DUNN-L Archives

From: Tina Dunn <>
Subject: RE: [DUNN] Re: Thomas Dunn 1606[3]
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:33:18 -0500

Yes, Sort of,

- having consulted a friend who is deeply into heraldry, as I understand it,
the "big fancy picture" called an "achievement of arms" includes the shield,
the crest, the helm (could also be a wreath or crown),possibly supporters,
and the mantle (usually shown as swirly, colored stuff around the sides of
the shield but it was originally a knight's mantle/cape that was "battle
tattered" to show 2 colors, the fabric and the lining)was granted to an
individual for a specific reason as you mentioned; service, battle,
discovery, etc.

That man may pass the right to bear those arms down to his sons (except in
rare exception, daughters don't inherit arms the arms "pass thru them" to
their male children), but each child must show a different mark on the arms
that denotes that he was not the original owner and what his position is in
the family. These marks are standard, so you can tell by the mark that the
person was the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd born son etc of the man the arms were
granted to. The Arms are totally separate from the crest. ONLY a direct
descendant of an Arminger (a person who has arms)can truely inherit the
right to display them and only after they have proven that right to the
appropriate governing body (depends on the country) and had the arms
"confirmed to them".

Those of us who display unconfirmed arms are technically considered to be
"assuming" the arms of another person - the medieval equivalent of stealing
their identity. At one time, there was an entire court system dedicated to
making sure that people did not assume arms they didn't have a right to.
These days no one will come to your door, but back then you could be
arrested and tried for assuming arms.

The "crest" I understand, is only the "extra bit" ususally shown perched
above the shield on top of the helm and often bore no relation to the
pictures on the shield. That crest is unique to the individual descendant
who has had the arms confirmed to him and is usually created to symbolize
something that person is known for - frequently occupation related - for
example, an astronomer who is able to confirm the right to display his
grandfather Dunn's Arms would have perhaps as his personal crest a telescope
or star where as his grandfather, the knife salesman, may have had an arm
with a dagger perched above the shield, this can result in a long line of
the same "arms" shown with different crests.

In past history, a person's "crest" was also used as a badge or symbol worn
on the clothing of family retainers and servants and was carved on property
or was worn on jewelery as a sign to denote that someone was a member of a
particular immediate family group but in all of these cases, use of the
crest meant that the person or thing "belonged to" the individual man whose
crest it was. There really is no such thing as a "family crest" in the way
that most folks these days think of it.

It should be noted too that in tracing a line thru their arms, there may be
several sets of arms associated with a particular lineage because arms were
individual, a man might have inherited the right to his father's arms, BUT
he may later be granted arms of his own which may or may not be designed to
include some elements of his father's arms. He would then use his own arms
and stop using his fathers. His children would inherit his new arms and not
their grandfather's.

Brothers or cousins might also have similar but not the same arms, for
example, if the father had a bird on his arms, the son's new arms might also
have that bird, but in a different color or a diferent place or a different
number of them. If your family was well favored by the king, and your sons
quite brave, it is possibly that each son would have his own arms each a
little bit like his brothers' to show their association, but otherwise not
the same arms at all - can make for a great deal of confusion. I won't at
this point go into what happens when a man with arms marries a woman who is
an heiress and has the right to pass on her father's arms to her children -
very messy.

At any rate,in most cases, the "family crests" seen on-line are actually the
personal arms of a man who happened to have that last name and unless you
can prove direct descent from that person they are in no way "your family
crest."

If you were able to get a real DUNN achievement of arms confirmed to you, it
would be recorded by a governmental authority with a new crest designed to
represent you added to the area above the arms in place of what is there
now. Your children could use your crest to show that they belong to you, but
that's about as far as a "family crest" goes. Any son who gets confirmed
the right to use the arms after your death would then get his own crest and
so on.
Hope this is helpful,
Tina


-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 9:24 AM
To:
Subject: [DUNN] Re: Thomas Dunn 1606


This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.

Surnames: Dunn, Gray
Classification: Query

Message Board URL:

http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/rw/hlT.2ACEB/3207.1.5.2

Message Board Post:

I believe but may be mistaken, that a family crest is per individual and not
necessarily representing an entire family line. For example, if a Dunn
individual was of gentry, notable mention, served in a battle, etc. he alone
may have had a crest. After his death, his crest was passed down to his
children maybe but it did not necessarily belong to them for anything they
had done.

As where Thomas Dunn(e) born in 1606 is concerned it is very doubtful that
he or his family had a crest because he was a servant from a very young age.
His line of descendants are much like any other average family and had no
known connections to anyone of gentry other than Thomas being the indentured
servant of Sir George Yeardley, Knight and Governor of Virginia.
Additionally, most Dunn crests I have seen belong to the older Scot clan
O'Dunn(e), O'Donne and our Thomas hailed from England.

Also, if you'll note that many researchers claim 1606 Thomas to be the
father of 3 sons; John I, William and Thomas.
John Dunn(e) I is born about 1645; William 1665 and Thomas in 1669. Notice
the 20 year age difference between John and William?
Our Thomas (1606) would have been in his 60s for the birth of the latter two
sons.
Though this later parentage is not uncommon I do find it doubtful and
believe that the only known son thus far of 1606 Thomas Dunn(e) is John
Dunn(e) I.
William and Thomas Dunn appear to be the sons of John Dunn(e) I which more
than makes sense because Thomas (1669) names his son John Dunn II.

Since this response goes out on the Dunn mailing list as well, I welcome any
comments from Thomas Dunn(e) (1606) researchers to prove or disprove the
theory; Thomas Dunn(e) married ? had son John Dunn(e) I who married
Obedience Burgess and they had the sons William and Thomas Dunn who married
sisters, Alice and Elizabeth Gray, daughters of William Gray, Jr. and ?.

You can email me off list if you'd like.
Kathy Roberson
Email:

______________________________

This thread:

• RE: [DUNN] Re: Thomas Dunn 1606[3] by Tina Dunn <>