Talk:Norroy and Ulster King of Arms

Algar Howard and Gerald Wollaston

Algar Howard and Gerald Wollaston are already linked in the Norroy King of Arms section. Is the second wikilink in the N&U section necessary?--Dave Boven 15:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. I was scanning this page (along with all the other English offices of arms) from the bottom upwards looking for redlinks/missing links to add to Portal:Heraldry/Todo list, and missed the first occurrence of the names in the Norroy section. Dr pda 16:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trent

So, what is the border west of the Trent's source? Morwen - Talk 07:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like whole counties were included in each king's province. Going by the visitations of the 17th century (some of which are here) It looks like the line was:

Clarenceux: Shropshire, Worcestershire, Warwickshire, Northamptonshire, Rutland, Lincolnshire
Norroy: Cheshire, Staffordshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire

Going by the recent grants recorded at the College of Arms website, the modern boundary looks much the same: Shropshire, lincolnshire and north Lincolnshire are under Clarenceux, as also it appears are the Channel Islands.

Lozleader 11:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, tsk. so the border didn't pass through stoke town centre? Also, as far as I am aware, no part of Leicestershire is or has ever been north of the Trent. Morwen - Talk 12:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you spotted my deliberate mistake. Leicestershire was "visited" by Clarenceux, not Norroy...

So I correct myself:

Norroy:Cheshire, Staffordshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire
Clarenceux:Shropshire, Worcestershire, Warwickshire, Northamptonshire, Rutland, Lincolnshire.

Sorry 'bout that.

Lozleader 22:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes a bit more sense, then. I wonder if its worthwhile me writing a note to the College asking them to put the answer on their website so I can cite it. :) Morwen - Talk 23:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Dore's will was signed on 13 February 1780, and is to a considerable extent concerned that the arrangements for his funeral and commemoration are stringently observed. Probate was eventually granted after the oaths of his predecessors in post, Heard and Bigelow, had authenticated his will. It would seem that his tenure of office might have been no more than a metter of months. Could this be investigated?Delahays (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]