State-Level Heraldic Authorities

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
15 September 2014 09:08
 

One other bit on the law of arms in England:  the leading historian of the Court of Chivalry, George Drewry Squibb, argued that the substance of the law of arms could not be deduced from the medieval commentators but only from the pleadings in cases in the Court of Chivalry.  Not from its decisions, which were generally not explained the way common law court decisions are, but from the written submissions of the contending lawyers.

At a certain level, this makes sense, but if that’s how you have to figure out the substance of the law, it shows just how ill-defined it actually is.

 
zebulon
 
Avatar
 
 
zebulon
Total Posts:  65
Joined  23-12-2013
 
 
 
15 September 2014 14:57
 

Joseph McMillan;102713 wrote:

Both the protection of arms against usurpation and the basic rules of inheritance of arms in England derive from civil ("Roman") law as enunciated by the medieval "civilians," notably Bartolus (referred to by James Dempster). Jurisdiction on disputes over particular coats of arms was vested in the Court of Chivalry by statute, but the law governing such disputes is the civil law of arms, with the caveat "as used in England." In other words, Bartolus and the other commentators as modified by actual practice.

(If that’s not suitably fuzzy, the "law" by which the only real arms are said to be those granted/confirmed by the kings of arms is even fuzzier, but that’s a different matter.)

 

Again, it’s neither common nor statute law, but I do think there is a plausible case that a latent law of arms does exist in all of the United States, and that it is the old transnational law enunciated by Bartolus and other commentators and observed in practice not only in the English colonies but in the French, Dutch, Swedish, and Spanish ones, and in the post-1776 USA as well. There are tidbits in legal history, including a handful of low-level court cases, that tend to support this, but nothing conclusive. More compelling is the series of four private acts of the Maryland General Assembly authorizing the inheritance of arms outside the normal male-line inheritance. If there had been no general law of arms in force, then passing a law permitting deviation from it would make no sense.


That is fascinating; thanks very much for that insight! Were the private bills in Maryland done pre- or post- independence?

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
15 September 2014 18:07
 

zebulon;102717 wrote:

That is fascinating; thanks very much for that insight! Were the private bills in Maryland done pre- or post- independence?


All post-independence, 1784-1804.

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
15 September 2014 19:42
 

These Maryland legislative acts sound like fascinating reading.

Joe, could you please give us the titles of the acts of the Maryland General Assembly you referred to?

 
zebulon
 
Avatar
 
 
zebulon
Total Posts:  65
Joined  23-12-2013
 
 
 
16 September 2014 02:15
 

Luis Cid;102721 wrote:

These Maryland legislative acts sound like fascinating reading.

Joe, could you please give us the titles of the acts of the Maryland General Assembly you referred to?


seconded smile

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
16 September 2014 08:00
 

I’m not sure the titles will do you all that much good, so here are the texts of the acts, one at a time.  The first one was passed on 9 May 1783, not 1784 as I had recalled.

An ACT to change the surnames of Nicholas Maccubbin, junior, and of James Maccubbin, to that of Carroll (1783 Md Laws ch 3)

 

Whereas Charles Carroll, late of the city of Annapolis, Barrister, did, by his last will and testament, devise a considerable part of his real and personal estate unto his nephew Nicholas Maccubbin, junior, and the heirs of his body lawfully begotten, by the name and description of Mr. Nicholas Maccubbin, junior, eldest son of Mr. Nicholas Maccubbin, of the city of Annapolis, and of his [Carroll’s] dear deceased sister Mrs. Mary Clare Maccubbin; and did also, by a codicil to his said last will and testament, devise a tract of land called Mount Clare, or Georgia plantation, situate near Baltimore-town, with all the buldings, mills, and improvements thereon, unto his nephew James Maccubbin, son of Mr. Nicholas Maccubbin, of the city of Annapolis, and his dear deceased sister Mrs. Mary Clare Maccubbin, as by the said will and codicil fully appears to this general assembly; And whereas the said Charles Carroll, Barrister, did, by the said will and codicil, also direct, that his said nephews, and the heirs of their bodies lawfully begotten, should take upon himself and themselves the surname of Carroll only, together with the coat of arms and armorial bearings of the family of Carroll, or O’Carroll, at all times from and after his decease; and should use, and at all times stile and subscribe himself and themselves, in all writings, by the surname of Carroll only:

 

II.  Be it therefore enacted, by the General Assembly of Maryland, That it shall and may be lawful for the said Nicholas Maccubbin, junior, and James Maccubbin, from henceforth to take upon himself and themselves the surname of Carroll instead of that of Maccubbin, and also to suse the coat of arms and armorial bearings of the family of Carroll, or O’Carroll, and also for the children and descendants of the said Nicholas Maccubbin and James Maccubbin, to take upon himself, herself, and themselves, the surname of Carroll, and also to use the coat of arms and armorial bearings of the family of Carroll, or O’Carroll, and that all securities, promises, contracts, assurances, deeds, and lawful acts whatsoever, heretofore made, or hereafter to be made, by or to the aforesaid Nicholas Maccubbin, junior, and James Maccubbin, or either of them, by the name of Carroll, shall be of the same force and effect, and equally avail, to all intents and purposes, as if the name of Carroll had been the true and proper surname of Nicholas Maccubbin, junior, and James Maccubbin, from their birth, any law, statute, or custom, to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
16 September 2014 08:23
 

An ACT to alter and change the names of Charles Ridgely Carnan, and others, according to the will of captain Charles Ridgely, of Baltimore county, deceased (1790 Md Laws ch. 10, passed 14 Dec 1790)

Wheras Charles Ridgely, late of Baltimore county, deceased, did, by his last will and testament, devise a considerable part of his real and personal estate unto his nephew Charles Ridgely Carnan, and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten, in case he the said Charles Ridgely should die without issue, which event hath taken place; and the said Charles Ridgely did also devise considerable real estate to William Goodwin for life only, and after his decease to Charles Goodwin, the son of the said William Goodwin, and his male heirs; and the said Charles Ridgely did also devise considerable real estate to Lyde Goodwin for life only, and after his decease to Charles Goodwin, son of the said Lyde Goodwin, and his male heirs; and the said Charles Ridgely did also devise some real estate to John Sterett (who is since deceased) for life only, and after his decease to Charles Sterrett, the son of the said John Sterrett, and his male heirs; with such conditions, limitations and remainders, upon the said devises, as, in the will of the said Charles Ridgely, is expressed, limited and appointed:  And whereas the said Charles Ridgely, deceased, did also, by his said will, direct, that in case he should die without issue, his said nephew Charles Ridgely Carnan, and Charles, the son of the said Charles Ridgely Carnan, immediately upon his death, should take upon themselves, and each of them bear the names and surnames of Charles Ridgely, and their male descendants bear and be called by the surname of Ridgely; and that Charles Goodwin, the son of William Goodwin, Charles Goodwin, the son of Lyde Goodwin, and Charles Sterett, the son of John Sterett, should respectively take upon themselves, and each of them should take and bear, the names of Ridgely; and that application should be made to the general assembly for an act for that purpose, as appears to this general assembly by the will of the said Charles Ridgely:  Therefore,

 

II.  Be it enacted, by the General Assembly of Maryland, That it shall and may be lawful for the said Charles Ridgely Carnan, and his said son Charles, and for each of them, to take upon himself and themselves the name and surname of Charles Ridgely, in the stead of their present names and surnames, and also for the male descendants of the said Charles Ridgely Carnan, and of his said son Charles, to take upon himself and themselves the surname of Ridgely, and also to use and bear the coat of arms and armorial bearings of the family of Ridgely; and the name of the said Charles Ridgely Carnan shall be and is hereby changed and altered into the name of Charles Ridgely; and the said Charles Ridgely Carnan, and the heirs male of his body, shall, at all times hereafter, be called by, and hold and use, the surname of Ridgely only; and that the said Charles Ridgely Carnan from henceforth be called by the name of Charles Ridgely; and that the name of Charles Carnan, son of the said Charles Ridgely Carnan, shall be and is hereby changed and altered into the name of Charles Ridgely; and the said Charles Carnan, and the heirs male of his body, shall, at all times hereafter, be called by, and hold and use, the surname of Ridgely only; and that the said Charles Carnan be from henceforth called by the name of Charles Ridgely.

 

III.  And be it enacted, That it shall and may be lawful for the said Charles Goodwin, son of William Goodwin, Charles Goodwin, the son of Lyde Goodwin, and Charles Sterett, the son of John Sterett, and for each of them, to take upon himself and themselves the name and surname of Charles Ridgely, in the stead of their present names and surnames, and also for the male descendants of the said Charles Goodwin, son of William Goodwin, Charles Goodwin, son of Lyde Goodwin, and Charles Sterett, son of John Sterett, and for each of them, to take upon himself and themselves the surname of Ridgely; and the names of the said Charles Goodwin, son of William Goodwin, Charles Goodwin, son of Lyde Goodwin, and Charles Sterett, and their male descendants, shall, from henceforth, be respectively called by, and take, use and hold, the surname of Ridgely only.

 

IV.  And be it enacted, That all securities, promises, contracts, assurances, deeds, and lawful acts whatsoever, heretofore made, or hereafter to be made, by or to the said Charles Ridgely Carnan, or his said son Charles, or by or to the said Charles Goodwin, son of William Goodwin, Charles Goodwin, son of Lyde Goodwin, or Charles Sterett, or either of them, by the name and surname of Charles Ridgely, shall be of the same force and effect, and equally avail, to all intents and purposes, as if the name and surname of Charles Ridgely had been the true and proper name and surname of the said Charles Ridgely Carnan, and his son Charles, and of the said Charles Goodwin, son of William Goodwin, Charles Goodwin, son of Lyde Goodwin, and Charles Sterett, and of each of them, from their birth; any law, statute or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
16 September 2014 08:54
 

This one was not the result of a name and arms clause in a will, but of a prenuptial contract.

An ACT to alter and change the name of Francis Hall, junior, of Queen-Anne’s county (1792 Md Acts ch 24, passed 22 Dec 1792)

 

Whereas Francis Hall, junior, of Queen-Anne’s county, has petitioned this general assembly, that an act may pass to change his name to Francis Hall Rozer; and it appearing reasonable that the prayer of his petition should be granted, therefore,

 

II.  Be it enacted, by the General Assembly of Maryland, That is shall and may be lawful for the said Francis Hall, junior, to take upon himself the name and surname of Francis Hall Rozer, in the stead of his present name and surname, and also for the descendants of the said Francis Hall to take upon themselves the surname of Rozer, also use and bear the coat of arms and armorial bearings of the family of Rozer; and the name of the said Francis Hall shall be and is hereby changed and altered into the name of Francis Hall Rozer, and the said Francis Hall, and the heirs of his body, shall, at all times hereafter, be called by, and hold and use, the surname Rozer only.

 

III.  [Same boilerplate on validity of securities, etc, as in previous examples.]

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
16 September 2014 09:01
 

And finally, one merely to gratify the wish of a maiden aunt.

An ACT to alter and change the name of James Clerk, and Margaret Russell his wife, of Prince-George’s county, and of their children (1803 Md Laws ch. 69, passed 7 Jan 1804)

 

Whereas James Clerk, and Margaret Russell his wife, have represented to this general assembly, that Miss Eleanor Anne Lee, aunt to the said Margaret, having no offstpring of her own, is desirous that the said James and Margaret, and their issue, should add her family name, (Lee,) to their’s, and that they should assume and take upon themselves the surname of Clerk Lee hereafter, which they are willing to do;

 

II.  Be it enacted, by the General Assembly of Maryland, That it shall and may be lawful for the said James Clerk, and Margaret Russell Clerk, and their issue, born or hereafter to be born, to take upon themselves, and each of them, the surname of Clerk Lee, in the stead of their present surname, and also to use and bear the coat of arms and armorial bearings of the family of Lee; and the surnames of the said James Clerk and Margaret, and of each and every of their issue, shall be and are hereby changed and altered into the surname of Clerk Lee; and the said James, and Margaret his wife, and their issue, shall at all times hereafter be called by, and hold and use, the surname of Clerk Lee, and from henceforth called by the surname of Clerk Lee.

 

III.  [Boilerplate on securities, promises, etc, as in previous acts]

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
16 September 2014 09:02
 

I published an article on these acts in the Heraldry Society journal, The Coat of Arms, last year. I’ll see if I can find a way to upload the text.

ADDITION:  It’s now on academia.edu at https://www.academia.edu/8345995/The_Maryland_Name_and_Arms_Acts_Heraldic_Law_in_the_United_States

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
16 September 2014 09:19
 

The paper (in final draft form—it was slightly edited before publication) is now available at https://www.academia.edu/8345714/The_Maryland_Name_and_Arms_Acts_Heraldic_Law_in_the_United_States

NOTE:  On glancing through this online, I see that it actually was not the final draft.  You’ll still get the basic idea, but some details are missing.  I’ll look for a more recent version.

 
zebulon
 
Avatar
 
 
zebulon
Total Posts:  65
Joined  23-12-2013
 
 
 
16 September 2014 19:51
 

Joseph McMillan;102732 wrote:

I published an article on these acts in the Heraldry Society journal, The Coat of Arms, last year. I’ll see if I can find a way to upload the text.

ADDITION:  It’s now on academia.edu at https://www.academia.edu/8345995/The_Maryland_Name_and_Arms_Acts_Heraldic_Law_in_the_United_States


Brilliant article, I just finished reading it. Thanks for providing the link.

 
liongam
 
Avatar
 
 
liongam
Total Posts:  343
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
17 September 2014 03:33
 

Joe and other correspondents are correct in their thesis that any nation that has no competent heraldry authority whether royal or state,  its citizens may assume arms at will, such arms will be assumed by prescription as was anciently done before the development of royal or state control.  In all probability, such assumed arms in the USA are in this context analogous to the ‘burgher arms’ as found on Continental Europe.  There is no harm in this course of action.  In fact for all those who enjoy the science and art of heraldry this is to applauded.  Of course, in such nations, especially those from the perspective of both The College of Arms or The Lyon Court, where The Queen’s Writ does not run, the acquisition of a grant of arms from either the College, the Lyon Court or even from the Chief Herald of Ireland in Dublin by say, an American citizen whose heritage stems from the British Isles will on occasion opt to petition the Earl Marshal, Lord Lyon or the Chief Herald for a grant of arms because of the ancestral or emotional link with ‘the old country’ or their forebears.  There is nothing wrong in this course of action.  As I said elsewhere, it is all a matter of horses for courses.  On the reverse of the coin, it must be emphasized that a grant of arms from the Kings of Arms at London or Edinburgh or the Chief Herald at Dublin does not trump assumed arms in any jurisdiction where the Queen’s Writ or that of the Chief Herald does not run.  We should all enjoy heraldry from wherever it may spring.  The only caveat being it must be good heraldry, well designed and thought out.

Regarding the Maryland Private Acts in relation to the inheritance of arms.  In the UK, I believe these would be analogous to a Private Act of Parliament which were (are?) used to differ the destination of estates, etc, in relation to the testamentary wishes and desires of a particular individual.  Today, and at least during the last century or two in England, Wales and Ireland if a change in the destination of arms was required an as part of a ‘name and arms’ clause in an testator’s will, a Royal Licence is generally applied for to change the destination of the arms and praying that the Sovereign is willing to agree to such a alteration.  Once granted, a notice of the Royal Licence is published in ‘The London Gazette’, the official newspaper of record for all state, government and some private business.  The notice will state that such a Royal Licence is be of ‘none effect’ until it is registered at The College of Arms.

 

John

 
Arthur Radburn
 
Avatar
 
 
Arthur Radburn
Total Posts:  229
Joined  15-06-2005
 
 
 
17 September 2014 05:24
 

Joseph McMillan;102732 wrote:

I published an article on these acts in the Heraldry Society journal, The Coat of Arms, last year. I’ll see if I can find a way to upload the text.

ADDITION:  It’s now on academia.edu at https://www.academia.edu/8345995/The_Maryland_Name_and_Arms_Acts_Heraldic_Law_in_the_United_States

A very interesting article.  Thanks for the link.

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
17 September 2014 17:06
 

liongam;102745 wrote:

Joe and other correspondents are correct in their thesis that any nation that has no competent heraldry authority whether royal or state,  its citizens may assume arms at will, such arms will be assumed by prescription as was anciently done before the development of royal or state control.  In all probability, such assumed arms in the USA are in this context analogous to the ‘burgher arms’ as found on Continental Europe.  There is no harm in this course of action.  In fact for all those who enjoy the science and art of heraldry this is to applauded.  Of course, in such nations, especially those from the perspective of both The College of Arms or The Lyon Court, where The Queen’s Writ does not run, the acquisition of a grant of arms from either the College, the Lyon Court or even from the Chief Herald of Ireland in Dublin by say, an American citizen whose heritage stems from the British Isles will on occasion opt to petition the Earl Marshal, Lord Lyon or the Chief Herald for a grant of arms because of the ancestral or emotional link with ‘the old country’ or their forebears.  There is nothing wrong in this course of action.  As I said elsewhere, it is all a matter of horses for courses.  On the reverse of the coin, it must be emphasized that a grant of arms from the Kings of Arms at London or Edinburgh or the Chief Herald at Dublin does not trump assumed arms in any jurisdiction where the Queen’s Writ or that of the Chief Herald does not run.  We should all enjoy heraldry from wherever it may spring.  The only caveat being it must be good heraldry, well designed and thought out.


John,

 

Thanks for such a well-thought and well-written summary.  This is exactly the sort of well-reasoned explanation I’d like to point folks to when the whole "assumed vs. granted" debate begins.

 

Especially this:
Quote:

We should all enjoy heraldry from wherever it may spring.  The only caveat being it must be good heraldry, well designed and thought out.


Top Shelf…