Ben Foster wrote in another thread:
<<Please gentlemen…we all know that the only legitimate titles of nobility in America are granted by the Carolina Herald, Laurence Cromp, Esq.
http://www.sc.edu/library/socar/uscs/1993/cromp93.html
Why, as I write this very post I am wearing my "Robes of Scarlet Interlaced with Gold.">>
I am quite fascinated by the Carolina Herald and the Landgrave system. At one time, someone, whose name I can’t remember, was trying to form an hereditary society of descendants from landgraves, or perhaps of actual landgraves.
I think it would be neat to really be one. I wondered if your tongue is in cheek or if you have such a descent? I have dug around in my South Carolina ancestry, and AFAIK I don’t. Alas.
I’m not sure if it would descend by male primogeniture or to the heir general. I know this has been discussed on some forum before, but I can’t recall where. There is a small bit about it in Thomas Woodcock’s book, as I recall.
Kind regards,
Charles
Charles E. Drake wrote:
Ben Foster wrote in another thread:
<<Please gentlemen…we all know that the only legitimate titles of nobility in America are granted by the Carolina Herald, Laurence Cromp, Esq.
http://www.sc.edu/library/socar/uscs/1993/cromp93.html
Why, as I write this very post I am wearing my "Robes of Scarlet Interlaced with Gold.">>
I am quite fascinated by the Carolina Herald and the Landgrave system. At one time, someone, whose name I can’t remember, was trying to form an hereditary society of descendants from landgraves, or perhaps of actual landgraves.
I think it would be neat to really be one. I wondered if your tongue is in cheek or if you have such a descent? I have dug around in my South Carolina ancestry, and AFAIK I don’t. Alas.
I’m not sure if it would descend by male primogeniture or to the heir general. I know this has been discussed on some forum before, but I can’t recall where. There is a small bit about it in Thomas Woodcock’s book, as I recall.
Kind regards,
Charles
I must admit that I do not have any claim to robes of scarlet and gold, and it was an attempt to bring some levity to the thread. However, I do find the subject quite interesting. I know a law review article was written in the mid 90’s regarding an attempt to revive the office. Does anyone have a direct citation for this?
Duane L.C.M. Galles previously posted:
Some years ago I suggested using an inter-state compact to create a regional armorial authority encompasing North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi. It has the merit of keeping the subject a state law matter while reducing the multiplicity of jurisdictions and, one hopes, achieving economies of scale. See “A Southern Call to Arms: An Armorial Compact to Revive the Office of Carolina Herald,” William Mitchell Law Review (Fall, 1990).
Duane, If you read this, please post the citation.
I’m descended from Sir Nathaniel Johnson who was a Cassique, then Landgrave. According to the Statutes one person could not hold both titles simultaneously. Since a Landgrave was higher than a Cassique, I think he would have retained the Landgrave. The titles would have descended through his son Robert who, as far as I know, never used them. It would be interesting to find Robert’s primogeniture descendant and tell him he is a Carolina Landgrave.
I used to live in Charleston and never knew this part of my family history—only that an ancestor was the governor of "North Carolina". Family history has a way of getting corrupted! 
Cheers,
—Guy
Ben, I thought your tongue might have been in cheek.
Guy, most interesting.
I have had a look at _The Oxford Guide to Heraldry_, and at some previous threads on the subject, and I see that the landgraves and cassiques had the right to use a sunburst as a supporter for their arms. (This should make the topic suitably heraldic.)
Here are two of the relevant statues from The Fundamental Constitutions of July 21, 1669
***
11. Any Landgrave or Cacique, at any time before the year 1701, shall have power to alienate, sell, or make over, to any other person, his dignity, with the Baronies thereunto belonging, all entirely together; but after the year 1700, no Landgrave or Cacique shall have power to alienate, Sell, make over, or let the hereditary Baronies of his dignity, or any part thereof, otherwise than as in Article 18; but they shall all entirely, with the dignity thereunto belonging, descend unto his heirs Male; and for want of Such heirs Male, all entirely and undivided, to the next heir general; and for want of Such heirs, shall devolve into the hands of the Proprietors.
14. Whosoever, by right of Inheritance, shall come to be Landgrave or Cacique shall take the name and Arms of his predecessor in that dignity, to be from thenceforth the Name and Arms of his Family and their posterity.
***
This sets out the mode of inheritance, and since it does not specific heirs of the body, but heirs male or heirs general, many of these "titles" should be extant.
Wikepedia has a list of known landgraves and cassiques at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassiques>.
Sir Nathaniel Johnson is indeed in the list, as is one John Foster, Esq., so Ben, you may be one after all!
Kind regards,
Charles
Charles E. Drake wrote:
Sir Nathaniel Johnson is indeed in the list, as is one John Foster, Esq., so Ben, you may be one after all!
Kind regards,
Charles
All hope is not lost…I shall have my splendid robes after all!
I was very excited when I first saw that there was such a thing as the Carolina Herald because it at least provides those of us who would like to see some sort of state recognition for personal heraldry with a precedent. Still, I am afraid that the costs of a state sponsored heraldic office may be too high for any state to seriously entertain.
I descend Surv-Gen Edm Bellinger Sr, Landgrave, of Ashepoo/Tombodly Baronies, SC, by son Capt Wm Bellinger Sr and wife Mary Cantey who had Elizabeth Bellinger, wife of Loyalist, the Hon Henry Yonge, Sr., H.M. Surv-Gen of Georgia. I descend son Capt. Philip Yonge, Loyalist, H.M. Surv-Gen of Ga., who wed Christian Mackenzie, daughter of Capt. Wm Mackenzie and Christiana Cadwalader or Campbell (?), in 1775 H. M. Comptroller and Collector of Customs, Sunbury, Georgia. I know of no arms for Landgrave Bellinger, though some say his father was Walter Bellinger, briefly a keeper of the arms of Ireland—questionable? Edm Sr’s key-wound pocket watch and signet ring allegedly still exist. Might not the signet ring reveal Bellinger arms? Henry Sr. called his wife Christiana Bulloch a ‘rebell’, she being the sister of Patriot Gov Bulloch of Ga. Henry Sr’s father was the Hon Francis Yonge, Surv-Gen., of Caynton Manor, Salop, Shropshire, England. The Yonge arms are very, very complicated. The motto in Latin is "Not Without Thorns".
Over 30 years ago, in the small old Edenton, N.C., courthouse Register of Deeds books in the basement, I found an odd Ambrose family entry. He seemed to have come there from Virginia? It was a list of the births of his children and a crude drawing of his coat-of-arms. I descended LtCol (1850’s Holmes Co., Miss., militia) Robert Wm. James, born Wilmington, N.C., 1811. His first wife was Ann Maria Ambrose, niece and namesake of the prominent Mrs. Ann Maria Ward of Onslow Co., N.C. Later I found I actually descend LtCol James’ New Orleans wife, Jane Ann Nixon. Her father was Battle of New Orleans lawyer, Adj. Lt. John Nixon, DeJean’s 1st La. Militia, born Mcguiresbridge, Co. Fermanagh, N. Ireland. He owned 15,000 acres, St. John the Baptist Parish, La., and the Nixon House Hotel, Biloxi. He was entombed Biloxi where James, Nixon, and Copp streets are named for the family. My Adam Hollinger who owned Hollinger’s Island off Mobile was of Irsh descent too. 1770’s Titus and Wm Hollinger, sutlers and distillers of Georgia are said to be Irish too. All some how descendants of 1645 Ireland militia Capt. Ruprecht Robert Hollinger born 1590, Waldshist, Switzerland.
Was Lawrence Comp himself, a Landgrave? If so, when was he Created and what was the name of his Barony?
Was John Locke created a Landgrave? If so, when was he created, and what was the name of his Barony?
Atty-Gen, Surv-Gen, ship’s master (first load of cattle to S.C.) Edmund Blake, Sr., Landgrave; Edmund Bellinger, III, Landgrave; John Colleton, Landgrave (?) of Devil’s Elbow Barony; Peter Colleton, Landgrave of Fairlawn Barony; Gov. Nathaniel Johnson, Landgrave, Cassique, Created 1686; Gov. Richard Kyrle, Landgrave created 1671; have had the title "Sir" used before their names. To which of them is this a correct term? Are their other Landgraves or Cassiques who were called "Sir"? If used correctly, what did the distiction "Sir" mean in their cases?
Female Landgraves are called Landgravines. What is a female Cassique called? Were there any female Cassiques? Were all female Landgravines by inheritence, or were any created directly? Possible Landgravines: Lady Rebecca Pratt Axtel of Newington Barony; Lady Mary Ketelby Johnston(?); Lady Statira Elizabeth Farquharson Johnson Rundell; and Lady Elizabeth Bellinger Wright(?). Who was Lady Wright’s husband? Any other actual, or possible, Lady Landgravines or (Cassiquettes?)?
focusoninfinity wrote:
Atty-Gen, Surv-Gen, ship’s master (first load of cattle to S.C.) Edmund Blake, Sr., Landgrave; Edmund Bellinger, III, Landgrave; John Colleton, Landgrave (?) of Devil’s Elbow Barony; Peter Colleton, Landgrave of Fairlawn Barony; Gov. Nathaniel Johnson, Landgrave, Cassique, Created 1686; Gov. Richard Kyrle, Landgrave created 1671; have had the title "Sir" used before their names. To which of them is this a correct term? Are their other Landgraves or Cassiques who were called "Sir"? If used correctly, what did the distiction "Sir" mean in their cases?
I don’t think we here are either qualified to help with genealogical research, nor is that our purpose. But any landgrave or cassique who was entitled ‘Sir’ would have been a British knight, or possibly a baronet, if the letters "Bt.," "Bart." or the word "Baronet" follow their names.
You do understand that all the Carolina titles were abandoned when the proprietary government handed over the colonies to the British crown, don’t you? No one is entitled to use these titles today, and hasn’t been for some 300 years.
Joseph McMillan wrote:
... any landgrave or cassique who was entitled ‘Sir’ would have been a British knight…
Sir Nathaniel Johnson was a Colonel in the English army, Mayor of Newcastle-upon-Tyne 1680, knighted 1682/3 (dunno why!), Member of Parliment (Newcastle-upon-Tyne) 1685-6, Governor of the Leeward Islands 1686, and Proprietary Governor of Carolina 1702-1709.
<hr class=“bbcode_rule” >
Joe wrote:
You do understand that all the Carolina titles were abandoned when the proprietary government handed over the colonies to the British crown, don’t you? No one is entitled to use these titles today, and hasn’t been for some 300 years.
Wouldn’t descent of the title follow the dictates of the Patent regardless that "South" Carolina was transfered to the Crown in 1719?
<hr class=“bbcode_rule” >
Oxford Guide to Heraldry wrote:
...The Lords Proprietors did create Abel Ketelby of the Middle Temple a Landgrave of Carolina by Patent dated 24 March 1708/9. The grant was to him and his heirs for ever....
p.160
And:
Oxford Guide to Heraldry wrote:
...The only other record of the conferment of the title of Landgrave or Cassique appears to be a patent of 11 April 1715 creating William Hodgson of the Six Clerks Office ... both a Cassique and Landgrave. The limitations, unlike the Ketelby grant, are to the grantee’s heirs male....
p.160
<hr class=“bbcode_rule” >
These titles (probably/possibly?) descended post 1719 when "South" Carolina was sold to the Crown:
Oxford Guide, Continues: wrote:
...Hodgson thought he was entitled to arms by descent, and like Ketelby was not granted arms by Cromp. A subsequent examination of the College records revealed that, although his father recorded a pedigree at the 1664-5 Visitation of Cumberland, his claim to arms was respited. Consequently the son had a grant of arms and a crest from the English Kings of Arms in 1730
Laurence Cromp was "...York Herald and appointed by the Lords Proprietors to be the President of their Court of Honor and Principal Herlad of the whole Province of Carolina with power to grant to the Landgraves and Cassiques such arms and crest as he should think proper…." (op cit; p. 159)
<hr class=“bbcode_rule” >
Now, what Oxford does not say is whether or not the title of Landgrave was used in the 1730 Letters Patent granting the Arms.
Cheers,
—Guy
Guy Power wrote:
<hr class=“bbcode_rule” >
Wouldn’t descent of the title follow the dictates of the Patent regardless that "South" Carolina was transfered to the Crown in 1719?
<hr class=“bbcode_rule” >
And:
<hr class=“bbcode_rule” >
These titles (probably/possibly?) descended post 1719 when "South" Carolina was sold to the Crown:
I may be mistaken. There are two reasons I believed the titles lapsed:
1. I think that when the political entity under which the titles were established ceased to exist, the titles also ceased to exist. I think an argument could be made that such was the case when the proprietary charter was surrendered, but it would probably be necessary to see the documents by which the Crown took over the colonies (excluding the Granville portion of NC).
2. If the titles survived the transition, they could, it seems to me, only be borne so long as the landgrave or cassique continued to abide by the terms under which they were granted. The letters patent granting the titles were issued pursuant to the Fundamental Constitutions of 1669 which set up the landgrave/cassique system in the first place. These tied the titles to possession of the seignories and baronies (feudal land grants) that went with them, and prohibited landgraves and cassiques from disposing of these properties, other than by lease, after 1701:
From the Fundamental Constitutions:
Quote:
Eleven. Any landgrave or cazique, at any time before the year one thousand seven hundred and one, shall have power to alienate, sell, or make over, to any other person, his dignity, with the baronies thereunto belonging, all entirely together. But after the year one thousand seven hundred, no landgrave or cazique shall have power to alienate, sell, make over, or let the hereditary baronies of his dignity, or any part thereof, otherwise than as in section eighteen; but they shall all entirely, with the dignity thereunto belonging, descend unto his heirs male; and for want of heirs male, all entirely and undivided to the next heir general; and for want of such heirs, shall devolve into the hands of the lords proprietors.
Twelve. That the due number of landgraves and caziques may be always kept up, if, upon the devolution of any landgraveship or caziqueship, the palatine’s court shall not settle the devolved dignity with the baronies thereunto annexed, before the second biennial parliament after such devolution, the next biennial parliament but one after such devolution shall have power to make any one landgrave or cazique in the room of him who dying without heirs, his dignity and baronies devolved.
Thirteen. No one person shall have more than one dignity, with the signiories or baronies thereunto belonging. But whensoever it shall happen that any one who is already proprietor, landgrave, or cazique shall have any of these dignities descend to him by inheritance, it shall be at his choice to keep which of the dignities, with the lands annexed, he shall like best; but shall leave the other, with the lands annexed, to be enjoyed by him who, not being his heir apparent and certain successor to his present dignity, is next of blood.
***
Fifteen. Since the dignity of proprietor, landgrave, or cazique cannot be divided, and the signiories or baronies thereunto annexed must forever all entirely descend with and accompany that dignity, whensoever, for want of heirs male, it shall descend on the issue female, the eldest daughter and her heirs shall be preferred, and in the inheritance of those dignities, and in the signiories or baronies annexed, there shall be no coheirs.
***
Eighteen. The lords of signiories and baronies shall have power only of granting estates not exceeding three lives, or twenty-one years, in two-thirds of said signiories or baronies, and the remaining third shall be always demesne.
I would contend that the moment one of the landgraves or cassiques sold an acre of one of the seignories or baronies attached to his title, the title disappeared, as he had violated the condition under which it was granted.
But you’re right, the Oxford Guide to Heraldry does seem to say that at least one landgrave was recognized in some form as holding his title by hereditary right on into the 18th century. If there were any future in the study of feudal land law in the US, this might be a good topic for an LL.M. thesis.
http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/4112/landgravecassiquefs2.th.jpg
Thomas Woodcock and John Martin Robinson, The Oxford Guide to Heraldry, (Oxford University Press, 2001), plate 31 (between pp. 128-129)
Thomas Woodcock is/was Somerset Herald, and John Martin Robinson is/was Maltravers Herald Extrordianry.
HUGE image here
Guy Power wrote:
Thomas Woodcock is/was Somerset Herald, and John Martin Robinson is/was Maltravers Herald Extraordinary.
I believe that Mr Woodcock is now Norroy and Ulster King of Arms, though Mr Robinson is still Maltravers.
Dave,
David Boven wrote:
I believe that Mr Woodcock is now Norroy and Ulster King of Arms, though Mr Robinson is still Maltravers.
Thanks for the update!
—Guy
