A Bunce Coat of Arms found in Burkes Armorial

Description: “Azure, on a fess between 3 boars’ heads argent, as many eagles of the first.”

Significance/interpretation of these symbols:

• Azure or blue denotes “Justice and Loyalty.”

• A boar’s head was “a champion among wild beasts, symbolizing bravery and perseverance.”

• “Argent” was the color silver, and “represents humility and Innocence.”

• “Eagles” were “an emblem of magnanimity and fortitude of mind.”

For the meanings of other heraldic symbols, click here.

Sources for Research on Amerigerous Bunce Ancestors

For those wishing to do further research, the following is a list of entries on the Bunce surname in an index book entitled Armigerous Ancestors, A catalogue of sources for the study of the Visitations of the Heralds in the 16th and 17th centuries with referenced lists of names by Cecil R. Humphery-Smith, which was published in England; ISBN 0-9511987-1-18. The dictionary says “armigerous” means someone entitled to use a coat of arms.

There is an explanation in the foreword to the book that this index covers records of the Heraldic Visitations that are now primarily kept at the College of Arms in England, but have been published over the years, apparently mainly by the Harleian Society. These records were gathered by the Sheriffs of England, Scotland and Wales during the 16th and 17th centuries, beginning in the reign of King Henry VIII through that of King James II. The Court of Chivalry had the responsi­bility to settle disputes about coats of arms, and in this regard the King’s Sheriffs went to the homes of people claiming coats of arms and demanded that they produce pedigree evidence of their right to display a particular coat of arms. It is said many people took advantage of this opportunity, but some were unable to substantiate their claim or refused to answer.

There are 3 sections in the book, the first one is a list of all the names with a county designation beside the name. Then there is a section that covers the names for each county. The Bunce surname only appeared in the County of Kent. Also if the capi­tal letter “D” appeared in front of the county designation in the first section of the book, it indicated that the person was una­ble to prove his right to bear a coat of arms, and there were no “Ds” next to the entries for the Bunce surname. The last sec­tion has a list of the sources for each county. There were 3 entries for the Bunce surname, with two in upper case letters, which is supposed to indicate that a pedigree was provided to the Heralds. Below are the entries for what appears under the County of Kent for the Bunce surnames, with abbreviations for sources:

From the above, it appears that most of the Bunce genealogy is in a manuscript or publication of the Harleian Society numbered 5507 on pp. 289-90. Note: the abbreviation “fo.” seems to be for the word “folio.”

Unless one can prove direct male descent from the individual who was granted this specific coat of arms, it is illegal to use it, at least in the United Kingdom of Great Britain.  I do not have information about who was awarded this coat of arms, why he received it, nor the date when he received it.  See a further discussion of this topic.

Coats of Arms and as well as surnames probably devel­oped in Europe during the 12th and 13th centuries.  By the 14th century an individual’s surname had become recognized as a means of identification, and it became accepted practice to pass it on to others in the family.

During the Middle Ages the increased use of armour made it difficult to identify individuals in battle, this cou­pled with the illiteracy of most of the population, produced a need for a means of recognition.  The Coat of Arms was first worn on the surcoat and displayed on the shield by leaders in battle.  During times of peace, the Coat of Arms became a signature or “mark” to be affixed to records and official documents.  Later it was used to symbolize associa­tions in metal glass and stone in religious and secular build­ings.  Many Coats of Arms were granted, of course, as signs of nobility, but a like number of arms were awarded as marks of distinction or rewards for valour.  Emperors, kings and nobles or their heralds made these grants and the coats of arms passed to the descendants of those so honored according to the Law of Arms.

Message posted to Roots-L mailing list

Date:	13 Apr 1994 02:50:41
From:	"Robert L. Ward" <[email protected]>
To:	All
Subject:	Heraldic proof

David Meade Lawrence <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I’ve been looking at a genealogy of one branch of my
> family which the author claims that the family in
> question descends from a family of Welsh nobles on the
> basis of heraldric evidence. The basis of the claim is
> that a g-...g-uncle of mine affixed a seal of a coat of
> arms (representing that Welsh family) to his will. This
> will was dated 1697.
>
> Now there is no solid evidence to back up this claim,
> which the author freely admits, but he believes the
> use of this coat-of-arms is “proof” of descent from that
> family.
>
> I, of course, would not accept the use of the
> coat-of-arms as “proof,” but is it legitimate to accept
> it as an indication of a probable relationship pending
> confirmation? Or did 17th century colonists in North
> America grasp at dubious genealogies the way 19th
> century Americans did?
>
> The ancestors of the person in question held various
> Vicarages in England and New England/Long Island in
> the 16th and 17th centuries, so it is safe to assume that
> the family was of some importance (maybe not much,
> but some) in England during that time.
>
> Please respond directly to me, not the list.

Since this topic is of some general interest, I am responding both to David directly and posting to the list.

The use of heraldic insignia in the colonial period of American history is a strong indication, but short of absolute proof, of descent from the family entitled to bear those insignia.

The use of coats of arms, crests, badges, and mottoes by British subjects is regulated by the College of Arms in London.  There have been and still are stringent laws on the books concerning the use of arms.  Those not entitled to bear arms are enjoined from doing so, and heavy penalties may be exacted on those who improperly or fraudulently do so.  These laws have not been ignored through the years.  Many cases could be cited of persons being punished for such offenses.

The fact that a person used an armorial seal in 1697 on a will means that they either were entitled to use the arms, thought that they were so entitled, or were attempt­ing to perpetrate fraud in some way.  They would be risking the penalties of law in so doing if fraud were involved.  The cir­cumstances would seem to make fraud unlikely, unless the will laid claim to, and devised, property properly be­longing to the noble family who were entitled to those arms.

There is also the consideration of the origin of the sealing implement itself.  This could have taken the form of a signet ring with the seal cut into the flat front surface of the ring, or of a metal object looking somewhat like a chess piece, with the seal cut into the base.  Such an object could, of course, be fab­ricated, but at some considerable cost for the cutting.  It is very likely that such an object would be passed down within a family as an heirloom, as a working implement, and as a sym­bol of family heritage, for many generations.  It would be interesting to see if the seal or ring was mentioned in wills or inventories of earlier generations of the family.

One must always be careful, however, since just because the person thought they were entitled to arms did not mean that they were, or that the arms were correct.  A case involving the MINOR family of Connecticut comes to mind, where the immigrant sent back to England for a pedigree of his family, which was duly sent.  The pedigree is still preserved at the Connecticut Historical Society.  A coat of arms is included, but apparently there is no record at the College of Arms of the granting of any such coat of arms to that MINOR family.  The con­clusion is that the family in England probably hired some­one to investigate and supply the pedigree, and that person fabricated the whole thing!  Probably the MINOR family were merely wishful-thinking people of common birth.  It is very possibly that the MINOR family used this bogus coat of arms, and may have even made up an armorial seal for use on documents.

In conclusion, such use of arms is an indication, but not proof, of descent.

In an article Larry Billings <[email protected]> wrote:

It varies with the country, but in the UK the Queen’s rep. must okay all new coats of arms.  Her rep. in Scotland is the Lord Lyon.  It took our Scottish Society a long time and plenty of money to get ours approved.  There is a stringent order as to what the crest looks like, what type of helm, etc.  You can’t just make one up...it’s not legal.  All prior coats of arms are either “dead” or belonging to someone and it’s illegal to use it.

See also the Burkes Peerage website.