GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2009-05 > 1241635982


From: "M.Sjostrom" <>
Subject: Re: Armiger means Esquire
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 11:53:02 -0700 (PDT)


At least,they generally became entitled to have heraldry.

Namely, in later medieval centuries, as part of their armigerous families.
and in earlier centuries (when POSSIBLY they were not yet displaying their own heraldry when squires), they obtained such at latest when becoming knights - and generally, in such centuries, all surviving squires became knights sooner or later.

Also remember that the 'right' to have heraldry was not that much regulated and guarded in medieval centuries. Much of those regulations and restrictions are known to be products of post-medieval centuries. 'Heraldry' was pretty much a practical thing (to show an identifying 'logo' when useful or needed) in middle ages. Only later (and somewhat hand-in-hand with losing the practical use, and gaining in symbolic importance), it became such a thing that was well-guarded privilege and tighter regulated.

You never ever wondered why medieval heraldry appear quite often to have ignored rules of heraldry ?



--- On Wed, 5/6/09, <> wrote:

> From: <>
> Subject: Re: Armiger means Esquire
> To: ,
> Date: Wednesday, May 6, 2009, 2:34 PM
> In a message dated 5/6/2009
> 1:12:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, writes:
>
>
>
>
>
> n
> high and late middle ages, armiger = squire was one who had
> right to bear those arms you might understand as weapons. To
> have a right to bear heraldry was a part of THEIR
> rights.>>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------
>
>
>
> That's a new twist in this thread.
>
> What *evidence* do you have that all esquires (meaning
> knight assistants) had a right to have heraldry?
>
>
>
> Will
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **************





This thread: