While searching the 1910 edition of Nederland’s Patriciaat, an annual directory of Dutch patrician families ( https://archive.org/details/nederlandspatric01epen ), I came across an early American armiger of French origin, who may be of interest : Daniel Crommelin (1647-1725), who settled in New York in the 1690s.
The pedigree is given as :
Daniel Crommelin, b St Quentin 28 Feb 1647, d New York 15 April 1725; marr Paris 28 Oct 1674 Anne Testart (b St Quentin 17 Feb 1651, d New York 1702), dau of Pierre and Catherine Bossu.
—Charles Crommelin, b Paris circa 1676, d New York 9 May 1740; marr there Anne Sinclair (b 1690 d 1743).
——Daniel Crommelin, b New York 11 Nov 1707, ‘poorter’ (freeman?) of Amsterdam 26 June 1737, d there 18 Jan 1789; marr Amsterdam 30 Oct 1736 Marie le Plastrier (b there 11 Oct 1711, d Amsterdam 30 March 1776).
The arms are :
http://i62.tinypic.com/v7fwwx.png
A translation of the Dutch blazon would be : Per pale, I Azure a fleur de lis Or within a bordure compony Or and Azure; II Argent a chevron Gules between three merlettes Sable.
There’s a Crommelin website ( http://www.crommelin.org/history/Biographies/Biographies.htm ), which goes into quiet a lot of detail about Daniel and his family, and has a colour rendition of the arms :
Nice find, Arthur. Will have to add them to our roll.
Now in our Roll of Early American Arms, http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=Roll.C
http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/uploads/Roll/crommelin.gif
Very nice addition.
A related question: Does anyone know why merlettes are without beaks and feet? I figure there must be a story or reason behind it
Martlets are without feet supposedly because of the medieval belief that swallows (which is what martlets represent) never alight. There’s probably some parallel misconception explaining the merlette.
Joseph McMillan;103778 wrote:
Martlets are without feet supposedly because of the medieval belief that swallows (which is what martlets represent) never alight. There’s probably some parallel misconception explaining the merlette.
Interesting. Were they supposed to be mute as well?
arriano;103788 wrote:
Interesting. Were they supposed to be mute as well?
I don’t even know that merlettes were supposed to fly all the time, just suggesting that as one misconception seems to account for the depiction of martlets, some other misconception might similarly account for the depiction of merlettes. Sort of like how the belief that panthers’ breath was intoxicatingly sweet accounts for the way heraldry depicts panthers.
Dear All,
I believe I am correct in saying that the merlette to the medieval mind like the martlet lived on the wing and therefore did not require feet on which to land and walk about, the merlette in addition was considered never to eat so in consequence of which it did not require a beak. The other difference that should noted between the merlette and its avian cousin, the martlet is that martlet is a swallow type bird whilst the merlette is always depicted as a duck.
With every good wish
John
I can’t resist the punning observation that if a merlette didn’t eat, it clearly couldn’t be a swallow-type bird.
Thanks very much, John!
