RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Jayson on Tuesday 02 February 16 11:05 GMT (UK)
-
I'm sure this topic has been covered many times before and apologise for going over old ground but nevertheless I'd be really interested to know if any members here have established a royal connection and the sources used to prove it.
Quite by accident, last weekend when I had nothing else better to do, I decided to do a little research and found a possible royal connection via an old family tree of the Stanley family of West Bromwich which I found in a book relating to the history of Staffordshire.
In it my ancestor John Wolseley of Wolseley was said to have been married to Elizabeth Stanley. Not knowing anything about her apart from the information given on this little tree. I decided to look at her ancestry in more detail. Her father was George Stanley. But her mother, Eleanor, according to the family tree was the daughter of John, Lord Dudley. Going back through his Dudley ancestry on Wikipedia I reached the marriage of Sir John Sutton to Katherine Stafford. But in the footnotes section there seems to have been some confusion as to the identity of John Sutton's first wife. Was it Katherine Stafford or Margaret Mortimer? I don't really know.
Katherine's parents were Ralph Stafford and Margaret Audley. Margaret Audley was the only child and heir of Hugh Audley by his wife Margaret de Clare. And it was through Margaret de Clare I found the supposed royal link. Her mother, Joan, was the daughter of Edward 1.
I don't really know what to make of it and want someone to tell me I'm barking up the wrong tree. ::)
-
I have recently whilst browsing collateral lines found a very distant connection to royalty but I mean very distant.
In no way is it a blood connection as it was through children of a sibling of a person married one of my ancestors.
But it was interesting to me and would have been really interesting to my mother had she been alive now, but for personal reasons rather than the distant connection to royalty.
Cheers
Guy
PS you may find Leo van Pas' Genealogics site of interest
http://www.genealogics.org
-
Thank you for the link, Guy.
I've been trying use as many sources as possible like Burke's Gentry and Peerage for instance but how reliable these sources actually are is open to question as I have found errors and contradictions from volume to volume when I've checked against parish registers, etc.
I wonder what sources Burke and other genealogists like him used before parish registers began?
-
There are many sources prior to parish registers many which extend after parish registers in the same way as parish registers extend after civil registers.
However be aware medieval documents will normally be written in Latin.
Patent rolls 1201 to the present day, Fine Rolls, Charter Rolls, Close Rolls, Wills, Inquisitions Post Mortem, various types of Court Records, including Court of Wards which dealt with inheritance.
There were land records, muster records, a hundred and one different types of tax records etc. etc.
However be aware many of these records as with parish registers may require more evidence to ascertain relationships fully.
Cheers
Guy
-
"Burke's Gentry and Peerage" the 1840's equivalent of "Ancestry Trees" or from Oscar Wilde "..it is the best thing in fiction the English have ever done!"
-
The problem with listing names without dates is it can be hard to establish which specific person you are talking about. This is especially true in families that repeat a lot of names as both the Sutton's and Dudley's do.
I would be inclined to say what Wikipedia has told you is wrong and that you need more research, this is not to say you will not be able to establish a gateway ancestor that will take you back to royalty just that you have not done so, so far. I have seen various estimates from 25 to 40 per cent of "English" people can trace their ancestry to royalty if only the paperwork survived ! ;)
A site i use that has lots on royal and noble families is
http://roglo.eu/roglo?lang=en (use roglo.eu/roglo?lang=en if it does not work with the http:// prefix)
but this site does not confirm Eleanor married to George Stanley, if I have the right pair
http://roglo.eu/roglo?lang=en;i=3009829
However it does confirm Catherine Strafford as the daughter of Ralph Stafford and Margaret Audley, and the wife of John Sutton
http://roglo.eu/roglo?lang=en;i=2115473
-
"Burke's Gentry and Peerage" the 1840's equivalent of "Ancestry Trees" or from Oscar Wilde "..it is the best thing in fiction the English have ever done!"
No don't confuse the authoritative records of the 19th century Burke's Peerage to the later compliations of the 20th century after the titles & name were sold off.
As with all records there were errors, partly due to the Heralds Visitations of earlier times containing errors and forgeries but in the main Burkes was a good source.
Cheers
Guy
-
In the same way "Ancestry Trees" is a good source, provided they have done the research properly. But a "Source" it can only be, it's up to you to check the original record.
-
In answer to davidft
Yes, you have the correct couple according to the family tree that I have.
My own family appear in Burke's Gentry (1908 and 1937 editions) under Bayley of Willaston Hall which makes reference to the Wolseley family of Wolseley Hall and the Bayleys connection to them. The current edition of Burke's Peerage under Wolseley of Wolseley names Elizabeth Stanley as the daughter of George Stanley, of Bromwich, Staffs, and that her husband was John Wolseley who died in 1553. But what it doesn't say of course is who George's wife actually was.
This I found in an old book on the history of the county of Staffordshire (not from Wikipedia) which has Eleanor, daughter of John, Lord Dudley, widow of Henry Beaumont and wife of George Stanley.
Frustratingly, Wikipedia doesn't mention the daughters of the 1st Baron Dudley by his wife Elizabeth Berkeley. Only his four sons are mentioned.
I agree with Guy re Burke as a good source. Although I have found errors in it on balance it has proved to be more reliable than unreliable.
Jay ;)
-
Hello Jayson,
a useful source is Plantagenet Roll of the Blood Royal which is on Google books and downloadable elsewhere:
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Plantagenet_Roll_of_the_Blood_Royal.html?id=O1BmAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y
Or I understand it can be used through Ancestry if you have it.
If you can find a specific ancestor named in that book (there is more than one volume I think) then your line can be followed up to the appropriate Royal Family member. It is not exhaustive however, but is a good place to start. I would check it by searching surnames.
Best of luck.
I would add that the same caution should be used with this work as with any other. Clearly a good set of cross-checks is needed to confidently make a claim like Royal descent.
-
I hope my initial comments did not dishearten you too much. Of course it could be that your connections could be proved in due course just at the moment I think they need a little more substantiation although I have no immediate suggestion as to whence that will come. Good luck with your continued search.
-
"Burke's Gentry and Peerage" the 1840's equivalent of "Ancestry Trees" or from Oscar Wilde "..it is the best thing in fiction the English have ever done!"
No don't confuse the authoritative records of the 19th century Burke's Peerage to the later compliations of the 20th century after the titles & name were sold off.
As with all records there were errors, partly due to the Heralds Visitations of earlier times containing errors and forgeries but in the main Burkes was a good source.
Cheers
Guy
I can add to this that there are uncontaminated originals of the Visitations held at the College of Arms, London. These are the only versions it is possible to be entirely sure of. It is expensive to have work done for you by a Herald, but possibly worth it when an essential key question arises that might be answered in this way.
-
My username demonstrates that I, too, have a vague notion that "just maybe".....
:)
Punting a wild guess, I'd guess that my line's descended from the Bishop of Ely, who allegedly had a child. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Stanley_(bishop)
All too hard to even start really. Some people need far more time/access to resources and money than others do to even start. Not to mention understanding stuff like old writing and Latin :)
Then to spend decades in dusty old (private) archives pawing through pages.... that you'd most likely only get access to if you were "already a known posh person".
:)
It'd be on my "If I won the lottery" list though....
-
I can add to this that there are uncontaminated originals of the Visitations held at the College of Arms, London. These are the only versions it is possible to be entirely sure of. It is expensive to have work done for you by a Herald, but possibly worth it when an essential key question arises that might be answered in this way.
The problem with the Heralds Visitations was the way they were compiled.
Heralds were not adverse to making a pedigree fit to enable the family comply with the requirements of the time or making a pedigree fit the family requirements.
Many visitations have been shown to contain errors and false entries.
Cheers
Guy
-
No, davidft, your comments haven't disheartened me in the least. I really appreciate what you and others here have to say because invariably I'm learning something new, especially from Guy who's very knowledgeable on the subject generally.
I wasn't looking for a royal link but just clicking randomly on various names to see where it would end. What I find frustrating is different answers to the same questions.
Thank David80 and Guy for your suggestions.
-
I can add to this that there are uncontaminated originals of the Visitations held at the College of Arms, London. These are the only versions it is possible to be entirely sure of. It is expensive to have work done for you by a Herald, but possibly worth it when an essential key question arises that might be answered in this way.
The problem with the Heralds Visitations was the way they were compiled.
Heralds were not adverse to making a pedigree fit to enable the family comply with the requirements of the time or making a pedigree fit the family requirements.
Many visitations have been shown to contain errors and false entries.
Cheers
Guy
Thank you Guy.
You are partially mistaken however. The Royal Commissions that produced the Visitations were instituted in the 16th and 17th centuries to establish the right of Armigers to the Coat-Armour that they claimed and used. Courts were held and evidence examined. Claimants were publically held ignoble if their claim failed and they were proved to have no right where Arms had been used, monuments and exemplars were removed and destroyed. The remnants of this purge can still be seen in some churches.
You've missed my point that the Visitations held at the College of Arms are uncontaminated by editing. These were the physical manuscripts which went to the King, and still exist. The ones which were published by the Harleian Society were taken from rough notes which were provided by the Heralds and then misused by the genealogists and editors who wrote the manuscripts to which we have public access.
I assure you that the Visitations held by the Heralds contain substantial differences from the ones that you refer to. For example the Hampshire visitation published in the late 1800s features a Lambert family of Surrey as a cadet branch of the Lamberts of Hampshire (Cavan) with a note thanking the chairman of the Surrey branch of the Antiquary Society for his editorial input (sic). After the publication by J. Horace Round, historical advisor to the Crown (published in the Ancestor 1902) entitled "The Tale of a Great Forgery" (concerning Lamberts) which warns against adding a family as a cadet branch to an armigerous family in order to claim Arms or a more illustrious pedigree - it was ever thus- unsurprisingly a later version of the same Visitation produced by a different editor makes no mention of the Surrey Lambert family referred to in the earlier Harleian Society Hampshire Visitation. It is no shock either that the Pedigree for Lambart Baron Cavan written by Norrey King of Arms in 1838 which was based on the original Visitation to which he had access makes no mention at all of the Surrey family. Ergo the Lamberts of Surrey were added in in bad faith as a cadet branch in the late 1800s.
So you are quite right that the Visitations produced by the Harleian Society are suspect and downright wrong in places, but you are quite wrong to say that the visitations themselves are fundamentally flawed at source, although obviously they still need to be taken in historical context.
Addenda- I should point out that the Lambert of Surrey Arms granted 1737 stand. These were not in question, only the Cavan link etc.
-
Where have I mentioned anything about the transcripts of Heralds Visitations, you assume I was referring to them when I was not, whether they were transcripts by the Harleian society or county record societies some of whom also made transcripts of some Visitation pedigrees.
The main difference between the early visitations and the later visitations were in the early days (pre 1560s) the heralds often stayed with the armiger in his home.
By the time of the later post 1560 many of the pedigrees had already been authenticated by use and were accepted by the heralds.
With regards to the College of Arms many of the pedigrees there are transcripts of the signed originals (original draft pedigrees signed by the armiger (the person whose pedigree was recorded)).
Many of these signed originals are in private hands rather than being at the College of Arms which rather shortsightedly had no use of them after they had been transcribed.
Cheers
Guy
-
Hello again Guy, thank you for your kind response.
We probably ought to make a new thread for this if you were to wish to continue here, it's getting off topic.
Where have I mentioned anything about the transcripts of Heralds Visitations, you assume I was referring to them when I was not, whether they were transcripts by the Harleian society or county record societies some of whom also made transcripts of some Visitation pedigrees.
The main difference between the early visitations and the later visitations were in the early days (pre 1560s) the heralds often stayed with the armiger in his home.
By the time of the later post 1560 many of the pedigrees had already been authenticated by use and were accepted by the heralds.
With regards to the College of Arms many of the pedigrees there are transcripts of the signed originals (original draft pedigrees signed by the armiger (the person whose pedigree was recorded)).
Many of these signed originals are in private hands rather than being at the College of Arms which rather shortsightedly had no use of them after they had been transcribed.
Cheers
Guy
The signed originals that you refer to: you've misunderstood. It was not "short sighted" as these were not needed by the College of Arms because the petitioner's submission was not necessarily taken at face value. Think of the stages between Visitation, petition, scrutiny and Grant (if you know the process- I'll assume that) and you'll see that it had to be so. What was officially recorded was the final version in a bound register, all of which were and are kept at the College and which could have been different from the original submission after scrutiny by the College.
Also you are entirely mistaken about this supposed difference between the earliest and later Visitations. The difference was not major, the Heralds still travelled, and saw the individuals in person. I don't know where you get that idea from, evidence please.
I suggest you might like to read chapter V pp.125-137 especially, of "The Right to Bear Arms" [Arthur C. Fox-Davies], (a College of Arms approved book) and in fact that whole chapter. Here it is stated, as everywhere else I've looked that all of the later visitations were at least centred on the county town of each region, and all pedigrees were amended and updated by the physical person of the Armiger fairly near their place of abode. That is why they were called "Visitations".
I realise that being contradicted may be rather irritating, and I'm sorry about that, but hopefully getting at the truth is what everyone is here for.
-
Without quoting chapter and verse, I have to agree with Guy on the Visitations. It has been proved that there are several pedigrees with fanciful origins. This is not to say that the descent from the original bearer of arms is not correct, but some of the ancestral links for the original bearers have been called into question.
As both of you have mentioned, it is a source, and like all sources, one to be used and compared with other sources.
-
David80
I've found your posts regarding this topic especially interesting.
In your opinion, do you think the College of Arms would have the relevant documentation to prove one way or another whether George Stanley's daughter Elizabeth (or Anne depending on which site one is on at the time) married John Wolseley?
Jayson :)
-
Hello Jayson, thank you.
I'm sorry about the mess I seem to have made on your line discussing records with Guy.
David80
I've found your posts regarding this topic especially interesting.
In your opinion, do you think the College of Arms would have the relevant documentation to prove one way or another whether George Stanley's daughter Elizabeth (or Anne depending on which site one is on at the time) married John Wolseley?
Jayson :)
The answer is if anyone has it, then they do. They might not but these ancestors are influential people so I would have thought it very likely. If you want to know then writing to them is the perfect way to go. The address is: The Herald in Waiting, College of Arms, Queen Victoria Street, London, EC4V 4BT.
But don't do that straight away. It costs. Not thousands, but it's very expensive. If you were to take that route you would have to find out everything you could for yourself first. Imagine if you queried them, paid, got your answer, then found that you'd got just one ancestor wrong in the link up to the ones you're asking them about, and the answer was not relevant to you after all. Disaster. So the College of Arms is the final destination once you are CERTAIN of what you are asking.
It's a long road. Does that help?
-
Heraldic Visitations have not been undertaken since the time of Charles II, and the type and level of proof required by the Heralds at the time varied with each Herald, Visitation and county, but all must be taken in historical context.
Whilst the original finished Visitations are at the College of Arms in London, the notes taken by the Heralds when visiting the counties became largely lost into private ownership.
No Visitation, whether the original finished article at the College of Arms, or the heavily edited versions now in print can be taken as primary source evidence when attempting to prove a family pedigree, whether for family history purposes or to claim the right to a Coat of Arms.
A Select Committee on Public Records in the United Kingdom 1800 specified eight categories of records:-
Visitation Books, Modern Pedigrees, Peers' Pedigrees, Baronets' Pedigrees, Funeral Certificates, Records of Royal Marriages, Coronations and Funerals, the Earl Marshal's Books, Books of Arms of the Nobility of the Knights of the Garter and the Bath, records of Grants of Arms.
Four more were added in the 19th century; Lists of Knights, Pedigrees of the Knights of the Bath, Scotch and Irish Registers and Partition Books. (with thanks to Thomas Woodcock, Garter)
Church birth death and marriage records were not required to be kept until 1538, although many did not start until later, and many have been lost to fire, flood, vermin, mould, wars etc.
To lodge a pedigree now at the College of Arms, it has to be backed up with primary source evidence, and will be checked by two Heralds before it is accepted.
Similarly, to claim the right to use a Coat of Arms, you have to back up your claim with primary source evidence back to a man known to the College of Arms as having a legal right to those arms, or to the person to whom the arms were granted or confirmed in their records. This is again checked by two Heralds.
If you are not concerned with English pedigrees or arms, please refer to the relevant grant issuing authority, such as the Court of the Lord Lyon in Scotland.
If only the same level of evidence and recording had been required in previous centuries, the task of drawing up a reliable and truthful pedigree would be much easier.
Historical records must always be taken in historical context, with a knowledge of the laws and politics of the period in history that you are researching.
-
Oscar Wilde famously claimed that Burke's Peerage was the greatest work of fiction yet published in the English language. ;D
Skoosh.
-
Actually, Oscar Wilde said that Burkes Family Records was the best example of fiction, in The Importance of Being Ernest.
Burkes Family Records was by Ashworth P Burke.1897, Burkes Peerage and Baronetage was by Sir Bernard Burke, Ulster King of Arms., with Ashworth P Burke as assistant.
-
David80
Thank for the above. I will do at bit more homework before I commit myself to unnecessary expenditure.
You haven't made a mess of this thread. I found your exchanges with Guy on this subject all very interesting ;)
Jay
-
Jayson, I'm very glad, and I have no doubt that Guy will be pleased that our exchange was fruitful in this way. A win for all.
-
Doesn't seem to be much doubt that I am descended from Royalty.
Doesn't do me much good though.
I know I am descended from Duncombes. Can trace with near 100% certainty to Cornwallis. Pretty simple from their via Bourkes Peerage. In fact Bourkes takes most of it out anyway once we get to Duncombe.
-
The signed originals that you refer to: you've misunderstood. It was not "short sighted" as these were not needed by the College of Arms because the petitioner's submission was not necessarily taken at face value. Think of the stages between Visitation, petition, scrutiny and Grant (if you know the process- I'll assume that) and you'll see that it had to be so. What was officially recorded was the final version in a bound register, all of which were and are kept at the College and which could have been different from the original submission after scrutiny by the College.
I fear you seem to have missed the point of the Visitations they were undertaken to investigate and stop the use of false “Arms” rather than provide a means to apply for a grant of “Arms”.
Basically, people who appeared at the visitation whose “Arms” were allowed did not have to apply for a grant of “Arms”. The Heralds recorded an approved user of “Arms” just as the Heralds recorded proved pedigree.
The signed originals were the pedigrees approved by the Heralds which were sent to the College of Arms and transcribed, then because the College had no further use for then many were returned to the family or disposed of by other methods.
They were the pedigrees which were accepted as “proved”.
One of the original ways of gaining “Arms” was by prescription there was no need for a grant.
The Book of St. Albans written before the foundation of the College of Arms states there are four ways to gain “Arms”
1. Arms borne by descent.
2. Arms borne by conquest.
3. Arms granted by a prince or lord.
4. Arms assumed by the bearer.
With regard to the “Arms assumed by the bearer” there are a number of these held by College of Arms and none have been disputed by the Heralds.
Cheers
Guy
-
Oh dear. No, Guy I have not missed the point of the Visitations, I explained what they were above if you care to read my posts properly. And I told YOU what the Visitations were for, again above. It is you who is missing or perhaps simply refusing to accept my points.
Further, you evade your own glaring errors instead of admitting them. Above, you deny that you were referring to the transcripts of the Visitations in order to try to beat me in an argument by blustering and by misdirection. Discuss things with me properly without indulging in this sort of thing or don't bother. Your insistence on trying to appear right all the time is both wearisome and rather tragic.
Here are the relevant parts of your posts next to each other so that you and everyone else can see what I mean.
Many visitations have been shown to contain errors and false entries.
Where have I mentioned anything about the transcripts of Heralds Visitations, you assume I was referring to them when I was not, whether they were transcripts by the Harleian society or county record societies some of whom also made transcripts of some Visitation pedigrees.
There are no other entities called "the Visitations" available to anyone except the College of Arms who have the originals, so either you mean those which I doubt you've seen, or you have not the faintest idea of what you are talking about.
I have covered the subject of the manner of the compilation of the visitations, to which you again refer which is the other possible angle, and have shown -with evidence- that you are again completely wrong. You have picked the wrong person to try to misdirect and barge into submission. Also this is not the way to welcome someone new to a board. Great shame on you. Apologise and desist.
I do not feel especially inclined to respond to you again until this has happened.
-
One of the original ways of gaining “Arms” was by prescription there was no need for a grant.
The Book of St. Albans written before the foundation of the College of Arms states there are four ways to gain “Arms”
1. Arms borne by descent.
2. Arms borne by conquest.
3. Arms granted by a prince or lord.
4. Arms assumed by the bearer.
With regard to the “Arms assumed by the bearer” there are a number of these held by College of Arms and none have been disputed by the Heralds.
The Book of Saint Albans or Boke of Seynt Albans, a compilation dated 1486, also known as "The Book of Hawking, Hunting and Blasing of Arms"
The section dealing with the laws of heraldry, "Liber Armorum" the source of which is alleged to be the works of Nicholas Upton (an English cleric, not a Herald, died abt 1457) entitled "De Studio Militari" , and some unpublished manuscripts known as "Richards Strangeways Book" around 1450.
The College of Arms, London was incorporated in 1484. They are a living, breathing institution who hold regular meetings and are constantly discussing and revising the Laws of Heraldry.
By using the present tense of "there ARE four ways to gain arms" I hope you are not suggesting that anyone can assume a Coat of Arms in the countries which come under the jurisdiction of the College of Arms now?
Assumed arms have no legal validity in modern day, assuming the arms of an extant line lays you open to the possibility of being sued by the family who do have the legal right to use them, or by the Lord Lyon in Scotland.
I will repeat a previous comment.
To have the legal right to use a Coat of Arms (under the jurisdiction of the College of Arms, London)
it is necessary to show, to the satisfaction of the Heralds, at the College of Arms, an unbroken male line of descent, with primary source evidence, from a man to whom arms were granted or confirmed, and ancient assumed arms will have been confirmed, or to petition for a new Grant of Arms, from the Earl Marshal as the representative of the sovereign, who is himself, of course, a lord.
-
The Book of Saint Albans or Boke of Seynt Albans, a compilation dated 1486, also known as "The Book of Hawking, Hunting and Blasing of Arms"
The section dealing with the laws of heraldry, "Liber Armorum" the source of which is alleged to be the works of Nicholas Upton (an English cleric, not a Herald, died abt 1457) entitled "De Studio Militari" , and some unpublished manuscripts known as "Richards Strangeways Book" around 1450.
The College of Arms, London was incorporated in 1484. They are a living, breathing institution who hold regular meetings and are constantly discussing and revising the Laws of Heraldry.
What is not taken into account is gaining “Arms” by prescription is analogous to common law and cannot be overturned by anything the College of Arms decrees.
The rules of Heraldry are based on custom and use rather than statute.
You should also remember the College of Arms is not the Authority of “Arms” in England and Wales the Authority is the Monarch, the College of Arms only act on her behalf and have no standing to change the rules of heraldry but they may make suggestions.
They may suggest new rules and practices but nothing may be changed without the approval of the monarch.
Incidentally Ireland (Which codified Heraldry after England did at a time when Ireland was under English rule) also accepted “Arms” held by prescription.
This is exemplified by the following written by Sir Bernard Burke (Ulster King of Arms) in 1875.
“...which have been proved to me to have been long borne by prescription, are confirmed, and do of right belong and appertain unto”
I assume the person who exercised control over the heraldic affairs of Ireland knew something about the subject!
By using the present tense of "there ARE four ways to gain arms" I hope you are not suggesting that anyone can assume a Coat of Arms in the countries which come under the jurisdiction of the College of Arms now?
In case English is not your first language let me explain.
I was quoting what was written in the book the phrase you are so worried about was a phrase used in a book in a period contemporary with a time when the use of “Arms” was important to life at the time.
The Heralds and the College of Arms accepted that “Arms” used by prescription were lawfully used. To suggest that such “Arms” could not be used would in one stroke wipe out a large proportion of “Arms” used since the 14th and 15th centuries which would make a mockery of heraldry.
Assumed arms have no legal validity in modern day, assuming the arms of an extant line lays you open to the possibility of being sued by the family who do have the legal right to use them, or by the Lord Lyon in Scotland.
I will repeat a previous comment.
To have the legal right to use a Coat of Arms (under the jurisdiction of the College of Arms, London)
it is necessary to show, to the satisfaction of the Heralds, at the College of Arms, an unbroken male line of descent, with primary source evidence, from a man to whom arms were granted or confirmed, and ancient assumed arms will have been confirmed, or to petition for a new Grant of Arms, from the Earl Marshal as the representative of the sovereign, who is himself, of course, a lord.
Do you not understand what it means to have “Arms” confirmed?
When “Arms” are confirmed the Herald looks at the how the “Arms” were used in the pedigree of the holder and checks to ensure the “Arms” of another have not been usurped.
As long as the “Arms” have been used in a lawful manner (and acquiring “arms” by prescription is one of the original lawful ways of gaining “Arms” in England & Wales) their use is confirmed.
Cheers
Guy
-
Hello David80,
Welcome to RootsChat I spot that you are a new member :)
Although we may have different views on RootsChat, it is important that the posts remain friendly. A choice of words used in a posting can upset folk or engage further in good conversation.
Regards
Sarah
-
In 1667 Sir William Dugdale as Garter King of Arms said that assumed arms used by a family for 80 years or more were to be allowed by prescription.
At the beginning of the 18th century Henry St George as Garter King of Arms began to undermine the principle of self assumed arms by prescription by refusing to confirm arms obtained in this way and insisted that they be formally granted.
So until the beginning of the 18th century coats of arms used by a family for 80 years or more were allowed by prescription. When Henry St George took over as Garter, this was stopped. Assumed arms by prescription are no longer allowed.
Most extant lines who obtained arms by prescription prior to the beginning of the 18th century will most likely have been confirmed by now.
You could refer to the College of Arms website www.college-of-arms.gov.uk , "Armorial bearings are hereditary. They can be borne and used by all the descendants in the legitimate male line of the person to whom they were originally granted or confirmed. To establish a right to arms by inheritance it is necessary to prove a descent from an ancestor who is already recorded as entitled to arms in the registers of the College of Arms" copyright College of Arms 2016.
His Grace the Duke of Norfolk has jurisdiction over all matters of heraldry given to him in his Letters Patent from the sovereign.
-
Oh dear. No, Guy I have not missed the point of the Visitations, I explained what they were above if you care to read my posts properly. And I told YOU what the Visitations were for, again above. It is you who is missing or perhaps simply refusing to accept my points.
Ok if that is what you feel I will take your post paragraph by paragraph.
Visitations were commenced in the 15th century due to the abuse of “Arms” in use. These visitations were in fact simply a continuation or development of the tours heralds had been making up and down the country in the 13th and 14th centuries.
It was not until just after the middle of the 16th century that the visitations were held in public, prior to 1560 the visitations were held in the homes of the armigers.
Further, you evade your own glaring errors instead of admitting them. Above, you deny that you were referring to the transcripts of the Visitations in order to try to beat me in an argument by blustering and by misdirection. Discuss things with me properly without indulging in this sort of thing or don't bother. Your insistence on trying to appear right all the time is both wearisome and rather tragic.
Please feel free to show me where I was referring to the transcripts of visitations rather than the original visitations.
At each visitation the normal procedure was for the armiger, note he or she would be an armiger not a person who wanted to apply for “Arms” but an armiger would bring his or her pedigree (and occasionally other records) to the visitation.
This pedigree would be examined by the herald and if he was satisfied the herald would get the armiger to sign the pedigree. This was what is/was referred to as the signed original.
When the herald returned to the College of Arms there were two things that could happen to the signed original.
1. It was considered to be a good legible pedigree and was bound with others into a book.
2. It was transcribed or copied to produce an improved record.
As with all transcriptions some mistakes occurred.
However the College of Arms had a short sighted procedure in that instead of archiving the signed originals, they in many cases returned the to the armiger or disposed of them by other means.
This left the situation that the original could not be checked at a later date.
That to me is short sighted.
Here I have split my posint due to size restrictions in the forum
-
Continuation of posting.
Here are the relevant parts of your posts next to each other so that you and everyone else can see what I mean.
Many visitations have been shown to contain errors and false entries.
Where have I mentioned anything about the transcripts of Heralds Visitations, you assume I was referring to them when I was not, whether they were transcripts by the Harleian society or county record societies some of whom also made transcripts of some Visitation pedigrees.
There are no other entities called "the Visitations" available to anyone except the College of Arms who have the originals, so either you mean those which I doubt you've seen, or you have not the faintest idea of what you are talking about.
I having been interested in family history for a few years I have had the chance to visit the College of Arms in the 1960s where I did have the privilege to view some of the books containing the signed originals.
I have also seen a number of signed originals in private hands which contain errors and since the heralds based their records on these signed originals that by default means the pedigrees copied from these signed originals and held by the College of Arms are also in error.
I have covered the subject of the manner of the compilation of the visitations, to which you again refer which is the other possible angle, and have shown -with evidence- that you are again completely wrong. You have picked the wrong person to try to misdirect and barge into submission. Also this is not the way to welcome someone new to a board. Great shame on you. Apologise and desist.
I do not feel especially inclined to respond to you again until this has happened.
You have made 7 postings in this thread listed at reply#10, reply#12, reply#16, reply#18, reply#21, reply#26, reply#29,
In repy#12 you claim the College of Arms contains “uncontaminated originals”, in some cases this is correct but in others the College of Arms only has transcripts or copies.
In repy#16 you state “the Visitations held by the Heralds contain substantial differences from the ones that you refer to.”
I was referring to the books of bound signed originals, which are the original pedigrees signed by the armiger and accepted by the heralds but which also contain the office copies or transcribed copies of the signed originals.
These copies as with all transcripts do contain errors.
You include two quotes from me above inferring I am confusing the records held at the College of Arms with transcribed copies of visitations made by records societies and the Harleian society.
In the first quote I was referring to the records held by the College of Arms and in the second I was explaining what groups made transcripts of the visitations.
I can assure you I have been round long enough to know the difference.
In reply 18 you seem to think the visitations were a chance to make an application for a grant of “Arms” they were not. Visitations were concerned with “Arms” in use not new applications.
Cheers
Guy
-
Fascinating, on all sides ... but I wonder if all the college of Heralds were totally incapable of being corrupted?
There are many tales of usurpers claiming certain ancestors to legitimise their descent and regularise their position, in all cultures?
And probably, in earlier days, the records of the family archivist would be proffered to verify descent?
And possible a few nicely clinking gold coins might have passed from Person to Herald, to take the best view?
It may only have happened in reality a few times, but all records are, alas, only as accurate as the information provided.
If the statistics are workable, then most of the contributors on this thread will have had "Royals in the bed" at some point, if you go far enough back - but we'll never know.
Heraldry is indeed fascinating, but I'd not base a whole family tree on it. There is room for ambiguity in many lines, and many records.
And does it matter? I'm not anti-royalist, by any means, but rather proud of my firmly non-titles family tree. The only "sir" in it was created, not born, and is only a parallel line, so I'm afraid we are firmly plebian rather than patrician.
-
Hello again Guy. Thank you for responding at last in sufficient detail for me to make sense of what you are trying to convey. I'll respond in brief to selected points. In some places you have said things which I do not think are quite right, but I take your point now that you have elaborated that you have done some study of this and so I retract the comment that suggests that "you don't know what you're talking about".
Visitations were commenced in the 15th century due to the abuse of “Arms” in use. These visitations were in fact simply a continuation or development of the tours Heralds had been making up and down the country in the 13th and 14th centuries.
It was not until just after the middle of the 16th century that the visitations were held in public, prior to 1560 the visitations were held in the homes of the armigers.
All correct except for the last unless you have evidence to the contrary. The "visits into homes" were actually to find evidence of abuse of Arms "to record and register, deface if unproven" [Fox-Davies (again)] so in fact to remove bogus examples, and regain some control of Crown granting privilege. This most famously took place in 1558, it was a vast purge.
It doesn't seem to have been done at all to create pedigrees in the home. it was essentially a search warrant given to Norrey King of Arms. He was allowed to deface gravestones, family jewellery, in fact was permitted to go anywhere and destroy anything on which bogus Arms might be exemplified. 1528-9 Sir Thomas Benholte (Clarence King of Arms) was commissioned in much the same way. After these the commission was done through the county Sheriff and the county towns became the centre. So I think on that last point you have confused the rights in the warrant with what actually was done. If otherwise do show me firm evidence and I will of course accept it. Don't worry about looking in Fox Davies, Brooke-Little or Woodcock- it's not there.
At each visitation the normal procedure was for the armiger, note he or she would be an armiger not a person who wanted to apply for “Arms” but an armiger would bring his or her pedigree (and occasionally other records) to the visitation.
This pedigree would be examined by the herald and if he was satisfied the herald would get the armiger to sign the pedigree. This was what is/was referred to as the signed original.
When the herald returned to the College of Arms there were two things that could happen to the signed original.
1. It was considered to be a good legible pedigree and was bound with others into a book.
2. It was transcribed or copied to produce an improved record.
As with all transcriptions some mistakes occurred.
However the College of Arms had a short sighted procedure in that instead of archiving the signed originals, they in many cases returned the to the armiger or disposed of them by other means.
This left the situation that the original could not be checked at a later date.
That to me is short sighted.
This is recognisable from a book, I forget which one at present, and is broadly correct. Not keeping records is short-sighted too. You would have hoped that the College would have kept the signed copy and got the Armiger to make their own if they wanted it, but I suppose that it was felt by some Heralds that it was a sort of counterpart. Documents were not as easy to create as they are now. There are some picky little points I could go into here, but not worthy of this debate. Maybe on another thread. e.g. signed originals and their current status.
Thank you for alerting me to the fact that posts have a limited length allowance, I'll have a nice cup of tea now and do a bit more shortly.
-
Hello David80,
Welcome to RootsChat I spot that you are a new member :)
Although we may have different views on RootsChat, it is important that the posts remain friendly. A choice of words used in a posting can upset folk or engage further in good conversation.
Regards
Sarah
Thank you very much Sarah. I originally came to put the record straight on a member of my close family who was being discussed in terms I didn't like much, so I started in rather a bad mood I'm afraid. Not ideal. Apologies for any inconvenience. On the up-side I see that there are a few places where I can make some helpful comments, I'm always willing to learn, and there are some very committed and interesting people posting, so if that's acceptable I'll stay a while. I have a further comment for Jayson, and ThrellfallYorky has made interesting points that I'd love to respond to when Guy and I are done here, which shouldn't take long I'm sure.
-
I have been looking at case law during lunch for those who are interested...
A C Fox-Davies quotes a case in 1898;
A man who was to be elevated to Baronet received with his notification from the Home Office advice that before his Patent could be signed and sealed, he was required , by Royal Warrant, to prove that he has the right and is entitled by grant or inheritance, to bear a Coat of Arms.
Fox-Davies continues, that his right to bear arms will be judged "not by any fancy formulae of his own, not by the peculiar ideas of some heraldic writers who glibly plead and advocate a kind of modern prescriptive right, but by the laws and rules [of grant or inheritance]..."
The man who was to be elevated to Baronet had, under the terms of a will joined the surname of his wife with his own in 1881, by Warrant, which required the new name to be recorded and the arms exemplified by the College of Arms otherwise the Warrant was void.
It transpired that the testor [of the 1881 will] had been using a coat of arms and crest which appeared in the 1878 edition of Burkes General Armory, as belonging to one of the two surnames. This crest and arms were not recorded at the College of Arms as belonging to anyone of that surname, No person of the name in question was recorded as being entitled to bear arms.
The College of Arms refused to exemplify the arms and the prospective Baronet was forced to petition for a new grant of arms.
This case was heard 10th June 1898, High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, by Mr Justice Kekewich.
I refer back to the College of Arms website regarding the right to bear arms, copyright 2016.
The College of Arms is contacted by people who assume their arms from places such as Burkes General Armory or from websites and who then ask for confirmation most weeks. They all have to prove their right by inheritance, petition for a new grant, or accept that they have no right to those arms.
-
Continued from previous post. Hello yet again Guy.
I having been interested in family history for a few years I have had the chance to visit the College of Arms in the 1960s where I did have the privilege to view some of the books containing the signed originals.
I have also seen a number of signed originals in private hands which contain errors and since the heralds based their records on these signed originals that by default means the pedigrees copied from these signed originals and held by the College of Arms are also in error.
Yes, I've been quite recently too. It's fantastic. Yes, that does show that the pedigree records are faulty but only assuming the transcription errors that you cite above have not occurred (and they might). But that is only argumentative hypothesis which I add for completeness. I do not know for sure. I'll clearly state what I meant by "uncontaminated", as looking at my old posts I see that it could justifiably have been misunderstood.
By uncontaminated I mean not messed around with by the numerous pompous, arrogant, deluded and sometimes downright fraudulent antiquarians whose messes we are still clearing up. The Victorians were particularly bad. Not all were like this, but enough were to make the publicly available works based on the original Visitation manuscripts unusable with any confidence. So we very much agree on that I think.
So now the useful part.
We can know certain things about the originals. Firstly one can be quite sure that any Armiger would have made sure that his offspring were properly recorded, grandchildren etc., so that part is fairly secure knowledge. Likewise with fathers, contemporary marriages and maybe also grandfathers. But there it stops. A co-researcher has found instances of a wrong grandmother being recorded in order that the Armiger may claim a more illustrious line than they otherwise might, and one instance only of a bogus mother of a new Armiger. So this is what I mean by uncontaminated: providing a quite reliable cameo of the immediate family in history, but sometimes or perhaps quite often giving a false line up into history from that point, human nature being what it is and always has been. That is one of the things I was referring to when I mentioned historical context, I was not specific enough.
The really useful thing about this is that there are a number of visitations, each giving such a cameo, and they can with luck, patience and other sources be joined to provide a reasonably secure line covering that period in history.
You include two quotes from me above inferring I am confusing the records held at the College of Arms with transcribed copies of visitations made by records societies and the Harleian society.
In the first quote I was referring to the records held by the College of Arms and in the second I was explaining what groups made transcripts of the visitations.
I can assure you I have been round long enough to know the difference.
In reply 18 you seem to think the visitations were a chance to make an application for a grant of “Arms” they were not. Visitations were concerned with “Arms” in use not new applications.
Yes, I see the confusion with the two quotes. If I may say so I think that your comments were too brief and hasty for that to be very obvious, but now we know anyway, and that is accepted.
Your last point, likewise, I've been around a bit too, and no, I don't think that the Visitations were for that purpose. I did say what I thought they were for in previous posts, so that's fine too. I did not intend to have written something confusing.
Are we sorted out to your satisfaction?
-
Hope it's safe for me to return here to this topic now ;D
I noticed a rather interesting article - by Dr Diane Brook - in the current edition of the Family Tree Magazine touching on - very briefly - royalty and nobility and giving some useful links to explore the subject further like william1.co.uk. I haven't had time to look at it yet but all sounds very interesting.
She also referred to manorial records and their coverage generally. Apparently coverage for the county of Staffordshire is really rather good which is lucky for me as I have many connections with the county. Might need help with the Latin though ???
Jay :)
-
I'm with ThrelfallYorky. Not fussed if there are or aren't royal antecedents in my ancestry (at this stage, none). There are a couple of connections in my wife's tree, but I find it more interesting looking at the ancestors we can firmly say are ours. I even find the so-called gateway ancestors intriguing; there is often a wider range of records available for these in the 15 and 1600's.
-
Yes, I've been quite recently too. It's fantastic. Yes, that does show that the pedigree records are faulty but only assuming the transcription errors that you cite above have not occurred (and they might). But that is only argumentative hypothesis which I add for completeness. I do not know for sure. I'll clearly state what I meant by "uncontaminated", as looking at my old posts I see that it could justifiably have been misunderstood.
By uncontaminated I mean not messed around with by the numerous pompous, arrogant, deluded and sometimes downright fraudulent antiquarians whose messes we are still clearing up. The Victorians were particularly bad. Not all were like this, but enough were to make the publicly available works based on the original Visitation manuscripts unusable with any confidence. So we very much agree on that I think.
Thank you for being so gracious as to take the time and effort to read what I have written, I fear I have not slept at night worrying that some anonymous critic cannot make sense of what I write.
When I write I use my full name; that makes me accountable for what I write both now and in the past as I cannot disown my writings as those who use a pseudonym may do.
It also allows anyone the chance to look at my history and judge whether I write with knowledge or whether I am simply blowing hot air.
In addition it means can be traced and, if the need arises sued, if I libel someone.
You seem to have a high regard for the College of Arms but if you delved into the history of heraldry in England & Wales you would be wary of the worth of a number of the ancient heralds and by default the records they compiled, which are still held by the College of Arms.
In the past they practically tore the College of Arms apart with their infighting and lack of regard for the records in their care.
If you do undertake a voyage of discovery into the history of heralds and the College of Arms you might find out that more than one herald was guilty of selling off many of the records amassed by his office and of others who were happy to acknowledge any pedigree as long as the price was right including those removed from office for doing just that.
Cheers
Guy
-
When I write I use my full name; that makes me accountable for what I write both now and in the past as I cannot disown my writings as those who use a pseudonym may do.Guy
One of the most sensible things I've seen written on RootsChat in a while....
-
If you do undertake a voyage of discovery into the history of heralds and the College of Arms you might find out that more than one herald was guilty of selling off many of the records amassed by his office and of others who were happy to acknowledge any pedigree as long as the price was right including those removed from office for doing just that.
I'm glad that we are as one at last Guy. I'm well aware of this, and have even been fortunate enough to have discussed some of the detail with a Herald myself quite recently, and am luckily included in an appointment which will enable me to do so again very soon.
The College really is very good now, that is the final thing that needs saying in this particular discussion, much is being done to rectify errors of the past, and perhaps it is lambasted rather too much for the admittedly gross behaviour from a few rogues at some stages in history.
It's probably quite easy to see from this why I have chosen anonymity at this stage, though that may change, simple caution in an unfamiliar environment (I don't want anyone to think from the above that I imagine myself to be some Lord or other: really- no.). And I still consider myself, as you do, responsible for what I say.
And I add that I'm sorry for any discomfort caused, I had some as well, so that's will teach me perhaps to consider more carefully before writing.
Best.
-
Since I joined RootsChat, there have been a number of threads purporting to show pedigrees that show links to Royalty.
In the main, these have been from US Citizens! ;D ::)
(Just stating facts, not an opinion)
I have managed to de-bunk 2 or 3 of these pedigrees, simply by following the family line backwards in time.
There were missing generations, and children who never appeared on "official" biographies, and were unknown to historians!
I only used rudimentary research techniques - e.g. using Google and Wikipedia - so I never claimed my research was infallible.
In the end, people believe what they want to believe. Regardless of facts.
-
In the end, people believe what they want to believe. Regardless of facts.
Something sadly not limited to family history.
-
Why on earth would any sensible body be so keen as to wish for a connection to a family which is as inbred as chinchilla rabbits, been subject to everything from porphyria & haemophillia to insanity & alcoholism. Hereditary strangers to useful employment and if they lived in your street would probably be sanctioned by ATOS & the "Social" never away from the door & probably take the weans off them. ;D
Skoosh.
-
Why on earth would any sensible body be so keen as to wish for a connection to a family which is as inbred as chinchilla rabbits, been subject to everything from porphyria & haemophillia to insanity & alcoholism. Hereditary strangers to useful employment and if they lived in your street would probably be sanctioned by ATOS & the "Social" never away from the door & probably take the weans off them. ;D
Skoosh.
Hello Skoosh,
look at me not taking offence! And I've finally found this thing: ;D
Inbreeding is not confined to the upper classes and nor are hereditary diseases! Obviously our ancestors are what they are, there's nothing anyone do about it. It's the making stuff up to create a link to them which I think most people consider a bit on the foolish side.
-
Why on earth would any sensible body be so keen as to wish for a connection to a family which is as inbred as chinchilla rabbits, been subject to everything from porphyria & haemophillia to insanity & alcoholism. Hereditary strangers to useful employment and if they lived in your street would probably be sanctioned by ATOS & the "Social" never away from the door & probably take the weans off them. ;D
Skoosh.
For the very same reason why someone would want to connect with any ancestor.
It makes no difference whether an ancestor is rich or poor, disabled or able bodied, law abiding or criminal they are ones ancestor and need to be acknowledged as such.
That does not mean that one type of ancestor gives a family more kudos than another ancestor simply that for me all ancestors are an important part of my family history.
In fact I go further than simply including ancestors as I research collareal lineages as well, as they all help to build a picture of influences on my family history.
Cheers
Guy
-
It's amazing how often you find collateral ancestors living in close proximity to your direct ancestors. With a different surname, you would never know unless you had bothered to track the brothers and sisters of each generation.
As KGarrad has said, there does seem to be a larger proportion of US family historians keen on finding a royal connection.
-
As KGarrad has said, there does seem to be a larger proportion of US family historians keen on finding a royal connection.
Apparently, nobody likes a Royal connection more than a Republican?! ;D ;D ;D
-
Why on earth would any sensible body be so keen as to wish for a connection to a family which is as inbred as chinchilla rabbits, been subject to everything from porphyria & haemophillia to insanity & alcoholism. Hereditary strangers to useful employment and if they lived in your street would probably be sanctioned by ATOS & the "Social" never away from the door & probably take the weans off them. ;D
Skoosh.
Largely, Skoosh, because for most of us the vast majority of our family lines get disrupted in the middle 17th Century as a result of that misguided attempt to rid us of said chinchillas and the mess it made of the public records (why oh WHY couldn't the civil magistrates have bequeathed us some proper records of the marriages they celebrated???).
And even when we CAN get through the Commonwealth, and emerge into the happy sunlit uplands of the 16th century, we find it'll only be some two, three, or perhaps if we're very lucky four generations before the records dry up pretty much totally. And those ancestors which we can identify, well, if we get a date of baptism, a name of a father, a date of marriage, a bride's name, the names of some children AND a burial, we consider that a pretty impressive outcome.
On the other hand, if once we get into royal lines ... well ... the records go back all the way into the mists of antiquity, and, even better, somebody else has transcribed, translated, and written them all up for us. Fifteen extra generations, easy as pi, what's not to like??
Besides ... one source I have consulted insists that my Garnham ancestors are descended from Norse royal lines (I'm having a bit of difficulty following his links in the 13th century, mind ... and some of the 14th century ones look a bit dodgy ... and the 15th century is a bit of a jumble too ... and there seem to be a couple of missing generations in the 16th century ... and I've not yet managed to replicate his 17th century links from the records I've seen ... but give me time). And you know what having Norse royalty in my tree means, don't you?? YEP!!! It means I'm descended from WODEN HIMSELF!!!!!!!
OK ... so now we've sorted that one out ... hands up all those who claim to be mere mortals ... ;D
-
According to Moses Taylor Pyne in his book, the Pyne/Pine family descends from Galceran de Pinos, one of the nine barons from the Pyrenees summoned by Charlemagne to fight the Moors. There is even a statue of him in the northern Spanish town of Baga to this day.
MT Pyne did an amazing amount of research to trace this family through the generations, from Spain to France to Devon. My lot can be traced back to around 1530 in Devon. The lack of Devon wills seems to be the biggest stumbling block in making a connection.
Not quite royalty, but it is fascinating to read of their exploits in history.
-
Aye jbml, and if one of your gt,gt,gt grannies was a bit of a goer it all means absolutely nothing. The royal family was not devoid of such gt,gt,gt grannies itself! Woden indeed!
Bests,
Skoosh.
-
Spoken like a true descendant of mere mortals, Skoosh.
Has it never occurred to you that nobody in their right mind married to a descendant of Woden would DARE be "a bit of a goer" for fear of the consequences? :D
(Actually, now you come to mention it, there WAS a family story of one of my great x umpteen grannies spontaneously combusting in the 18th century. I wonder ... ;D ;D ;D)
-
@jbml, your ancestress no doubt anticipated modern cremation practice, in turning the gas right down, by several centuries. ;D
Don't be kidded by the "mere mortal" impression, according to ones DNA result a descent from that uber fecund Irish monarch, "Niall of the Nine Sausages", is a certainty! ;D
Skoosh.
-
I've just this minute googled George Stanley>burial>Lichfield Cathedral and found a very interesting photograph on rootsweb of a tomb said to be that of the above George Stanley and Eleanor Sutton.
I think I now need to take a trip to Lichfield Cathedral.
Jayson