Can I get some help?

 
Robert Blackard
 
Avatar
 
 
Robert Blackard
Total Posts:  117
Joined  22-01-2012
 
 
 
08 August 2012 18:28
 

I went in to ancestry.com and after some time I found (possibly) my families coat of arms. But, I haven’t found a way to prove it with out more information other then, "William Blackard Born 1655 England." Are there any other ways of finding out who this person is to make sure that they, at one point, owned their arms?

Thank you everyone!

 

Robert A. Blackard smile

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
08 August 2012 18:52
 

Robert Blackard;95157 wrote:

I went in to ancestry.com and after some time I found (possibly) my families coat of arms. But, I haven’t found a way to prove it with out more information other then, "William Blackard Born 1655 England." Are there any other ways of finding out who this person is to make sure that they, at one point, owned their arms?


First, have you traced backward through your ancestry to get to this person with a high degree of confidence?

 

If so, I would suggest looking into the published editions of the heralds’ visitations for whatever English county he was from and see whether he or any of his close relatives (brothers, father, grandfather, sons) appear.  There are links to most of what’s available online at the page on the AHS website on researching ancestral arms in England, http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=Ancestral.England

 

There are also other avenues if nothing turns up there, but this is where I would start.

 
Robert Blackard
 
Avatar
 
 
Robert Blackard
Total Posts:  117
Joined  22-01-2012
 
 
 
08 August 2012 19:40
 

Thank you, i’ll double check my findings and see what I can find. Thanks again!

 
liongam
 
Avatar
 
 
liongam
Total Posts:  343
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
09 August 2012 05:23
 

Dear Robert,

Would it be possible for you to supply further information regarding William Blackard, together with the blazon for the arms of Blackard that you found on Ancestry.com and why you suppose that this William Blackard may have been armigerous?

 

Presently it is rather a tall order to assume a descent from this particular William Blackard without proving it by exhaustive genealogical research as there must have been very many Blackard families (or variant spellings of the name) who reached North America from the 17th century onwards.  Sadly, hard work is the only way one can achieve this.  One needs to prove such a descent point by point with verifiable evidence in order to build a pedigree that will stand up to examination, especially when trying to prove a right to arms.  Even then you may find that you do not descend from an armigerous line of Blackards.

 

Another caveat should be raised here: are the arms of Blackard as found on Ancestry.com legitimate?  Do they appear in the records of the College of Arms either as a grant or a confirmation in the Herald’s Visitations?

 

If you are fortunate to prove such a descent you would need to record a pedigree showing your descent from an armigerous Blackard (if recorded as such) at the College of Arms in order to use and have a title to such arms.

 

Before undertaking any research to pursue a possible armigerous Blackard ancestor, it might be wise to contact the College of Arms through the Officer in Waiting and ask the current cost of having a General Search of the Official Records of the College of Arms undertaken.  This search will highlight any reference (if they exist) to the Blackards whether a grant or confirmation of arms, pedigree or other official entry.

 

If on the other hand, you wish to assume arms, as a citizen of the USA there would be no bar from you taking elements from such arms to produce your own, ‘Blackard’ arms with a twist to reflect your own locality, interests, etc.

 

With every good wish

 

John

 
Arthur Radburn
 
Avatar
 
 
Arthur Radburn
Total Posts:  229
Joined  15-06-2005
 
 
 
09 August 2012 08:51
 

Robert

As Joseph and John have said, genealogical research is the only way prove whether or not you have a claim to inherit an old coat of arms.

 

It would also help to try and find out the origins of the arms because, unfortunately, there are an awful lot of bogus arms out there in reference books and on the internet.  Some were bogus to begin with, others are inaccurate or distorted depictions or blazons of genuine arms.  You could spend a lot of time and money chasing after a fake.

 

Rylands’ Grantees of Arms, which lists English grants of arms down to 1898, has no entry under Blackard.  Admittedly, it’s not an official publication, and there could be omissions.

 

I got this image off ancestry.com.  Are these the arms you’re interested in :

http://www.americanheraldry.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=62&pictureid=1773

 

If they are, they may not be what they are stated to be.  They appear to be an inaccurate rendering of the arms of Blackadder of that Ilk (a Scottish chief), as given in Burke’s General Armory : Azure, on a chevron Argent three roses Gules.  The crest in the picture looks rather like a black adder.  There’s a Wikipedia article on the Clan Blackadder which has an accurate depiction of the arms, and some information about the family which may be of interest.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
09 August 2012 09:49
 

liongam;95169 wrote:

If you are fortunate to prove such a descent you would need to record a pedigree showing your descent from an armigerous Blackard (if recorded as such) at the College of Arms in order to use and have a title to such arms.


I generally agree with everything John says here, but with the reservation that I don’t accept that someone in the USA would be required to go to the College of Arms to validate entitlement to inherited arms, if he could prove a hereditary title through other evidence.

 
Richard G.
 
Avatar
 
 
Richard G.
Total Posts:  451
Joined  26-07-2011
 
 
 
09 August 2012 17:12
 

Robert, I’ve searched Armorial Families (1899), Crozier’s General Armoury, The county families of the United Kingdom, (1864) and General Armoury of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales (1884) for arms granted to the name Blackard. I found no arms for that name. However as Mr. Radburn correctly points out, there could be omission, or arms may have been granted at a later date.

Neither is the name Blackard registered with the Guild of One Name Studies.

 

I also had a look at Ancestry.com public member trees, and while there are numerous entries for Blackard, many appear to be unsourced, although these can still provide valuable research material.

 
liongam
 
Avatar
 
 
liongam
Total Posts:  343
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
09 August 2012 17:56
 

Joseph,

I know this is a ‘hot potato’ to some in the USA, but I only referenced that the placing of a duly examined and verified pedigree at College of Arms is generally required to prove one’s title to arms which originally came under the authority of the Kings of Arms in London and would allow a such descendant of an armigerous line to prove conclusively the use of the arms in question.  This would generally be the form in a perfect world.  Of course, there may be other methods to prove such a descent.  Once a pedigree has been entered into the College’s records, future members of the family may record further births and marriages (happily) and deaths (sadly) as ‘Additions to Records’ which would be cross referenced to the original pedigree or any subsequent pedigrees entered into the records at the College. The original grant or confirmation of arms would in turn be cross referenced to the pedigree/s.  Without such pedigrees being entered into the College’s Pedigree Registers, the College’s records would become moribund.  Like families, new blood is required.  Here it should be noted anyone, armigerous or not may place a pedigree on record at the College as long as each point/fact so entered can be proved evidentially beyond doubt.

 

The other advantage of having a pedigree entered into the Records of the College is that it would accepted in a court of law or other tribunal without question (at least over here).

 

In closing, there is no compulsion for a citizen of the USA to record such a pedigree at the College of Arms, but many have done so, not necessarily in relation to arms.

 

John

 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  10-03-2009
 
 
 
10 August 2012 03:20
 

Indeed, that raises the question, do all arms granted by authority of the crown neccessarily and ultimately belong to the crown? Would it not be proper to appease the granting authority then when dealing with "property" under their charge? Though an American may trace claim to it, that claim is still "granted" rather than assumed is it not?

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
10 August 2012 08:24
 

Jeffrey Boyd Garrison;95195 wrote:

Indeed, that raises the question, do all arms granted by authority of the crown neccessarily and ultimately belong to the crown? Would it not be proper to appease the granting authority then when dealing with "property" under their charge? Though an American may trace claim to it, that claim is still "granted" rather than assumed is it not?


Does all land granted by authority of the U.S. General Land Office necessarily and automatically belong to the United States government?  Do landowners in Ohio have to go back to the U.S. Department of the Interior to get permission to use the land they inherit from their parents?

 

By operation of law and by the terms of the letters patent themselves, arms once granted pass automatically to the heirs of the grantee.  The process was famously described by Lord Coke in 1628 and is spelled out in this clause in the LPs:  "...the said arms and crest to be borne and used forever by the said [name of grantee] and by his descendants with their due and proper differences according to the law of arms."  This is the armorial equivalent of a fee tail in real property law.

 
liongam
 
Avatar
 
 
liongam
Total Posts:  343
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
10 August 2012 16:16
 

"...the said arms and crest to be borne and used forever by the said [name of grantee] and by his descendants with their due and proper differences according to the law of arms."

This is undoubtedly true, but where some distance in time has elasped it is always wise to make good the title to the arms concerned by placing a pedigree on record at the College or attaching yourself to an existing pedigree or making an ‘Addition to Records’.  Of course from a practical viewpoint many grantees both in the present and in the past have never placed a pedigree on record at the College.  This can have consequences several generations down the line, when one’s descendants in the direct line or cousins who sprang off the original grant come to prove their right to arms.  It is a sad consequence that grantees are not encouraged to place a short pedigree at the College detailing the new grantee and his issue that would enable each generation which follows to add vital details which would enable those who came within the orbit of the original grant to make good their title to the arms without the recourse of extensive (and expensive) genealogical research.  Generally most families today are fairly small so knowledge of one’s arms would be known within, say, a generation or three, but beyond this when families become extended, this knowledge and awareness can become clouded at the very least and totally forgotten at the very worst.  The original Letters Patent can be lost through accident, fire or flood or it may well be lost to the family when a death occurs and its significance is not recognised.

 

There is no reason for an American or other national who descends from a family whose arms were granted or confirmed by the Kings of Arms in London should not register a pedigree or keep up the date family information within the College’s registers.  From a genealogical viewpoint it is a good thing to do.  Such registrations assist the College by adding to the corpus of genealogical records kept there.

 

In answer to the question posed by Jeffery: a grant from the Crown by Letters Patent or sometimes by Royal Warrant is a concession to an individual or corporation allowing certain advantages or rights.  Sometimes such grant or concession is time limited or in the case of grant of arms it is for forever to the descendants (or other such destination) of the original grantee according to the laws of arms.  Although a grant of arms is made to a particular individual and his descendants it is nonetheless it is a grant that emanates from the Crown through that Crown’s nominated officers, the Kings of Arms.  Therefore, the Crown still has a residual connection to the arms so granted or confirmed.  Likewise, it should be remembered that if an individual has proved a descent in the male line from an armigerous family whose arms were originally granted or confirmed by the Kings of Arms in England, these arms remain ‘English’ and do not become ‘American’ or ‘French’.  The analogy here in the United Kingdom is that arms which have been granted by the Kings of Arms in London when matriculated at Lyon Court do not become ‘Scottish’ they remain ‘English’.  I cannot see, therefore, why a citizen of the USA who has a proven right to arms that originally stemmed from England should baulk a placing a pedigree on record at the College and, thereafter, and then strive to keep up it to date.  It is not a question of bending the knee to a foreign sovereign.  It is a question of putting matters both heraldic and genealogical upon a firm (and continuing) basis within the heraldic tradition so inherited.

 

John

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
14 August 2012 17:11
 

liongam;95203 wrote:

This is undoubtedly true, but where some distance in time has elasped it is always wise to make good the title to the arms concerned by placing a pedigree on record at the College or attaching yourself to an existing pedigree or making an ‘Addition to Records’. Of course from a practical viewpoint many grantees both in the present and in the past have never placed a pedigree on record at the College. This can have consequences several generations down the line, when one’s descendants in the direct line or cousins who sprang off the original grant come to prove their right to arms.


I hope I didn’t imply that I had any objection to anyone who wishes to do so recording a pedigree with the College of Arms.  My concern was only to underline that doing so is not necessary for an American to use arms of English origin to which he has a hereditary entitlement.  Nor, for that matter, is it necessary for an Englishman to do so, as John correctly points out.  In an American context, however, I would contend that many of the same purposes can be served by recording a well researched, properly documented genealogy with some other institution where it will be safely preserved.


Quote:

Likewise, it should be remembered that if an individual has proved a descent in the male line from an armigerous family whose arms were originally granted or confirmed by the Kings of Arms in England, these arms remain ‘English’ and do not become ‘American’ or ‘French’.


I know this is the doctrine as between England and Scotland, but am having a hard time getting my head around how it would work in an unregulated heraldic environment like the US.  Ultimately all arms of whatever historic origin are of equal status here.  Whatever validity they may possess derives from simple user,  since the writ of the original granting authority is without any inherent force here and we have no authority that can give official recognition to the heraldic acts of another sovereign.  My shorthand way of thinking about it is that foreign arms become naturalized along with the person who bears them; in the United States, arms is arms.


Quote:

I cannot see, therefore, why a citizen of the USA who has a proven right to arms that originally stemmed from England should baulk a placing a pedigree on record at the College and, thereafter, and then strive to keep up it to date. It is not a question of bending the knee to a foreign sovereign.


As I said above, I don’t have any particular objection to anyone recording pedigrees at the College, but if one does so in the belief that it somehow gives the arms extra validity outside the Kings of Arms’ territorial jurisdiction, that actually does strike me as at least bowing the head if not bending the knee.

 
liongam
 
Avatar
 
 
liongam
Total Posts:  343
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
14 August 2012 21:10
 

Joseph,

I am not saying that such a registration of a pedigree either at the College of Arms or the Lyon Court (or any other such European registry for that matter) in accordance with one’s ancestry gives an extra validity or a certain cachet to one’s claim to arms.  It should not be a points scoring game, ie: my arms are better than your arms, kind of thing.  I only say it would allow such a descendant (if they so choose) to record the fact that he/she is stemmed from an armigerous family once so recorded in their particular registers.  I fully understand that a citizen of the USA who lives outside the run of the Queen’s Writ (and therefore need not have any regard for the Kings of Arms jurisdiction) may use such proven inherited arms without resource to the College or Lyon Court, but I contend it would a good thing to record such a pedigree as it allows the College or Lyon Court to place on record within their registers, pedigrees of families who over the last three centuries or so have become part of an heraldic diaspora.  It is hoped that such registrations from an heraldic, genealogical and sociological point of view would one day build up to quite a corpus of work from which future students could draw.  One other point, although you state that arms have been ‘naturalized’, if borne by a citizen of the USA and therefore become ‘American’, the origins of such arms cannot be refuted.  Much like our individual ancestries, one may be an American, but ultimately of English, Scottish, Irish or such other descent.

 

John

 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  10-03-2009
 
 
 
14 August 2012 21:11
 

To clarify, Americans who register their connection to ancestral arms with the college can walk around while visiting England with full confidence of their right to bear those arms there, while Americans visiting England who believe they have right but haven’t lodged their claim with the college have less (or no) rights of protection there?

Would Americans be advised not to make public their claims to arms while being physically in England if they had not submitted their geneologies to the college?

 
liongam
 
Avatar
 
 
liongam
Total Posts:  343
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
14 August 2012 21:13
 

Joseph,

I am not saying that such a registration of a pedigree either at the College of Arms or the Lyon Court (or any other such European registry for that matter) in accordance with one’s ancestry gives an extra validity or a certain cachet to one’s claim to arms.  It should not be a points scoring game, ie: my arms are better than your arms, kind of thing.  I only say it would allow such a descendant (if they so choose) to record the fact that he/she is stemmed from an armigerous family once so recorded in their particular registers.  I fully understand that a citizen of the USA who lives outside the run of the Queen’s Writ (and therefore need not have any regard for the Kings of Arms jurisdiction) may use such proven inherited arms without resource to the College or Lyon Court, but I contend it would a good thing to record such a pedigree as it allows the College or Lyon Court to place on record within their registers, pedigrees of families who over the last three centuries or so have become part of an heraldic diaspora.  It is hoped that such registrations from an heraldic, genealogical and sociological point of view would one day build up to quite a corpus of work from which future students could draw.  One other point, although you state that arms have been ‘naturalized’, if borne by a citizen of the USA and therefore become ‘American’, the origins of such arms cannot be refuted.  Much like our individual ancestries, one may be an American, but ultimately of English, Scottish, Irish or such other descent.

 

John

 
liongam
 
Avatar
 
 
liongam
Total Posts:  343
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
14 August 2012 21:36
 

Jeffery,

I should not worry on that score.  As with my previous correspondence on this topic.  All registrations of pedigrees at the College are in the main, voluntary.  The exception to this would be the lodging of a pedigree on the inheritance of a peerage or baronetcy.  Once a pedigree is entered in to the College’s registers, the family in question should endeavour to keep it up to date.  This, I am afraid, is often a hit or miss affair.  Sometimes, one or two generations if not more can pass before further additions are made; and sometimes no additions are ever made.  The great thing being at least a pedigree exists on record and can be added to, if and when, a descendant comes to light.  There is no particular compunction for an armigerous individual to record his pedigree at the College, although such a registration should be encouraged.  Therefore, an American claiming inherited arms as I have intimated need not worry on a visit to England to be caught by the ‘armorial police’.

 

John