4. kapittel, 1. del: Adelsvåpen

la Roche-våpenet
Vignett

Oppdatert 25. juni 2001
Jæger-tavlen og kopiene av den inneholder ytterligere syv våpenskjold ved siden av de Créqui-våpenet som vises i forrige kapittel . Disse syv våpenskjoldene dannet grunnlaget for den " formentlige anetavle " som både Charles Delgobe og Axel Kielland presenterte på tampen av 1800-tallet (se kapittel 5 ).

Pr idag er det kun Jæger-tavlen som gir oss noen som helst indikasjon på Ahasverus de Créqui dit la Roches anetavle.


Jæger-tavlen danner dermed utgangspunktet for arbeidet med å bekrefte og forhåpentligvis også utvide denne anetavlen. Dette har så langt vist seg å være en problematisk materie.


Olaf Jæger gjorde et grundig arbeid i 1934 da han gjennom nederlandske arkiver undersøkte noen av våpenskjoldene nærmere (NST IV, 1934). Denne undersøkelsen avdekket at det ikke var samsvar mellom navn og de pr 1934 kjente våpenskjold for familiene Rengers, Hangereuen og Worthuysen. Ut over det nøyde Jæger seg med å si at Olderingk etter all sannsynlighet var hollandsk, og at de tre øvrige navnene - Delordelie, la Roche og de Leis - uten tvil var franske.


Nedenfor tar vi tak i alle disse navnene og våpenskjoldene hver for seg. De diskuteres i forhold til de norske kildene ( Jæger
, Kielland , Delgobe ), utenlandsk litteratur og internettkilder.


Det understrekes på det sterkeste at det som presenteres i dette kapittelet må betraktes som et grovtygget forskningsmateriale. Hensikten er å presentere nye, mulige teorier omkring disse våpenskjoldene. Her vil forekomme feil og motstridende tanker, men vårt håp er at vi gjennom dette arbeidet skal kunne fravriste Jæger-tavlen noen av dens hemmeligheter.

  1. As far as I know, Ahasverus de Crequi, dit or de la Roche, carried from the middle of the 17th century, the coat of arms of the family of de Crequi, simple and entirely, proof that he claims all the symbolics and that he is a direct descendant. The only diviation is in the cimier (the helmet): the gold ring, not understood (or for another reason) has been transformed into two entwined snakes, in the image of necks of swans. The fact that the blazon is simple and not quartered denies the possibility of a descendancy on the female side, as it was somestimes the case. As an example the Crequy-Blanchefort, descendants of Marie de Crequy, dead in 1610, but who by their blazons show the numerous ancestries and the lions of Blachefort.The House of Crequy is surely of good and high nobility, but is has been divided into multiple branches, with very diversified social status. On the other hand one must also recognize the numerous bastard branches, known since the 14th century, and which have particularly spread in the region of Crequy, in Flanders and no doubt elsewhere. The branches have preserved, in general, the prestigious memory of their origins, even if we can suppose that in certain cases they were usurped. It is not impossible that the Crequy-La Roche could be the issues of these bastard branches.There has indisputably been an alliance, towards the middle of the 16th century, between the Créyuys and de la Roches, as the blazon of Ahasverus shows it, and this one, to myknowledge does not show in the numerous genealogies that I know and quite couriously it has been ignored by genealogists of the 17th and 18th centuries (Pierre d'Hozier, La Morliere, le pere Anselme, la Chesnaye-Dubois) for the most serious and complete works, among which we must also rank the anonymous author of Add. 21.436 in the British Library, which is connected to the branch of Crequy-Frohans.The de la Roches, the arms of Ahasverus, carry " a red field with a black mountain" . To my knowledge, and I have made reference to de Renesse, Heraldic Figures, the La Roches ofBritanny (Bretagne) are showing their arms the same way, " Black Mountain on a Gold Field" and not on a red field. The Mountain (or rock) is also shown with the de la Roche duForez-Lyonnais. Perhaps some french sources to be explored further.There exits, in the British Library, a collection of manuscripts which supposedly comes from the Crequy-Frohans (18th century) and I am now giving you the list. The family LaRoche is mentioned here. Why not another source? The genealogists state that Hector de Crequy, founder of the branch de Crequy-Frohans, married in 1583 Louise Van Dorp, daughter of aDutch admiral. Not a single descendant of this couple has ben listed and Hector had his legitimate heirs of a second union. It is known that he fathered some bastards of whom we are not certain that we possess a complete list. Is this a source?