Heraldry Question - GARSED

[grimnar]

I have a problem.
It concerns my Garsed Family.

The name is so unique that all who share it are related. The name is centered around the West Riding of Yorkshire and has been their since the early 1600's

In Burke's Peerage book it mentions the Garsed name, but only under the name of Garsett, from Norwich.

The associated arms for the name of GARSED are recorded in Sir Bernard Burke's General Armory. (Garsett). Granted at Norwich, confirmed to Robert Garsett Esquire of the body to James Ist, son of Robert Garsett, Alderman of Norwich.

Luck should have it their is a picture of this Garsett Coat of Arms from around the period in St Andrews church, Norwich. In laymans terms, a red saltair with 4 red mullets.
http://www.norwichchurches.co.uk/St%20Andrew/images/Robert_Garsett_monument.jpg

Now its not the coat of arms I'm interested in, but the crest, An arm holding a strung bow, with a dexter arrow.

Because of the name's sounding similar, I believe that the Garsed's were just grouped under the Garsett name, but their could be more as I have found through documents of the period. A James Garsed existed in the time of the Battle of Flodden, he was connected to the Earl of Derby, and a story go's how during a display for the King, a Scottish bow was produced, supposedly unable to be drawn by any man, James Garsed makes himself known, not only drawing the bow and loose arrows 7 times before the bow snaps in half. Because of this the King (Henry the 8th) grants him a charter and gives him the position of Yeoman of the guards , and thats were the story ends.

Why would the Garsett crest be so similar to the Garsed story? Is it just a coincidence? Maybe the family moved around and are connected?

Any help or insight would be fantastic, as I have tried to nut it out, but with no success.

[behindthefrogs]

It may be of interest that Fairbairn's Crests describes the crest of the Garsed or Garsett family of Norwich as a bow and arrow with no mention of an arm holding them.  It doesn't help by then cross referncing the wrong illustration.

It would seem extremely likely that the story and the crest were connected, although I would think it extremely likely that the story was an embroidered explanation of the crest.  Although alternatively if the coat of arms were not granted until the 17th century it is also likely that the crest was chosen based on the story of over a hundred years previous.

The question which is raised is why the bow and arrows do not also appear on the shield which would be expected if there was a very close family relationship.  I would expect that there was another remotely related family which had such a shield.  Why not the branch which lived in the West Riding?

David

[grimnar]

Behindthefrogs,
                          Thank you for your reply. You are correct, I did make a mistake in describing the crest. There was no arm, just a strung bow and an arrow.

Your point about why the coat of arms, didn't have the bow and arrow, is a very valid one, I don't know why I didn't pick it up, that is I suppose the benefit of another mind on the case.

[Stephen J F Plowman]

It is possible with the passage of time Garsett could be transformed to Garsed or vice versa.

The Harleian Society's Grantees of Arms has;

GARSET, Robert Esq., of the body to K. James, … May 1614, 1 Feb 1612 by Camden.  Morgan’s Sphere, 117; Harl. MS.1441, fo.149: as Garhet.

[grimnar]

Stephen,
               You could very well be right. the earliest reported Garsed was in the mid 1500's, but I wonder why uproot yourself, away from a place were people obviously respect you and move to a small market Town in West Yorkshire?

Ahh to actually know the answer! More than likely cost a first born!

[Stephen J F Plowman]

One possibility is that a younger son moved away to establish himself elsewhere.  The "main" family line stayed put but later "expired".  The variations are endless.

[behindthefrogs]

Families inherited and purchased land and property in various parts of the country for many reasons.  This was often rationalised by the disjoint properties being given to the younger members of the family.

I would suggest that you need to look for the wills of the various members of the family to discover whether they left land in distant places.  The advantage of what you are looking for is that you will only need to look for wills proved at Canterbury and York. 

David

[cassandra123]

http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/Faq.htm

A coat of arms is granted to an individual and belongs uniquely to that person, being passed down from that person to the eldest son, and then to that eldest son's eldest son and so on down the male line. In such cases, the arms usually remain unchanged. While the father still lives, an eldest son can use the father's arms with what is called a "label": a small three-pointed sign which goes over the top part of the shield to indicate that he is an heir apparent. The younger sons can use another "label". A system of different coloured and shaped borders also distinguishes one member of the family from another.

In Scotland the Lord Lyon can if he so wishes take legal action against anyone who uses the Coats of Arms that belong to someone else.   There is definitely no such thing as a Coat of Arms which belongs to a surname it is awarded to an individual.

[grimnar]

Cassandra123,
                          Please do not think I am being rude or disrespectful in any way, but what is the point of your post?