|
Armorial Families
Before referring to the most important of the changes in the present
edition, it may be as well to refer to several minor points as to which I
often receive inquiries.
First, as to the "catch-line" names which appear in the book. In the first
edition the first entry for each surname was so distinguished for mere
purposes of ready reference, or perhaps even, for it was not my own idea, by
the desire of the printers to make an "artistic" page. Their efforts and
labour to that end have been unceasing, beyond even my own desires. But even
before the completion of the first edition the fatal objection had become
apparent that the addition of an entry for the same surname but with a
christian name earlier in the alphabet involved the displacement of the
catch-line from the one paragraph to the other, and the resetting of both. The
catch-lines were therefore abandoned; but I did not consider their importance,
in or out, was worth the cost of resetting in order to provide for their
deletion. Consequently those which were then standing in the type were allowed
to remain until such time as other alterations necessitated a disturbance in
the type of the particular entries containing them. As such opportunities
arise they are deleted, and each new edition has seen their number largely
reduced. They are thus automatically disappearing, and doubtless ere long will
have vanished.
In the present edition a new form of entry has been adopted. One seldom at the
very beginning of a project hits off the precise plan which the experience of
years in carrying out that enterprise eventually indicates as the most
advantageous. There were two considerations always before me. The chief was
the eternal literary difficulty of "space." My book was growing, and some
drastic change was necessary. My original idea (based upon the inclusion of
impalements) had been a separate entry for each separate person. That involved
a repetition of parentage (a matter of four or five lines, in the cases of
brothers, and a repetition of the tails of the arms, sometimes running to a
column or more. But if repetition became practically purposeless, because I
found in practice that a very small proportion of the entries carried
impalements. Man is keenly anxious to establish his own right to arms, who
feels this not his business, but the business of the male members of his
family to prove the right to arms on that side. Consequently a new system was
adopted in the present edition by which all bearing the arms are grouped
together under that coat, and all brothers together under the names of their
parents.
I have not thought while to reset the book at a cost of many hundreds of
pounds, m obtain a fixed uniformity of arrangement, where no change is made
information afforded between one type of entry comprising several and a number
of separate entries. On this point in the matter of lines I have taken, as I
propose to take in the future, every opp as alterations or changes occur
necessitating the disturbance of type entry, to convert the book to the form
now adopted. The other option was a printing technicality. Certain parts of an
entry, the aim, the livery, are permanent, needing no change generation after
generation. Other parts are constantly altering, and by putting the permanent
portion first it becomes less costly to make alterations.
Whilst the new form has been adopted in all new entries which now appear in
the work for the first time, the reverse is not the case. In all entries in
which alterations of any moment occurred the opportunity was taken to adopt
the new form, and the deduction to be drawn from the appearance of an entry in
either form is no greater than from the insertion or absence of the
black-letter catch-lines.
The coloured illustrations speak for themselves, and I can only hope the
insertion of these illustrations will prove the attraction I anticipate.
The dating of the arms has turned out a matter of great difficult; much
greater than I had anticipated. In the first place, few seem to know or care
about the date of their arms. It is easy enough to check the truth of a given
statement of claim : except in the grant of a modern coat it is almost
impossible to ascertain the date save by research and the expenditure of time
wholly prohibitive to the attempt. Where a reasonable claim has been made I
have attempted to verify it, and with few exceptions all such coats of arms
are dated. But the claims made have been much fewer than I anticipated. The
dates which are inserted are {a) those of the dates which I have been asked to
insert, which I believe to be correct, (d) dates which have been within my
knowledge before they were supplied to me by the owners of the arms. The date
of a grant of arms is public property to anybody who cares to pay the fees for
a search, but where, to assist me in my editorial work, my correspondents have
been good enough to tell me what the date of the grant is and have expressed a
wish that the date should not be published, I have respected that wish and
treated the information as supplied to me in confidence. But some people
object the publication of a date a century or more ago, which most would proud
to acknowledge. The dates where the arms are dated are those official
authorisation. In a few cases where the arms are found on early rolls it is
possible to take an old coat back approximately to its date of origin, but in
the bulk of ancient English cases one can do no more than refer to the
Visitations, which, though the earliest date of authorising may or may not be
the date of origin.
In Scottish cases, with rare exceptions, the earnest quotable date of
authorisation is 1672. But these coats form but a small proportion of the arms
in use.
The omission of the italic entries which have appeared in former editions may
or may not be an improvement. Many correspondents have written to me on the
point, some advocating insertion, some omission, but the imperative necessity
of reducing the space was the factor which finally decided the point. At first
I could not claim for " Armorial Families " any approach to completeness,
but-as each successive edition has brought more and more families under review
the approximation to completeness has lessened the necessity for the retention
of the italicised part, and lessened it to an increasing extent. But even yet
I do not claim to have reached the end, though I think I am now justified in
thinking my book is approximately a complete directory of those who are proved
to be officially entitled to. bear arms. I have sent out right and left for
the last twelve years, hundreds of thousands of information forms asking that
they should be filled up and returned to me. Whenever a form has been returned
to me from which on the face of it it seemed possible that the arms claimed
were born by right, I have taken steps to ascertain if the claim were good,
and whenever this has been the case such arms have been inserted without
charge or stipulation. I have gradually worked through such books as Burke's "
Landed Gentry," and each edition has left a diminishing remnant. Shortly
before I closed up the present edition for the press I wrote to the head of
every remaining Sourfamily in the "Landed Gentry" pointing out what I was
doing, saying I was aware of no modern proof of the right to the arms which
were attributed to him in that work, and asking that I might be advised if I
were wrong. The result of my letters astonished me. A very large number at
once informed me of their right under a comparatively modern grant or record,
not to the ancient arms attributed to them, but to some entirely distinct
coat!
I believe the present edition of "Armorial Families" may be fairly described
as approximately complete.
Peers and Baronets were included in the first and second editions of "Armorial
Families." They were then omitted solely for the reasons of space. But I
published a list of those whose right to arms was faulty. This list has since
been published in every edition. Corrected and reduced to date, it will be
found herein on pp. 1523-4. A few Peers and Baronets, however, appear in the
body of the book. Some remain under the under-taking I gave in my first
prospectus to retain in perpetuity the arms of every subscriber. The rest have
been inserted from time to time for various reasons, chiefly technical, which
it is not necessary to explain. Suffice it to say that every Peer and every
Baronet has genuine arms (but not always those which figure under his name in
the printed Peerage Books), except those to be found in the list I refer to.
Read the
Book - Free
Download the Book ( 227 MB PDF ) - Free
Note: This file is exceptionally large to download, but
due to the quality of the arms present, would be worth the wait.
Source: Fox-Davies, Arthur Charles. Armorial Families: a
directory of gentlemen of coat-armour. Published 1905, Edinburgh: T.C. & E.C.
Jack.
Heraldry Introduction
Surely even those who affect the greatest contempt for Heraldry will
admit that if Arms are to be borne at all, it should be according to the
laws of Arms; and that, if the display of them be an empty vanity, it is a
less creditable vanity to parade as our own those which belong of right to
others.
Heraldry has been contemptuously termed "the science of fools with long
memories." There is more wit than wisdom in the remark, and with the many
a smart saying has unfortunately a great advantage over a just one.
It is impossible to say that there is any direct testimony to the
existence of Armorial bearings in the now accepted sense of the word
earlier than the twelfth century, when they seem to have been adopted with
one accord throughout Europe. Previous to that period we read of "white
shields" and "red shields" and "gilded shields." In Salmund's Edda mention
is made of a red shield with a golden border. The Encomiast of Emma speaks
merely of the littering effulgence of the shields suspended on the sides
of the vessels of Canute. In the Anglo-Saxon illuminations we perceive the
shields of warriors generally painted white, with red and blue borders and
circles: on those of our Norman invaders as represented in the Bayeux
Tapestry, a work at the earliest of the close of the eleventh century, we
find crosses, rings, grotesque monsters, and fanciful devices of various
descriptions, but nothing approaching a regular heraldic figure or
disposition of figures. Some of the standards are striped and spotted in a
fashion which may have originated the pales, bars, and roundels of the
succeeding century, but as these devices are not repeated on any of the
bearers' shields they cannot be considered as personal insignia.
Thus we see that Heraldry as we know it, Heraldry even as it was
understood in its earliest stages, had no existence at the time of the
Norman Conquest, nor can any authenticated example be discovered of a
proper Armorial shield prior to the first Crusade. Ere the second had
reached its termination its usage was extensive and assured. That is all
that is known of its origin, but undoubtedly, for it is a matter no one
has as yet dreamed of disputing, the Crusades have exercised an influence
difficult to truly estimate. Not only are a vast proportion of heraldic
"charges" easily traceable to the Holy Land, but the assemblage of the
flower of European chivalry in all its nationalities, all claiming
nobility of birth, must have given a great impetus to the progress of a
science devoted and confined to themselves, apart from the encouragement
afforded to it by the requirement of some method of distinction amongst
themselves.
|