GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2010-10 > 1287791164


From: taf <>
Subject: Re: C.P. Correction: Maud de Nerford and her son, Edward de Warenne
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 16:46:04 -0700 (PDT)
References: <mailman.185.1287696884.27942.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com><i9qm5s$18g$1@news.eternal-september.org><3ec43f6f-5f15-4172-bb3a-56592244d6e0@n24g2000prj.googlegroups.com><i9qunl$v0v$1@news.eternal-september.org><31b834c2-e9ae-439d-9aac-adae178af32b@k22g2000yqh.googlegroups.com><5d55120f-7152-4c8c-8717-f98082a44a3d@t37g2000prg.googlegroups.com><32e0f370-9fb3-4acf-a7a2-409a22c8b2f7@u10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>


On Oct 22, 12:19 pm, Douglas Richardson <> wrote:

> On Oct 22, 11:07 am, taf <> wrote:
>
> > Just to keep clear what is said . . .
> > > Edward de Warenne's paternity is attested by two records.  First, in
> > > 1346, Edward then being ready to attend the king abroad, his father
> > > the Earl requested the Chancellor that he be discharged from the
> > > demand to find a man-at-arms for his lands in Norfolk [see Yorkshire
> > > Archaeological Journal, 19 (1907) 248:, which may be viewed at the
> > > following weblink:
>
> > >http://books.google.com/books?id=EEhMbAEi-aIC&pg=PA248&dq=1346+Surrey...
>
> > The Earl had sons Edward and William - no Ralph.
>
> The 1346 record I cited names only two illegitimate sons of the Earl,
> both of whom were knights.  But this is not all of his children.  The
> Earl actually had a large tribe of illegitimate children, including
> six sons, John (clerk), Thomas (clerk), Ralph (living 1334), Edward,
> Knt., William, Knt., William [Prior of Horton, Kent], and three
> daughters, Joan (wife of _____ de Basing), Katherine (allegedly wife
> of Robert de Heveningham), and Isabel (nun).

So you tell us.

> > > Evidence of Edward de Warenne's maternity is further supplied by the
> > > arms employed by his later descendants: Chequy or and azure [Warenne],
> > > on a canton gules a lion rampant within a bordure ermine [Nerford]
> > > [see Eedes, Cheshire Pedigrees (1882): 499; Cooke & St. George, Vis.
> > > of Hertfordshire 1572, 1634 & 1546 (H.S.P. 22) (1886): 134–137].
> > > Blomefield Essay towards a Top. Hist. of Norfolk 6 (1807): 359–364
> > > (sub Skeyton) states: "The arms of Warrens, lord here, with the canton
> > > of Nerford."
>
> > Watson argues this was Mowbray, not Nerford.  That being said, what is
> > the earliest this canton is documented?
>
> Just when did Watson became an expert of heraldry?  Answer:  Never.
>

Oh, in that case it can't possibly be Mowbray, because Watson said it
was, and he is not an expert, he must then be wrong. It has nothing
to do with the actual arms Edward used, but who characterized them.

This is not a question of expertise. It is a question of whether the
lion had spots.


> The book, A Treatise on Heraldry, British and Foreign, by Woodward and
> Burnett, 2 (1892): 554, says the arms in the canton borne by the
> descendants of Edward Warenne stand for Nerford, not Mowbray.  This
> source may be viewed at the following weblink:

Don't make me laugh. An 1892 generic book on heraldry to prove what
arms Edward Warenne used?



> > I note that there are references to Edward de Warenne 'of Skegton' in
> > Rye's The Norfolk Antiquarian Miscellany, (search Google Books for
> > Warrenna and Skegton).
>
> The 1346 record I cited clearly states that Edward de Warenne, son of
> Earl John, had lands in Norfolk.  Skegton [Skeyton] is in Norfolk.

That proves it, because there couldn't possibly be two people named
Edward de Warenne in Norfolk.

taf


This thread: