File:Discipline coat-of-arms, Pakenham.jpg
Original file (3,648 × 2,736 pixels, file size: 2.38 MB, MIME type: image/jpeg)
Captions
Summary
editDescriptionDiscipline coat-of-arms, Pakenham.jpg |
Pakenham Church, Suffolk, hatchment (dexter/husband's side black) for funeral of Thomas Discipline, JP, of Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, who married Merilina Spring, one of the two surviving sisters and co-heiresses of Sir William Spring, 4th Baronet (d.1737), of Packenham (children of w:Sir Thomas Spring, 3rd Baronet (1672–1704) by his wife Hon. Merolina Jermyn, the daughter and co-heiress of Thomas Jermyn, 2nd Baron Jermyn). William's estates descended to his two sisters, but the baronetcy was inherited by his uncle Sir John Spring, 5th Baronet (1674–1740). (The English Baronetage:: Containing a Genealogical and Historical Account of ...
By Thomas Wotton, Vol II, London, 1741, p.243[1]). The other sister was Mary Spring, wife of the Revd. John Symonds, Rector of Horningsheath. Merilina's share of the Spring inheritance included the manor of Packenham, conveyed to her in 1748. Thomas Discipline had by her two daughters, Merilina Discipline and Delariviere Discipline, one of whom married John Godbold and died childless. the manor of Packenham was sold by John Godbold and his wife in 1786 to Sir Henry Gough Calthorpe, who inherited the Hampshire estates of his uncle Sir Henry Calthorpe KB, who was elevated to the peerage in 1796 with the title of Baron Calthorpe of County Norfolk. (Source: https://www.pakenham-village.co.uk/History/PV2Mbk/PV2Mbk-s10-C7-ManorsOfPakenham.htm). Arms: Discipline: Argent, on a mount vert a falcon rising proper belled or in chief three mullets gules (Arms granted to "DISCIPLINE of Bury" on 23 June 1731, per Davy . Misc . Gen. 4th. S. II, I 16). (Source: Corder, Joan, Dictionary of Suffolk Arms, Vol.VII, Suffolk Records Society, 1965, p.125[2]) with inescutcheon of pretence of quarterly of 4:
|
Date | |
Source |
Photograph taken in Pakenham |
Author | WestminsterWatch |
Licensing
editPermission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled GNU Free Documentation License.http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.htmlGFDLGNU Free Documentation Licensetruetrue |
- You are free:
- to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
- to remix – to adapt the work
- Under the following conditions:
- attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- share alike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original.
File history
Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time.
Date/Time | Thumbnail | Dimensions | User | Comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
current | 11:19, 6 September 2013 | 3,648 × 2,736 (2.38 MB) | WestminsterWatch (talk | contribs) | {{subst:Upload marker added by en.wp UW}} {{Information |Description = {{en|The coat-of-arms of Sir Thomas Spring, Bt on a hatchment in Pakenham church,}} |Source = Photograph taken in Pakenham<br/> '''Previously published:''' Published only on Wikiped... |
You cannot overwrite this file.
File usage on Commons
The following page uses this file:
- File:Spring coat-of-arms, Pakenham.jpg (file redirect)
File usage on other wikis
The following other wikis use this file:
- Usage on en.wikipedia.org
- Usage on fr.wikipedia.org
- Usage on www.wikidata.org
Metadata
This file contains additional information such as Exif metadata which may have been added by the digital camera, scanner, or software program used to create or digitize it. If the file has been modified from its original state, some details such as the timestamp may not fully reflect those of the original file. The timestamp is only as accurate as the clock in the camera, and it may be completely wrong.
Camera manufacturer | SONY |
---|---|
Camera model | DSC-W320 |
Exposure time | 1/30 sec (0.033333333333333) |
F-number | f/3.2 |
ISO speed rating | 400 |
Date and time of data generation | 15:15, 9 July 2013 |
Lens focal length | 6.74 mm |
Orientation | Normal |
Horizontal resolution | 72 dpi |
Vertical resolution | 72 dpi |
File change date and time | 15:15, 9 July 2013 |
Y and C positioning | Co-sited |
Exposure Program | Normal program |
Exif version | 2.21 |
Date and time of digitizing | 15:15, 9 July 2013 |
Meaning of each component |
|
Image compression mode | 3 |
APEX exposure bias | 0 |
Maximum land aperture | 2.875 APEX (f/2.71) |
Metering mode | Center weighted average |
Light source | Unknown |
Flash | Flash did not fire, compulsory flash suppression |
Supported Flashpix version | 1 |
Color space | sRGB |
File source | Digital still camera |
Scene type | A directly photographed image |
Custom image processing | Normal process |
Exposure mode | Auto exposure |
White balance | Auto white balance |
Scene capture type | Standard |
Contrast | Normal |
Saturation | Normal |
Sharpness | Normal |