came across this book with the complete wappenrolle of Zurich in colour and you can download it.

http://www.google.nl/books?id=zFssAAAAYAAJ&printsec=titlepage

Thanks Ton

I noticed several arms being duplicated.

For example: #177, 178 & 179 (they are side by side). The names associated with those are Sunnenberg (Thurgau), Schenken von Landeg (Toggenburg), and Ramenswag (St. Gallen) respectively.

Is this normal in Switzerland?

The crest is different this could mean that they had a common ancestor and that these are different branches of the family

Thanks for the heads-up, Ton!

kimon;65737 wrote:

Thanks Ton

I noticed several arms being duplicated.

....

Is this normal in Switzerland?

I think we should face the fact that the Zürcher Wappenrolle is (probably) the first of all (known) armorials.

It was drawn in the dawn of heraldry, when there was not even a trace of a heraldic authority.

Wappenrollen were not necessarily records of heralds (in our modern understanding) but were often made on occasion by some chronists.

In the middle ages things could easily happen that two knights by coincidence had similar - or even equal - coats-of-arms.

It should be noted that the Zürcher wappenrolle is far from being correct (e.g. the coa of Portugal is a rather conjectural canting representation of a door (french "porte", latin "porta" etc…))

The Imperial (or regional) Counts Palatinate (Hofpfalzgrafen) of the Holy Roman Empire who (kinda) granted or (rather) confirmed arms (which often had been assumed earlier) always had a "severability clause" in their "Wappenbriefe", that the new-created armiger was not allowed to prohibit the use of the same arms of armigers endowed with prior rights…..

That makes some sense, since according to serious estimations, the number of (recorded AND unrecorded) coats-of-arms in central Europe exceeds 100.000….

Thanks, Ton, this is brilliant! I love the treatment of the crests, in particular, and wonder if this shows more of how they were actually worn than our current artistic treatment.

Jochen;65850 wrote:

The Imperial (or regional) Counts Palatinate (Hofpfalzgrafen) of the Holy Roman Empire who (kinda) granted or (rather) confirmed arms (which often had been assumed earlier) always had a "severability clause" in their "Wappenbriefe", that the new-created armiger was not allowed to prohibit the use of the same arms of armigers endowed with prior rights…..

This concept of being or not being able to prohibit others from bearing a particular coat of arms is an important one.  It appears over and over again in Continental heraldic law.  For example, a Spanish cronista’s certificate did not read "I grant, confirm, etc." but rather that the arms blazoned and illustrated could be used by the person named "without any impediment" (sin que le ponga impedimento alguno).  Similarly, Spanish legal discourses speak of the superiority of a royal grant of arms over assumed arms lying in the fact that no one could prohibit the recipient of a royal grant from bearing the granted arms.  On the other hand, a hidalgo could prohibit a commoner from bearing the same assumed arms.

I think we’re so used to the post-Renaissance English concept of a grant of arms being an exclusive license to particular arms that we don’t realize that Continental concepts were often quite different.

Yes thanks Ton!  Is there a thread somewhere that lists more armorials?  I’m starting to love Google Books.  (Yay!  Free downlaods!!)  Anyway, a few would do nicely to add to my growing knowledge. :D

Thanks again for posting this!

Joseph McMillan;65866 wrote:

For example, a Spanish cronista’s certificate did not read "I grant, confirm, etc." but rather that the arms blazoned and illustrated could be used by the person named "without any impediment" (sin que le ponga impedimento alguno).

I have a copy of a certificate that reads: "......without anyone placing an impediment upon her for such use, having been duly protected, ratified, legalised and legitimated by this Certificate of Arms…..." I think that the full language in the document is a bit stronger than the partial snippet that you supplied above but certainly not as strong as the language used in a UK grant.

David Pritchard;65870 wrote:

I have a copy of a certificate that reads: "......without anyone placing an impediment upon her for such use, having been duly protected, ratified, legalised and legitimated by this Certificate of Arms…..." I think that the full language in the document is a bit stronger than the partial snippet that you supplied above but certainly not as strong as the language used in a UK grant.

Yes, I didn’t mean to imply that the certification is weakly worded, merely that the central concept seems to be protection not against usurpation but against attempts by others to deny your right to the arms.