What is a Coat of Arms? And what does/should the Coat of Arms for the Pierpont family look like? These are questions that have been haunting the Pierpont Family Association for the entire 100 years of its existence. Let’s see if we can get a definitive answer.
The Question
The first meeting of the Pierpont
Family Association (PFA) was in 1924. It did not take long before the question
of a Coat of Arms (COA) came up. Here are the years that it was discussed and
the notes from our minutes of that year on it.
1926 – “A discussion was held in regard to the Pierrepont
Coat of Arms and Frederick H. Pierpont and Nathan M. Pierpont were appointed a
committee to see about procuring copies for those who wish them.”
1927 – “The report of the committee on Coat of Arms disclosed
the fact that there are two Coats of Arms and so no decision had been reached
as to which was authentic.”
1928 – “The President gave further information of the Coat of
Arms. The committee had not formed a decision, what was to be done. Motion was
carried for committee to continue investigation.”
1929 – “Mr. Nathan Pierpont reported no progress on Coat of Arms
but was going to gather what he could in the future.”
1937 – “The subject of Coat of Arms was brought up and was
left to Nathan Pierpont and Gertrude Croft to report on at the 1938 reunion.”
1938 – “The Committee and the Coat-of-Arms reported little activity
and their work was to be carried over for another year.”
1960 – “Mrs. Hedman was Kathryn Pierpont before her marriage,
and she gave an interesting talk on genealogical research of ‘The
Pierpont-Pierpoint Families of Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia.’ She had
with her, copies of her book, copyright 1953, giving results of her research,
also copies of the Pierpont coat of arms, suitable for framing.”
1961 – ‘Marion Pierpont gave an interesting explanation of the
Pierpont Coat-of-Arms, comparing the one used by the Pierpont-Pierpoints of
Virginia, and shown in Kathryn Pierpont Hedman’s Genealogy.”
1977 – “Marian Kraft read newspaper clippings belonging to
her mother, Margaret Hall … at which time a Coat-of-arms was discussed.”
As you can see, from 1926-1929 no
progress was made. Ten years later the question was still outstanding, and no
resolution had been made. There was some discussion in the 1960s when we had a
visitor from the MD/VA branch of the family. And there was last some discussion
in the late 1970s. But there was no resolution.
What is a Coat of Arms?
One of the best explanations I
have found is here.
As it notes, the parts of the official COA are a motto, a crest, a helm, and a
shield. Some COAs, including the one for the Pierpont family have Supporters.
Non-official parts, which are left to the discretion of the artist include
placement of the motto, addition of a wreath or a mantle, the shape of the shield,
and the style of the helm or helmet. Each COA has an official written
description called a “blazon of arms” which is a system of code words that
denote colors, placement and styling. I’ll discuss the blazon of arms for the
Pierpont COA in more detail below.
Examples of the Pierpont COA
I’ve collected a large number of
examples of the Pierpont COA. Some of these are really only portions of the
COA, like just the crest or just the shield. Some are missing portions due to
space considerations. And many are uncolored because they are printed in black-and-white,
or they use materials other than paper and thus the use of color is not
possible. I’ll make brief comments about each, then discuss the various
elements of the COA afterwards.
This is the one that was presented in 1960 above. Because it is printed in black-and-white the colors are not shown.
This one is from a silver plate owned by the Charles Pierrepont, 2nd Earl of Manvers (see here). The crest is missing due to space considerations. It is on silver so there are no colors. The shield is a composite with the Pierrepont shield on the left and the Meadows shield (here) on the right.
This one is from a church in Crowle,
England (see here), and is for Sydney
Herbert Pierrepont, 3rd Earl Manvers. Being space constrained it
only contains the shield and helm. Like the prior example, the shield is a
composite with the Pierrepont shield on the left and one for his wife from the
Duc of Coigny on the right.
This one is currently used by the MD/VA branch of the Pierpont/Pierpoint family. As it’s used as a sign, it contains only the shield. It is also somewhat simplified as I’ll discuss more below.
This is the one that I recently obtained that was printed in 1764. It is by far the most complete and the only one that contains all the elements and proper colors. I also note that the genealogy charts which accompany this contain a crest with a “fox passant gules” which is labeled the “original crest”.
This one was used by James Pierpont, the immigrant to MA in 1652. It can be found here. This is only the shield portion of the COA.
This one was used by Charles Pierpont in Boston in 1790 as a bookplate. It also contains only the shield. I’ll address the color of the lion below.
Finally, here is one that is available for sale commercially. The motto is on the top and the standards have been left off in favor of an artistic wreath on the sides. The Pierpont name has been added to the bottom.
Elements of the Coat of Arms
Here is the full blazon
(description) of the COA that can be found here.
Coronet
Coronet of a Duke
Crest
A Lion rampant Sable,
between two Wings erect Argent.
Escutcheon
Argent, semée of Cinquefoils
Gules, a Lion rampant Sable.
Supporters
On either side a Lion Sable,
armed and langued Gules.
Motto
PIE REPONE TE (Dutifully restore you)
With all the above examples, let’s
now look at the various elements of the COA.
Motto
The Pierpont motto is pie repone
te, Latin for “in pious confidence” (although there are other alternative
translations in some places such as the above and there are some misspellings
as “ripone” instead of “repone”). On all the above examples which contain the
motto, this is consistent.
Supporters
The terms used above mean black
(sable) lions with red tongues (langued Gules). Where the standards appear in
the above examples, this is consistent except for those examples that have no
color.
Shield/Escutcheon
The words above can be translated
as “Silver, field of red five-sided figures, with a standing black lion.” (Argent
is from the Latin argentum, the same root word for the chemical symbol of silver
“Ag”. Gules is the Latin word for red, and sable is the Latin word for black.)
All the shields above (which have color) are consistent with this description except
two. The bookplate of Charles Pierpont uses a red lion instead of a black one –
perhaps for visual effect. And the sign for the MD/VA Pierpont/Pierpoint family
omits the lion – perhaps because that amount of artistic painting is a bit much
(I know it would be for me!)
Helm/Coronet
The “normal” helm would be a
simple helmet of an armored knight. However, for anyone who is titled
(Baron/Viscount/Earl/Marquess/Duke), they would substitute a crown that
corresponds to that rank. Since many of the above examples are for such titled
individuals, most of them have crowns in them.
Crest
There are three different crests
in the above examples. Assuming the proper colors, the first example from the
MD/VA Pierponts has a fox with a raised paw (in Latin terms a “fox passant gu.”
For red fox with raised paw). The book stamp from Henry has a fox without a
raised paw but with wings on the sides (a “fox gu, between two wings argent”). (Some
of the other examples of the book stamp lack the wings.) The one for the Duke
matches the blazon above as it has “A Lion rampant Sable, between two Wings
erect Argent”, as does the Manvers fence and the commercially available
example. Thus, there are not two, but three different crests. This is likely the
basis of the notes from the 1927 PFA meeting which noted that there were two
COAs. It’s not the full COA, just the crest that has some ambiguity.
The Two Crest Problem
Besides the above examples, there
is a book, “Fairbairn’s Book of Crests of the Families of Great Britain and
Ireland” that was published in 1905 in London. The first volume contains the
following entries about various Pierpont-related crests:
Pierpont, Hants, a fox gu. 32.2
Pierpont, Shropsh.: (1) A fox passant gu. 32.1. (2) A
lion rampant sa., between two wings expanded arg. 9.2
Pierpont, Shropsh., a lion rampant sa., between two
wings arg. 9.2
Pierpont, Notts, same crest. Pie repone te.
Pierrepont, see Manvers, Earl.
Pierrepont of Holme Pierrepont, Notts, Duke and
Earl of Kingston (extinct), a lion rampant sa., between two wings
erect arg. Pie repone te. 9.2
Pierrepoint, a lion rampant sa., between two wings
arg. 9.2
Pierrepont, a fox passant gu. Pie repone te.
32.1
Manvers, Earl, Viscount Newark and Baron Pierrepont
(Pierrepont), Thoresby Park, Ollerton, Notts, a lion rampant sa., between two
wings erect arg. Pie repone te. 9.2
The figures referred to are in
volume 2 and are reproduced here.
Looking at the examples as well as Fairbairn’s book, it appears that the use of the two fox crests predate the use of the lion crest. The lion is consistently used by the Earl/Duke of Kingston as well as all the Earl Manvers which succeeded them. So, let’s look at some points on the Pierrepont family timeline to see approximately when the change was made.
In the book, “A Registry of American Families Entitled to Coat Armor”, published for the Genealogical Association by William Armstrong Crozier in 1904, there is an entry which reads as follows:
PIERREPONT.
Massachusetts. James Pierrepont, Ipswich, 1652.
Argent
semée of
cinque-foils gules a lion rampant sable. [the shield]
CREST
– A lion rampant sable between two wings erect.
MOTTO
– Pie repone te.
This is the ancestor of all the members of the New England PFA. But since the COA picture above of what was assigned to James was only the shield portion did Crozier have any actual evidence that James was using the lion crest, or was he simply looking at the Pierrepont lords in England at the time and attributing the crest being used there to James?
For some of the answer to when the fox was used, let’s go to the family home of the Pierrepont family, Holme-Pierrepont. One of the objects in this ancestral home is the tomb of Sir Henry Pierrepont from 1499. The History of Nottingham notes the following when describing his tomb – “The mantled helmet under his head carries the original family crest of a fox passant.” This is echoed in another website about Nottingham where it states – “The effigy’s head rests on a great helm with a fox passant crest.” It later notes when referring to an effigy which is believed to be of Edmund Pierrepont c. 1370, “The crest on the great helm has been broken off, but may well have displayed a dog (or a fox) consistent with the other memorials.”
We also know from above that
Henry, Marquess of Dorchester, was using the fox crest. He lived from 1606-1680.
From Fairbairn’s book above, we also see that the fox was used by the Pierpont
of “Hans.” – that would be Baron Gervase Pierrepont (1649-1715) of Hanslope. But
he only held this position from October 1714 until his death in May 1715. Finally, the reference to “Shrops.” would be
William Pierrepont (1607-1678) who lived at Tong Castle in Shropshire before
moving to Thoresby.
Using all this data plus our
knowledge of the Pierrepont family, what is the most likely time for the change
to occur from using the fox crest to the lion crest?
The period from the late 1600s to
the early 1700s were a time of turmoil in the Pierrepont family. We know that
Henry, Marquess of Dorchester (1606-1680), would have likely continued using
the fox crest until he died in 1680. Except for his Marquess title (which
reverted upon his death), he passed his other titles to his grand-nephew Robert
(1660-1682) who only had them for two years, then they went to Robert’s
brother, William (1662-1690) for just eight years. Thus, it’s unlikely that the
change would have occurred during that period as Robert died quite young and
William suffered from apoplexy.
Meanwhile, William (1607-1678) was
also using the fox crest (without any titles), but both he and his son Robert
(1637-1666) predeceased Henry (1606-1680). Also, Gervase (1649-1715) had begun
using the fox crest as we know that he used it in 1714-1715 when he was Baron
Pierrepont of Hanslope.
In 1690, Evelyn (1665-1726)
inherited the titles from his older brother William and later he was created
the first Duke of Kingston-upon-Hull in 1706. Since his uncle Gervase was
already using the fox crest, first in Ireland, then in Hanslope, and there is
no evidence that the fox crest was ever used in conjunction with the Duke
title, it is quite likely that the use of the lion crest was begun by Evelyn in
1690 and continued from that point on.
Thus, the fox crest was an
official crest of the Pierrepont family from its inception several hundred years
earlier until the death of Gervase in 1715. The lion crest likely began being
used in 1690 and there was a 25 year overlap until it became the sole family
crest of the then Duke. It was then passed on to the second Duke in 1726,
continued by him until 1773, and then was used by Charles Medows when he
adopted the Pierrepont name in 1788 and later became the crest of the new Baron
Pierrepont and then the Earl Manvers.
Meanwhile, the New England Pierpont
line had come to America around 1640. The only record of a COA used by them
initially was the isolated shield. The attribution of a crest to the family did
not take place until later and by then the lion crest was the only one to be
found in the English Pierrepont family. Also, the MD/VA branch of the
Pierpont/Pierpoint family had also come to America. But if they had a family
crest, it would have been the fox crest as the lion crest was not being used
until several decades later.
Conclusion
So, which crest is the “right”
one? As is often the case, the answer is, “it depends.” The crest that would
have been correct for our immigrant ancestors would have been the “fox passant
gules” as that was the crest in use at the time of their immigration. But since
the use of that crest ceased over 300 years ago, if we want to use a crest for
the family today, the “lion rampant sable with two wings erect argent” is more
appropriate.
No comments:
Post a Comment