SC - Myths -- Taillevent

[James Prescott]

Hiya Anne-Marie,

At 08:07 -0800 2001-01-26, Anne-Marie Rousseau wrote:

> could the misunderstanding/misattribution be as simple as the fact that his
> tomb portrays him with his famous cookingpot arms, and so we assume that he
> was knighted since he certainly wasnt born to those? (ie the modern
> assumption that to have arms you must be noble...I dont even know for sure
> that thats true for the 14th century...why couldnt anyone with sufficient
> sous make any tomb decorations they wanted? its not like they had a College
> of Arms, right?)

Both France and England distinguished two classes at the top end, 
generally called the nobility and the gentry.  The lower of the two 
classes, the gentry, seem to be largely distinguished from those 
below them by having the right to bear heraldic arms; and from 
those above them by having nothing more than that.  Knights and 
higher were in the nobility.

Many people do confuse the two.  The confusion is increased by 
authors who refer to the gentry as the "lesser nobility".

Taillevent could have perhaps displayed a device without having had
the right to bear heraldic arms -- it would presumably have depended 
on how strictly that sort of thing was enforced in the mid 1300s, 
about which I haven't a clue.

The right to bear heraldic arms covers both gentry and nobility.  
One can have heraldic arms without belonging to the nobility.

As reward William Shakespeare was granted the right to bear heraldic 
arms, which elevated him to the gentry.  I speculate that this is
also the reward that Taillevent enjoyed more than two hundred years
earlier.


The French college of arms was formally established in 1406.


- -- 
All my best,
Thorvald Grimsson / James Prescott <prescotj at telusplanet.net> (PGP user)