"WOTR - Now only slightly confused" Topic

Okay,
I know what a heraldic flag is, and what a livery flag is.

Question is if I am painting up a specific Lord (lets say Beaufort for want to argument). Should I, assuming the figure details allow it, paint his surcoat with his Heraldic details or his Livery Colours or would he have worn the livery of the head of faction.

I can find, in the TMP archives a similar thread but that was different liveries, but did include the discussion over knights.

As this is still an area of unknown there will be a range of views I would imagine

Si

Heraldic tabard. Livery coats were part of "Livery & Maintaince", therefore reserved for soldiers who signed up to serve the lord. Nobles would wear their own heraldry, even if serving other noble or peer.

I think the short answer to this is that we simply don't know.

In the 15th century, the concept of "Bastard Feaudalism" had resulted in the creation of complex "affinities" whereby one lord would owe allegiance to a greater lord and in turn would hold allegiance from a number of lesser lords, yeomen or commoners. In effect, you sold your allegiance in return for fighting in your lord's forces. For the commoners this was known as "livery and maintenance" in which a man sold his fighting services to a lord in return for bed and board – wearing the lord's "livery" in return for "maintenance". How far up the hierarchy livery and maintenance actually extended is open to conjecture.

IMHO, any lord who had the right to bear his own heraldry would not want to wear the livery or heraldry of any greater lord. Equally, it is open to conjecture whether the men who served a particular lord would wear his livery or that of their lord's own senior. Again IMHO I prefer the former view.

Not sure if any of that helps?

Heraldry was a personal thing. In general, if you were entitled to a coat of arms you wore it.

That is probably the origin of livery. As a way of showing affinity with a lord that didn't involve people wearing arms that they were not entitled to.

I agree with Margard in that we can't be absolutely sure – some strange attitudes prevailed around that period in England.

I'd put a significant amount of cash on them wearing their own arms if they had them BUT very possibly some badge or inference to their overlord or his faction. This could range from a personal badge of the lord, a badge associated with the faction he currently supported or just a coloured band or sash (often on the upper arm).

Some families even went as far as incorporating elements of other family's arms into their own.

a badge associated with the faction he currently supported or just a coloured band or sash (often on the upper arm).

Not quite sure what you mean here by "faction". There really weren't any recognised factions in the accepted sense of the term. Yes, they were broadly Yorkists and Lancastrians, but there was probably not a particular recognised colour or symbol associated with either. In practice there were several badges associated woth each.

Some families even went as far as incorporating elements of other family's arms into their own.

Um … no. There were strict rules about the structure and design of heraldic coats of arms. They were intended to show descent and lineage including by marriage. By the 15th century applying the rules had become so complicated that the College of Arms was founded in 1484 to oversee and approve all coats of arms.

Margard

There were a number of different badges associated with the various claimants to the throne, their principal supporters and adherents and my proposal was that any of these may have been used.

There were major players who were not irrevocably fixed to one side – that is what I'm calling, for the want of a better word, factions.

There have been rules relating to heraldry since it started but not everyone obeyed or obeys them. The rules had not become more complex, they had become contradictory and open to major abuse, the incorporation of the College did little to stop that but stronger government and control of the nobility under the Tudors did to some extent.

The junction of arms by marriage was not actually the usual practice in England until relatively late and arms were 'joined' to show allegiances and minor armigerous families most certainly did alter their arms to parody a major local one – a practice that continued into the 19th century.

The College of Arms had and has a responsibility but in an age where influence and power were shifting sands they were not immune to 'persuasion' any more than they were later in their history.

Thanks, plenty to ponder. In terms of "Coats of Arms" who apart from the owner "could" have worn it on the field of battle. Thinking of Heralds and Bodyguards/decoys.

There were a number of different badges associated with the various claimants to the throne, their principal supporters and adherents and my proposal was that any of these may have been used.

OK, that seems reasonable.

There were major players who were not irrevocably fixed to one side – that is what I'm calling, for the want of a better word, factions.

OK. Not what I would call a faction, but fair enough.

There have been rules relating to heraldry since it started but not everyone obeyed or obeys them. The rules had not become more complex, they had become contradictory and open to major abuse, the incorporation of the College did little to stop that but stronger government and control of the nobility under the Tudors did to some extent.

The junction of arms by marriage was not actually the usual practice in England until relatively late and arms were 'joined' to show allegiances and minor armigerous families most certainly did alter their arms to parody a major local one – a practice that continued into the 19th century.

I'm intrigued as to your sources for these comments? Are there any examples you could cite to illustrate what you suggest (e.g. parodied arms)?

I paint a Noble or lord in his Heraldic coat of arms,to show who he is,and his retenue in his livery colours with badge. I would say a trumpeter in livery colours with his lords livery badge,if he has a banner on his trumpet you could paint his lords coat of arms or his livery colours with one of his livery badge emblems on it.Same goes for Heralds,heraldry or livery.

CAG – there is some debate about how likely it is that close personal retainers might have worn a lord's coat of arms (either on a jupon or a shield). We simply don't (and probably can't) know, so whatever anyone says, it is only an opinion.

MY opinion is that, by the WoR period it probably happened in the larger households who could afford the upkeep of professional soldiers of knightly skills but without the rank of knight and with no personal arms, or none they cared to use.

Margard
I knew you'd ask and have racked my brains for the sources. I'm not good at noting or remembering sources but the early ones I seem to recall came from an diatribe written in the 16th century and quoted in a periodical. It bemoaned the bastardising of heraldry and listed various abuses. It was in the days when I had access to academic libraries, sadly no longer the case.
Later cases came (I think) from reports of the visitations – possibly Cheshire and possibly early 17th century. Those records are somewhere on the Internet and include some of the parodied arms taken up by families (some newly armigerous 'gentlemen', some not) that are clearly derived from a local magnate's arms.

Margard
I knew you'd ask

Thank you! I appreciate your trying to remember. What you say is most interesting and I may well see what I can find based on your pointers to source material. Thanks again!