|
|
 | | From: | sky52027 at skynet.be | | Subject: | An unidentified peer (?) | | Date: | 17 Jan 2005 13:42:05 -0800 |
|
|
 | I have been asked to identify the subject of a portrait carrying the
title of "Conde de Danby" now in a museum in Nagasaki. It appears never
to have been cleaned, and the heraldry is not easy to discern
accurately, but this is my best shot.
Sable (or Azure) three swans and on a chief Gules three saltires Or
The red chief on a field of black or blue offends purists and may
suggest the arms have a dubious origin. Floating above the shield is a
peer's helm with five gold bars visible. (The use of a barred helm to
signify the rank of peer dates from the beginning of the 17th century,
the first Garter stall plate featuring this being dated 1615.) Above
the helm is a dark blob which might be a blackamoor's head. The
mantling is ugly and typical of the 17th century. There is no motto or
slughorn. Two digits either side of the shield give the year -- 1623.
There are no supporters.
The subject of the portrait is kneeling before a statue the museum
claims is of St Andrew, and on the floor alongside him is a banner of
St George.
The Earldom of Danby was short-lived (1626-1643), and in the year of
the picture, 1623, Sir Henry Danvers was still only a baron. However,
his arms were Gules a chevron between three mullets of six points Or --
not the arms in the picture. How the portrait came to be believed to be
that of the Earl of Danby is a mystery.
A peer's helm but no supporters is unusual in an achievement but is not
unknown. A chief of a colour on a field of a colour is unusual in
British heraldry, but not unknown. The blazon has not been found in
Papworth. Obviously, the banner of St George suggests the subject of
the picture is English, but the museum suggests that as the statue is
of St Andrew, and that as there are three saltires on the chief, if the
portrait is not of the Earl of Danby it may be of a Scot. I am troubled
by a half-memory of having seen three saltires on a chief somewhere,
but for the moment I cannot place it.
If the date on the picture is correct and if the arms are of a peer,
then the peerage title was extinguished before 1823, for they do not
appear in the Debrett of that year.
Has anyone any ideas?
|
|
| | From: | pritchard_da at hotmail.com | | Subject: | Re: An unidentified peer (?) | | Date: | 17 Jan 2005 21:00:01 -0800 |
|
|
| A portrait of Henry Danvers, Earl of Danby can be seen at this link:
http://www.elcultural.es/HTML/20031023/Artes/ARTES8078.asp
A few more images here. Note that the arms are different than what you
describe:
http://www.geocities.com/garydanvers/EoD-pics.html
|
|
| | From: | Darren George | | Subject: | Re: An unidentified peer (?) | | Date: | Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:28:49 -0800 |
|
|
| On 17 Jan 2005 13:42:05 -0800, sky52027@skynet.be wrote:
>The red chief on a field of black or blue offends purists and may
>suggest the arms have a dubious origin.
Not necessarily- a chief cousu (or cousee or cosy- something to that
effect) is not terribly rare, even in English heraldry. If it was a
blue chief on a black field, or if it was something other than a
chief, then I'd be suspicious.
Cheers,
---The Mad Alchemist---
http://www.mad-alchemy.com
Email sent to the above address, unless clearly marked
as wine or heraldry, will be deleted unread.
|
|
|
