Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [albanach] Specifics on the surcoat or elsewhere to denote the man as an earl? - JPratt

Expand Messages
  • Cathal
    ... If the arms were well enough known, then yes. The wearing of coat armour usually indicated a basic degree of social status, but it was the renown
    Message 1 of 10 , Dec 23, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      >
      >>If the character is an Earl, then his personal armoury should be
      >>sufficient for another person of social status to recognize him.
      >>The arms could be displayed on shield, surcoat, horse trappings,
      >>banner or by some other means such as a badge on a lance pennon.
      >>
      >>
      > ~So, if I'm understanding you correctly, when the woman sees arms
      > displayed on his shield, she would know he's a noble, correct?

      If the arms were well enough known, then yes. The wearing of coat
      armour usually indicated a basic degree of social status, but it was
      the renown attendant to those arms that further identified him. If
      the man was an Earl, then chances are a person of upper class would
      recognize which arms adhered to which title. With only eight holders
      of Earldoms in the period you indicated and those eight being
      generally closely associated with the King of Scots I'll hazard to say
      she would probably know him or at least the House. Remember the full
      blazon would only be carried by the holder of the honour and not by
      any of his minions. The arms, as the old saying goes, make the man.

      Think of it along the ability of modern sports fans being able to
      identify their favorites by their uniform numbers. They might mistake
      the face, but the apparel and number on it would help identification.
      >
      >>The 'Declaration of Arbroath' signed in 1320 had only eight
      >>signatories of the estate of Earl which was then both a title and
      >>feudal designation. The rank is generally considered to have
      >>evolved from the seven regional 'kings' who in turn had advised the
      >>High King of Scots. There was not a bestowal of the title 'earl'
      >>without a feudal tenure.
      >>i.e. a personal honour with no territorial rights, until 1358 when
      >>Sir William Douglas was created 1st Earl of Douglas.
      >>
      >>
      > ~Interesting, thank you very much for taking the time to reply. I
      > hope
      > you have a wonderful holiday season!
      > Sincerely,
      >
      > Diana

      Glad to have helped. Have a good holiday yourself.

      JPratt.
    • Diana Cosby
      ... ~Thank you very much. I have E. Oakshott s books here. I ll look through them. Thank you for your time and have a wonderful holiday season! Diana
      Message 2 of 10 , Dec 23, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Robert Sehon wrote:

        >Diana,
        >
        >I would say that is probably true. Remember, there actually were not many holders of arms. Some would be noble, some would be knightly and the few others who held arms would be men at arms who were mostly all common. This was a relatively small social/fighting group in practice. Most armies were composed mostly of infantry, archers, and sappers/engineers. The cavalry was the armored knight, but these men were few, due to the high cost of arming themselves. I'd recommend the various short works by Ewart Oakshott as a good short reference.
        >
        >
        >
        ~Thank you very much. I have E. Oakshott's books here. I'll look
        through them. Thank you for your time and have a wonderful holiday season!

        Diana

        www.dianacosby. com <http://www.dianacos by.com/>
        His Captive/Alexander MacGruder
        His Woman/Duncan MacGruder - 4 star Romantic Times review - 2009 Booksellers Best Finalist
        His Conquest - Nov 2010 / His Destiny - Nov 2011
      • Diana Cosby
        ... ~So, if the woman catches the image of a green fir upon a silver shield, then on closer inspection, notes a sword bendways supporting an imperial crown
        Message 3 of 10 , Dec 23, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Cathal wrote:

          >If the arms were well enough known, then yes. The wearing of coat
          >armour usually indicated a basic degree of social status, but it was
          >the renown attendant to those arms that further identified him.
          >
          ~So, if the woman catches the image of a green fir upon a silver shield,
          then on closer inspection, notes a sword bendways supporting an imperial
          crown proper on its point, and a blue canton, would that would be a
          correct thought?

          Thank you for your time. Happy Holidays!

          Diana


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Cathal
          ... Quite probably. Formal knowledge of heraldic blazon was not always present; however the renown of the arms would be a possible enhancement to recognition.
          Message 4 of 10 , Dec 23, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            > ~So, if the woman catches the image of a green fir upon a silver
            > shield,
            > then on closer inspection, notes a sword bendways supporting an
            > imperial
            > crown proper on its point, and a blue canton, would that would be a
            > correct thought?
            >
            > Thank you for your time. Happy Holidays!
            >
            > Diana
            >
            Quite probably. Formal knowledge of heraldic blazon was not always
            present;
            however the renown of the arms would be a possible enhancement to
            recognition.

            JPratt.
          • Diana Cosby
            ... ~Great, thank you very much for all of your help! Happy Holidays and may your New Years be the best yet! Diana www.dianacosby.com
            Message 5 of 10 , Dec 23, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Cathal wrote:

              >
              >
              >>~So, if the woman catches the image of a green fir upon a silver
              >>shield,
              >>then on closer inspection, notes a sword bendways supporting an
              >>imperial
              >>crown proper on its point, and a blue canton, would that would be a
              >>correct thought?
              >>
              >>Thank you for your time. Happy Holidays!
              >>
              >>Diana
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >Quite probably. Formal knowledge of heraldic blazon was not always
              >present; however the renown of the arms would be a possible enhancement to
              >recognition.
              >
              >
              ~Great, thank you very much for all of your help! Happy Holidays and
              may your New Years be the best yet!

              Diana
              www.dianacosby.com <http://www.dianacosby.com/>
              His Captive/Alexander MacGruder
              His Woman/Duncan MacGruder - 4 star Romantic Times review - 2009
              Booksellers Best Finalist
              His Conquest - Nov 2010 / His Destiny - Nov 2011


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Sharon L. Krossa
              ... I ll just emphasize that the analogy is to uniform numbers --and without the modern practice of fans buying jerseys with the relevant favorite s number--
              Message 6 of 10 , Dec 23, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                At 3:47 PM -0500 12/23/09, Cathal wrote:
                > >
                > >>If the character is an Earl, then his personal armoury should be
                > >>sufficient for another person of social status to recognize him.
                > >>The arms could be displayed on shield, surcoat, horse trappings,
                > >>banner or by some other means such as a badge on a lance pennon.
                > >>
                > >>
                > > ~So, if I'm understanding you correctly, when the woman sees arms
                > > displayed on his shield, she would know he's a noble, correct?
                >
                >If the arms were well enough known, then yes. The wearing of coat
                >armour usually indicated a basic degree of social status, but it was
                >the renown attendant to those arms that further identified him. If
                >the man was an Earl, then chances are a person of upper class would
                >recognize which arms adhered to which title. With only eight holders
                >of Earldoms in the period you indicated and those eight being
                >generally closely associated with the King of Scots I'll hazard to say
                >she would probably know him or at least the House. Remember the full
                >blazon would only be carried by the holder of the honour and not by
                >any of his minions. The arms, as the old saying goes, make the man.
                >
                >Think of it along the ability of modern sports fans being able to
                >identify their favorites by their uniform numbers. They might mistake
                >the face, but the apparel and number on it would help identification.

                I'll just emphasize that the analogy is to uniform numbers --and
                without the modern practice of fans buying jerseys with the relevant
                favorite's number-- rather than to sports team uniforms.

                Basically, the only person who wore the arms of the Earl of X was the
                earl of X himself and his (personal) herald(s) -- and even then the
                herald wore the arms (and was dressed) in a way that he was
                identifiably a herald, so no confusing of a herald for his lord.

                Servants and retainers of the Earl of X might wear the Earl of X's
                badge, but his badge would be quite different from his arms (it
                wasn't just his arms with some distinguishing mark, but rather a
                different design than the design of his arms). And such a badge would
                usually be displayed/worn rather differently than how the Earl
                displayed/wore his arms. (For example, I don't think people put their
                lord's badge on their shield in the way said lord might put his arms
                on his shield.)

                So, in battle or otherwise, the scenario would be your heroine sees
                somebody, say, fighting with a shield with the Earl of X's arms on
                them, and says to herself "Oh, look, Self! There is the Earl of X".

                Sharon
                --
                Sharon Krossa, PhD - skrossa-yg@...
                Resources for Scottish history, names, clothing, language & more:
                Medieval Scotland - http://MedievalScotland.org/
                Support MedievalScotland.org when shopping at Amazon:
                US: http://www.amazon.com/?tag=medievalscotland
                UK: http://www.amazon.co.uk/?tag=medievalscotla02
                The most complete index of reliable web articles about pre-1600 names:
                The Medieval Names Archive - http://www.s-gabriel.org/names/
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.