# Talk:William de Braose, 2nd Baron Braose

This could go in the article. It's the coat of arms William bore at the Battle of Falkirk, according to the Falkirk Roll. Though I noticed Falkirk isn't mentioned in the article at all. Here's the ref: Foster, Joseph (1902), Some feudal coats of arms from heraldic rolls 1298-1418, illustrated with 830 zinco etchings from effigies, brasses and coats of arms, London: James Parker & Co, p. 35. The book is over a hundred years old, and I noticed the blazon is at odds with this webpage which covers this particular roll [1], which cites: Gerard J Brault, "Rolls of Arms of Edward I", Society of Antiquaries, London, 1996. I've followed the blazon on the webpage (#31).--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't see where you think Foster and Brault differ?   Doug (at Wiki) 13:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Our article on lions in heraldry says: "The tail also may be knotted (nowed), forked (queue fourchée) or doubled (double-queued)". Foster's blazon reads: "tail fourchée". Brault's reads: "double queued". One refers to a forked tail, the other a double tail. See?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I think this is only a modern distinction, if that. I don't believe a herald of 1298 would permit such small diferences. You can see on the webpage that you cite that the original roll reads "coue forchee" which is translated into English as "double queued". Doug (at Wiki) 16:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

"There is no example of two lions sharing one tail, but one lion with two of these appendages is common, and is blazoned as double queued. This means that two complete tails emerge from the base of the spine; but there is also the situation in which only one tail emerges and at a distance of between a quarter and a half of its length it branches out into two. This condition is blazoned qeue fourché" (Franklyn, Julian (1971), Shield and Crest (3rd ed.), Genealogical Publishing, p. 142). Two different terms. Actually, this might be a good example of why Wikipedians are not supposed to base articles straight off primary sources alone, and why we should be weary of out-of-date secondary ones. If we'd followed the Anglo-Norman blazon literally, without the aid of a modern heraldist, we'd end up with a forked tail, rather than the double tail. I think that maybe competent heraldists have the ability to render archaic blazon into modern blazon, and it doesn't always match word for word in literal meaning. So maybe, even though the Anglo-Norman blazon reads "coue forchee", it shouldn't be interpreted to equate to the modern "qeue fourché(e)"; maybe what heraldists consider "qeue fourché(e)" today wasn't used way back in de Braose's day. I'm not sure; I can't read Anglo-Norman either. Any objections if I place the shield in the infobox?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
No objection from me. Doug (at Wiki) 01:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand what you are saying? neither of those sources(the website or the book) are original sources, and both of them are modern. My guess is that Brian Timms rendered all those arms from the blazon, and it is he that does not make the distinction between a tail doubled queued and one coue forchee. There are examples of both in that roll, and they are depicted the same way by Timms. Of course Fox-Davies says that the terms were at one point interchangable, at which point he is not clear. Of course if the terms are interchangeable, so are the designs. Therefore, in de Braose's time artists may have depicted his lion with either a double or forked tail. However, now since all blazons use the term fourche, that is what a modern herald would draw. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I think you are basically agreeing with me. Actual examples of arms depicted in the 13th century are rare. Doug (at Wiki) 01:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Joan is actually the dauhghter of William Sr, as her mother is Aline, given theres no sources it's difficult to check the origional poster.
http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/BOHUN.htm#James%20DE%20BOHUN%20of%20Midhurst  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.103.225 (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC) 
No. The site you quote is wrong. A good source is Complete Peerage Vol 2 under Brewes. Since that was written it has been proved (see Vol 14 p111 ) that Joan's mother was called Agnes. Doug (at Wiki) 09:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)