Happy St. Patrick’s Day: Are we Irish???

reposted from 2016

Isn’t everyone?
On St. Patrick’s Day, it would seem so.

• There are more Irish-Americans than there are Irish in Ireland.
• About 33.3 million Americans—10.5% of the total population¹— claimed Irish ancestry², that’s 5 times the number of the Irish population in Ireland.
• Another three million people are separately identified as Scotch-Irish³.

A good portion of Irish-Americans claims Irish ancestry based on:

• sustained family traditions and stories or even decent from a recent ancestor. These can be considered valid claims to Irish ancestry.
• vague or circumstantial evidence such as the origins (or perceived origins) of their last names or family rumors of Irish ancestry. These claims might seem a little vague to consider valid, but:

When you consider about 250,000 Irish immigrated to Colonial America in the 16th and 17th century, before the later Irish Potato famine migration, it would be a save conclusion that Irish ancestry can be probably be found in at least one branch of any family that traces its arrival in America to the pre-Independence period.

Would our claim be valid?

For those of us that descend from other than Timmons Literal this essay will only address your Littrell/Luttrell line of ancestry.
For those of us who descend from Timmons and Mary Catherine (Urban) Literal the Luttrell/Littrel, Landtroop, and Urban information is also your information.
For those who descend from John Daniel and Kizzie (Comer) all the information is your information.

Let’s consider several possibilities for making a valid claim to Irish Ancestry:

1. 1. Known decent from a recent ancestor
   2. Family connections
   3. Possible ‘ Irishness’ of our family names
   4. A known direct ancestor who immigrated from Ireland to America

Known decent from a recent ancestor

• Urban: We have only one ancestor known to have immigrated to America after the Revolutionary War; Cassander(Cassandra) Urban migrated to America before 1830. We don’t know when, but we know he was born in Prussia (Germany) and arrived in America before his marriage to Catherine Wise in 1830.
  Our remaining family lines, Littrell, Comer, Belew, Ezell, and Landtroop, are far too ancient to have birthplaces noted in public records.

Family connections

• Littrell/Luttrell: A common assumption about our Littrell/Luttrell family line's origins has been that our ancestors were Irish, considering that our ancestors' migration pattern has been consistent with those of the Irish immigrants of Colonial America, this would seem to be a valid assumption. Adding fuel to this argument is the town of "Luttrellstown, Ireland" and the prominence of the Luttrell name in Irish History. However, the name Luttrell is also very prominent and long-standing in English history.
  The earliest observations of a possible connection to the Irish Luttrells can be traced back to Laura Luttrell and Elston Luttrell ( circa 1890), two early Luttrell family researchers. Since their work, many have referenced them or apparently followed their lead and concentrated on the Irish line to the point of totally excluding the English possibility. Elston does refer to a family history that indicates who might be the original immigrant heads of his branch of the American Luttrells. Still, his reference does not include any mention of his source. Most other speculation seems to center on the possibility that a known member of the colonial family may have connected to the Irish family through Anne Luttrell. This connection seems to have been inferred based on Colonel John Luttrell's rise to prominence as a partner in the Transylvania Company. 130 The problem with any connection between Anna and Col. John is that his ancestors migrated over a hundred years before the Colonel’s time. Additionally, Colonel John’s rise in stature was not linked to any advantages of birth… he was a self-made man.
  The conclusion that our Littrell/Luttrell colonial ancestors were Irish immigrants based on these assumptions is not ironclad, though. We should not overlook the possibility that these connections are a result of “wishful” research. Elston and Laura may have had information and facts that they did not put forth or that did not survive, and it is just as possible that they had limited information that narrowed their focus on the Irish branch of the family.
  Regarding the connection to the Luttrellstown Family, it is important to note that in only three cases (below) has a direct connection between an American ancestor and an Irish parent or point of departure been identified. There is no proof put forth to support the identification in those cases, nor is there any explanation of what the connection might be based on. Most of the evidence connecting us to the Luttrellstown Family is circumstantial such as the prominence of certain given names and surnames.
  Mr. William Q. Hill believed James Lotterell of Northumberland County, Virginia, to be the same James Luttrell of Tankardstown, Meath County, Ireland. Mr. Hill seems to have based this connection on circumstantial evidence. Having had the privilege of reviewing Mr. Hill’s notes, the strength of the evidence is adequate. Still, I must point out that in two attempts at gaining confirmation from Irish sources (an Irish genealogist and the Gilbert Library, Dublin, Ireland), the responses he received were not conclusive. I do not dispute his conclusions, as they appear to be very possible, and I agree with him that the assistance he received from the Irish was not exhaustive, but the connection to the Irish James Luttrell of Meath County should not be viewed as conclusive.
  Our Comer, Belew, Ezell, and Landtroop families have no identified or suspected connections to similarly named ancestors in Ireland.

Possible ‘ Irishness’ of our family names

Only the Littrell/Luttrell name is prominent in Ireland, but it is not a typical ‘Irish’ name. It comes to Ireland from the English family in the 1300s, but its prominence and character remains firmly English until later wars and conflicts with the English. The name itself comes to England from the Norman-French invasion of England in 1066.

Any known direct ancestor who immigrated from Ireland to America

Identifying immigrants from Europe to the Americas is accomplished by finding a departure from Europe and an arrival in the Americas. Unfortunately in the case of all our ancestors (regardless of surname) we do not find anyone with a departure and arrival… only one or the other. This makes establishing a firm transatlantic connection unlikely through this method alone.

• Littrell/Luttrell: Of the known emigrant from Europe, none of their departures are from Ireland. Two arrivals match-up to the name of our immigrant ancestor James Lotterell; unfortunately, there is no evidence of where they came from. We know the name of their ships and Captains but not of their departure from Europe. Our conclusions about which of these James is our James is too inconclusive to identify their place of origin. Their ships could have easily departed from English or Irish ports… or both.

• Landtroop: We have a similar problem with our Landtroop ancestor; we’ve identified the Captain, his ship, and his port of arrival, but no more. There is no doubt that our Landtroop ancestors come from England or Ireland but no certainty. Like easier researchers of the Littrell family, some Landtroop researchers have employed researchers in England, but not Ireland, and like the Littrell inquiries, no conclusive European ancestors have been identified.

• Comer, Belew, and Ezell: The Belew and Ezell families arrived in America at a very early date. In the Ezell and Comer families' case, we have not identified a point of arrival for any ancestor. Many suggest that Ezell maybe French and the Comer name maybe German.
  The Belew family has been heavily researched, and most arrival information suggests that they arrived in America from France (the name and varied spellings are very French). Some research suggests that they were Huguenots and/or might have been religious refugees from England.

Conclusion:

As it stands now, it appears that the most reliable possibility for an Irish connection would be our Littrell and Landtroop ancestors, with a small chance of the Comer and Ezell line being a possibility. So until some concentrated research into the immigration from Europe to America results in knew resources and discoveries, we would probably have a 50/50 chance of being correct in identifying ourselves as Irish Americans.

¹ American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau.
² an ethnic group comprising Americans who have full or partial ancestry from Ireland, 3 whose ancestors were Ulster Scots who emigrated from Ireland to the United States.
Littrell Family Journals: Volume I, Our European Ancestral Namesakes

58 / 64

Our Ancestral Namesakes: Book Report

$60.00 + $5.00 S&H = $65.00 per book

Make checks or Postal Money Orders to:

Glenn Littrell

Mail to: PO BOX 20794, INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, 46220

Enclose the following information with your check or Postal Money Order. As soon as your payment is in the mail send the same information to me by email (if possible) so that I can get started on your order:

Which books and how many copies.
What address do you want your copies sent to.

Send the above mentioned email and any questions to: indianaglenn@gmail.com

Our European Ancestral Namesakes: Book Map

13~Duchess Anne Luttrell-Horton-Frederick [#3037]

The eldest child of Earl Simon Luttrell was a daughter, Anne Luttrell [#3037] [and the widow of Christopher Horton] who would remarry to the brother of King George III, Prince Henry Frederick the Duke of Cumberland. King George III considered Prince Henry's (and another brother's) choice of wife unsuitable, which led to the passing of the Royal Marriages Act in 1772, one year after the marriage of Anne to Prince Henry Frederick. That act would require that descendants of King George II could not marry before the age of 25 without the permission of the king.

Upon the passage of the aforementioned Act the marriage of Anne and Prince Henry Frederick was further condemned by Junius' proclamation:

"... let parliament see to it that a Luttrell never wears the crown of England "

In spite of King George III's condemnation of Prince Henry's marriage to Anna Luttrell, she was evidently held in favor by the king's successor and son, the Prince of Wales (the future King George IV) and by the king's granddaughter, Victoria (the future Queen Victoria I).

After Anne was prohibited from attending the Court circle, the Prince of Wales attended Anne's parties more than those of his mother, Queen Charlotte.

Queen Victoria twice visited Luttrellstown Castle, Dublin, Ireland and is quoted as saying:

"I'll always love to come here when I visit Ireland for Anne was born here, she was my favorite aunt "

There were no children from this marriage. Though from a noble family – she was a daughter of Simon Luttrell, 1st Earl of Carhampton, and the widow of Christopher Horton of Catton Hall – Anne seems to have been rather loose with her favors, given one wag's comment that she was

"the Duke of Grafton's Mrs Houghton, the Duke of Dorset's Mrs Houghton, everyone's Mrs Houghton."

The marriage between Anne Horton and the Duke of Cumberland was described as a

“…conquest at Brighthelmstone” (now Brighton) by Mrs. Horton, who had for many months been dallying with his passion, till she had fixed him to more serious views than he had intended."   Horace Walpole

Anne was however generally thought one of the great beauties of the age and Thomas Gainsborough painted her several times. Gainsborough also painted the famous “Blue Boy”

http://www.thepeerage.com/p10849.htm#i108483

The Staunton Court Branch ~~~c.1584-1824

[Chapter 7]

14~John Luttrell [#6369]

The Staunton Court Branch of the family begins with the second son of Andrew Luttrell [#6352]^{see Chapter 6.25,} John Luttrell [#6369].

John appears to have laid the framework for questionable behavior when he entered into an agreement with his grandmother to care for her, but after his purchase of Staunton Court, he failed to fulfill his agreement with her and she sought litigation against him in court.

John had three sons, John [#6442], Francis [#6443], and Edward [#6444], and one daughter Dorothy.

15~Col. John Luttrell [#6442]

John Luttrell [#6442] was only six years old at the time of his father’s (John [#6369]) death. John [#6442] would take up arms in the parliamentarian ^{see Appendix 6E} cause and obtain the rank of colonel before being killed at a skirmish between Milverton and Wiveliscombre in 1645. Colonel John had seven children and was succeeded by his third child and eldest son, Southcote Luttrell [#6449].
When Southcote was an elderly widower, his first cousin, Edward Luttrell [#6448], ^{son of Edward [#6444] below} came to live with the aged Southcote. Edward and his wife, Mary, would involve themselves in Southcote’s affairs, and eventually they engaged him in an elaborate settlement that would serve to disinherit Southcote’s descendants in favor of Edward and Mary’s descendants.

The Lunatic

In 1702, following the death of both Southcote and Edward [#6448], Southcote’s third son and otherwise legal heir, Southcote Luttrell [#6461] was declared insane and placed in the care of Edward’s widow, Mary. After Southcote Luttrell [#6461] “the lunatic” died in 1751 all of his personal property passed to the his nephew, Marshall Ayers, and the estates passed to Edward and Mary’s grandson, Southcote Hungerford Luttrell [#6496].

Another cousin of the elder Southcote (and Edward) was Narcissus Luttrell [#6474], ^{son of Francis [#6443]below} a noted ‘antiquarian’ referred to his cousin Edward as both a “villain” and a “rascal”.

The Rascal

On the surface, Edward and Mary’s efforts might appear (in hindsight) as justified, since in this journal and the sources for it, Edward’s family line continues on longer than either of his uncles (John #6442 and Francis #6443). This would be a misleading conclusion though, as the record of Edward’s descendants is more complete because of its connection to the estates that he schemed to obtain for them. The male line of descendants of John [#6442] and Francis [#6443] does not end as a result of no male descendants as much as it ends because of no “record” of males with property.
The paper trail created by ownership of property and/or titles is a major resource in tracing family lines, as records of property, title, military service, and civil court actions are more complete and universally maintained than family birth and death records.

As the second son of the third son, any inheritable properties of his grandfather, John Luttrell [#6369], were not likely to ever fall upon Edward or his descendants by any natural means. His successful attempts at taking advantage of his elderly cousin, Southcote Luttrell [#6449], lacked any legitimate justification as an attempt to keep the estates in the male line of the family as the elder Southcote had a legitimate male heir at the time of the settlement.

This heir apparent, the younger Southcote ([#6461] “The Lunatic”), had not yet lost the use of his reason at the time of the settlement. It appears that Edward (an attorney) and Mary had taken advantage of the elder gentleman’s aged feebleness.

Edward would precede his wife, Mary and the younger Southcote in death, and his grandson Southcote Hungerford Luttrell [#6496] would inherit the estates.

Scandal and Tragedy follow the Staunton Court Branch:

One of four children of the above Edward [#6448] was Captain Edward Luttrell [#6492] who married Anne Hungerford of Wilshire and received a commission in 1713 as a lieutenant and would later obtain the rank of captain.

On October 17, 1721, two bailiffs (Tranter and Reason) arrested Captain Edward, for failure to pay a debt. The captain convinced the two men to accompany him to his quarters were he could obtain the amount of the debt from his young wife. Upon paying the two men, an argument arose when the captain refused to pay the bailiffs an additional amount for their troubles. Captain Edward was called a “rogue”, a “rascal”, and a “minter” to which he responded by striking Tranter over the head with his walking cane. Reason reacted by stabbing the captain nine times and then shooting him.
The captain lived long enough (several hours) to make a short will in favor of his wife, Anne, who was pregnant with their only child (Southcote Hungerford Luttrell [#6496]). The two bailiffs were tried for manslaughter and found guilty, in spite of the brutality of their crime they were not hanged but only “branded” on the hand.

18~Major Southcote Hungerford Luttrell [#6496]

Born without a father the infant was soon completely orphaned, as his mother did not survive his birth for long. The Luttrell estates were placed in trust with Southcote’s maternal uncle, Walter Hungerford.

Southcote would obtain a Marine commission as a second lieutenant in 1741 and would eventually rise to the rank of major in the 45^th Foot (Regiment). Documents in England indicate that he married in South Carolina, but his regiment was based in Halifax, Nova Scotia (North America), which is supported by family history.

Major Southcote fathered four children, the oldest born in Nova Scotia. Upon the death of his namesake second cousin (once removed), Southcote Luttrell [#6461],^above “the Lunatic”, the major and his family returned to England and resided at Staunton Court. The major would eventually sell Staunton Court but his sons would be provided for through the inheritance of their cousin’s estates, the son of the major’s maternal uncle, Walter Hungerford.

The major had three sons, Wilmot, Edward, and John. All three would sell their interest in the Hungerford Wiltshire estates. While John would have descendants in England, Edward, a military surgeon would be the ‘progenitor’ of many descendants in Australia where he would die in New South Wales in 1824.

5~Sir Galfridus (Geoffrey) Louterell [#5395]

The name and spelling we are using for this Geoffrey, owner of the Luttrell Psalter, is the same spelling as it appears on one of the actual leafs of the Psalter; pp 6: The Luttrell Psalter by J. Backhouse.

Sir Galfridus (Geoffrey) Louterell was born at Irnham [England] in May of 1276 and baptized on May 24. In June of 1298, he was one of the “ten gentlemen” traveling overseas with Blanche, former Queen of Navarre and wife of Edmund Plantagenet, King Edward I’s brother. Blanche’s daughter by her first marriage was the Queen of France and through these circumstances, we can probably assume that Sir Galfridus was exposed to the life in the French Royal court.
Sir Galfridus [#5395] was summoned to military service 13 times from 1297 to 1319 (including the Scottish border war). We do not know when he was dubbed a knight but in 1324 he was on a list of forty knights from his region that were summoned by the sheriff to attend the "Great Council of Westminster.” The next year he was named commissioner of the Army of Kesteven, but ill health prevented him from serving.
Sir Galfridus’ first-born son was Robert [#5411], but Robert would not grow to adulthood and Sir Galfridus’ heir would be his second son, Andreas (Andrew) Loutterellus [#5410]. We know of this because Sir Galfridus twice obtained a royal license to grant his land to his brother Guy Luttrell [#5396] until his sons Robert and Andreas reached their majority. This was a legal ploy to establish guardianship in an attempt to keep his lands from "reverting" back to the crown in the event of his death.

Landowners held their lands as servants to the Crown, just as their tenants held their lands as renters or tenant farmers, if they died with no suitable heir their lands were returned to the Crown. This maneuver of Galfridus’ was similar to the modern day practice of designating guardianship of one’s children in a will to prevent the state from establishing guardianship of any children, and to control the distribution of an estate.

Sir Galfridus executed this maneuver, in 1318 and 1320. Robert and Andreas were both mentioned in the 1318 license, but only Andreas and a younger brother, Geoffrey [#5412], and their wives were named in 1320.
In 1320 Andreas was only seven and Geoffrey was even younger. Their wives were two sisters: Beatrice (Andreas) and Constance (Geoffrey), the daughters of Geoffrey le Scrope, the king’s “Sergeant at Law” and in 1324 “Chief Justice of the King’s Bench.” Geoffrey and Constance are never mentioned again leading us to assume that at least Geoffrey, like his brother Robert, did not survive to adulthood.
Infant alliances of this nature were common. Apparently, if not customary, it was permissible for the child bride to be raised by the family of the groom. The evidence of this is that Elizabeth [#5406] (the first born child of Sir Galfridus and his wife Agnes Sutton) was in 1309 (age 12) living in the house of Walter de Glouchester as the future bride of his heir.
During the reign of King Edward the II, Sir Galfridus and Agnes must surely have been in a precarious position due to:

• Their long term relationship with their neighbor (and son of the aforementioned Blanche), Thomas, the Earl of Lancaster, who was beheaded by his own cousin (King Edward II) in 1322 less than a mile from Hooten~Pagnel at Thomas’s Pontefract Castle.
• Agnes’s own brother, John Sutton, was imprisoned and suffered much during this time at the hands of King Edward II * and his allies the family of Hugh le Despensers (the Elder).

Perhaps the childhood marriage alliance of:

• Galfridus’ son Andreas [#5410] to the daughter of the King Edward the II’s Chief Justice (Geoffrey le Scrope)
• and the marriage of Elizabeth to Walter (II) Gloucester, an ally of King Edward II.

provided some protection.

*John Sutton had married Margaret, co-heiress of the de Somery family, and was forced to give up most of his wife’s inheritance (including Dudley Castle in Worcestershire). Upon Edward III’s assumption of the throne, John’s suffrages were remedied and reversed.

Chapter 6.5: The Dunster Castle Branch ~~~c.1560-1766 13~George Luttrell

from: Our European Ancestral Namesakes: volume I of “THE LITTRELL~LUTTREL FAMILY JOURNALS”.

While his choices in romance may have bordered on scandalous he was respected and loved at Dunster Castle.

“…To Giles Baker, my servant, who hath lived under the tyranny of my wife, to the danger of his life, during the space of two years…”

Technorati Tags: George Luttrell,Dunster Castle

Our Ancestral Namesakes: Coat of Arms part 1

Jessica Littrell posted the following on FaceBook in January of this year (2012):

Jessica is the daughter of Rex Littrell, son of Noble.

The Heralds:
by Glenn Littrell (in response to Jessica’s FaceBook post)
The coat of arms and the laws that protected them were administered by the heralds, who were in charge of verifying that a person had a right to a coat of arms, and once verified the heralds were tasked with recording the coat of arms. Whenever the ancient heralds recorded a coat of arms, they would use two methods: blazon and emblazon. Families would display the coat of arms either in its full color (artwork, clothing, flags, documents,with family mottoes and shields, etc.); blazoned (documents correspondents and with family mottoes, etc); emblazoned (woodwork, metalwork, glass ware and documents, etc.)

To “blazon":

To blazon, is to describe a coat of arms in a very exact worded method. Blazoning was usually in French or Latin. Because of the expense of ink and paper, it was more efficient to develop a coded system of describing a coat of arms in a manner so anyone could draw and paint the coat of arms strictly from the description. The herald would record the blazon in their records because it was more efficient than drawing the actual coat of arms. The necessity of blazoning (to save the cost of ink) is emphasized by the fact that it should normally contain no punctuation to avoid waste in the recording of the coat of arms. Besides the words that depicted a particular color, object, position, etc., the order of the words was very important. The system was very elaborate and too detailed to explain here, but some examples to understand better our ancestral coat of arms is provided.

The coat of arms displayed by Jessica (above) are those of the Dunster branch of the family and the blazon would be:

or a bend between six martlets sable

The shield is yellow or gold, the bend (the diagonal stripe) is between the martlets (the birds), and both the bend and six martlets are black.

To break down the blazoning for this Coat of Arms:

• or=gold
• a bend=is the the bar going from the top left to lower right of the shield (bend sinister would mean top right to bottom left and some cases indicated illegitimate birth). A fesse is a horizontal bar, usually across the middle of the shield.
• between six martlets=mythical birds (see below note1)
• sable=black.

In the blazon the appearance of color (or, azure, sable etc.) means everything between that color and the preceding color is that color. The first color listed is the shield color.

 
This coat of arms is from another branch of the family and is blazoned:

or a bend sable between 6 martlets azure

The shield is yellow or gold, the bend is black and between the martlets which are blue.

Looking only at the items contained within the shield, in this case the 'bend' and 'six martlets', those items are called the ‘elements’. Because the Coat of Arms is strictly drawn from the blazon the elements are the same in any depictions (blazon, emblazon, or drawing) of the Coat of Arms with some exceptions toward ‘style’.

The drawing of the shield will contain the same elements, and all elements will be in the same position in relation to the “area” of the shield.
But:

• the actual drawing of the martlets,
• their positioning within their area of the shield,
• and the shape of the shield…

can be different, showing certain “flair” and “style” of the artist. As can be seen by comparing the martlets on the shield at the top and the shield immediately above.
Also:

• The style of items outside of the shield (sometimes called supporters) might be banners, helmet,  animals (swans, lions or boar), and/or crest,
• and even the shape of the shield…

are at the discretion of the artist, but, again, as always the elements and their position are identical as they are determined by the blazoning.

The artistic items outside the shield came along in a period when the rules for blazoning had started to be relaxed. The rules for items outside of the shield are not as strict as the rules for what is contained in, or upon, the shield and are seen by many a just extravagant elaborations. Nonetheless, they do tend to have some significant relevance to the person who added them. For instance at the top of the page what looks like a dog on the coat of arms (above the helmet) is an otter, which was placed there in reference to the Norman spelling and interpretation of the original name Loutre, ie., ‘the otter hunter’ (see below note2). Some branches of the family, and sometimes within the same line different generations, have replaced the otter with swans or boars.

note1:The Martlet was a mythical bird who spent its entire life in flight because it had no feet. It usually, but not always, indicates that the original bearer of a coat of arms with Martlets on it was not born into nobility, they earned or obtain their station otherwise. In other words they were without a noble 'foundation'. No foundation, no feet... It is firmly believed that the original Luttrell in England was at the battle of Hastings, with William the Conqueror and earned his nobility there or soon after.
As explained above the artist could style the martlets with any flair he desired as long as they maintained the feature that distinguished them from other birds… no feet. If they possessed feet then he will have broken the rules of heraldry because they would now just be birds, not martlets.

note2:Our name has undergone many spellings and pronunciation. Here is the European progression, some of which carry over into Ireland, Australia, Canada and America:

                          Lotre~Loutre~Lelutre~Letre~Looterel~Loteral~Loterel~Loterell~Lotrel~Louterel~Loutrel~Loutterellus~Lutra~Lutre~Lutterell~Luttrell~Luttrull

 To “emblazon”:

This method was to draw a black and white picture of the coat of arms.

Even in the case of being able to afford the price of ink the cost of colored ink might still prove to be unaffordable. Additionally on such items as glass, silver, wood, etc., the colors were not depicted in any way, as this was either impossible, or again too expensive. For these reasons they would show the colors by using different patterns, such as vertical or horizontal lines. Often the drawing of the coat of arms occurred from the blazoned description in the absence of an actual copy.

Whenever a coat of arms was drawn from an emblazon, just like when it was done from a blazon, the drawings of the same coat of arms may differ in style (of the artist) but not in content.

Below, the full color on the left, the emblazoned on the right, and the blazon below are all depictions of the same Coat of Arms (from a third branch of the family).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

azure a bend argent between six martlets or

The shield on the left is:

• the shield is azure, which is blue
• the bend is argent which is silver
• and it is between the six martlets that are or, which is gold or yellow

The shield on the right is emblazoned, a black and white drawing of the coat of arms using patterns to represent color:

• horizontal lines represent the color of the shield azure, which is blue
• the blank (or white) bend represents the color of the  bend argent, which is silver
• and the dotted martlets (not clearly showing up here) represents the color of six martlets or, which is gold or yellow

Using the above information how would you ‘blazon’ the following coat of arms:

Hint: the three (3) animals are also otters.

Use(click) the comment/no comment link below to enter your blazon or to ask questions.

by Glenn Littrell.
The first edition is no longer available, but I am working on the second edition and now that I’m retired I hope to complete it in 2013. Check back to this website periodically.