The Arms of Sir Francis Drake

The kinship Sir Francis claimed with the Drakes of Ashe, whose head was Sir Bernard Drake, is also a matter vulnerable to debate. The Ashe Drakes were seated at Musbury since about the year 1400 when Ashe house was acquired by marriage to the heiress of Billett of Ashe. These Drakes entered a pedigree at the Visitation of Devon in 1564 which carried the family back to the early 15^th Century through a series of John Drakes. The entry shows marriages to a number of heiresses, which brought not only property, but several heraldic quarterings into the family.(23) By the time of Sir Francis, the Drakes of Ashe were one of the wealthiest private families in Devon. They later acquired several knighthoods and at least two baronetcies, though these were lost through failure of male heir. The daughter of John Drake of Ashe married Sir Winston Churchill in 1643, and their son, John, later the first Duke of Marlborough, was born at Ashe House. The Drakes lent their wyvern to the Churchills as a supporter for their arms. (Fig. 14) The Churchill duke’s sister Arabella became one of the mistresses of King James II.


Fig. 13 Drake arms on Plymouth Hoe monument	Fig. 14 Arms of Churchill, Dukes of Marlborough

Sir Francis Drake, on the other hand, was born on the small estate of Crowndale, near Tavistock, way over in west Devon. He told the historian Camden that he was born of "mean parentage" in the county of Devonshire.(24) By "mean" we understand that he meant "middle class," or perhaps what might be called yeoman status. Evidence of Drakes of Tavistock in the Devon subsidies shows that they were of above average prosperity, perhaps close to the threshold between the yeomanry and the gentry. Nevertheless, these Drakes do not appear in the visitations until 1620, after Sir Francis had achieved his fame and fortune, and subsequently left much of his money to his heir, his brother Thomas.

Lady Elliott-Drake, in her The Family and Heirs of Sir Francis Drake notes that Drakes can be found in Tavistock since the reign of Edward III. The earliest direct ancestor of Sir Francis that she found was one Simon Drake, who leased Crowndale in Tavistock during the reign of Henry VIII and who made his will in 1534.(25)

This evidence demonstrates that not only was there a geographical separation between the Drakes of Ashe and the Drakes of Tavistock, but there was also an economic disparity. These points, as well as the lack of any definite evidence to the contrary, have led many historians and genealogists to discount a family connection.

Supporting the theory that the two families were related is evidence that Sir Francis Drake and Sir Bernard Drake were on friendly terms. Sir Francis loaned money to the Drakes of Ashe, and he mentioned Richard Drake of Esher, brother of Sir Bernard, in his will, calling him "cousin." Richard Drake, in turn, named his son Francis in honor of the circumnavigator. After the Armada, Richard Drake kept one of the Spanish prisoners, Don Pedro de Valdez, at his manor under house arrest.(26) The mere fact that Sir Francis apparently thought that he could get Sir Bernard’s acquiescence to the interpolation allowing the wyvern quartering in his arms suggests he felt comfortable in presuming upon their amity.

Assuming that there was good will during the lifetimes of Sir Francis and Sir Bernard, it seems to have turned sour after their deaths. Thomas Drake, Sir Francis’ brother and heir, was apparently as ill-liked as his brother was admired. He tried to foreclose on the loans to the Drakes of Ashe, and this prompted hard feelings all around. It was during this era that the story Prince told in Worthies of Devon surfaced, and it has been suggested that hard feelings were what prompted the telling of what was perhaps hyperbole.

Some people suppose that Sir Francis Drake and Richard Drake of Esher had mutual incentives in admitting a kinship that wasn’t there. Sir Francis perhaps wanted to validate a connection to the Drakes of Ashe. On the other hand, Sir Francis was childless, and perhaps Richard Drake hoped that his son, Sir Francis’ namesake, might become Sir Francis’ principal heir. When the possibility of this inheritance fell through, the claimed relationship might have been disavowed. On the other hand, some believe the relationship was genuine, but was soured by the tension which later developed between the two families.

The interpolated clause proposes that Sir Francis be allowed the ancient arms of the Drakes of Ashe with the difference of a third brother. This has led some genealogists to force an identification between the grandfather of Sir Francis, who was named John, and one of the several John Drakes of Ashe who were ancestors of Sir Bernard. It should be obvious that this cannot be the case.

Due to the hereditary nature of coats-of-arms, the key to resolving the controversy is ultimately genealogical. In the 19^th Century Henry H. Drake argued for a connection between the Drakes of Tavistock and the armigerous Drakes of Ashe using indirect evidence such as onomastics and lateral relationships. Even the detractors based their arguments on the evident lack of connection between the two families. As it turns out, the new evidence which can now be marshaled is basically genealogical and is two-fold.

The first is that research in the manorial records of Tavistock Abbey allows the pedigree of the Drakes of Tavistock, including the plausible placement of the Admiral’s forebears, to be extended to the beginning of the 14^th Century. These records were apparently unavailable during the intensive interest in the Admiral’s pedigree about one hundred years ago. I suspect they were held in the estate papers of the Dukes of Bedford. Many records of this type have now been deposited in the county record offices, and in this way it is likely this information has become available.

Using these sources primarily, a connected pedigree of the Tavistock Drakes can be extended to one Osbert Drake who begins to appear in the records about 1300.(27)

Another new development bearing on the pedigree of Drake in Devon is the recovery of a portion of the content of the lost muniments of the Drakes of Ashe. These records have been missing since at least the 17^th Century, perhaps destroyed in one of the fires at the seat of the Drakes at Ashe House, Musbury. Through the years a number of researchers sought for them, but without success.(30) However, it seems that Sir William Pole had transcribed them in a book of evidences which were later copied by Peter Le Neve. In various articles, Henry H. Drake refers to several ancient Drake charters sealed with an eagle displayed and a wyvern.(31) He attributed these to Le Neve, but it appears he did not realize their true significance. He mentions that he saw the book of evidences in the library of Charles Prideaux Brune of Padstow.

However, though it seems improbable, the author first found a transcription in the manuscript collection of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.(32) From internal evidence, this short series of abstracts was clearly from the same material to which H. H. Drake referred. This was later confirmed from hand notes of the same documents found in the manuscript papers of H. H. Drake, now at the Society of Genealogists, London.(33) The original le Neve version was finally located in the Devon Record Office with the note that it was given to Edmund Prideaux by Peter le Neve, sometime Norroy King of Arms, and by Charles G. Prideaux Brune to Henry H. Drake, and ultimately placed in the record office. The North Carolina version contains the important note that these are from the papers of "Mr. Drake of Aish," identifying the source of the abstracts as the Ashe muniments.

Both are undated, but from the context the former can be placed at approximately 1230 C.E., and the latter at approximately 1280 C.E. It was the former which was sealed with the eagle displayed and the latter with the wyvern.

It took some time to understand the import of these documents, but once realized they have an impact difficult to overestimate. The name Osbert is extremely rare in the Drake family, and it is reasonable to identify the Osbert of the charter with the Osbert at Tavistock around 1300 C.E. Roger Drake who was among the witnesses is likely the Roger Drake who held one-half knight’s fee at Dartington in Stanborough Hundred in 1303.(34) Both documents refer to land in Worcestershire where the name Drake occurs at dates earlier than it occurs in Devon.

In other words, the charter of a Tavistock Drake involving land in Worcester was found among the muniments of the Drakes of Ashe. This also means the earliest occurrence discovered so far of the use of the wyvern was by a Tavistock Drake. The two families appear to share Ralph, of the first charter, as a common ancestor in Worcester in the early 13^th Century.

One additional bit of genealogical evidence is relevant to the arms of the Drakes of Devon, although it doesn’t flow from the charters just discussed. At the inquisition of 1303 Roger Drake was holding land at Herneford near Dartington. Drakes were still holding land there in 1525 (17 Henry VIII) when an inquisition post mortem was taken following the death of one Robert Drake, evidenced as the heir of Hugh Drake of Herneford.(35) His heirs were his daughters Margery and Elizabeth.

This evidence indicates that a line of Drakes in Devon persisted on the same property near Dartington for two hundred years or so before dying out in heiresses. This happened long after the Drakes were established at Ashe and Tavistock. Therefore, there were at least three main branches of Devon Drakes, a branch at Dartington, those at Ashe, and the descendants of Osbert at Tavistock.

Although a detailed genealogical analysis is beyond the scope of this paper, the relationships can be depicted in the accompanying pedigree.(36) (Fig. 15)

Fig. 15 Drake of Devon, principal lines

Although the documentary evidence in heraldic documents is inconclusive, new genealogical evidence supports the right of Sir Francis Drake to the arms featuring the wyvern gules. A likely common descent can be demonstrated for both the Drakes of Ashe and the Drakes of Tavistock, of which family Sir Francis was a member. The sigillographic evidence demonstrates that those who should now be termed the Drakes of Devon used arms featuring a wyvern at a date prior to the separation of the pedigree into the broad lines of Dartington, Ashe, and Tavistock branches.

The eagle displayed, which Sir Francis Drake favored as a crest, is uncommonly encountered in the records of the Drakes of Ashe. It was surely part of their ancestors’ arms at one time, and a memory of it is preserved in the Drake motto: aquila non captat muscas. The eagle does occur in one document originally at Ashe involving land in Worcester. This lends credence to Henry H. Drake’s suggestion that Sir Francis had examined, or was aware of, the ancient seals, for he had to get his inspiration from somewhere.

Furthermore, the Cooke interpolation, which would difference the arms of Sir Francis’ branch of the family with the difference of a third brother, might also suggest Drake was aware of the three branches outlined above. Neither Sir Francis, nor Sir Bernard, could have entertained any illusion that the mark was to difference among Sir Bernard’s immediate family. A broader division of the family had to have been intended.

The evidence suggests that Sir Francis was convinced of his right to the wyvern arms, and it turns out he was right. The Clarenceux Cooke document suggests the heralds were willing to confirm those ancient arms to Sir Francis, although Cooke has been accused of being altogether too accommodating. In the final analysis, Sir Bernard may have remained reluctant, for there must be some basis for the Prince’s story, no matter how exaggerated.

The commemorative design of Sir Francis’ new arms is of the nature of an augmentation. The lack of clear evidence that they were intended as such, however, leaves Sir Francis with dual coats, and what might be called an "accidental augmentation."