A Royal Descent or not?

[Guy Etchells]

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

[David80]

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.

[angie29]

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.

[Guy Etchells]

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

[sarah]

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

[angie29]

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.

[Guy Etchells]

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

[Guy Etchells]

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

[ThrelfallYorky]

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.