GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2008-12 > 1229664463
Subject: Re: Addition for revised Hastings pedigree;Correction of Complete Peerage
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:27:43 +0000
Papworth's second entry for the Beaumont cinquefoil reads:
Gu. a cinquefoil pierced erm. Beaumont.
Fleming, W. Blanch Maynes. St. Mary
de Pratis Monastery, Leicester. Town of
Leicester. Robert Quency, B.
There is no source of any kind for the name Beaumont and I will deal
with that in a third post. For the Robert de Quency entry [he d.
1257] there is the source B, which is Nicolas's edition (1829) of
Glover's Roll (c.1253-58). We now use Hugh Stanford London's edition,
'Glover's and Walford's Rolls' in Sir Anthony Wagner (ed.), Aspilogia
II: Rolls of Arms Henry III, London: The Harleian Society, 1967
We need to understand that the original of Glover's Roll no longer
exists and we have to make do with two copies: (a) made Feb 1585/6 by
Robert Glover [hence the modern name of the roll], Somerset Herald,
with name, blazon [the technical description of heraldic matters] and
outline sketches, and (b) made by Robert Cooke, Clarenceaux 1567-93,
with names and tricked shields, but no blazon. There are some other
copies, but these two, (a) and (b), are the principal ones.
We must also understand that there are several occasions when one or
other of the copyists' tricks do not match the blazon, sometimes
through misunderstanding the old-fashioned language and sometimes by
using Tudor interpretations of the blazons. From these differences we
may assume that the original had only names and blazons. The editor,
H S London, only mentions those occasions when the tricks differ from
the blazon. If they agree, he says nothing.
Looking at his edition of Glover's Roll, the entry for Robert de
Quincy (B 153) reads:
"Robert Quency de gules od une quintefoill d'ermyne.
(a) and (b) A pierced cinquefoil."
H S London is pointing out that the two tricks disagree with the
blazon, which does not mention anything about piercing. Papworth was
therefore misled by an error in Nicolas's edition of Glover's Roll
into giving Robert a pierced cinquefoil.
I notice that, despite using London's edition of Glover's Roll,
Douglas Richardson in one of his books made the same mistake as
Papworth, perhaps because he did not bother to read the whole of H S
London's excellent work. And even after using Papworth for years, he
still feels it is trustworthy -- but dated!
I must point out that Papworth's system for his dictionary of coats of
arms, as adapted by Alfred Morant who completed the dictionary after
Papworth's death, remains the standard way of creating an Ordinary and
was the starting point for the system used in the Dictionary of
I will look at the arms and devices that the Beaumont family may have
used, but in a third post.
Peter G R Howarth