LUCY BRADFORD DOWN HOME COOKBOOK Rend City IL Family Recipes Wilma Jane Jibson

Description

PHOTOS SHOW ACTUAL COOKBOOK YOU WILL RECEIVE
"Lucy Bradford's Down Home Cookbook" Compiled by Jane Ann Jibson
2003.  Kitchen Kupboard, Ltd.
Softcover with Plastic Comb Binding, 75 Pages.
Jane Ann Jibson has a page about her maternal grandmother, Lucy Juliette Monty (1878-1950) and a page about her mother, Wilma Lucile Bradford (1918-1992).  Recipes do Not have name of contributor.
Condition:  Pages a
re crisp and clean.
Cover has light wear.  Plastic comb is intact.
No smells.  Non-smoking home.
jwbaR Untitled Document
A COMPLETE GUIDE
TO
HERALDRY
BY
ARTHUR CHARLES FOX-DAVIES
OF LINCOLN'S INN,  BARRISTER-AT-LAW
AUTHOR OF "THE ART OF HERALDRY"
EDITOR OF "ARMORIAL FAMILIES," ETC. ETC.
ILLUSTRATED BY NINE  PLATES IN COLOUR AND NEARLY
800 OTHER DESIGNS, MAINLY FROM DRAWINGS BY
GRAHAM JOHNSTON
HERALD PAINTER TO THE      LYON COURT
LONDON
T. C. & E. C. JACK
16 HENRIETTA STREET, W.C.
AND EDINBURGH
PLATE I.
CONTENTS
p;
CHAP.
PAGE
Introduction
ix
I.
The        Origin of Armory
1
II.
The        Status and the Meaning of a Coat of Arms in Great Britain
19
III.
The        Heralds and Officers of Arms
27
IV.
Heraldic Brasses
49
V.
The        Component Parts of an Achievement
57
VI.
The        Shield
60
VII.
The        Field of a Shield and the Heraldic Tinctures
67
VIII.
The        Rules of Blazon
99
IX.
The        so-called Ordinaries and Sub-Ordinaries
106
X.
The        Human Figure in Heraldry
158
XI.
The        Heraldic Lion
172
XII.
Beasts
191
XIII.
Monsters
218
XIV.
Birds
233
XV.
Fish
253
XVI.
Reptiles
257
XVII.
Insects
260
XVIII.
Trees, Leaves, Fruits, and Flowers
262
XIX.
Inanimate Objects
281
XX.
The        Heraldic Helmet
303
XXI.
The        Crest
326
XXII.
Crowns and Coronets
350
XXIII.
Crest Coronets and Chapeaux
370
XXIV.
The        Mantling or Lambrequin
383
XXV.
The        Torse or Wreath
402
XXVI.
Supporters
407
XXVII.
The        Compartment
441
XXVIII.
Mottoes
448
XXIX.
Badges
453
XXX.
Heraldic Flags, Banners, and Standards
471
XXXI.
Marks of Cadency
477
XXXII.
Marks of Bastardy
508
XXXIII.
The        Marshalling of Arms
523
XXXIV.
The        Armorial Insignia of Knighthood
561
XXXV.
The        Armorial Bearings of a Lady
572
XXXVI.
Official Heraldic Insignia
580
XXXVII.
Augmentations of Honour
589
XXXVIII.
Ecclesiastical Heraldry
600
XXXIX.
Arms        of Dominion and Sovereignty
607
XL.
Hatchments
609
XLI.
The        Union Jack
611
XLII.
"
Seize-Quartiers
"
618
Index
623
INTRODUCTION
Too frequently it is the custom to regard the study of the science of Armory as that of a subject which    has passed beyond the limits of practical politics. Heraldry has been termed    "the shorthand of History," but nevertheless the study of that shorthand has    been approached too often as if it were but the study of a dead language. The    result has been that too much faith has been placed in the works of older    writers, whose dicta have been accepted as both unquestionably correct at the    date they wrote, and, as a consequence, equally binding at the present day.
Since the "Boke of S  Albans" was written, into the heraldic portion of which the author managed to    compress an unconscionable amount of rubbish, books and treatises on the    subject of Armory have issued from the press in a constant succession. A few    of them stand a head and shoulders above the remainder. The said remainder    have already sunk into oblivion. Such a book as "Guillim" must of necessity    rank in the forefront of any armorial bibliography; but any one seeking to    judge the Armory of the present day by the standards and ethics adopted by    that writer, would find himself making mistake after mistake, and led    hopelessly astray. There can be very little doubt that the "Display of    Heraldry" is an accurate representation of the laws of Armory which governed    the use of Arms at the date the book was written; and it correctly puts    forward the opinions which were then accepted concerning the past history of    the science.
There are two points,    however, which must be borne in mind.
The first is that the    critical desire for accuracy which fortunately seems to have been the keynote    of research during the nineteenth century, has produced students of Armory    whose investigations into facts have swept away the fables, the myths, and the    falsehood which had collected around the ancient science, and which in their    preposterous assertions had earned for Armory a ridicule, a contempt, and a    disbelief which the science itself, and moreover the active practice of the    science, had never at any time warranted or deserved. The desire to gratify    the vanity of illustrious patrons rendered the mythical traditions attached to    Armory more difficult to explode than in the cases of those other sciences in    which no one has a personal interest in upholding
the    wrong; but a study of the scientific works of bygone days, and the comparison,    for example, of a sixteenth or seventeenth century medical book with a similar    work of the present day, will show that all scientific knowledge during past    centuries was a curious conglomeration of unquestionable fact, interwoven with    and partly obscured by a vast amount of false information, which now can    either be dismissed as utter rubbish or controverted and disproved on the    score of being plausible untruth. Consequently, Armory, no less than medicine,    theology, or jurisprudence, should not be lightly esteemed because our    predecessors knew less about the subject than is known at the present day, or    because they believed implicitly dogma and tradition which we ourselves know    to be and accept as exploded. Research and investigation constantly goes on,    and every day adds to our knowledge.
The second point, which    perhaps is the most important, is the patent fact that Heraldry and Armory are    not a dead science, but are an actual living reality. Armory may be a quaint    survival of a time with different manners and customs, and different ideas    from our own, but the word "Finis" has not yet been written to the science,    which is still slowly developing and altering and changing as it is suited to    the altered manners and customs of the present day. I doubt not that this view    will be a startling one to many who look upon Armory as indissolubly    associated with parchments and writings already musty with age. But so long as    the Sovereign has the power to create a new order of Knighthood, and attach    thereto Heraldic insignia, so long as the Crown has the power to create a new    coronet, or to order a new ceremonial, so long as new coats of arms are being    called into being,—for so long is it idle to treat Armory and Heraldry as a    science incapable of further development, or as a science which in recent    periods has not altered in its laws.
The many mistaken ideas    upon Armory, however, are not all due to the two considerations which have    been put forward. Many are due to the fact that the hand-books of Armory    professing to detail the laws of the science have not always been written by    those having complete knowledge of their subject. Some statement appears in a    textbook of Armory, it is copied into book after book, and accepted by those    who study Armory as being correct; whilst all the time it is absolutely wrong,    and has never been accepted or acted upon by the Officers of Arms. One    instance will illustrate my meaning. There is scarcely a text-book of Armory    which does not lay down the rule, that when a crest issues from a coronet it    must not be placed upon a wreath. Now there is no rule whatever upon the    subject; and instances are frequent, both in ancient and in modern grants, in    which coronets have been granted to be borne upon wreaths; and the wreath    should
be inserted or omitted
according    to the original grant of the crest
. Consequently, the so-called rule must    be expunged.
Another fruitful source of    error is the effort which has frequently been made to assimilate the laws of    Armory prevailing in the three different kingdoms into one single series of    rules and regulations. Some writers have even gone so far as to attempt to    assimilate with our own the rules and regulations which hold upon the    Continent. As a matter of fact, many of the laws of Arms in England and    Scotland are radically different; and care needs to be taken to point out    these differences.
The truest way to    ascertain the laws of Armory is by deduction from known facts. Nevertheless,    such a practice may lead one astray, for the number of exceptions to any given    rule in Armory is always great, and it is sometimes difficult to tell what is    the rule, and which are the exceptions. Moreover, the Sovereign, as the    fountain of honour, can over-ride any rule or law of Arms; and many    exceptional cases which have been governed by specific grants have been    accepted in times past as demonstrating the laws of Armory, when they have    been no more than instances of exceptional favour on the part of the Crown.
In England no one is    compelled to bear Arms unless he wishes; but, should he desire to do so, the    Inland Revenue requires a payment of one or two guineas, according to the    method of use. From this voluntary taxation the yearly revenue exceeds    £70,000. This affords pretty clear evidence that Armory is still decidedly    popular, and that its use and display are extensive; but at the same time it    would be foolish to suppose that the estimation in which Armory is held, is    equal to, or approaches, the romantic value which in former days was attached    to the inheritance of Arms. The result of this has been—and it is not to be    wondered at—that ancient examples are accepted and extolled beyond what should    be the case. It should be borne in mind that the very ancient examples of    Armory which have come down to us, may be examples of the handicraft of    ignorant individuals; and it is not safe to accept unquestioningly laws of    Arms which are deduced from Heraldic
handicraft
of    other days. Most of them are correct, because as a rule such handicraft was    done under supervision; but there is always the risk that it has not been; and
this    risk should be borne in mind
when    estimating the value of any particular example of Armory as proof or    contradiction of any particular Armorial law. There were "heraldic stationers"    before the present day.
A somewhat similar    consideration must govern the estimate of the Heraldic art of a former day. To    every action we are told there is a reaction; and the reaction of the present    day, admirable and commendable as it undoubtedly is, which has taken the art    of Armory back to the style in vogue in past centuries, needs to be kept    within intelligent
bounds. That the    freedom of design and draughtsmanship of the old artists should be copied is    desirable; but at the same time there is not the slightest necessity to copy,    and to deliberately copy, the crudeness of execution which undoubtedly exists    in much of the older work. The revulsion from what has been aptly styled "the    die-sinker school of heraldry" has caused some artists to produce Heraldic    drawings which (though doubtless modelled upon ancient examples) are grotesque    to the last degree, and can be described in no other way.
In conclusion, I have to    repeat my grateful acknowledgments to the many individuals who assisted me in    the preparation of my "Art of Heraldry," upon which this present volume is    founded, and whose work I have again made use of.
The very copious index    herein is entirely the work of my professional clerk, Mr. H. A. Kenward, for    which I offer him my thanks. Only those who have had actual experience know    the tedious weariness of compiling such an index.
Track Page Views With
Auctiva's FREE Counter