Few New Zealand Families Entitled to Arms and Crests.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19268, 3 January 1931, Page 17 (Supplement)

Few New Zealand Families Entitled to Arms and Crests.

Is Christchurch Mayoral Chain above Suspicion ?

New Register will Lxpose Impostures .

Written for the “Star" by

ARTHUR D. FORD.

'J'HE RE has just been issued in London, in two volumes, a new and up-to-date edition of “ Armorial Families ” of the Empire, edited and compiled under the direction of the worldfamous authority, the late Arthur C. Fox-Davis, of Lincoln’s Inn, London, Barrister-at-law. It is to be regretted that since he completed this register, Mr A. C. Fox-Davis died after a short illness. The publishers have prefaced the register with a short history of his life, taken from “ The Times,” London. In this “ The Times ” refers with appreciation to his great work in the genealogical field, as the man who could and had hunted down and killed picturesque “ family trees ” of genealogical imposture, had overthrown many cherished idols of family pride (which had been based on nothing more substantial than the vain imaginings of an ancestor), or the artful tactics of some long-gone impostor, who for a big fee, unearthed, and foisted on to some innocent individual (possessed of more money than common sense) a coat of arms, persuading his victim into believing that he was “ now the lawful owner thereof.” This form of fraud was fairly common in England. Consequently a rude awakening awaited some families whose claims to go on this register were found valueless, and rejected. There is some very interesting information concerning pedigrees in the first volume of the work, which deals fully with illegal use of, and abuse of arms. It is pointed out for general information that whenever a family with the usual pride points out an ancestral tree running back in the male line prior to the beginning of the eighteenth century, scrutinise it very carefully. If in the early part of it figure celebrities with full dates of marriages and deaths, and details of children, and there follows later the words “from whom descended,” or the

words “whose descendant,” without details or full information of the actual relationship and dates, the odds are 1000 to 1 that that particular family tree is faked, worthless, and untrue.

The editor says that with a plenitude of falsehoods presented to him, all dealing with pedigrees, and applications for insertion of “ illegally used arms,” his credulity waned below zero, and finally expired altogether. He says of the hundreds and hundreds of people with whom he came in contact during his work, he could count on the fingers of one hand those who told him the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Consequently the author says, to use his own words, “ Though it is a brutal admission to make, I cannot believe, and do not believe for one moment, any man’s account of his own family, or take his word concerning the same. No matter how truthful a man may be his probity never seems to have stability on this one point.” Nothing but documentary evidence from the official records in England, Scotland and Ireland has been, or ever will be accepted. No man’s word is ever taken. This very * interesting work took several years, revisions of various kinds having to be made. It is copiously illustrated with coats of arms, crests, etc., and contains a vast amount of detail relating to various families in the Empire who are entitled to use crests and coats-of-arms. It has been a common practice in New Zealand and also in Australia for people to display a coat-of-arms, or crest, to which they have no shadow of right, and which was never at any time in the past granted to their ancestors. Dealing with crests, it is pointed out that there is often a coat of arms with-

out a crest, but there is not one single instance of a crest on its own, without it forms part of a coat of arms, except the Soame crest. In this one instance the Soame family were allowed to use a crest, as their arms were “not passed.” This is the only case on record. Therefore no family can legalb’- have a crest unless they have a coat of arms, and if their coat of arms is not in the register then their socalled “crest” is an invention of their own, or some ancestor. There are quite a number of instances of this in New Zealand to-day. The practice is illegal, and, to say the least, not an honourable one. The work is arranged in the following manner:— “Those members of a family entitled to bear or use coat of arms, and now alive, are arranged in strict order of their seniority, in such order as they would succeed to a hereditary title, and their names are followed by usual details, etc. . . . Where successive titles are for brothers they are grouped under one heading of their common parentage, as ‘sons of.’ ...”

The editor further makes the following caustic comments concerning people who claim ancient rights dating back to the tenth century. He says: “If any ordinary individual tells you he is descended in the male line from someone who figures upon the glorious roll of Battle Abbey, or that his ancestor ‘came over with the Conqueror,’ write him down a perverter of the truth at once.” One hundred and eleven pedigrees of Peers (in a famous work), go back to the Norman Conquest, and of these only forty-nine are composed of Scottish, Irish, Saxon and Welsh families. Of the twenty-five Barons who affixed their seals to the famous Magna Carta, of which we so proudly boast, not a solitary proved male descendant is .known to exist to-day.” The Magna Carta was signed on June 15, 1215, by King John, at Runnymede. In Great Britain the illegal use of arms has brought upon the offender a prosecution and fine, but here in New Zealand nobody troubles, and in consequence quite a number of people in New Zealand have pirated

the coat of arms of someone else or made up one for themselves. This is illegal, and dishonest, in any case. It is quite reasonable to suppose that romc people to-day have been led by their ancestors to the use of illegal arms, and here the ancestor was either the pirate, the original thief, or the person on whom somebody imposed. Any family who cannot exhibit the necessary certificate which authorises them to use arms should desist from the practice. These certificates can be obtained in London, provided, of course, the applicant is able to prove his descent from the original holder of the decoration, but this, of course, is very difficult. Most families who have a right to use arms have the necessary certificate in their keepinp- and the absence of a certificate can generally be taken as “prima facie”'evidence that the person who professes to own a coat of arms is an offender, innocently or otherwise. The editor says that during the revision of this last edition he had sent to him quite a number of certificates

for insertion. These referred to certificates held by people who probably came in possession of them when purchasing old furniture or old books, and who w r ere very anxious to have them published as “their own.” The editor says: “For fear that there might be some right in these ctrtificates, I had every one formally examined by the proper authorities, and in not one solitary instance were the arms found to belong to the persons trying to get them published in the work.” Touching the arms often used by church authorities, “Armorial Families” states that “ The Scottish Anglican bishop and the Irish Anglican bishops created since the disestablishment of the Church in Ireland, and all Roman Catholic Bishops have no arms for their sees.” In the reign of Ilenry V an act was

passed in 1417 commanding that no man should display a coat of arms or crest unless he had authority for so doing. In the Reign of Richard 111, 1483-5, the first Act to control the registration and use of arms was passed —a Royal proclamation was then issued making it an offence for any man to display crest or arms if he did not possess the right thereto, or whose name was not registered. These laws were later on reprinted and distributed throughout the country on more than one occasion. It is therefore very clear that even at this early date pirates and usurpers were at work and had to be suppressed by the King. The earliest quotable date of a coat of arms in Scotland is in 1672, but it is stated that a register was compiled in Scotland by Sir David Lindsay about 1542, and it is referred to in the Acts of the Scottish Parliament at that period. In 1592 the Scottish Parliament passed an Act authorising officials to visit different parts of the country in order to distinguish the arms of the various noblemen and gentlemen, and to quote the exact wording of this Act, “ thaireftir to matricuiat thame in thair buikis and registeris.” This in short was a command to compile a register. One important passage in the work deals with certain cities in the Empire, who display coats of arms which are without authority in any way. “ A positive disgrace,” is how the editor refers to such practices, because on application to the British Colonial authorities in London, a city should have no difficulty in obtaining proper authorisation for the use of a coat of arms for itself.” A careful search in the work fails to disclose any record of the arms used by some of the principal cities in New Zealand. Also on some of the mayoral chains of the chief cities of this. Dominion appear the coat of arms of pre-

vious mayors. Some of these cannot be found in the register. Some are dtdy authenticated, while others are missing. These latter must be written off as being used by people who have no right to the same, and yet they deface a mayoral chain with an unauthorised coat of arms. It is regrettable to state that the Christchurch mayoral chain is so defaced in at least one respect. Some years ago there appeared in a British publication a coat of arms over the name of a well-known North Canterbury family. Underneath was a memo by the editor that this man was not the lawful owner of the arms, and therefore had no right to use the same. This surely was a drastic method of exposing matters, but if people who have no title to arms endeavour to get them published in Great Britain, then they must expect to be not oply snubbed, but “ hard knocked ” as well. The work contains a small number of names of well known New Zealand families. On the other hand, quite a number of New Zealand families who have been, and still are, displaying crests and coats of arms are not on the register. Their non-inclusion is obvious, and now that this record is available in New Zealand they should drop the practice, as exposure is on their door-

step. A vast amount of genealogical information is contained in the work, and with illustrations of crests, coats of arms and so on, as well as extensive references to families covering, in some cases several hundred years, it is not surprising to find a whole page, or possibly two pages devoted to one family and its ancestors. The two volumes together contain just a few ipages short of 2000.