I may have just proven that Sir Roger de Puttenham was armigerous.

Question

Robert de Puttenham, who held the Manors of Puttenham and Long Marston in 1414-15. Named in License on the Patent Rolls in 1400, Subsidy Roll 1428 and in Inqn. held at Berkhampsted 1429. His name was returned as a gentleman of Arms 1433. In 1428 and 1429 his name appears as a Witness to Deeds on the Close Rolls. Of whom later.

According to this Robert de Puttenham was a Gentleman of arms. I believe this supports that Sir Roger de Puttenham is armigerous but I have no proof of what his arms looked like. I would assume that they would be similar if not the same as Roberts.

Comments

I would have thought that, a fortiori, Sir Roger being a knight, he would have been necessarily armigerous.

Otherwise, the fact that his son was armigerous doesn't necessarily prove that his father was, as the grant of arms to Robert could possibly have been a new one.

---

The problem is no one knows what Sir Roger de Puttenham arms were. I assume that his arms would be similar or the same as his Decendants. However some people say not all knights had arms. They try to use that to say Sir Roger de Puttenham may not have had arms. I believe however in his time period most Knights had arms. So it is more than likely that he did have arms.

Answer 1

Not an answer, but have you already seen this?

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/herts/vol2/pp261-264

Comments

I think I have but thank you.

Answer 2

The profile says the information on it is sourced by the profile creator's firsthand knowledge. Some trick having firsthand knowledge of someone who lived in the 14th century...

Answer 3

Have you consulted the College of Arms? https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/services/genealogical-research

Comments

Yes I have but they didn't start collecting records until much later. I don't have exact date right now.

---

Fair enough. If they don't have any record of his bearings, then they probably remain undiscovered for now - which you probably already knew.