Lucy de Baguley (Corona) - The armorial bearings

Unfortunately, curators cannot "lock" a profile image to prevent incorrect ones being used. I have restored the profile photo to one originally used on Lucy's profile - a photo of Baguley Hall.

There a some very good projects and discussions about using appropriate photos and images on profiles. I encourage you to join in You obviously care about this subject. You would be a welcome member.

Private User and Erica Howton I am sure agree since the main image is not a ducal crown. i'm guessing they looked for a more fitting image but didn't want to delete someone else's work.

We have this discussion about arms every few months on Geni, I think it is also addressed in the project on appropriate images.

Thank you for reminding everyone about this and about these specific circumstances.

on this point I agree but in general I disagree.
When no ther citations could be found, as in our original research, the Corona down heraldry was very useful to identify the rank of the Corona family, when others were trying to cut the line.
We are not the Society of Heralds, so we do not have to be concerned with which armiger was entitled to wear his arms on his livery, etc. a coat of arms was carved into family tombs, over hearths and doorways, on church windows, etc. to signify the contribution and lineage of that family. Womens arms quartered with their husbands have proven valuable to sorting out marriages. People used them in badges to self identify their clan affiliations before many of the powerful could read or write. As in the case of the Venables and Breretons, we know they are kin as they have the exact same arms with different colors. Cadet families did this, and that has proven valuable when an immigrant ancestor may have had only a lace hanky or scrap of a personal item, or a memory of the arms they saw as a child on their home. In lieu of a potrait, I think using this system has provided valuable clues, in a time where all traces of many were destroyed during the reformation or by enemies. I think in the interest of providing useful clues its a place to start and can be corrected later. Arms are still being researched and discovered and registered.

I also like using coats of arms for profile pictures -- but only where the arms are authentic. A coat of arms is a more personal image than a picture of a flag or a village. In tree view, using coats of arms for medieval families gives a nice, unified picture of the family.

But, we should remember that in England and America from Tudor times forward many coats of arms are fake. In Tudor times new families often bribed the heralds to certify a fake the genealogy and let them use the arms of an old family. The Spencers still use the arms of the unrelated Depenser family. The Visitations were intended to correct these abuses, but were only partially successful.

From the 17th century forward, many people just adopted the arms of a famous family that had the same surname. People are still doing that. Many colonial coats of arms are known or suspected to be fake.

So, yes. Coats of arms can be a clue, but they can also be a way to preserve old forgeries without being honest about it.

Also, a small correction to Pamela's post above. Livery is something servants and retainers wear. Armigers do not wear their arms on their livery. Their servants wear livery in the colors of the master's arms.

And, a slightly more significant clarification. When two families have the same arms in different colors that can be an indication they are different branches of the same family (as Pamela says), but it can also mean they are two different families who had the same feudal lord. We have to look at paper records to know the difference.

I quite agree with Justin. By 1700 there should be NO coats of arms on most American -born profiles. Unless you were the son of someone who had earned the arms, your family most likely had no right to use them.

Another tip for working with similar coast of arms - If you are working with two similar sets, the differences could be due to marriage. If a man made a prestigious marriage, his arms would be redrawn to include the important elements of his wife's family's arms. Pamela touched on this in her post. So, then look at the the two families involved and check the wife's father's arms.

Your best best is to invest in a reference book that details the various coats of arms and how they changed over time. Or bookmark a really good site or ebook so that you can refer to it often.

A small correction Maria, a DAUGHTER was also allowed use of arms. In fact, the women frequently controlled who could use them next in a family.

In English, Scottish and Northern Irish heraldry, a woman may bear arms by inheritance from her father[4] or by grant to herself. When unmarried, she displays her arms on a lozenge (a diamond shape) or on an oval or oval-like shape. Traditionally, a woman does not display her arms on a shield, as the shield originated with knights and warfare, and is thus viewed as fitting for a man, but not a woman.[citation needed] Recently though, some armigerous women have chosen to break with tradition display their arms using a shield.[citation needed]

The arms of the Duchess of Cambridge (right) impaled with those of her husband, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge (left)
When married, a woman has the option of uniting her arms with those of her husband in what are called marital arms; their arms are impaled, meaning they are placed side by side in the same shield, with those of the man on the dexter (left, as seen from the front) and those of his wife on the sinister (right, as seen from the front).[5] If one spouse belongs to the higher ranks of an order of chivalry, and is thereby entitled to surround his or her arms with a circlet of the order, it is usual to depict them on two separate shields tilted towards one another, this is termed "accollé".[citation needed]

Coat of Arms of Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester who is a heraldic heiress. Depicting her father's arms imposed over those of Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, her husband.
Married woman may also bear either her own arms or her husband's arms alone on a shield with a small differencing mark to distinguish her from her father or husband.[citation needed]

Heraldic Heiresses
If the woman is an heraldic heiress, her arms are shown on an inescutcheon of pretence, which is a small shield in the centre of her husband's arms. When widowed, a woman continues to use her marital arms, but placed on a lozenge or oval.[citation needed] In England and Northern Ireland, if there is more than one surviving daughter, each transmits her father's arms on equal terms.[6] In Scotland however, only the eldest surviving daughter transmits her father's undifferenced arms to her offspring.[7]

Various forms of livery were used in the Middle Ages to denote attachment to a great person by friends, servants, and political supporters. The collar, usually of precious metal, was the grandest form of these, usually given by the person the livery denoted to his closest or most important associates, but should not, in the early period, be seen as separate from the wider phenomenon of livery badges, clothes and other forms. From the collar hung a badge or device indicating the person the livery related to; the most important part of the ensemble for contemporaries. Equally gold collars that had no livery connotations were worn.

Livery collars seem to be first recorded in the 14th century. Charles V of France in 1378 granted to his Chamberlain Geoffrey de Belleville the right of bearing in all feasts and in all companies the collar of the Cosse de Geneste or Broomcod, a collar which was accepted and worn even by the English kings, Charles VI sending such collars to Richard II and to his three uncles. Although he distributed "genet" badges much more widely, only about twenty collars per year were given out, and it was treated somewhat as the sign of a pseudo-chivalric order, although no such order formally existed.[1] The collar of Esses is first recorded earlier than this, as being given by John of Gaunt, and remained in use by the House of Lancaster throughout the Wars of the Roses.[2]

Sir Thomas More wearing the Collar of Esses, with the Tudor rose badge of Henry VIII, by Hans Holbein the Younger (1527).
A livery collar or chain of office is a collar or heavy chain, usually of gold, worn as insignia of office or a mark of fealty or other association in Europe from the Middle Ages onwards.

One of the oldest and best-known livery collars is the Collar of Esses, which has been in continuous use in England since the 14th century.

Sir Thomas More wearing the Collar of Esses, with the Tudor rose badge of Henry VIII, by Hans Holbein the Younger (1527).
A livery collar or chain of office is a collar or heavy chain, usually of gold, worn as insignia of office or a mark of fealty or other association in Europe from the Middle Ages onwards.

One of the oldest and best-known livery collars is the Collar of Esses, which has been in continuous use in England since the 14th century.

Pamela, you seem to be misunderstanding a bit. As I said, livery is worn by servants and *retainers*. It's not really relevant how exalted the service. Sir Thomas More wearing the collar of esses is a good example. The point you are missing is that armigers do not wear their own livery *as livery*.

You are also confusing actual livery collars with collars of orders and pseudo-orders. You might argue that colloquial use justifies combining them, but in that case you would have to regard every order of knighthood from the Garter to the Golden Fleece, as being nothing more than an expression of patron-client relationships, even when used for international diplomacy.

We also need to be a bit clearer about what you write about the heraldry of women.

Can you explain what you mean by the statement that women "frequently controlled who could use them next in a family"?

Different countries have slightly different heraldic customs, but in all of them the descent of arms is governed by law, not a council of matriarchs. In England, a coat of arms belongs to the grantee and his eldest son in perpetuity. Younger sons and their descendants have to difference the arms. In Germany, arms belong to all male-line descendants.

The arms of women are likewise governed by local rules. In England, unmarried daughters have a right to use their father's arms without differencing. Until very recently, married women were required to impale the arms of their father and their husband. There was no right to use their father's arms alone. In Great Britain, women who have no brothers can pass their father's arms on to their children, but only if the woman's husband has a coat of arms with which to quarter them. In other countries, the custom is very different.

There are extensive articles on Wikipedia for quick reference regarding inheritance rights of children in UK, Wales, Ireland, heraldic heiresses, etc. obviously there are other, more detailed resources, including disinheritance, if a wife has superior arms to her husband, etc. I don't want to get into a great debate about this when there are so many better resources. Justin I'm sure can recommend some.
My area of study is medieval England, Wales and sometimes Scotland.

And Justin, Livery collars are part of Livery. You are confused. There are great articles for your reference.

Pamela, please go back and re-read what I wrote. I won't argue with you further, but I strongly suggest to pick up a book or two on heraldry before you go further.

Ouch! Didn't mean to open old wounds. The Corona's just happen to be of particular interest. I too like to use arms as the photo where a somewhat legitimate photo does not exist, but as Justin says,use with caution. If one Googles the arms for Herluin de Conteville, Viscount of Conteville you will find at lest five (5) completly different arms. So I'm going to have to do some studying to understand how to read them and what the terms mean. I will consider myself and expert when I can read the "mother" of all armorials, the Grenville Armorial with 719 quarterings, shown here if you haven't see it: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stowe_Armorial.jpg