Sussex Archaeological Collections/Volume 6/On the origin of the arms of some Sussex families
On the origin of the arms of some Sussex families.
By W. S. Ellis, Esq.
The origin of the armorial bearings of a family is not only a most interesting and curious inquiry in itself, but never fails considerably to illustrate family and territorial history. It is amazing what difficulties are cleared up, what unexpected relations appear, what clues to further discovery or conjecture are afforded, by successful researches of this kind ; and what speculation, and often a bold application of general rules, working on but few materials, will lead to, in the shape of results equally unlooked for and gratifying.[1]
The occasions of the assumption of armorial bearings have been such as to invest them with circumstances of honour and poetical interest. The associations connected with them are many and diversified. When one had been displayed for the first time in the Holy Land, and its owner had earned the rewards of valour and prowess, this symbol of renown would be transmitted to posterity as a cherished family emblem ; and when we find thousands of them thus or equally honourably acquired, we need not wonder at the reverence with which they were considered, that by succeeding generations they were locked upon proudly, and guarded with jealousy. They are accordingly commemorated in various ways. They garnish in beautiful emblazonry the vellum page of the mediaeval chronicler; engraven on stone and on brass, in the "long drawn aisle and fretted vault," they are often the only memorials left of warrior-knights and valiant squires, whose names and whose deeds have perished : they are symbols so high in honour, as to be placed by the crown on the tomb of the monarch ; and on the sepulchral monuments of archbishops and lordly abbots, they appear beside the mitre and the crosier. On the battlements of the castle, on the portals of the church, on the walls of the abbey and the priory, they are sculptured as appeals to reverence and time-honoured feelings. In the apprehension of the admirer of the heroic actions of the past, in the mind of the descendant of an ancient and honourable race, these speaking emblems of history have an eloquent significancy : their presence may be traced from age to age, and from clime to clime ; in the tournament, and on the battlefield, on banner and shield, in the castle, the hall, and the sanctuary. Fix upon the escutcheon of any knightly family, and enumerate the scenes and places it has visited, among what glories it has shone, and on what expeditions it has been displayed ! Take the achievement of Poynings, Barry of six gold and green, with a crimson bend, and track its presence. It is not improbable that their banner waved on the ramparts of Acre, and witnessed feats of valour against the Saracen ; it was certainly seen in the ranks of the rebellious barons under Simon de Montfort ; its bearer was conspicuous in the retinue of Earl Warren, in Scotland : Sir Nicholas Poynings, at the head of eight knights, twenty esquires, and thirty-five archers on horse, bore these arms on his shield, in company with his sovereign, at the siege of Calais, in the twentieth year of Edward the Third's reign ; another of the family, Sir Michael de Poynings, is recorded, in 1277, as a knight banneret with the above bearings, whilst his brother, Sir Thomas, bore, for difference, three silver martlets on his bend ; and these escutcheons were, with their wearers, at Cressy and Poictiers. Richard de Poynings, in the reign of Richard the Second, accompanied John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster into Spain to claim the crown of Castile ; there he died, and wished, as a memorial, "a stone of marble to be provided, with an escutcheon of his arms, and a helmet under his head." This now time-honoured coat was borne by Robert de Poynings, fifth and last Baron of Poynings, in the wars of Henry V and VI, and he himself was slain at the siege of Orleans. The splendour of this once powerful and distinguished house did not survive the personal use of coat armour, though there lived subsequently, one eminent and the last individual of his race, an historical personage. Sir Edward Poynings, Henry the Seventh's viceroy in Ireland ; his banner is marshalled, as knight of the garter; with the blazonry of the noblest of his countrymen. But the churches of Slaugham and Poynings, erected by the pious munificence of this opulent family, to this day perpetuate their armorial ensigns; in the former, the coats of Poynings and Warren, in stained glass, in the chancel window, the colours still bright, though mellowed by the touch of time, look down on the tarnished, but more modem achievements of the Coverts, the Mortons, and the Sergisons; and any wanderer among the green mounds of the ruins of the castle of Poynings, who strays into the adjoining churchyard, will behold on the north porch of the church, on a single sculptured shield, without ornament or indication of colour, the simple charges, barry of six and a bend.
If these Collections had not been restricted to topics of a local rather than a general nature, arguments might be brought forward to refute the prevailing opinions as to the antiquity of heraldry: it might be shown that charters, with arms on seals attached, prove its existence in the eleventh century in Spain and France; that armorial bearings are spoken of by historians of the time of Charlemagne, and subsequently; and that even Tacitus speaks of the parti-coloured shields of the Germans. The coats of some of the most ancient and noble European families answer precisely to that description (as checquy, lozengy, &c.), and are probably the ancient ensigns of the Teutonic chieftains. The Anglo-Saxon kings and nobles, as their descendants, bore arms on their banners and shields, some of which have probably come down to us, although the majority of them became extinct, along with the families who bore them, or with their subjection. The omission of allusion to arms in what remains of Anglo-Saxon literature is riot more remarkable than a similar silence in the general literature and newspapers of the present day. The Bayeux tapestry exhibits obvious though rude representations of these devices, and although, for some political reasons, William the Conqueror discountenanced their display, yet they were borne notwithstanding by his barons and knights, as is proved by many families a hundred and fifty years afterwards, descended of a common ancestor living at the conquest, using the same bearings. Unless this deduction be allowed, the absurdity follows of supposing that distant relatives, in remote counties, and even countries, holding under distinct feudal chiefs, would, in hundreds of cases, have strangely adopted the same devices; or the equal absurdity of their wholesale fabrication, by a collusion of heralds of different ages and lands. If heraldry had originated in the twelfth century, the devices selected would, reasoning à priori, have been different from what they were. Modem family heraldry is not a new and distinctive science from the ancient, but a continuation of it, and the ordinaries are not "refinements" of modern growth, but ancient independent charges; and, indeed, no charge or "difference" (excepting canting arms) was arbitrarily assumed, but adopted from the maternal or uxorial coat; because family relationship alone, and not the feudal connexion (which was a coincidence, not a cause), was the source of each new coat. Arms seem to have been always hereditary, from the earliest times, except in certain cases, and canting arms were taken by novi homines only, and necessarily, in default of paternal arms. Probably the greater part of significant ensigns were originally of this kind. The Greeks and Romans had undoubtedly family arms, which were hereditary, and probably the Welsh heraldry is partly an inheritance from the British Romans. The military standards, borne in all ages and lands, were originally personal, afterwards, in some cases, national, and modem European blazonry is, for the most part, derived from these by composition, augmentation, and variation of display, analogously, in the same unbroken though irregular continuity, as religion, laws, language, manners, and customs. Reserving the fuller development of these arguments to an independent essay, the immediate purpose of this paper will now demand our consideration.
Of the half-dozen great families who held sway in Sussex during the Anglo-Norman periods, perhaps that of Warren is on many accounts the most interesting to the members of the Society. Without entering into Watson's speculations as to the origin of this family, in his elaborate history of that house, there can be little doubt that they first adopted the well-known chequy or and azure (No. 1), which they bore, from the princely race of Vermandois, whose coat it was, on the marriage of William, second Earl of Warren, with Isabel, daughter of Hugh the Great, Earl of Vermandois; and this origin of their coat is countenanced by similar examples, that will be noticed hereafter, of the adoption of the arms of another family, on marriage, if of superior rank. The Warrens, it must be remembered, were not descended from any scion of the Vermandois family, or their chequy, though identical in every respect with the arms of the latter, would be differenced in some way. And it might be supposed, that though that were not the case, yet any difference that had been assumed would be relinquished, as being unnecessary, in a country where the Vermandois bearings would never be seen. This distinguished blazon having once been introduced into the heraldry of the English nobles seems to have been speedily adopted by those who could make out any claim to it. Roger de Newburg, created by the Conqueror Earl of Warwick, having married Gundrada, daughter of the second Earl of Warren, relinquished his paternal coat of arms, and took the new Warren coat, adding a chevron ermine (2) to denote his descent from the Earl of Perche, who bore three chevrons. The various coats of the baronial family of Clifford, that have chequy for their basis, seem to be derived from the same source; the fess and bendlet (3, 4) which the early branches added, being taken from Wm. Fitz-Osborn their ancestor, who bore those charges combined, and from whom they inherited Clifford Castle. The derivation would have been indirect, through Toni a heiress, whose father probably married a Warren. The crest borne by the Cliffords, a wyvern, is the identical crest of the Warrens, and greatly strengthens this derivation. Of the nineteen knights who, in 26 Hen. III, held their fees of the barony of Lewes or honour of Warren, only one is known to have borne arms that are derived from the Warren coat, viz. Hugh de Pierrepoint, who bore azure a chief chequy, or and gules (5).
It appears from the instances mentioned, that it was not only the custom to adopt the arms of a heiress, though by no means general, but also of a wife's family, though no heiress, if of superior rank. Thus William de Beauchamp on marrying Bertha, sister of Giles de Braose, Bishop of Hereford, took that family's arms, which were vaire; and — De Maminot (7) took the arms of De Vere (6), changing the colours, on the occasion of an alliance with that eminent family, which the Says (7) adopted entirely, on marrying the heiress of Marainot. The arms of the distinguished Sussex family of Sackville (8) were chiefly derived from the De Veres, Sir Jordan de Sackville, who died in the ninth of King John's reign, marrying a daughter of the Earl of Oxford.
Adelisa, widow of Henry I, gave to her brother, Josceline de Louvaine, the honour and manor of Petworth. He married, a.d. 1122, Agnes de Percy, the heiress of that noble house. "Before his nuptials," says Collins (v. 318), "she covenanted with him that he should bear the arms of the Lords Percy and omit his own, or continue his own arms, and take the surname of Percy, to him and his posterity for ever; and he chose the latter alternative ; which is taken notice of in the following lines, under the picture in the pedigree at Sion House:
"Lord Percy's heir I was, whose noble name
By me survives unto his lasting fame;
Brabant's Duke's son I wed, who for my sake
Retain'd his arms, and Percy's name did take."
The arms of Louvaine, henceforth of Percy, were or a lion rampant azure. This being a simple ancient device, and of the colours, supposed to be the privilege originally of noble families, and their eldest sons, it is probable they were the ancient hereditary ensigns of the Dukes of Brabant for centuries. As Josceline de Louvaine was only a younger son, he ought, according to the laws of heraldry to have borne some difference on his shield, but probably it was the custom, in order to render the charges as few and as simple as possible, to abandon marks of cadency on settling in another country, where the same coat might not occur, just as an elder son dropped the label generally put on his escutcheon, on succeeding to the paternal honours. But the old arms of Percy—az. 5 fusils conjoined in fess or—were perpetuated in the family of Dawtrey, of West Sussex, whose ancestor, Josceline de Alta Ripa, was nephew of Josceline de Louvaine.
The FITZALANS, Earls of Arundel, adopted the arms of the De Albinis, whose titles and estates they inherited. These, as attributed to "John le Fitz Aleyn" in the Roll of Arms, a.d. 1240-45, were "de goides a ung lion d'or rampant." This 
(Upload an image to replace this placeholder.)
(Upload an image to replace this placeholder.)
"Richard le Comte de Aroundel
Beau chevalier et bien aime
I vi je richement arme
En rouge au lion rampant de or."
The Fitz Alans bore previously barry of 8 or and gules; and a controversy is noticed in the last-mentioned roll as having sprung up between this family and that of Poyntz respecting their each bearing the same arms.
Lunsford.—This ancient family took its rise at Lundresford, in Echingham, in the time of Edward the Confessor. The arms borne by them are a chevron between 3 boars' heads couped (21); but these are probably a variation made by a younger branch, or an adoption at some early period of a coat borne by some family into which they had married; for there cannot be much doubt that, like as in the case of the Wistons and others, the original bearing was three boars' heads, many of the derivatives being now unknown, or to be met with in other names and counties, though four of them there is strong presumption for assigning to Sussex families, viz., Luxford, Platsted, and Cobden. A monumental inscription to the memory of one of the Luxfords of Wartling, states that that family had been buried in the parish for some centuries. Now Luxford, as a corruption of Lundesford, is not so violent a change in sound and spelling as many that are proved to be the same name; the name of Luxford is not to be found in the county in early records, and the preceding statement coupled with the fact of the arms having an evident cognate origin with those of Lundresford, leaves little room to doubt that both families come of one and the same stock.
In Budgen's Map of Sussex, published in 1724, 3 boars' heads argent on an azure field (22) are given as the arms of George Luxford of Windmill Hill, Gent., and also of — Luxford of Nessington. The same charges occur on a pile (23) as the coat of one of the name on a monument in Clayton Church in the eighteenth century. The arms of Playsted, ermine 3 boars' heads couped gules (24), there seems sufficient reason to trace up to the same source as that of the Luxfords and Lunsfords. This family owned property at an early period in East Sussex. Henry de Pleystede occurs in a Calendar of Sussex Fines anno 33 Edward III. There is a pedigree of this family in the Visitation of Sussex for 1634.
One other family, though not taking their name from any place in East Sussex, there seem to be good grounds for believing to have borne the charges under consideration, viz., that of Cobden. Godfrey de Coppedene (in Sullington) was one of the manucaptors of Roger de Covert, in 1278, (Parl. Writs.) In 1314, Adam de Coppdenne was m.p. for Chichester. 9 Edward IV, Ralph Playstede holds the Manor of Cobden by knight's service of the manor of Wartling, (Burr, MSS. Brit. Mus., 5679, p. 222.) As it is probable that every owner of a manor in early times was ranked among the gentry, though many would occupy the lowest class, and that they bore coat armour, the first Cobden of Cobden might reasonably be supposed to have had that distinction, and was probably a cadet of some armigerous family, and assumed, as was the custom, the name of his estate. No arms of "Cobden" are to be met with in the heraldic dictionaries, but Copyn and Cobbin are said to bear party per pale 3 boars' heads (25). Now Thomas Cobbin was m.p. for Horsham in 1385, and considering the various orthographies of that age, and the place, there need be no scruple in regarding this individual as one of the Cobdens. The manor of Cobden seems to have very early passed away into another family by sale or marriage, but others of the race would disperse, and some of them, who were of sufficient consideration, would still in other counties perpetuate their arms, though varying their name. The above suppositions countenance this view of the case,—that the first Cobden of Cobden was a cadet of Playsted, and varied the paternal coat armour by giving the field party per pale, the charges remaining the same,—that Ralph Playstede, in 9 Edward IV, or his ancestor, had married the heiress of his kinsman, and that the Copyns and Cobbins, who bear party per pale 3 boars' heads, derive both male descent and arms from the Cobdens of Cobden. But the name of Cobden nevertheless seems to have kept unchanged for centuries in western Sussex. In 1588, Thomas Cobden subscribed £25 to the defence of the kingdom. In 1734, five or six of this name recorded their votes at the county election as freeholders of west Sussex. Edward Cobden, d.d., Chaplain to George II, and Archdeacon of Middlesex, was of a family long seated at West Dean, and he is a collateral ancestor of Richard Cobden, Esq., m.p.
The Stapleys of Hixted and Framfield are supposed to have sprung originally from East Sussex: in the catalogue of the Battle Abbey deeds, the name occurs frequently in the fifteenth century. As they bore three boars' heads it would seem, at first sight, that their use by them arose in the same way as those we have been speaking of. But these are arms evidently of appropriation, and not of inheritance. The Stapleys of Battle and the neighbourhood were tanners, and smiths, and yeomen; and on their rise in the social scale in the sixteenth century, they assumed a coat of arms (it does not appear by any grant or exemplification from the College of Arms), which are an obvious plagiarism from the ancient family of Staplegh of Staplegh, in Cheshire, who bore 3 boars' heads, and which were intended, as indeed some pedigrees assert, to create the belief that the Sussex family was an offshoot of the Cheshire stock. But the Sussex Stapleys surrounded their boars' heads with a bordure engrailed, either as a mark of original cadency, or to cover, by an ambiguous variation, the assumption. Indeed the baronetical family of Patcham seem to have been aware of the apocryphal origin of their coat-armour, for they had a grant from the heralds of different charges altogether.
Goring. This name was first assumed by the owners of the lordship of Goring, in the time of Henry III, (Cart. W, Suss., ii, 36.) The heiress of the elder line carried the lordship of Goring to her husband, Henry Tregoze, temp. Edward I. The arms now borne by the Goring family, a chevron between 3 annulets (9), are probably one of several similar coats, borne by different offsets, who took the names of the estates they inherited or acquired.
Sir John de Brembre, who lived in the reign of Edward III, it may reasonably be presumed, was of this family from his name and arms, the latter being argent 3 annulets sable, on a canton of the second, a mullet of the first (10). (Vide Hasted's Kent, V, 74.)
The family of Tregoze, according to the Roll of arms, 1240-5, bore gules 3 bars gemels or, a lion passant in chief of the same. The following remarks on the changes made in their arms, will be appropriate, as illustrating the subject in general. They are from Nichols's Topographer and Genealogist, from the pen of Mr. D'Oyley Bayley, whose numerous contributions have enriched that publication, and are characterised by a spirit of critical sagacity and acumen, that must be applied in connection with a more learned and sceptical investigation of existing records, both accessible, and such as shall be from time to time disclosed, to the dissection of old pedigrees, before authentic and truthful genealogies can be compiled.
"Sir Henry de Tregoze, or his progenitors, had differenced the family armorial ensigns of gemel bars and the passant lion, by placing them on a blue, instead of a red shield, and the Roll of Arms compiled between 2 and 7 Edward II, proves the coat borne by Sir Henry de Tregoze to have been "de azure a 2 barres gimyles de or, en le chef, un lupard passant de or;" but it is a curious fact, that soon after the final extinction of the above senior branch of the family. Sir Henry handed over this coat to the younger branches of his own family, and he or his son and heir resumed the old colours of red and gold, but bore them reversed, viz. on a golden shield, with the charge gules. This was possibly intended to mark, that though chief of his house, he was not lineally descended from its originally elder line, which bore the field gules, and the bearings or, and which the La Warrs and Grandisons would be entitled to claim." (p. 130).
The arms of Gilderidge, of Gilderidge, in Withyham, seem to be compounded of Warren and Goring, being chequy on a chevron 3 annulets (11). The 3 annulets on an engrailed chief (12) in the arms of Cowper of Strood in Slynfold, point to a connection with the Goring family.
The Westons or Wistonestons of Wiston bore, according to Cartwright, ermine on a bend gules three leopards' heads erased or, langued azure (37). But according to an elaborate pedigree of this family and its numerous offsets, in Brayley's 'History of Surrey' (ii,81), their arms at the time of the Conquest were sable, three leopards' heads erased arg. crovmed or, langued gules (38), the bend being a variation taken by Thomas Weston of Albury and his descendants, whilst at an early period, Adam de Weston bore sable a chevron or between three leopards' heads as above (39). And in Vincent's ordinary of arms in the Heralds' College, a coat is ascribed to this name, which obviously belongs to this stock, and indicates a derivation from the Warren family, viz. chequy or and gules a bend ermine (40).
Ralph de Deane whose heiress married into the Sackville family, bore three leopards' faces for his arms, which were also borne by Sir Alured de Deane, who, according to Hasted, was of the same family, and of whose descendants there is a long pedigree in Berry's ' Kentish Genealogies.' This Ralph had an uncle of the same name, who was probably the same Ralph de Wiston whose father, also named Ralph, was the Doomsday owner of Wiston and other manors in west Sussex, whose arms, as above, essentially resembled those of the Deanes. Wantley, in Henfield, was one of these manors. In 1199, this was possessed by Philip de Wantley; one of his descendants, John Wantley, who died in 1424, lies buried in Amberley church. A brass memorial of him has engraven on it these arms, vert three leopards' faces, argent, langued gules. William Fitz-Ralph was the Doomsday tenant of the manor of Morley, in Shermanbury. "Fulco de Morle" was a witness to a charter of William de Braose, dated circa 1150. The Morleys of Glynde, who were descended from the Morleys of Morley, in Lancashire, temp. Edward III, bore Sa, three leopards faces or, jessant a fleur-de-lis arg. Now, arms as well as names have been corrupted, and an inspection of the coat of Wiston (No. 38) will show that the bearings there, might, by a careless transcription and rude drawing, be converted into the perplexing charges borne by the Morleys, and whose origin has puzzled the conjectures of heraldic students. Though the Lancashire Morleys are styled "de Morley," which generally indicates that the place gave name to the family, yet in this instance it was probably the reverse, the sign of the possessive case being omitted, which was a common practice. The arms of Morley, were also those of Cantalupe, who were of baronial eminence in the time of King John. Might not then Ralph de Wiston, the ancestor of the Deanes, the Morleys, and the Wantleys, be a cadet of Cantalupe (Comte le Loup), whose arms are veritable armes parlantes. If all these coats have not a common origin, then they who first assumed them, being third or fourth cousins, and holding lands in different parts of England, and under different feudal chiefs, must all have singularly hit upon the same devices; or, under the former supposition, they must have been borne by a common ancestor at or before the conquest.
The Echinghams and St. Legers, from their large possessions in Kent and Sussex, had not only a feudal, but probably a close family relationship to the Earls of Eu, whose arms, it may be presumed, they copied; Maltravers, a Domesday tenant of theirs, in Dorsetshire, bearing also the fret. In the Roll of Arms temp. Edward II, printed in the Parliamentary Writs (i, 410), the following arms are assigned to different members of these families:—
Sire William de Echingham—de azure fretty d'argent (13).
Sire Robert de Echingham—meisme les armes, od la bordure endente d'or (14).
Sire Rauf de St. Leger—od le chef d'or (19).
Sire Johan de St. Leger—od le chef de goules.
Sire Thomas de St. Leger—de azure frette de argent ove le chef d'or, od un molet de goules.
The Parkers of Ratton, who bore fretty a fess (16), derived their coat, undoubtedly, from the Echinghams: from whom they took the fess is unknown. The bend fretty (15) of Ore of Ore, is from Etchingham, and perhaps Mounceux, who bore or a bend sable, which latter seems to have been the basis of Shoyswell of Shoyswell, the super-addition being on the bend three horse shoes of the field. In the roll just mentioned, "Sire Alleyn de Boxhulle" who bore d'or et un lyon d'azure frette argent (17), occurs among the Sussex knights. The fretty here is of course from Echingham; and the lion perhaps from Burghersh of Burwash. The same coat is given to Ralph Boxhill amongst 700, in what is called "Charles's Roll" in the time of Henry III, the earliest roll of arms extant. This family, which still exists and is very numerous in Sussex, under the modern spelling of Boxall, took its name from a place near Salehurst, now called "Bugsill." The arms of Warnett[2] of Framfield fretty, over all a stag salient, are in the latter part, without much doubt to be derived from the Echinghams; the stag may be taken from Whiligh of Whiligh in Wadhurst, who bore arg. a stag statant, gules charged with stars arg. horned or (Burr. MSS. 5691, p. 822), which may have had a common origin with an ancient coat of Byshe Gu. a hind trippant arg. The coat of Jefferay of Chiddingly fretty on a chief a lion passant guardant (20), Mr. Lower, in his 'Curiosities of Heraldry,' considers to be a derivation of Echingham, because the family held an estate in Bletchington of the Barons of that name; but as it more nearly resembles the St. Leger bearings, and as Jefferay was not an uncommon name of their race, it seems more likely that the Jefferays sprung from one of its scions, taking, as was frequently the case, the Christian name for a Surname, and charging the chief with a lion as a distinctive bearing.
De la Lynde and Dallingridge are identical. Sir Walter de la Lind, one of the bannerets before mentioned, bore de argent a une crois engrele de goules. His heiress married Sir John Dallyngridge, who adopted these arms, which was probably the first occasion of the use of any by this family, as they were previously of little note, taking their name from their property, called Lang-ridge, in West-Hoathly. There is no authority for the Sir John, his father, as given in the slight pedigree in Sussex Arch, Coll. vol. III, p. 93, nor for the statement that they came from Hampshire, which error arose from some of the family afterwards settling in that county, Richard Dallingridge being sheriff there, 28 Hen. VI.
The name of Dallingridge is formed similarly to that of Dallender. This was vulgarly corrupted from De la Ryver, a Yorkshire family, settled at Buckland, in Surrey. (Vide Manning and Bray.) A branch of the Dallenders lived at Chichester, and afterwards at Poynings, and bore vaire gules and arg. within a bordure az. bezantée, which were the arms of Sir — de la Ryver,
as mentioned in the before cited Roll. As no one would, as a purely etymological conjecture, derive Dallender from De la Ryver, so no one would suspect Sydney to be a contraction of Sutton-heath, yet such, it is probable, is the fact. Analogously, Stepney, near Blackwall, is a crasis of Stephen's-heath, by which name it is designated in the Nonæ Rolls. Now, the first Sidney on record is Sir William Sidney, Chamberlain to Henry II (who was buried at Lewes, a.d. 1188), to whom that monarch gave the manor of Sutton, in Surrey. Probably his ancestors were of obscure origin, and lived at Sutton-heath. And thus Sydenham, in Kent, may have been originally Sutton-ham, and Sittingbourne, Sutton-bourne.
Ashburnham. The earliest allusion to the arms of this family is in the Roll of Arms, before cited, of Knights Bannerets, among whom occurs "Sir John de Ascheboumham," who bore de goules a une fesse et six rouels de argent (30), which are used by his descendants at this day. As the possessions of this family in early times were limited (as appears by the Testa de Nevill, compiled temp. Henry III), to two knights' fees, it is not probable that any individuals of sufficient importance to bear coat-armour held under them.[3]
Fuller, in his 'Worthies,' speaks of the Ashbumhams as "a family of stupendous antiquity, a family wherein the eminence hath equalled the antiquity, having been barons, temp. Henry III; and Collins, in his 'Peerage,' says that Bertram de Ashburnham was constable of Dover Castle, under King Harold. These statements are unwarranted by evidence, but are probably true in great part, concerning the ancient Norman family of Crioll, which had great possessions in Kent and Sussex, at the time of the Conquest, if not before. Bertram, as a Christian name, was a common one in this family. Now, Robert de Crioll was the Doomsday tenant of Ashburnham: in the Visitations of Sussex, the first quartering given to the family, is that of Crioll; in the pedigree of the Ashburnhams this name however does not appear as a match, though the alliances of the family are given from a very early period. The probability therefore is, that the early Criolls took the name of Ashburnham, or that a family bearing the present Ashburnham arms married the heiress of the Criolls, or of their descendants who had taken the name of the estate.
Mr. Drummond's magnificent work, 'Noble British Families,'[4] begins with an account of the Ashbumhams. The seal used by Sir Richard de Ashburnham, temp. Hen. III, is there given: and it is the coat of his mother, who was a daughter of Sir John de Maltravers, who bore Sable, a fret or. Whether the coat, since used by the family, and as early as Edward II, the fess and mullets had not then been assumed, or was laid aside for that of a higher family, and afterwards resumed; or whether, as was then probably the case, sometimes, though not so often as in the present day, from the proper seal not being at hand, some other family seal was used instead,—it is impossible to say.
The following extracts from Burke's 'Armoury,' it is believed, all refer to this family and its branches. The contractions and corruptions of the names are not so great as in many proved instances. The prevalence of the fess and the mullets in nearly every coat warrant this supposition. They are probably all variations from the original Ashburnham coat, formed analogously with the variations in other families; the original arms not being the fess and six mullets. The blazonry is probably incorrect in many cases; and considering the sources through which ancient heraldry has come down to us, it would be strange if many errors had not arisen; for instance, in the Roll of Edw. II, martlets are written "merelos," and mullets "moles;" this, though a distinction, might be easily confounded by an ignorant or a careless transcriber; and there seems good reason for thinking was actually the case in the Roll in question; for Sir John de Ashbornham is there said to bear a fess between six mullets, whilst Sir John de Ashbome, of Worcestershire, bears the same coat and colours, except that we must read martlets instead of mullets. Now, knowing how names were curtailed and altered in those early times, and remembering the liability to the error just alluded to, it is not at all unlikely that this Sir John Ashbome was of the Sussex family, and bore the arms of the Sussex Ashburnhams. There is no pedigree of either Ashbome or Ashburnham in the Visitations of Worcestershire.
Ashbourne—Argent, on a fesse between 3 crescents gules, 3 mullets or; another, the mullets arg.
Ashborne or Ashbury, Worcestershire.—Gules a fesse between. 6 martlets ar; another, or ; another, the fess or, &c.
AsHERBURN or AsHBURNER, Cockermouth. — Arg. on a fess between 3 crescents gules, 3 mullets or.
Ashburnham, Sussex and Suffolk. — Gules a fess arg. between 6 plates.
Ashburnham. — Gules a fess between 3 mullets arg.
— Arg. on a fess between 3 crescents gules, 3 mullets arg.
— Azure a fess between 3 martlets or; another, the fess or.
Ashbury, Worcestershire.—Gules a fess between 3 mullets arg.
Penhurst of Penhurst, bore sable a mullet arg. (29). Eversfield of Hastings and Denne, bore ermine on a bend three mullets (32). Randoll of Herrings in Warbleton, bore Sa. three mullets arg. a chief dancette ermine (33). Penkhurst of Buxted, bore ermine a fess between six mullets (31). All these seem to have a common origin.
The arms of Evershed are three mullets on a chief, which, with the name, would seem to have had a common origin with the name and arms of Eversfield. The great Kentish family of Hever, settled first at Northfleet, and afterwards at Hever Castle, ramified very extensively. A branch settled at "Hever's Wood," in Horley, co. Surrey, whence came the Hevers of Cuckfield; another branch gave name to Hersham (Hever's ham), in Walton-on-Thames. Two other branches might have settled on localities named after them, Hever's-field and Hever's-stede, and bearing mullets on their arms (which were not the bearings of the chief line). These branches might end in heiresses, whose husbands took their arms and the name of their estate. The Falconers of Kent thus, on removing to Michelgrove in Sussex, changed their name for that of their residence. The name of Hever was often spelt Ever; a family of this name was ennobled in the sixteenth century. The great Norman family of Yvery might be the stem whence sprung the Kentish Hevers; Iver, in Buckinghamshire, is supposed to be named from the former.
Courthope and Cruttenden bore each three estoiles, the former with a fess, the latter with a chevron (35, 36). These names, it is not improbable, are corruptions of Covert's-thorp and Covert's-den (Crotynden in Ticehurst). The district of "Curthope" in Lamberhurst is mentioned as early as 1168, as paying tithes to Leeds Abbey (Hasted's Kent, 8vo ed. v, 308). Crotynden occurs in Budgen's Map of Sussex in the vicinity of Maplesden, Hammerden, Withernden, &c. The Courthopes and the Cruttendens possessed property in that and the neighbouring parishes in Kent and Sussex. There is no resemblance in the arms of the Coverts and these families, nor any known ownership of lands, &c., supposed to be named after them, to warrant the etymology hazarded; but knowing most localities ending in -hurst, -den, -combe, &c., received their distinctive prefix from their owner, as Lamberhurst from Lambert de Scotney, Hersham, i.e. Hever's-ham, in Walton-on-Thames (v. Manning and Bray's Surrey in loco), from the family of Hever, etymology points to the great landed south Saxon family of Covert as the probable origin of the compound names in question.
The ancient family of Stopham of Stopham and of Colbrand of Boreham, exhibit arms which clearly denote a family relationship. The two coheiresses of William Stopham of Stopham, married at the end of the fourteenth century, into the families of Palmer and Bartelott, the coat which they both quarter in respect of those matches, being quarterly perfesse indented arg. and gules four crescents counterchanged. Sir William Echingham, knight, m.p. for Sussex, 1290, married before 1265 Eva daughter and heiress of Ralph de Stopham: her arms, a crescent in the field and a canton, with his own and two others are on his seal ("Echyngham of Echyngham" by Spencer Hall, p. 22). This coat is probably the older, as it is the simpler of the two; the quarterly arrangement being formed by the elder line remaining at Stopham, on the occasion of some alliance with a family whose bearings were thus in part, if not wholly, incorporated with the Stopham arms. In the Visitation of 1570, the pedigree of Colbrand is entered, with a shield quarterly, viz., one and four, az. 3 carpenters' levels or; 2 arg. a fess and on a canton gules a crescent of the field; 3 vaire two bars gules. The first is the modern, the second their ancient coat. The latter occurs in juxtaposition with the Pelham arms in the spandrils of a doorway in Laughton church. Agnes, daughter of Sir John Pelham, married John Colbrand of Boreham; and the Colbrands had lands in Laughton previous to the time of Henry V, and a manor farm bearing their name has been in the possession of the Pelhams for about four centuries.[5]
It may not be irrelevant to notice here a similar and interesting instance of the extension and varied manner of the perpetuation of another great family whose influence this county once acknowledged. The distinguished family of Acquila, lords of the honour and barony of Pevensey, or, as it was named after them, of the Eagle, Mr. Lower says, was the source of the two Sussex families of Michel and Eagles. And it would appear that the manors of Michelgrove and Eglesden, in the parish of Angmering, and Icklesham (Eglesham), near Winchelsea, were named after this great baronial race. The two latter belonged to the abbey of Fescamp, in Normandy, to whom the Acquilas were great benefactors. And there was a connection between the family of De Icklesham and the Acquilas which supports this supposition. Gilbert was the prevalent Christian name of the Acquilas, and seems to have originated an offshoot, with that surname, in the family of Gilbert of east Sussex, one branch of which bore for their arms a chevron between three eagles. The Michel-bournes, too, bore a cross between four eagles. Michel-ham priory was founded by Gilbert de Acquila; Michel-bourne does not occur in any of the maps of the county, but there was probably such a locality in Sussex which gave name to the family so called.
Here this list must close. It is intended merely as a brief and imperfect introduction to the subject, and is the result of desultory and incomplete research. But it is hoped hereby to draw attention to a mine of interest little known, and less worked; and wherein labour may be very profitably and pleasingly employed. The ' Curiosities of Heraldry,' indicate a Philosophy of Heraldry that has yet to be written.[6] Like Philology, Zoology, Ethnology, and other sciences, it illustrates the sublime law of Development. Investigated in the spirit of Geology, combining the discovery of isolated facts with speculations as to their relation and common origin, it will render no small service in contributing to prove the connection of families and races up to remote and obscure periods, and thus throw a light on the history of mankind that might be obtained from no other source. The studies and tastes of the age happily tend to advance this kind of knowledge, and they could have received no grander homage than is presented in that magnificent temple of heraldry, the New Palace of Westminster.
Many of the arms blazoned have not the colours given, for authorities differ about many of them so much, that it would be very difficult to give them accurately ; and in the derivation of arms it is the charges and not the tinctures which prove the affinity.
- ↑ It would probably throw much light on the early genealogy of the family of Howard if the pedigrees were traced of all families who bear similar arms. Houard is a Norman name.
- ↑ This name is probably a corruption of Warrenwick, just as Smithett is corrupted from Smithwick, and Dennett from Dennewick (the street in the valley). Many names ending in ett or att, are said to be formed from the particle at as a suffix, as it undoubtedly does enter into the formation of many names as a prefix, as Att-wood, &c.; but it is very questionable if it is ever so employed. Thus Cartwright, in his Hist, of Bramber Rape, says, Dennett was formerly written Denne-at; and Collins, in his Peerage, makes Leggatt equivalent to Legg or Legh-at (at the meadow); whereas the name is probably the same as legate, the pope's representative. The sylvan term Warren is disguised in a great many names having Warn for the first syllable, as Warnford (the ford at the Warren), Warnham (the ham in the Warren), Warner (warren-er, i.e., one who lives at the Warren), &c. The ancient castle and town of Warwick may have grown from a rural street in the Warren, to their present size and importance.
- ↑ "Know," said a tenant-in-chief to Henry II, " that I hold of you a very poor fee of one knight, nor have I enfeoffed any other therein, because it is hardly sufficient for me alone, and my father held it in the same manner."
- ↑ In these profusely embellished volumes (which the writer had not seen till after this paper was written) Mr. Drummond, though he does not insist on such an early origin of heraldry as is claimed in the foregoing pages, yet holds the same theory of the formation and composition of armorial bearings as has been here advanced, illustrating and proving it by numberless examples.
- ↑ Suss. Arch. Collections, III, 222.
- ↑ The excellent work of our valued member, Mr. M. A. Lower, 'The Curiosities of Heraldry,' which enters more into the philosophy of the subject than any other, contains a very interesting appendix, illustrating the causes and modes of change in coat armour at early periods. But unfortunately for the doctrines enunciated in the body of the work, the heraldic genealogy of the Cobham family there given, completely contradicts them, and supports the views advanced in this paper. The arms there given were borne (though not so stated), it will appear, from critical examination of the document, assisted by a reference to the Kentish historians, at the time of the Conquest, and for several generations afterwards unchanged. If not, the same singular coincidence will appear, or the same wonderful ingenuity of the heralds must have been at work, as we have seen must characterise the whole ancient blazonry of England and Normandy.