clanforum
General Category => Heraldry => Topic started by: William J. Thompson on October 24, 2010, 03:41:04 PM
-
A few years ago, (long before I discovered this website,) I was browsing some of those fake "buy your family arms" sites. I noticed that under Thompson, they usually had three varieties:
the familiar red cabossed stag's head with devices on a blue chief for Scotland;
the black-and-silver three falcons with the counter-embattled divider for England; and
the three estoils with the sun-canton for Ireland. Nice and neat. If only it was that easy!
I had done some research in a book called The Enclyclopaedia of Heraldry, or the General Armorie of England, Scotland, and Ireland. (Published 1844, available on Google Books, and quite an interesting read in its own right!)
I had found about 44 variations of Thoms listed. When I separated the varieties of matriculations out, nine were the stag's-head motif, seven were the three-falcons motif, and four were the sun-in-canton motif. True to form, the Stag's-Heads were Thomsons, and the Three-Falcons were Thompsons. Surprisingly, ten were some version of a lion passant/sajant, and a further ten were chevron-dividing-three-bits (escallops, estoils, crescents, or whatnot.) There were also some oddballs, like an eagle displayed, or a seahorse holding a flag.
Is this indicative that these are completely separate lines of Thompsons? I suspect that Lord Lyon, the Garter King of Arms, and Ulster King of Arms all do things differently. Could the Non-Stag Thompsons be borderers who fled to England and were granted English arms, and the Sun-Canton Thompsons descendants of displaced Ulsterers? Or are they completely different Sons of Thom than Thomson of That Ilk? Or were they granted arms by England a propos of no previous arms at all?
I think I understand that Lyon may grant a differenced arms to anyone of the same family name, whether or not they can prove direct lineage. Does England work on a different system; that if you can't prove lineage your arms are unique? That would certainly explain the huge variety of English Thompson arms. ...Right?
This armiger stuff is very interesting...the more I learn, the more I want to know!
--Bill.
-
Yes you're right,
In Scotland the Lord Lyon will give differenced arms to all of that surname regardless of proven descent, I think this can to some extent be based on the notion of the clan in Scottish history, all of a same surname will be regarded as branches of a family or clan.
In England where there is no concept of clan the arms tend to be completely different for every individual regardless of surname, a shared surname is not seen an extended familial bond.
I prefer the Scottish way, after all the purpose of heraldry is to identify individuals, and if those of a common surname have similar chargeson their arms it is a lot easier to determine the identidy of a person.
-
Good post, Bill.......and good answer, Scott!
I've seen the very different designs of arms but never had the time to quantify them. It was interesting to see Bill's data.
When we send in the application to Lyon Court, we will undoubtedly request something based on the old, original arms w/red stag.
-
Bill, If memory serves correctly... the three estoiles with sun in canton is actually English as well being primarily associated with Maurice Thompson known for his connections to the West African slave trade. He was merchant involved, along with several brothers, in the early settlement of Virginia. Oddly enough his father was said to have come from the North, from the area north of Carlisle. The arms with the lion passant are associated most closely with either the Lord Sherriff of London or with the Thompson family from the village of Thompson in Norfolk and Tynemouth Castle in Northumberland. Seems no matter how you look at it, it always comes back to the Borders.
Stu
-
...He was merchant involved, along with several brothers, in the early settlement of Virginia. Oddly enough his father was said to have come from the North, from the area north of Carlisle...
Well, that's interesting, Stu! There's a far-distant Thompson on my mother's side (yeah, I got 'em down both sides, apparently! ;D), Roger Thompson, who was born in Yorkshire in 1607, and came to Virginia around 1623 or so. At least, rampant ancestry-ing lead me down that path.
Who knows what secrets the dead may tell?
--Bill
-
Hi Bill --
Was Roger's wife ANN?
-
Whoa, chills....
Why, YES Mary, it seems Roger was married to Ann Thompson, b. 1605 Yorkshire! I just hope it's a real connection. It gets murky: I have Roger's great-granddaughter Esther Thompson marrying Robert Watkins Crockett, who apparently married a few times. If she wasn't the mother of John Crockett, that particular line of Thompsons may be my stepcesters.
-
Hi Bill ---
May have found some info for you...will send by email. A SIR Roger Thompson born in 1607 in Yorkshire and died 1675 in Virginia.... could this be your Roger? It would be English arms, not Scottish.
Mary
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Wow! It sounds like it could be; the dates certainly line up!
I've untanged some knots in the line, and that branch of Thompsons really IS related to me. The confusion came with Esther Thompson marrying Samuel Crockett (of the Antoine De Crocketagne line! Who knew?) Some records have Esther marrying Samuel's brother, with an incomplete list of her kids, which made her look like a step-aunt. Straightened out -- it's a straight shot from my maternal grandmother to Esther (1710-1770), then right back to John Thompson (b. 1475) and Eleanor Phillips (b. 1478).
I have my Roger coming to Virginia in 1619, at age 12. Do you have Ann dying in Yorkshire in 1670?
If you have Roger's parents as Richard Thompson (1580-1650) and Anne Nelthrope (1584-1607), it's a good chance we're talking about the same guy.
-
Yep - those are his parents! And yes, Ann is lisetd as dying in Yorkshire in 1670 (which I thought was odd if Roger was in Virginia?)
Anyway, it sure sounds like you are descended from an English armiger!
-
Wow...so, Sir Roger (1607)'s parents are Sir Richard Thompson (1580) and Anne Nelthrope (1580).
Sir Richard's parents are William Thompson (1554) and Francis Elizabeth Barker (1558).
William's parents are Sir Richard Thompson (1530) and Bridget Fleming (1530).
Bridget's parents are Sir Malcolm, 3rd Lord Fleming, Baron & Lord Chamberlain of Scotland (1494), and Lady Janet Stewart (1502).
And Lady Janet's father is James IV (1472). As in "King of Scotland"...So he's my 15th great-grandfather! :o
I wonder if Lord Lyon would grant a matriculation? ;D
-
Sorry.....wrong side of the family! But what good info you've got.....your 'almost majesty!'
Here' a page on the Flemings you might find interesting: http://www.house-empire.com/personpage.lasso?token.cardid=6729 (http://www.house-empire.com/personpage.lasso?token.cardid=6729)
But you might be able to get English ones:) And you know you ARE Scottish through the female side....... What a great history to have!
Lucky you! Sending a bit of stuff email....
Now.....you should join the society! We do good work .......
Mary
-
Thanks for the info! Odd that house-empire.com and ancestry.com show the Fleming link as a direct line, and the book pages you sent don't. The confusion might be that William had a son and brother both named Richard, and which Richard did Bridgett Fleming marry?
Still, what fun to be able to trace that far back! Wish I could do the same on the paternal side and see where things match up. I may have to take a trip to the Tazewell County library and do some page-flipping in the old records.
And I'm gonna join pretty soon...just have to recover from the yearly post-Christmas financial crisis first! :o
-
Found a chart -------- don't know if it was included in any of the other stuff I sent already :-
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:sukVvdu8JQsJ:www.housemedicalclinic.com/images/KingJamesIVtopresent.pdf+Bridget+Fleming+and+Thompson&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESg9VHztv_qqkLu9FfppXj5OJ75AnjaLKruVoWVNSlLCwvp-sJZTlX5dbfzEJ1Nbzd6j5s6d9pwh6rSmoHU8FZE9HScbWcHL_-jNuxk_cZR-MHsq8RdfLWIdrXTg0PIRX5AdtDzH&sig=AHIEtbTUIatcnxfGP94WE_zElC1_8TLw8w (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:sukVvdu8JQsJ:www.housemedicalclinic.com/images/KingJamesIVtopresent.pdf+Bridget+Fleming+and+Thompson&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESg9VHztv_qqkLu9FfppXj5OJ75AnjaLKruVoWVNSlLCwvp-sJZTlX5dbfzEJ1Nbzd6j5s6d9pwh6rSmoHU8FZE9HScbWcHL_-jNuxk_cZR-MHsq8RdfLWIdrXTg0PIRX5AdtDzH&sig=AHIEtbTUIatcnxfGP94WE_zElC1_8TLw8w)
-
Yep! That was included in the house-empire.com site. That's the same line that ancestry.com shows: Bridgett marrying William's son Richard, not his brother Richard.
(Burke's History that you sent shows the Bridgett-marrying-William's-brother version.)
I hope ancestry is the right one. ;)
-
Sorry.....wrong side of the family!...
That got me thinking. Do I have this right?
British arms go thru all the descendants in the legitimate male line of the original grantee. Does that refer to just the first sons, or all the descendants, that is, all the sons? If I find an English armiger as my xth great-grandfather solely thru the male line, does that have any truck with the College of Arms?
Scots arms in their original form pass directly first-son to first son. But a matriculation "only" requires provable descent from the original. Of course the surname has to be the same...but what if the surname takes a little detour and loops back in generations later? If there's a Scots Thomson armiger back there on Mum's side, and it's a proven relation, is it matriculatable? (I think I just made up a word ;D) In other words, does the matriculation "jump the generations" from you to the original, or does it have to trace a line from you back through each potentially-matriculatable generation to the original?
--Bill
-
I BELIEVE younger sons also could have gotten arms based on the father's but with differences indicating their position as younger son(s).
I think the 'line' has to be male Thompson >>>>>> Thompson all the way back. I could be wrong too!
Maybe one of our Scottish armigers could jump in on this one??
Mary
-
Mary alerted me to your post and asked if I could help... I have just finished my haggis and tatties (forgot the neeps), it is Burns night after all.
I thought I would have a look at your post and I am afraid that whilst I have given an answer I have not been much help !
British arms go thru all the descendants in the legitimate male line of the original grantee. Does that refer to just the first sons, or all the descendants, that is, all the sons? If I find an English armiger as my xth great-grandfather solely thru the male line, does that have any truck with the College of Arms?
On this point - you may be correct (cant say for certain) but I believe that the English system does allow matriculation by any male descendent. I imagine they would want some proof (copies of birth certificates etc) but if you have these details it may well be worth contacting the 'College of Arms' directly to make this sort of enquiry.
Scots arms in their original form pass directly first-son to first son. But a matriculation "only" requires provable descent from the original. Of course the surname has to be the same...but what if the surname takes a little detour and loops back in generations later? If there's a Scots Thomson armiger back there on Mum's side, and it's a proven relation, is it matriculatable? (I think I just made up a word ;D) In other words, does the matriculation "jump the generations" from you to the original, or does it have to trace a line from you back through each potentially-matriculatable generation to the original?
--Bill
The first part is certainly correct - Scots arms do pass from the original armiger to first son and so on..... I believe there are instances when the arms descend through a different path but my understanding is that this must be stipulated on the original grant or if path deviates later I presume it can be altered on a later matriculation... (hope this still makes sense !)
The second part of your question is difficult to answer. I really don't know. My gut tells me the answer is no, I am reasonably certain it has to pass down through a male line. Again if you have charted out the descent (family tree) it may be worth asking the Lyon Clerk to give your their opinion.
Sorry I can't be more help.
I would encourage you to visit the website for the Heraldry Society of Scotland http://www.heraldry-scotland.co.uk (http://www.heraldry-scotland.co.uk) where you will find more answers. The website has many helpful articles and if you are serious about heraldry there is an excellent forum where you can get help from a number of genuine experts in this field. (I am afraid I only have time to dabble ! :) )
I wish you all the best with your enquiries.
Allan
-
Thank you for your help, Allan. I frequent the heraldry website too....but must admit that I sometimes can't make heads or tails out of what they say! :-[
We sought (and got) some help there when we first decided to form the Thom(p)son society and press on for formal recognition. And....that's where I first got in contact with several members who were most helpful and John Gaylor who allowed us to use his graphics of all the Thom(p)son arms. DEEPLY appreciated.
How did the rest of your Burns night go?? I saw an article that the Scots were going to 'repackage' their haggis to try to get markets in the US. Probably doing away with the sheep casing thing....... Americans can be a squeamish lot as regards their food :)
Thanks again,
Mary
-
Yes - I also read this week about the new attempt to export Haggis to America. It came as a shock to me as I hadn't actually realised there was a problem exporting haggis.... seems a shame. Haggis neeps and tatties is an excellent meal.
Also.. I would highly recommend chicken stuffed with haggis.
What do you have at the Clan gatherings if you cant have haggis ?? :o
Allan
-
Answer
WHISKY Did I spell it the Scottish way?? I know there is a difference but ??
That is why we yanks usually just lump everything under the umbrella "Scotch".
In my younger and wilder youthful days I tried to upgrade myself to 'gentleman status by drinking Scotch. Somewhere someone ( a lass probally) told me I had to stop drinking moonshine and clean up my act. I gave it the old college try I must have tried a dozen different brands but didn't like any of them.
I guess I am stuck in the mud as being a hillbilly - I like TN Bourbon. Dickels 90 proff in fact.
Tom
-
I know, I know.
Ern
-
I was thinking the other day about how arms were designed, while reading through some quaint and curious volumes of forgotten lore. Some used "stock" image language that stood for specific things, some were punning on the armiger's name, used images of place or interest, etc. I'd always puzzled over the meaning of the Thompson variations. Then, after reading about the Reivers, a dim bulb flickered to life over my cranium.
The majority of English variations are Per fesse ar. and sa., a fesse counterembattled, betw. 3 falcons, counterchanged, belled and jessed or. Crest, an arm embowed in armor quarterly or. and az., the gauntlet ppr. holding the truncheon of a broken lance of the first. Which looks like this: (Staggeringly beautiful engraving from the Thompson One Name website)
(http://www.thompsononename.org.uk/images/thomshld.jpg)
What do you see? The field divided between north and south, both sides embattled against the other. Like the Border. Falcons are on both sides -- Thomsons were on both sides of the border. And what is a belled and jessed falcon? A trained bird of prey, who at the behest of its commander, flies out, swoops, attacks, takes, returns. Like the Reivers. Cool, huh? The crest, a broken lance; the Reivers were horsemen whose weapon of choice was the lance, no?
Similarly, the version that is: Or., on a fesse indented az. three estoiles (stars) of the field, on a canton of the second, a sun in splendour of the first., and looks like this:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9d/Thompson_%28Ireland%29_coat_of_arms.svg/114px-Thompson_%28Ireland%29_coat_of_arms.svg.png)
exhibits similar imagery. The border is jagged in this case, reflecting its uncertainty and changability, perhaps? One can even imagine the space of the a fesse as the no man's land, and within; three stars. Three marches, three wardens? The sun in canton usually represents allegiance to the king, I think. That I'm uncertain on. There are versions, with the a fesse divided per fesse, with the three falcons within, as well. Interesting how that imagery pervades.
Which beings me to our Old Ilk: Ar., a stags head cabossed gu., on a chief az two mullets of the field.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8d/Thompson_%28Scotland%29_coat_of_arms.svg/114px-Thompson_%28Scotland%29_coat_of_arms.svg.png)
The mullets are spurs, an obvious allusion to the horsey Border Reivers. But the stag? Traditional imagery, perhaps. Or maybe an image of the Thompson lineage -- two horns, two branches with a common root, and many forks on those branches. Sounds like a good theory to me.
Of course, this is all just theory -- my brain whiling away in my spare time. Anyone have any evidence to corroborate any of this, or am I just WAY off in left field?
-
The broken lance is my favorite. I've seen it with a different motto though for a different Thompson family. The motto was "broken but not beaten" or something to that effect. If I had the choice, I would pick that motto for my own triumphantly broken family.
On that note. I've been trying to find the significance of the broken lance but all I can find are descriptions of Thompson arms.