Re: Squires of the body and other servants

Marie wrote: "Yes, you're right, of course, Hilary - William Ingleby was also a knight. So niether Ingleby nor Ratcliffe was an esquire of the Body, they were both knoghts of the Body. Ratcliffe had been made a knight banneret in Scotland, which was better than an ordinary knight, and then became a KG during Richard's reign (probably early 1484 but I would have to check). So - unless Horrox was quoting from documents predating Ratcliffe's elevation to the Order of the Garter and Ingleby was also a banneret - that might explain th epay difference. About armigers without titles: all knights must have had arms, I presume, but knighthoods weren't hereditary. Certainly sons of the nobility who hadn't been knighted were referred to as 'esquire' but htere also seem to have been families headed by esquires. Do we have someone into heraldry who can shed some light?" Doug here: What's the difference between a "knight" and a "knight banneret"? Is the "Sir" heritable in the latter case (as in the "Hound of the Baskervilles")? Doug

No, that is a baronet, not introduced until James VI/I's time. A knight banneret was closer to the millitary origins of the title. ----- Original Message ----- From: Douglas Eugene Stamate To: Cc: Doug Stamate Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 2:58 PM Subject: re: Squires of the body and other servants

Marie wrote: "Yes, you're right, of course, Hilary - William Ingleby was also a knight. So niether Ingleby nor Ratcliffe was an esquire of the Body, they were both knoghts of the Body. Ratcliffe had been made a knight banneret in Scotland, which was better than an ordinary knight, and then became a KG during Richard's reign (probably early 1484 but I would have to check). So - unless Horrox was quoting from documents predating Ratcliffe's elevation to the Order of the Garter and Ingleby was also a banneret - that might explain th epay difference. About armigers without titles: all knights must have had arms, I presume, but knighthoods weren't hereditary. Certainly sons of the nobility who hadn't been knighted were referred to as 'esquire' but htere also seem to have been families headed by esquires. Do we have someone into heraldry who can shed some light?" Doug here: What's the difference between a "knight" and a "knight banneret"? Is the "Sir" heritable in the latter case (as in the "Hound of the Baskervilles")? Doug

The title of Banneret was invented by Philippe II of France. It was a title superior to that of simple Chevalier and was a title between Chevalier and Baron. The Banneret would be a noble who could ensure the presence of a number of other chevaliers and ecuyers (esquires) in his retinue. They would fight under his banner.

Kind regards
David
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: re: Squires of the body and other servants
Sent: Fri, Nov 15, 2013 2:36:16 PM

 

No, that is a baronet, not introduced until James VI/I's time. A knight banneret was closer to the millitary origins of the title. ----- Original Message ----- From: Douglas Eugene Stamate To: Cc: Doug Stamate Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 2:58 PM Subject: re: Squires of the body and other servants
 

Marie wrote:   "Yes, you're right, of course, Hilary - William Ingleby was also a knight. So niether Ingleby nor Ratcliffe was an esquire of the Body, they were both knoghts of the Body. Ratcliffe had been made a knight banneret in Scotland, which was better than an ordinary knight, and then became a KG during Richard's reign (probably early 1484 but I would have to check). So - unless Horrox was quoting from documents predating Ratcliffe's elevation to the Order of the Garter and Ingleby was also a banneret - that might explain th epay difference. About armigers without titles: all knights must have had arms, I presume, but knighthoods weren't hereditary. Certainly sons of the nobility who hadn't been knighted were referred to as 'esquire' but htere also seem to have been families headed by esquires. Do we have someone into heraldry who can shed some light?"   Doug here: What's the difference between a "knight" and a "knight banneret"? Is the "Sir" heritable in the latter case (as in the "Hound of the Baskervilles")? Doug

Stephen wrote: "No, that is a baronet, not introduced until James VI/!'s time. A knight banneret was closer to the military origins of the title." Doug here: Thank you! I think it's the similarities in words (baronet/banneret) that confuses me! Could that "banner" then, be the "coat of arms" displayed by non-nobles as mentioned in an earlier post? Doug

Doug wrote to Stephen:"Thank you! I think it's the similarities in words (baronet/banneret) that confuses me!Could that "banner" then, be the "coat of arms" displayed by non-nobles as mentioned in an earlier post?" The banner referred to a banner as in fluttering in the breeze. A banneret would, unlike a knight bachelor, be expected to lead a contingent of men under his banner.Marie---In , <destama@...> wrote:

Stephen wrote: "No, that is a baronet, not introduced until James VI/!'s time. A knight banneret was closer to the military origins of the title." Doug here: Thank you! I think it's the similarities in words (baronet/banneret) that confuses me! Could that "banner" then, be the "coat of arms" displayed by non-nobles as mentioned in an earlier post? Doug

Marie, so sorry if posting in the wrong place but Horrox (page 231) says that both Ratcliffe and Ingelby were 'two northern knights of the body of Richard III of vastly different standing'. Ratcliffe was the 'trusted and lavishly rewarded courtier whose opinion the King hardly ever opposed' (How did she know, was she there?). So Ingleby only got £20 a year but Ratcliffe a lot more (sorry haven't got time to find it in her book but it was a lot more I recall) . My guess is that armigers without titles were descendants of younger sons? The opposite of the 1840 census where some brothers of gents were classified as 'farm labourers' because no-one had worked out what to if they still lived in the same household but didn't have the 'title'. Presumably with armigers this could go right back to the Conqueror? H.

On Saturday, 16 November 2013, 15:25, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Doug wrote to Stephen:"Thank you! I think it's the similarities in words (baronet/banneret) that confuses me!Could that "banner" then, be the "coat of arms" displayed by non-nobles as mentioned in an earlier post?" The banner referred to a banner as in fluttering in the breeze. A banneret would, unlike a knight bachelor, be expected to lead a contingent of men under his banner.Marie---In , <destama@...> wrote:

Stephen wrote: "No, that is a baronet, not introduced until James VI/!'s time. A knight banneret was closer to the military origins of the title." Doug here: Thank you! I think it's the similarities in words (baronet/banneret) that confuses me! Could that "banner" then, be the "coat of arms" displayed by non-nobles as mentioned in an earlier post? Doug