Heraldic Marylandiana by Harry Wright Newman

 
Jonathan R. Baker
 
Avatar
 
 
Jonathan R. Baker
Total Posts:  625
Joined  27-03-2007
 
 
 
01 September 2009 02:23
 

Greetings, everyone.

I was at the public library this evening when I stumbled across a fantastic little book.  It is Heraldic Marylandiana: A Compilation of Maryland Armorial Families Which Used Coats of arms in the Colonial and Early Post-Revolutionary Periods Proved by Original Documents and Other Authentic Sources (1968 ).  It is written by Harry Wright Newman, K.C.L, F.A.S.  Published by the author in a limited run.  This copy is numbered 396 of 400.  It contains both b&w and colored plates.

 

In the introduction, the author claims to have personally examined original documents from the Hall of Records in Annapolis.  When a document with a seal was found he tried to identify the owner and the blazon, primarily from the 3rd ed. of Burke’s General Armory and Papworth’s Ordinary.

 

Here are a couple of items that I found interesting:

 

On pg. 15, Newman argues that the English laws, including the law of arms, remained in effect until changed by statute or the state constitution.  As evidence he cites an act of the Maryland State Legislature, dated December 14, 1790, allowing a nephew to inherit the estate, name & arms of his uncle.  Here is an excerpt from the act:


Quote:

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 said Charles Carnan, and their 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.

Also, in footnotes on pg. 17, the author made a couple of interesting comments, reproduced below:
Quote:

When Dwight Eisenhower, General of the Army, was decorated with the Order [of the Elephant], his family had no coat of arms, thereupon the Danish College granted one, placing an anvil on the shield as the principal charge (eisenhower being the German word for anvil).  In visiting the palace in 1963 the guide advised me that the Eisenhower family was not too pleased with the earthly charge of an anvil.

Quote:

At the Hague Conference in 1964 Baron Monti della Cote told this writer that while no Orders of Chivalry exist in the United States, the Society of the Cincinnati organized in 1783 with hereditary membership was the nearest approach to an American chivalric order.

Baron Monte della Corte chaired the committee that reported to the International Congress of Genealogy and Heraldry (Stockholm, 1960) on which legitimate orders of chivalry were still in existence.

The remainder of this 188 page book is an alphabetical listing of the evidence unearthed in the Hall of Records.

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
01 September 2009 11:04
 

Copy #166 (signed and numbered) is on sale for $125 here.

 
 
arriano
 
Avatar
 
 
arriano
Total Posts:  1303
Joined  20-08-2004
 
 
 
01 September 2009 11:07
 

Should this title be added to our Heraldic Bookshelf?

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
01 September 2009 13:04
 

arriano;71463 wrote:

Should this title be added to our Heraldic Bookshelf?


Probably not; one of our criteria was that the book had to be readily available, which can’t really be said of something that never existed in more than 400 copies.

 

On the law of arms thing, I think the argument is weak, because the implementation of name and arms clauses was never part of the law of arms as such.  These clauses have always been administered by the common law courts, which would not have been the case had they been governed by the law of arms.  The question of how arms are marshalled pursuant to a name and arms clause is arguably part of the law of arms (or at least of the rules of arms), but the purpose of the act cited and the three other similar Maryland acts during the same period (all prior to 1804) was to legalize the real property transfer.

 

Name and arms clauses were also enforced in other states but apparently without recourse to acts of the legislature, and there are texts on estate law that still say they are valid if properly drafted.  I don’t think we can extrapolate from that any broader applicability of the English law of arms.

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
01 September 2009 13:27
 

It is a bit of a slap in the face, though, to the notion that "our history…placed heraldry into a non-status." wink

 
 
Jonathan R. Baker
 
Avatar
 
 
Jonathan R. Baker
Total Posts:  625
Joined  27-03-2007
 
 
 
01 September 2009 14:16
 

Joseph McMillan;71470 wrote:

On the law of arms thing, I think the argument is weak, because the implementation of name and arms clauses was never part of the law of arms as such.  These clauses have always been administered by the common law courts, which would not have been the case had they been governed by the law of arms.  The question of how arms are marshalled pursuant to a name and arms clause is arguably part of the law of arms (or at least of the rules of arms), but the purpose of the act cited and the three other similar Maryland acts during the same period (all prior to 1804) was to legalize the real property transfer.

Name and arms clauses were also enforced in other states but apparently without recourse to acts of the legislature, and there are texts on estate law that still say they are valid if properly drafted.  I don’t think we can extrapolate from that any broader applicability of the English law of arms.


I am not attempting to argue the point, but am only trying to explain the author’s argument in a clearer manner.

 

From p. 11:
Quote:

Although it is generally believed that the Province of Maryland, it was never referred to as a colony, was founded by adherents of the Roman Catholic faith and certainly that faith wielded great influence in its early founding, the Anglican and Roman Catholic families, unlike the Quakers, Puritans, Pilgrims and Huguenots, did not attempt to change their social order, but continued their way of life under English institutions in so far as possible in the unspoilt Maryland terrain along her bay, rivers and winding creeks and irregular inlets.

He goes on to discuss the use of arms on silver, china & tombstones.  He places special emphasis on the use of arms on official documents, according to the ancient custom of sign, seal & deliver.

From p. 15:
Quote:

After the American Revolution the laws of Great Britain and the Provincial or Colonial Legislature were declared in force until such changes occurred by statutes or a State Constitution.  The laws governing the English College of Arms instituted in 1484 therefore continued relevant to the State of Maryland.

He believes the case of Charles Ridgely Carnan "proved and exemplified" this status in the Post-Revolutionary period.

If the laws of Great Britain were "declared in force," it would be interesting the see the wording of such a declaration.
<hr class=“bbcode_rule” >

 


Edit—

I found this with a quick Google search:
Quote:

Art. 5. (a)

(1) That the Inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the Common Law of England, and the trial by Jury, according to the course of that Law, and to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed on the Fourth day of July, seventeen hundred and seventy-six; and which, by experience, have been found applicable to their local and other circumstances, and have been introduced, used and practiced by the Courts of Law or Equity; and also of all Acts of Assembly in force on the first day of June, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven; except such as may have since expired, or may be inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution; subject, nevertheless, to the revision of, and amendment or repeal by, the Legislature of this State. And the Inhabitants of Maryland are also entitled to all property derived to them from, or under the Charter granted by His Majesty Charles the First to Caecilius Calvert, Baron of Baltimore.

From: http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/43const/html/00dec.html

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
01 September 2009 17:47
 

Quote:

the Common Law of England, and the trial by Jury, according to the course of that Law, and to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed on the Fourth day of July, seventeen hundred and seventy-six; and which, by experience, have been found applicable to their local and other circumstances, and have been introduced, used and practiced by the Courts of Law or Equity; and also of all Acts of Assembly in force on the first day of June


This formulation is more or less typical of the reception provisions in most of the original state constitutions or laws passed by state legislatures during the immediate post-independence period—nothing here is particularly unique to Maryland.

 

Nothing in this formulation would include the law of arms, which was neither part of the common law nor embodied in any English statute. Nor, for that matter, have I seen any evidence that its provisions were enforced in Maryland by the Courts of Law or Equity, or by any other court. (Note that the law of arms also wasn’t enforced by the courts of law or equity in England, but by the Court of Chivalry—and in 1776 by no one.)

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
01 September 2009 17:48
 

Kenneth Mansfield;71472 wrote:

It is a bit of a slap in the face, though, to the notion that "our history…placed heraldry into a non-status." wink


Yes, indeed.  I believe I’ve cited these statutes to the person quoted on several occasions.  It seems that they, like the physical evidence of heraldic usage, are not germane to his theories.