 UTC
Permalink
Vance Mead Posted: There's a John Washborne who occurs a couple of times in Common Pleas, but always in Wichenford."

John in the 1516 CP is the John of Wichenford who died in 1517. The 1525 John is his grandson and heir who died in 1532. This second John also appears again in 1526: Defendant: John Wassebourne, of Wynchynford, esq

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT3/H8/CP40no1049/aCP40no1049fronts/IMG_0538.htm

AJB
AJB
2019-07-20 04:25:23 UTC
Permalink
In response to: "It's not possible to calculate how often people used arms illegitimately, but it seems to have happened fairly often and spurious use of arms was accepted by the heralds and others.

Here is a real-life example. The Meade family of northwestern Essex (Clavering, Great Easton, Elmdon) used the arms shown here (as well as similar arms):" Vance Mead


Regarding the example given of the Meade family of Essex as a family using arms to which they were not entitled:

I would ask the poster how he knows, for sure, that the Mede/Meade families in the example given were not actually related and so entitled to the arms they each used? Upon what proof does he base his conclusion?

The Bristol Medes do not appear to have posted a pedigree in the Visitations so there does not immediately appear to be an extensive record of their having lived in Bristol for generations as an established armigerous family. So, which family was entitled to use the arms? Bristol or Essex? By what evidence do we decide? By what evidence do we decide that they were not related? It would be interesting to see the further evidence.

Vance Mead makes this statement about the Mede’s in Essex: “In fact, there had been people named Mede or Meade living in that part of Essex back at least to the early 15th century. They were usually described (for example in Common Pleas) as husbandman and sometimes yeoman, so they were not armigerous.” I must take issue with the strength of this remark. Historians have consistently noted that the system of primogeniture very often resulted in downward social mobility among the younger sons of the landed gentry. So, the mere notice of yeomen in a family does not prove that they were not descended from a more elevated ancestor. As the historian Gordon Batho said of the Tudor period in particular: "Many of the younger sons of the lesser gentry became yeomen." The Armigerous Washbournes of this period were not wealthy; they were of the lesser gentry. John 1517 literally had to kidnap the young heiress next door to provide a bride for his eldest son Robert. It would not be surprising at all to find his younger son John reduced to a tenancy under the Abbot of Evesham, where the Washbournes had long held lands, and for this John’s eldest son to declare himself a Yeoman.

AJB

Loading...