RootsChat.Com

What do you all think about this:-

Put in that which is subject to public record, leave out the family Chinese Whispers and title tattle ? Especially if your tree can be accessed via the internet?

A birth certificate will not tell you whether the child was born at term or premature.

Death certificates give a cause of death, which can then be researched. Sometimes parish registers give cause of death, if you're lucky, coroners' records gives cause of death of those investigated.

The 1911 census asks how many children have been born to a couple and how many are still living.

 Having said that, I have an original 5 January 1881 Fun Magazine, which among the recommendations for New Years Resolutions suggests:-

 "Must fill up the census-paper with truthful particulars as to my age and all the rest of it"

nil novi sub sole

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.

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.

KGarrad

You surprise me.

Westoe

Thank you for all that information with references