IV. JULY, 1918.]
NOTES AND QUERIES.
191
THOMAS FULLER'S FIRST WIFE.
(12 S. iv. 121.)
lT?is so important that all statements of pedigree and genealogy should be accurate that I desire to correct some errors in MB. J. F. FULLER'S note. My illegible hand- writing may have been the cause, or a con- tributory cause, of the mistakes, for I gave MB. FTJLLEB all the information I had some time back (I think in November, 1914), viz., the fact that Thomas Fuller married Eleanor Grove ; the baptism of Judeth, their daughter, at Enford on April 29, 1639 (not 1635) ; and the burial of Eleanor Fuller at Broad Winsor in 1641. I also told him all I knew about her parentage, as stated now in correction.
Thomas Fuller married Eleanor, daughter of Hugh (not William) Grove of Chisenbury (not Chiesbury) in the parish of Enford, Wilts.
For some time I have been trying to discover evidence of the marriage (or, as I think most likely, marriages) of Hugh Grove. According to the pedigree in Hoare's ' Wilts,' his wife's Christian name was Dorothy ; according to a statement in Hutchins's ' Dorset ' in the pedigree of Swaine of Gunville, Eleanor, daughter of Robert Swaine and of Margaret his wife, married Hugh Grove. Probably the first
wife was Dorothy , and the second
Eleanor Swaine. If this be the fact, Eleanor Grove, who married Thomas Fuller, was only a half-sister of Hugh Grove who suffered at Exeter pro rege et lege.
I cannot follow MB. FULLER'S argument that any reason existed for keeping the fact of the marriage quiet.
The pedigree runs thus :
Hugh, youngest son of William Grove (who purchased Ferne in 1563) and of Thomasine Mayhewe his wife, held lands of St. Katherine's Hospital at Chisenbury in the parish of Enford, by lease dated Sept. 15, 16 Charles I. (1640), for the lives of his sons Hugh and Robert and his grandson Hugh : he appears to have married first
Dorothy , and secondly Eleanor Swaine.
His children were :
1. Hugh, who married Jane, daughter of William Grove, second son of William the purchaser of Feme (and had issue Hugh and John), and was beheaded at Exeter on May 16, 1655.
2. Robert.
3. William, Rector of Poulshot, Wilts.
4. Eleanor, married Thomas Fuller. She died in 1641, and was b'uried at Broad Winsor, Dorset. Judeth their daughter was baptized at Enford on April 29, 1639. John their son was baptized at Broad Winsor by his father, June 6, 1641.
5. Margaret, aged 20 in 1631, married Amyas Hext, Rector of Babcary.
6. Katherine, baptized Feb. 15, 1606; married on Sept. 8, 1626, at Salisbury Cathedral, the Rev. Edward Davenant, D.D. ; buried at Gillingham, Dorset, May 2, 1672 (M.I. Gillingham). " John Dauenant, the son of Mr. Edward Dauenant, was baptized the 17th of June, 1627" (Enford Register).
After Robert, the children in the above list are not in order of birth. '$
JOHN J. HAMMOND. Salisbury.
TAX ON ARMORIAL BEARINGS.
(12 S. iv. 12, 79.)
MB. JUSTICE UDAL makes a most valuable reply on this subject ; the matter is perhaps of wider interest than at first appears.
I may assure MB. UDAL that the de- struction of historical heraldry in con- sequence of this tax is far greater than he seems to imagine. I have already referred to a lady within my personal acquaintance who has had all the crests and coats of arms removed from a large number of silver articles (inherited, not bought), representing no fewer than four families of Cheshire, with their connexions with each other. Another friend, a Yorkshire lawyer, tells me he cannot pay any superfluous taxation when he returns to England, and so all his family heirlooms (inherited) will have to be treated in the same way. On the other hand, a third friend, who has but slender claim to " old descent," and therefore perhaps values a " self-made " badge all the more, is apparently quite content to pay for it. Such seems to be the actual working of this tax at the present moment.
Heraldic anomalies connected with the tax are almost too numerous to admit of any tabulation, and only a few of the more prominent can be alluded to. For instance :
Armorial bearings are bearings, crests, or ensigns, or any kind of emblem, whatever it may be called, but I see nowhere that such emblems must necessarily be of an heraldic character. A rebus or group ^ of letters on a shield is certainly armorial,
