England
Cecil of Wimbledon and Putney
- Family / house
- Cecil
- Family / cadet branch
- Cecil of Wimbledon and Putney, third-son branch of Exeter
- Armiger / bearer
- Edward Cecil, 1st Viscount Wimbledon
- Entity type
- cadet_branch
- Social rank / class
- peer
- Heraldic authority
- English armorial usage; Surrey county heraldic record
- Record basis
- recording
- Issued / first recorded
- 1625
- Until / superseded
- 1638-11-16
- Historical period
- Jacobean and Caroline
- Grant / record reference
- Created Baron Cecil of Putney and Viscount Wimbledon, 1625
- Blazon
- Barry of ten Argent and Azure, over all six escutcheons Sable, three, two and one, each charged with a lion rampant Argent. Crest: A garb Or supported by two lions, the dexter Argent and the sinister Azure. Motto: COR UNUM VIA UNA.
- Plain-English description
- Edward used the same hereditary Cecil shield as his father and elder brother, with the family crest of a golden sheaf supported by a silver lion and a blue lion. His title and residence created a distinct cadet identity centred on Wimbledon and Putney, although no shield difference is securely documented in the cited source.
- Tinctures
- Argent; Azure; Sable; Or
- Charges / ordinaries
- six escutcheons; six lions rampant; garb; two lions
- Crest
- A garb Or supported by two lions, the dexter Argent and the sinister Azure.
- Motto
- COR UNUM VIA UNA
- Exterior ornaments
- Viscount's coronet in full achievement; no securely evidenced inherited shield difference in the cited Surrey record.
- Difference / variant
- Distinct cadet-branch record for Edward as a titled younger son. The shield remains the Exeter Cecil design rather than a separately differenced coat in the cited evidence.
- Source reference
- Surrey Coats of Arms, A–H, Surrey County Council
- Source
- Open source
Genealogical context
- Father
- Thomas Cecil, 1st Earl of Exeter
- Mother
- Dorothy Neville
Documented depiction
Notes / sources
The cited county record supports the use of the undifferenced Cecil coat by Edward's titled branch. It should not be interpreted as proof that every later Cecil bearing the same shield belonged to this branch.