Helpful, I’d say. Nice job.
naah, everyone knows that’s sable.
WAKANDA FOREVER!
I was just noodling around on Wikipedia, as I’m wont to do when I have a little spare time. I don’t remember what led me to Parr’s page, in particular.
Interesting that he says “various colors,” rather than specifying. I’ve never seen that in a blazon.
Similarly, under the U.S. Flag Code, the proper placement of the flag is described from “its” point of view - on the right is the place of honor; that is, the viewer’s left, like so:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Reagans_talking_in_Oval_Office.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/President_addresses_American_University_Commencement%2C_receives_honorary_degree._President_Kennedy_at_Podium…_-NARA-_194263.jpg
If only it was that simple. Although it has often been said that Catherine Parr’s panther derives from the FitzHugh family, the evidence for that is actually extremely flimsy. The confusion seems to arise from the fact that Willement’s comments on the subject are just nonsense.
Before explaining why, there is a general point that must first be grasped. In English heraldry the use of supporters was relatively rare. Although the rules were then not quite as strict as they are now, most individuals entitled to display a coat of arms were not entitled to include supporters. Moreover, the arms of individuals who were entitled to include them often didn’t do so, most obviously because often only the shield was used. It can therefore sometimes be unclear what particular familial associations specific supporters were meant to have. However, even allowing for such uncertainty, Willement’s arguments strain credulity.
While at a loss to identify what animal it was, Willement proposed a connection between Queen Catherine’s supporter and the FitzHugh family on the basis that it also appeared on the seals of her great-great-grandfather, William, 4th Lord FitzHugh and her great-grandfather, Henry, 5th Lord FitzHugh. He specifically cites the illustration of the former in Joseph Edmondson’s A Complete Body of Heraldry (1780). Unfortunately, that animal is clearly different. It could be a wyvern, but as it seems to have four legs, it is presumably a dragon. Willement further confuses matters by saying that a similar animal appears on the Garter stall plate of Henry Clifford, 1st Earl of Cumberland in [topical reference coming up] St George’s Chapel, Windsor. But that Clifford supporter is in fact a monkey.
That said, there is one piece of indirect evidence that panther supporters may have been associated with the Parrs or some of Queen Catherine’s other ancestors. The Earls of Pembroke, descendants of her sister, Ann, and thus the Parr heirs, have a panther as one of their supporters. But Pembroke panthers are always spotted in the conventional manner.
No. ‘Fitz’ was merely the Norman patronymic meaning ‘son of’. When used for royal bastards, that was made clear, usually in the form ‘FitzRoy’. The idea that ‘Fitz’ followed by a Christian name or a title means a royal bastard dates only from the late seventeenth century, when Charles II and James II had so many illegitimate children that they had to become inventive about the surnames they gave them. There is no reason to suppose that Henry, 1st Lord FitzHugh was anything other than the legitimate son of his father, Hugh FitzHenry.
As it happens, the current Chief Herald of Canada also has the crazy stripe panthers as her supporters. The stripes don’t seem to be blazoned at all, though, so maybe it’s just that, unless the color is specified in detail (as in the crest of the linked arms), how the colors get on the panther is a matter of artistic license.