I was reading the 17th College of Arms newsletter and I saw that arms had recently been granted to Caroline Jane Ryder, "commonly called Viscountess Sandon, wife of Dudley Adrian Conroy Ryder of Burnt Norton, Gloucestershire, commonly called Viscount Sandon..."
On Jun 30, 3:09 pm, Sebastian Nelson <sebnel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I was reading the 17th College of Arms newsletter and I saw that arms > had recently been granted to Caroline Jane Ryder, "commonly called > Viscountess Sandon, wife of Dudley Adrian Conroy Ryder of Burnt > Norton, Gloucestershire, commonly called Viscount Sandon..."
> Can anyone tell me why it says "commonly called?"
> Thanks!
> Sebastian Nelson
Because this is a courtesy title. He is the son of The Earl of Harrowby and as such is allowed to be known by one of his father's subsidiary titles. He isn't really a Viscount in his own right.
<heraldryad...@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Jun 30, 3:09 pm, Sebastian Nelson <sebnel...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi all,
>> I was reading the 17th College of Arms newsletter and I saw that arms >> had recently been granted to Caroline Jane Ryder, "commonly called >> Viscountess Sandon, wife of Dudley Adrian Conroy Ryder of Burnt >> Norton, Gloucestershire, commonly called Viscount Sandon..."
>> Can anyone tell me why it says "commonly called?"
>> Thanks!
>> Sebastian Nelson
>Because this is a courtesy title. He is the son of The Earl of >Harrowby and as such is allowed to be known by one of his father's >subsidiary titles. He isn't really a Viscount in his own right.
Wasn't, rather than isn't. He succeeded his father on the latter's death on 2 October 2007, three months after the grant of these Arms.
-- Don Aitken Mail to the From: address is not read. To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Don Aitken wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:02:39 -0700 (PDT), Martin Goldstraw > <heraldryad...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 30, 3:09 pm, Sebastian Nelson <sebnel...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all,
> >> I was reading the 17th College of Arms newsletter and I saw that arms > >> had recently been granted to Caroline Jane Ryder, "commonly called > >> Viscountess Sandon, wife of Dudley Adrian Conroy Ryder of Burnt > >> Norton, Gloucestershire, commonly called Viscount Sandon..."
> >> Can anyone tell me why it says "commonly called?" > >> Thanks! > >> Sebastian Nelson > >Because this is a courtesy title. He is the son of The Earl of > >Harrowby and as such is allowed to be known by one of his father's > >subsidiary titles. He isn't really a Viscount in his own right. > Wasn't, rather than isn't. He succeeded his father on the latter's > death on 2 October 2007, three months after the grant of these Arms.
... and, as such, he is therefore now the viscount!
A less flippant point though: with arms granted to her, is Lady Harrowby an heraldic heiress?
On Jul 2, 6:27 pm, Turenne <rick.lich...@virgin.net> wrote:
> > A less flippant point though: with arms granted to her, is Lady > > Harrowby an heraldic heiress?- Hide quoted text -
> Lady Harrowby is the daughter of Geoffrey Markes. I don't think that > there is an armiger called Markes, so I doubt it.
> Richard L
Richard, I think it may be possible that ccz(?) was asking if the Countess is an heiress in right of being the recipient of a grant of her own arms rather than was she the heiress of her father.
One can not be ones own heir; the male recipient of a grant (the grantee) can not be his own heir and a female grantee can not be her own heiress either. As the recipient of her own grant, she is not an heiress but her arms can be transmitted to her heir(s) in exactly the same way that any other armiger would quarter the arms of his mother if she were an heiress.
Martin Goldstraw wrote: >Richard, >I think it may be possible that ccz(?) was asking if the Countess is >an heiress in right of being the recipient of a grant of her own arms >rather than was she the heiress of her father.
On 2 Jul, 21:04, Martin Goldstraw <heraldryad...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think it may be possible that ccz(?) was asking if the Countess is > an heiress in right of being the recipient of a grant of her own arms > rather than was she the heiress of her father. > One can not be ones own heir; the male recipient of a grant (the > grantee) can not be his own heir and a female grantee can not be her > own heiress either
True!
> As the recipient of her own grant, she is not an > heiress but her arms can be transmitted to her heir(s) in exactly the > same way that any other armiger would quarter the arms of his mother > if she were an heiress.
That is indeed the answer to the question that I had intended.
