Joseph McMillan;98859 wrote:
Where the college (Mansfield) went wrong was in approaching the College (of Arms) in the first place. Oxford has long and successfully maintained that the heralds have no jurisdiction over the university or its colleges. It would have been more in keeping with the tradition of the university for Mansfield College to keep using the arms of its namesake without asking permission.
So Oxford Uni would perhaps have us believe, based on lack of grant documents. However, the University arms and those of the colleges were subject to the Heralds Visitations and noted by Lee, Portcullis, as deputy of Clarencieux in 1574, see
where there are a number of entries for the arms of the University of Oxford and for individual colleges. For instance, the University arms are carefully blazoned and assigned in the entry for St Mary’s church (p 76), as are individual colleges: Merton (p 63), Magdalen College’s arms mentioned (at p 79), University College (p 98 ), etc..
There is a description in the Preface at p x of the debate between the heralds and Vice-Chancellor about this in 1634. As I read it, the University was quite happy to present blazons of the University and Colleges but were keen to maintain the status of individuals at the OU as "privileged persons" who could not have their heraldic "errors" "reformed" and the V-C insisted on his ordering the heralds within the Uni., rather than accepting the power of their Commission to order him. So not quite a total exemption for the University and Colleges, more a stand off over private status.
However, the University arms and those of the colleges were subject to the Heralds Visitations
I seem to recall seeing the grant of arms for my college (Pembroke) back when I was at grad school…I think it was from the 1620s.
I just came across this on The Heraldry Society website from "The Arms of Oxford University and its Colleges" by John P. Brooke-Little, Coat of Arms No. 5,6&7, January-July 1951.
which in fact is not a college but an establishment for training Congregational ministers, was endowed by a family of Mansfield and opened in Birmingham in 1889. It uses, without authority, the following arms, " gules, a bend cotised argent, between six crosses crosslet fitched or." Burke cites a family of Mansfield as bearing these arms, only with argent crosses crosslet but gives no further details. Another family of Mansfield bears the arms with the crosses crosslet or, but not fitched. This is a Yorkshire family. I can trace no connection between the family who endowed the College and the Yorkshire family.
It looks like Brooke-Little was relying on MacKenzie’s (wrong?) blazon for Manfeld of Skirpenbeck.
For the avoidance of doubt, Seb, do I recall correctly that you were at Pembroke, Cambridge, rather than Pembroke, Oxford?
No I matriculated at Pembroke, Oxford (http://www.pmb.ox.ac.uk/). Unfortunately I graduated right before the Oxford Heraldry Society started up again :(
No I matriculated at Pembroke, Oxford
Oops! Apologies for having you down as a Cambridge man - major faux pas :(
Arthur Radburn;98849 wrote:
Sir George MacKenzie (Ed), A Display of Heraldry by John Guillim, Pursuivant of Arms 6th Edition (1724), p 77 gives a slightly different blazon for the Manfeld of Skirpenbeck arms, in which the crosses are plain instead of fitchy :
" Gules, a Bend cottised Argent between six cross crosslets Or was confirmed by William Flower, Norroy, Sept 20, 1563 (5th of Eliz) to Lancelot Manfeld of Skirpenbeck in the County of York, Esq; who married Anne, sister of William, Lord Eure, and had issue five children. "
This book is available on Google Books - there’s a drawing of the arms with the blazon.
I went ahead and included both versions of the arms listed for Lancelot Manfeld of Skirpenbeck (one with cross-crosslets, the other cross-crosslets fitchy), hopefully with notes enough that it’s clear there is some discrepancy, but in relooking a few minutes ago, I realized that the bend isn’t illustrated as cottised in Guillim’s Display. This apparent lack of attention to detail on this particular coat raises again my concern that the term "fitchy" might simply have been omitted as an oversight during transcription. There are plenty of examples in the book where cottised ordinaries are illustrated properly.