Armorial Families.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19269, 5 January 1931, Page 6

Armorial Families.

To Correspondents.

Curious.—Libellous, even if true.

To the Editor. Dear Sir,—l gather from Mr Arthur D. Ford’s account of the new 7th edition of “Armorial Families” in Saturday’s issue of the “ Star,” that he is under the impression that for a family not to be mentioned in it is sufficient proof that that particular family; is without armorial bearings. I wish to point out that “ Armorial Families ” is issued as a private enterprise, and is not in any way official. The late editor acknowledged receiving much help from officers of arms, but stated that he had not free access to official lists at Heralds’ College or other offices of arms, and that he depended much upon particulars sent to him by families wishing recognition in his great work. It is therefore quite possible that some genuine armigerous families are not, as yet, mentioned in “ Armorial Families.” The “faking” of'pedigrees and coats of arms is not always the work of the bearer or other private persons. I am aware of several cases in which the “ faking ” of pedigrees and issue of false certificates has been wilfully done by the Kings of Arms themselves! Officers of arms will take a man’s word as to who his grandfather is, or was, but no further up.—l am, etc., R. SNEYD SMITH, St Albans.