a bastard?
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
a bastard?
Thanks again to everyone here who have been so helpful answering my
neophyte questions. Here's another.
In the family I'm researching, there's a prominent person who pops up
out of nowhere. In the visitation his line's arms are standard, that
is, there's no bar sinister or anything else to hint at bastardy. He
was extremely wealthy and held very important offices under Henry VIII,
reporting directly to Thomas More. His second marriage he married the
heiress of one of the very best families of gentry in the county.
Nonetheless, on the family's tree, he doesn't fit. Sometimes he's
found here, sometimes there, sometimes not at all. The places he's
found are absolutely impossible -- they would put his death at the age
of 120-150! I think the people who made the genealogies had no idea
where he fit in, and just threw him in somewhere that made some sense
to them. Also, some of the family's Wills go into very great detail on
the order of succession and various smaller bequests, and he is not
named although so many other people in the family are. One inquest
mentions him as a person who had claimed right to a little bit of land
and been found to be its rightful owner by the jurors, but he was not
mentioned in the Will they were deliberating about.
Could a person who was a bastard use the standard family arms? Does
anyone have any instincts about the situation I'm describing?
neophyte questions. Here's another.
In the family I'm researching, there's a prominent person who pops up
out of nowhere. In the visitation his line's arms are standard, that
is, there's no bar sinister or anything else to hint at bastardy. He
was extremely wealthy and held very important offices under Henry VIII,
reporting directly to Thomas More. His second marriage he married the
heiress of one of the very best families of gentry in the county.
Nonetheless, on the family's tree, he doesn't fit. Sometimes he's
found here, sometimes there, sometimes not at all. The places he's
found are absolutely impossible -- they would put his death at the age
of 120-150! I think the people who made the genealogies had no idea
where he fit in, and just threw him in somewhere that made some sense
to them. Also, some of the family's Wills go into very great detail on
the order of succession and various smaller bequests, and he is not
named although so many other people in the family are. One inquest
mentions him as a person who had claimed right to a little bit of land
and been found to be its rightful owner by the jurors, but he was not
mentioned in the Will they were deliberating about.
Could a person who was a bastard use the standard family arms? Does
anyone have any instincts about the situation I'm describing?
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: a bastard?
In article <1113498105.336027.62660@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
geraldrm@earthlink.net wrote:
Well, this would militate against bastardy, which would have excluded
him from any claim to land belonging to his paternal family.
Before concluding he's a bastard, I would simply assume that he was part
of a more obscure branch who ended up well. The false age of 120-150
suggests he belongs 1 or 2 generations further down a collateral branch,
perhaps branching off at the alleged father, perhaps not.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
geraldrm@earthlink.net wrote:
Thanks again to everyone here who have been so helpful answering my
neophyte questions. Here's another.
In the family I'm researching, there's a prominent person who pops up
out of nowhere. In the visitation his line's arms are standard, that
is, there's no bar sinister or anything else to hint at bastardy. He
was extremely wealthy and held very important offices under Henry VIII,
reporting directly to Thomas More. His second marriage he married the
heiress of one of the very best families of gentry in the county.
Nonetheless, on the family's tree, he doesn't fit. Sometimes he's
found here, sometimes there, sometimes not at all. The places he's
found are absolutely impossible -- they would put his death at the age
of 120-150! I think the people who made the genealogies had no idea
where he fit in, and just threw him in somewhere that made some sense
to them. Also, some of the family's Wills go into very great detail on
the order of succession and various smaller bequests, and he is not
named although so many other people in the family are. One inquest
mentions him as a person who had claimed right to a little bit of land
and been found to be its rightful owner by the jurors, but he was not
mentioned in the Will they were deliberating about.
Well, this would militate against bastardy, which would have excluded
him from any claim to land belonging to his paternal family.
Could a person who was a bastard use the standard family arms? Does
anyone have any instincts about the situation I'm describing?
Before concluding he's a bastard, I would simply assume that he was part
of a more obscure branch who ended up well. The false age of 120-150
suggests he belongs 1 or 2 generations further down a collateral branch,
perhaps branching off at the alleged father, perhaps not.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: a bastard?
geraldrm@earthlink.net wrote:
Why don't you post the details - perhaps someone else has already looked
at the specific individual in question, and specific information would
help even in making a general conclusion.
taf
Thanks again to everyone here who have been so helpful answering my
neophyte questions. Here's another.
In the family I'm researching, there's a prominent person who pops up
out of nowhere. In the visitation his line's arms are standard, that
is, there's no bar sinister or anything else to hint at bastardy. He
was extremely wealthy and held very important offices under Henry VIII,
reporting directly to Thomas More. His second marriage he married the
heiress of one of the very best families of gentry in the county.
Nonetheless, on the family's tree, he doesn't fit. Sometimes he's
found here, sometimes there, sometimes not at all. The places he's
found are absolutely impossible -- they would put his death at the age
of 120-150! I think the people who made the genealogies had no idea
where he fit in, and just threw him in somewhere that made some sense
to them. Also, some of the family's Wills go into very great detail on
the order of succession and various smaller bequests, and he is not
named although so many other people in the family are. One inquest
mentions him as a person who had claimed right to a little bit of land
and been found to be its rightful owner by the jurors, but he was not
mentioned in the Will they were deliberating about.
Could a person who was a bastard use the standard family arms? Does
anyone have any instincts about the situation I'm describing?
Why don't you post the details - perhaps someone else has already looked
at the specific individual in question, and specific information would
help even in making a general conclusion.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: a bastard?
"Why don't you post the details - perhaps someone else has already
looked
at the specific individual in question, and specific information would
help even in making a general conclusion." taf
VERY WELL. Bear in mind I have already (1) read all the published
calendars of Rolls, (2) read all the descriptions of the manors in
Victoria History of the Counties, (3) read all the visitations for the
relevant counties, (4) read all volumes of Feudal Aids, (5) read every
issue of a journal devoted to the ancient history of the counties in
which the family lived, (6) read all of their surviving Wills and
inquisitions into their estates.
The family is that of Cardinal John Morton (b.1420), and the oddball is
Sir Rowland Morton. The family trees stick him as a brother of Dr.
John or a nephew (but not with any particular brother). He died in
1554 and his career took place mostly during the reign of Henry VIII,
when he reported directly to Thomas More. He was not named in the
Wills of the others, is not connected with the others except by
references at an inquest to his interest in some family land. He was
extremely wealthy and left large sums to charity, as well as building a
mortuary chapel modelled directly on that of Cardinal Morton. He
certainly was not a brother or nephew to the Cardinal, and just doesn't
fit at all on the tree that includes the Cardinal's brothers and
cousins -- whose lines are very well documented. I think family
tradition recalled that he had something to do with the Cardinal, and
arbitrarily stuck him on the tree somewhere near him as little more
than a wild guess.
Beyond 1400 the origins of this family are very cloudy. (Their origin
on the family tree is demonstrably false on numerous grounds.) One
working hypothesis would be that there was a lost branch from
c.1350-1400 that disappeared from the family tree. By this hypothesis,
Rowland's relationship to the Cardinal was too distant to demand a
share of his vast estate, but close enough that in the 1490s he could
go to him as a young man and ask him to help him start a career at the
Royal Court. (I have some candidates for these lost ancestors, but it
is difficult -- Morton was an extraordinarily common name in medieval
England.)
I threw out this "bastard" hypothesis as an alternative. Rowland uses
the same arms as the rest, but it's weird that he seems so isolated
from them and that his origin is so murky. (And it is not clear that
any of his lands were inherited -- most of his property came from two
outstanding marriages to wealthy heiresses.)
What's your gut instinct on this? A bastard or a lost line?
looked
at the specific individual in question, and specific information would
help even in making a general conclusion." taf
VERY WELL. Bear in mind I have already (1) read all the published
calendars of Rolls, (2) read all the descriptions of the manors in
Victoria History of the Counties, (3) read all the visitations for the
relevant counties, (4) read all volumes of Feudal Aids, (5) read every
issue of a journal devoted to the ancient history of the counties in
which the family lived, (6) read all of their surviving Wills and
inquisitions into their estates.
The family is that of Cardinal John Morton (b.1420), and the oddball is
Sir Rowland Morton. The family trees stick him as a brother of Dr.
John or a nephew (but not with any particular brother). He died in
1554 and his career took place mostly during the reign of Henry VIII,
when he reported directly to Thomas More. He was not named in the
Wills of the others, is not connected with the others except by
references at an inquest to his interest in some family land. He was
extremely wealthy and left large sums to charity, as well as building a
mortuary chapel modelled directly on that of Cardinal Morton. He
certainly was not a brother or nephew to the Cardinal, and just doesn't
fit at all on the tree that includes the Cardinal's brothers and
cousins -- whose lines are very well documented. I think family
tradition recalled that he had something to do with the Cardinal, and
arbitrarily stuck him on the tree somewhere near him as little more
than a wild guess.
Beyond 1400 the origins of this family are very cloudy. (Their origin
on the family tree is demonstrably false on numerous grounds.) One
working hypothesis would be that there was a lost branch from
c.1350-1400 that disappeared from the family tree. By this hypothesis,
Rowland's relationship to the Cardinal was too distant to demand a
share of his vast estate, but close enough that in the 1490s he could
go to him as a young man and ask him to help him start a career at the
Royal Court. (I have some candidates for these lost ancestors, but it
is difficult -- Morton was an extraordinarily common name in medieval
England.)
I threw out this "bastard" hypothesis as an alternative. Rowland uses
the same arms as the rest, but it's weird that he seems so isolated
from them and that his origin is so murky. (And it is not clear that
any of his lands were inherited -- most of his property came from two
outstanding marriages to wealthy heiresses.)
What's your gut instinct on this? A bastard or a lost line?
-
Chris Dickinson
Re: a bastard?
geraldrm@earthlink.net wrote:
<snip>
What's the origin of the name? Is there any reason to suppose that all
Mortons have a single origin? If there isn't, then I don't see you have any
problem.
Heraldry has nothing whatsoever to do with genealogy at a non-noble level in
England.
If he were a self-made man, then he would very likely have assumed an
existing coat of arms or have been granted a new one with almost no
distinction or have persuaded the heralds that he was of the same family.
If established Mortons perceived him as successful, then they would have
added him to the family tree, no questions asked.
The use of a coat of arms tells you nothing - except maybe about social
pretension.
<snip>
What do you mean by a lost line? It's only lost if you had it in the first
place
If he is totally unconnected, then he is from another line.
Chris
<snip>
Morton was an extraordinarily common name in medieval
England.)
What's the origin of the name? Is there any reason to suppose that all
Mortons have a single origin? If there isn't, then I don't see you have any
problem.
I threw out this "bastard" hypothesis as an alternative. Rowland uses
the same arms as the rest, but it's weird that he seems so isolated
from them and that his origin is so murky.
snip
Heraldry has nothing whatsoever to do with genealogy at a non-noble level in
England.
If he were a self-made man, then he would very likely have assumed an
existing coat of arms or have been granted a new one with almost no
distinction or have persuaded the heralds that he was of the same family.
If established Mortons perceived him as successful, then they would have
added him to the family tree, no questions asked.
The use of a coat of arms tells you nothing - except maybe about social
pretension.
<snip>
What's your gut instinct on this? A bastard or a lost line?
What do you mean by a lost line? It's only lost if you had it in the first
place
If he is totally unconnected, then he is from another line.
Chris
-
Gjest
Re: a bastard?
Replies to the comments of Chris.
Yes the name morton was indeed extraordinarily common name and no I'm
not leaping to the conclusion that he's the same family because of the
same name. All references to the family's history mention him, he was
mentioned in an inquest in relation to family property, he is found on
most family trees , and he built a chapel at Bosbury directedly modeled
after that of the family's most famous member. He would have come of
age around the time a Morton was basically running the government, a
Morton whose personal assistant would later be Sir Rowland's direct
boss. He's surely a member of this family.
About adopting someone else's coat of arms, I though that would get
people into big trouble. Isn't that what the Herald Visitations were
all about -- determining whether you actually had the right to use the
arms claimed to be yours?
What's the origin of the name? Is there any reason to suppose that all
Mortons have a single origin? If there isn't, then I don't see you have
any
problem.
By a "lost line", I meant one that had branched off several generations
earlier and never shows up in the family tree. There's no indication
of such a line of the family tree, but the early years of the West
Country line are limited to the direct heir (and not even a wife). To
boot, the origin they claim for the line is demonstrably false.
There are three possible explanation why Sir Rowland pops up out of
nowhere, and I don't think pretending to be a family member is one of
them. 1 - bastard. 2 - His line branched off during the late 14th
century. 3 - His actually antedates the Dorset line's founder, and
their relationship is in the very distant past. I've found some
pointers at the thrid option, but nothing persuasive. I'm assuming
option 2 is the best explanation, but I still can't rule out bastardy,
which is why I've appealed to the group's expertise on this subject.
Yes the name morton was indeed extraordinarily common name and no I'm
not leaping to the conclusion that he's the same family because of the
same name. All references to the family's history mention him, he was
mentioned in an inquest in relation to family property, he is found on
most family trees , and he built a chapel at Bosbury directedly modeled
after that of the family's most famous member. He would have come of
age around the time a Morton was basically running the government, a
Morton whose personal assistant would later be Sir Rowland's direct
boss. He's surely a member of this family.
About adopting someone else's coat of arms, I though that would get
people into big trouble. Isn't that what the Herald Visitations were
all about -- determining whether you actually had the right to use the
arms claimed to be yours?
What's the origin of the name? Is there any reason to suppose that all
Mortons have a single origin? If there isn't, then I don't see you have
any
problem.
By a "lost line", I meant one that had branched off several generations
earlier and never shows up in the family tree. There's no indication
of such a line of the family tree, but the early years of the West
Country line are limited to the direct heir (and not even a wife). To
boot, the origin they claim for the line is demonstrably false.
There are three possible explanation why Sir Rowland pops up out of
nowhere, and I don't think pretending to be a family member is one of
them. 1 - bastard. 2 - His line branched off during the late 14th
century. 3 - His actually antedates the Dorset line's founder, and
their relationship is in the very distant past. I've found some
pointers at the thrid option, but nothing persuasive. I'm assuming
option 2 is the best explanation, but I still can't rule out bastardy,
which is why I've appealed to the group's expertise on this subject.
-
Chris Dickinson
Re: a bastard?
geraldrm@earthlink.net wrote:
Not surely.
The strongest evidence out of the above is the mention in the inquest - and
that rather depends on what the mention involves. Just to have an interest
in property where someone with the same surname has an interest doesn't show
a family relationship - my family, for instance, has property that was once
owned by a Dickinson family, but it was a different family. We purchased it
about fifty years after their male line died out.
That's one reason why the origin of the name is important. If you have lots
of Mortons because different individuals were 'de Morton', or some other
generic reason, then the family lines may not share any direct male
ancestry - even if they are connected by cousinhood and property inheritance
in some other way.
To be found on a family tree means nothing. If anything, going back to your
earlier comment that he is found at different places on the tree, the
implication is that he was fitted onto the tree as an ornament - like
something strung onto a Christmas Tree. It's like stratification in
archaeology - it actually proves his arrival afterwards.
To spend a bit of money on an architectural copy also means nothing. If he
were an upstart, then the investment was very worthwhile - centuries later
it's still being used as evidence that he was of the family. Again, to use
my own family as an example (sorry guys!), my own family did that with our
19th century purchase of How Hall and Ennerdale Water - the hall was built
by the Patricksons, 'Kings of Ennerdale'. To own it legitimised our control
of the area at the time, and once a Patrickson was pencilled into a 17th
century spare place on our family tree, we could claim actual descent!
All our family histories mention the Penman of the Constitution - that's
doesn't mean we're of the same family. It's just part of a traditional
genealogical approach to draw in anyone famous with the same surname.
Again, the governmental coincidences don't actually prove anything.
Trouble? Not likely. Heralds wrote down what they were told or paid to write
down.
I don't think on the evidence you've presented so far that you can rule out
the fourth explanation.
Chris
All references to the family's history mention him, he was
mentioned in an inquest in relation to family property, he is found on
most family trees , and he built a chapel at Bosbury directedly modeled
after that of the family's most famous member. He would have come of
age around the time a Morton was basically running the government, a
Morton whose personal assistant would later be Sir Rowland's direct
boss. He's surely a member of this family.
Not surely.
The strongest evidence out of the above is the mention in the inquest - and
that rather depends on what the mention involves. Just to have an interest
in property where someone with the same surname has an interest doesn't show
a family relationship - my family, for instance, has property that was once
owned by a Dickinson family, but it was a different family. We purchased it
about fifty years after their male line died out.
That's one reason why the origin of the name is important. If you have lots
of Mortons because different individuals were 'de Morton', or some other
generic reason, then the family lines may not share any direct male
ancestry - even if they are connected by cousinhood and property inheritance
in some other way.
To be found on a family tree means nothing. If anything, going back to your
earlier comment that he is found at different places on the tree, the
implication is that he was fitted onto the tree as an ornament - like
something strung onto a Christmas Tree. It's like stratification in
archaeology - it actually proves his arrival afterwards.
To spend a bit of money on an architectural copy also means nothing. If he
were an upstart, then the investment was very worthwhile - centuries later
it's still being used as evidence that he was of the family. Again, to use
my own family as an example (sorry guys!), my own family did that with our
19th century purchase of How Hall and Ennerdale Water - the hall was built
by the Patricksons, 'Kings of Ennerdale'. To own it legitimised our control
of the area at the time, and once a Patrickson was pencilled into a 17th
century spare place on our family tree, we could claim actual descent!
All our family histories mention the Penman of the Constitution - that's
doesn't mean we're of the same family. It's just part of a traditional
genealogical approach to draw in anyone famous with the same surname.
Again, the governmental coincidences don't actually prove anything.
About adopting someone else's coat of arms, I though that would get
people into big trouble. Isn't that what the Herald Visitations were
all about -- determining whether you actually had the right to use the
arms claimed to be yours?
Trouble? Not likely. Heralds wrote down what they were told or paid to write
down.
There are three possible explanation why Sir Rowland pops up out of
nowhere, and I don't think pretending to be a family member is one of
them.
snip
I don't think on the evidence you've presented so far that you can rule out
the fourth explanation.
Chris
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: a bastard?
In message of 15 Apr, geraldrm@earthlink.net wrote:
No more than a local team wearing the football strip of Manchester
United, it is just impersonation and people might laugh. There is no
law in England to prevent this, or not one that can be implemented.
And in countries such as the USA, with no heraldic authorities, you can
do what you like.
Possibly. But I think it also provided evidence on who had property
and could be taxed.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
About adopting someone else's coat of arms, I though that would get
people into big trouble.
No more than a local team wearing the football strip of Manchester
United, it is just impersonation and people might laugh. There is no
law in England to prevent this, or not one that can be implemented.
And in countries such as the USA, with no heraldic authorities, you can
do what you like.
Isn't that what the Herald Visitations were all about -- determining
whether you actually had the right to use the arms claimed to be
yours?
Possibly. But I think it also provided evidence on who had property
and could be taxed.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Renia
Re: a bastard?
geraldrm@earthlink.net wrote:
Bastards aren't generally entitled to bear the arms of the father except
by special dispensation.
It would be a bit more helpful if you said who you were talking about.
Renia
Thanks again to everyone here who have been so helpful answering my
neophyte questions. Here's another.
In the family I'm researching, there's a prominent person who pops up
out of nowhere. In the visitation his line's arms are standard, that
is, there's no bar sinister or anything else to hint at bastardy. He
was extremely wealthy and held very important offices under Henry VIII,
reporting directly to Thomas More. His second marriage he married the
heiress of one of the very best families of gentry in the county.
Nonetheless, on the family's tree, he doesn't fit. Sometimes he's
found here, sometimes there, sometimes not at all. The places he's
found are absolutely impossible -- they would put his death at the age
of 120-150! I think the people who made the genealogies had no idea
where he fit in, and just threw him in somewhere that made some sense
to them. Also, some of the family's Wills go into very great detail on
the order of succession and various smaller bequests, and he is not
named although so many other people in the family are. One inquest
mentions him as a person who had claimed right to a little bit of land
and been found to be its rightful owner by the jurors, but he was not
mentioned in the Will they were deliberating about.
Could a person who was a bastard use the standard family arms? Does
anyone have any instincts about the situation I'm describing?
Bastards aren't generally entitled to bear the arms of the father except
by special dispensation.
It would be a bit more helpful if you said who you were talking about.
Renia
-
Renia
Re: a bastard?
geraldrm@earthlink.net wrote:
From
http://www.britannia.com/history/herefo ... sbury.html
Renia
Replies to the comments of Chris.
Yes the name morton was indeed extraordinarily common name and no I'm
not leaping to the conclusion that he's the same family because of the
same name. All references to the family's history mention him, he was
mentioned in an inquest in relation to family property, he is found on
most family trees , and he built a chapel at Bosbury directedly modeled
after that of the family's most famous member. He would have come of
age around the time a Morton was basically running the government, a
Morton whose personal assistant would later be Sir Rowland's direct
boss. He's surely a member of this family.
About adopting someone else's coat of arms, I though that would get
people into big trouble. Isn't that what the Herald Visitations were
all about -- determining whether you actually had the right to use the
arms claimed to be yours?
What's the origin of the name? Is there any reason to suppose that all
Mortons have a single origin? If there isn't, then I don't see you have
any
problem.
By a "lost line", I meant one that had branched off several generations
earlier and never shows up in the family tree. There's no indication
of such a line of the family tree, but the early years of the West
Country line are limited to the direct heir (and not even a wife). To
boot, the origin they claim for the line is demonstrably false.
There are three possible explanation why Sir Rowland pops up out of
nowhere, and I don't think pretending to be a family member is one of
them. 1 - bastard. 2 - His line branched off during the late 14th
century. 3 - His actually antedates the Dorset line's founder, and
their relationship is in the very distant past. I've found some
pointers at the thrid option, but nothing persuasive. I'm assuming
option 2 is the best explanation, but I still can't rule out bastardy,
which is why I've appealed to the group's expertise on this subject.
From
http://www.britannia.com/history/herefo ... sbury.html
The church interior has a good 15th century rood screen, but is most notable for its memorials to past residents of the leased-out Bishop's Palace. Sir Rowland Morton built the fan-vaulted 'Morton Chantry' in 1528, copying his uncle, Cardinal John Morton's work at Canterbury Cathedral.
Renia
-
Frank Bullen
Re: a bastard?
Hi Tim
You wrote ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
I take leave to doubt the accuracy of the above.
Just as copyright in software, pictures, music etc., carries the rights of
intellectual property, the grant of Arms bestows a specific right, on a
specific person, at a specific time, to use a specific device as their
individual property - property which, like othe property, is heritable but,
in the case of a grant of Arms, under specific rules laid down by the
heraldic authority concerned. Infringement of that right can be pursued in
the courts.
While it is true that it is difficult to evaluate damages in such a case,
there have been instances, in England and elsewhere, brought before the
courts for misuse of a Coat of Arms and, invariably, the registered owner of
those Arms has won, costs usually being awarded against the defendant.
One well known case in England involves misuse of the Arms of a large city.
Here in South Africa, a school which had adopted a specific device as its
badge, but had not registered that device with the State Herald, lost the
case it brought against a second school which later adopted the identical
device, but had taken the precaution of registering their Arms with the
State Herald. Despite the first school's claim of prior use, the lack of
registration cost it not only the court fees, but that of replacing the
infringing design with aone sufficiently different for the S A State Herald
to accept and register the new design. Stationery, signage, school blazer
badges etc., etc. all had to be replaced.
Regards
Frank
So, although any fine imposed against an infringing party might be small, it
is feasible that the court and legal costs might be more of a deterrant to a
would be "pirate".
You wrote ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
There is no
law in England to prevent this, or not one that can be implemented.
And in countries such as the USA, with no heraldic authorities, you can
do what you like.
Isn't that what the Herald Visitations were all about -- determining
whether you actually had the right to use the arms claimed to be
yours?
Possibly. But I think it also provided evidence on who had property
and could be taxed.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe
I take leave to doubt the accuracy of the above.
Just as copyright in software, pictures, music etc., carries the rights of
intellectual property, the grant of Arms bestows a specific right, on a
specific person, at a specific time, to use a specific device as their
individual property - property which, like othe property, is heritable but,
in the case of a grant of Arms, under specific rules laid down by the
heraldic authority concerned. Infringement of that right can be pursued in
the courts.
While it is true that it is difficult to evaluate damages in such a case,
there have been instances, in England and elsewhere, brought before the
courts for misuse of a Coat of Arms and, invariably, the registered owner of
those Arms has won, costs usually being awarded against the defendant.
One well known case in England involves misuse of the Arms of a large city.
Here in South Africa, a school which had adopted a specific device as its
badge, but had not registered that device with the State Herald, lost the
case it brought against a second school which later adopted the identical
device, but had taken the precaution of registering their Arms with the
State Herald. Despite the first school's claim of prior use, the lack of
registration cost it not only the court fees, but that of replacing the
infringing design with aone sufficiently different for the S A State Herald
to accept and register the new design. Stationery, signage, school blazer
badges etc., etc. all had to be replaced.
Regards
Frank
So, although any fine imposed against an infringing party might be small, it
is feasible that the court and legal costs might be more of a deterrant to a
would be "pirate".
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: a bastard?
In message of 16 Apr, bullenfw41@telkomsa.net ("Frank Bullen") wrote:
Let's confine this to England as each heraldic authority has different
rules.
Not true. The only court that might have power to hear the case is the
Court of Chivalry, held by the Earl Marshal. That court sat for the
first time in over 200 years in 1954 and has not sat since, nor is it
expected to. Finally the judgement was muddled by the Surrogate
(Goddard, the then lord chief justice, sitting in for the earl marshal)
saying that while he thought he had powers to order various things, he
was not sure they would not be overturned on appeal. The tragedy is
that the defendants did not take the hint and appeal. My suspicion is
that this case was a put-up job to give some pretence of legal backing
to the holders of arms.
Chapter and verse for these assertions of mine can be found in the
verbatim report of the Manchester Palace of Varieties case published by
the Heraldry Society in 1955.
I wish I knew of these cases but I have heard of none other than this
tendentious Manchester Palace of Varieties case.
The only well known case. The clincher in the case was the misuse of
the seal rather than the arms. It was thought that the common practice
of displaying arms of public bodies was too widespread to be condemned.
That is South Africa. The same would not apply in England as there are
no sanctions that can be reliably applied, a matter that was clearly
shown in the Manchester case. However in Scotland the law is much
stronger and, should the lord Lyon dare to do it, I would expect him to
win the odd case in court; but possibly the Scottish parliament would
then remove some of his powers!
If you want to see quotations of relevant extracts of the Manchester
case, I have made quite a few on the newsgroup rec.heraldry where this
topic more properly belongs. Among those archives, one exchange might
be of interest:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec ... 0381083409
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
There is no law in England to prevent this, or not one that can be
implemented. And in countries such as the USA, with no heraldic
authorities, you can do what you like.
Isn't that what the Herald Visitations were all about --
determining whether you actually had the right to use the arms
claimed to be yours?
Possibly. But I think it also provided evidence on who had property
and could be taxed.
I take leave to doubt the accuracy of the above.
Just as copyright in software, pictures, music etc., carries the rights of
intellectual property, the grant of Arms bestows a specific right, on a
specific person, at a specific time, to use a specific device as their
individual property - property which, like othe property, is heritable but,
in the case of a grant of Arms, under specific rules laid down by the
heraldic authority concerned.
Let's confine this to England as each heraldic authority has different
rules.
Infringement of that right can be pursued in the courts.
Not true. The only court that might have power to hear the case is the
Court of Chivalry, held by the Earl Marshal. That court sat for the
first time in over 200 years in 1954 and has not sat since, nor is it
expected to. Finally the judgement was muddled by the Surrogate
(Goddard, the then lord chief justice, sitting in for the earl marshal)
saying that while he thought he had powers to order various things, he
was not sure they would not be overturned on appeal. The tragedy is
that the defendants did not take the hint and appeal. My suspicion is
that this case was a put-up job to give some pretence of legal backing
to the holders of arms.
Chapter and verse for these assertions of mine can be found in the
verbatim report of the Manchester Palace of Varieties case published by
the Heraldry Society in 1955.
While it is true that it is difficult to evaluate damages in such a
case, there have been instances, in England and elsewhere, brought
before the courts for misuse of a Coat of Arms and, invariably, the
registered owner of those Arms has won, costs usually being awarded
against the defendant.
I wish I knew of these cases but I have heard of none other than this
tendentious Manchester Palace of Varieties case.
One well known case in England involves misuse of the Arms of a large
city.
The only well known case. The clincher in the case was the misuse of
the seal rather than the arms. It was thought that the common practice
of displaying arms of public bodies was too widespread to be condemned.
Here in South Africa, a school which had adopted a specific device as
its badge, but had not registered that device with the State Herald,
lost the case it brought against a second school which later adopted
the identical device, but had taken the precaution of registering
their Arms with the State Herald. Despite the first school's claim
of prior use, the lack of registration cost it not only the court
fees, but that of replacing the infringing design with aone
sufficiently different for the S A State Herald to accept and
register the new design. Stationery, signage, school blazer badges
etc., etc. all had to be replaced.
That is South Africa. The same would not apply in England as there are
no sanctions that can be reliably applied, a matter that was clearly
shown in the Manchester case. However in Scotland the law is much
stronger and, should the lord Lyon dare to do it, I would expect him to
win the odd case in court; but possibly the Scottish parliament would
then remove some of his powers!
If you want to see quotations of relevant extracts of the Manchester
case, I have made quite a few on the newsgroup rec.heraldry where this
topic more properly belongs. Among those archives, one exchange might
be of interest:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec ... 0381083409
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Frank Bullen
Re: a bastard?
Thank you, Tim, for clarifying the situation in England. It was, in fact
the Manchester case I hads in miind.
My understanding is that, when South Africa withdrew from the Commonwealth,
the legislation followed very closely that which had obtained when South
Africa worked through the College of Arms. I must have a word with the
former State Herald, Mr F. E. Brownell and get his response.
Regards
Frank
the Manchester case I hads in miind.
My understanding is that, when South Africa withdrew from the Commonwealth,
the legislation followed very closely that which had obtained when South
Africa worked through the College of Arms. I must have a word with the
former State Herald, Mr F. E. Brownell and get his response.
Regards
Frank
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: a bastard?
In message of 16 Apr, bullenfw41@telkomsa.net ("Frank Bullen") wrote:
It occurs to me that any action upheld by the South African courts may
be based on a misunderstanding of English law.
The literal record of the Mancheter Palace of Varieties case of 1954 is
really worth getting hold of if you can find a copy as it contains
superb summaries of aspects of heraldry law, or the lack of same, over
the centuries.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Thank you, Tim, for clarifying the situation in England. It was, in
fact the Manchester case I hads in miind.
My understanding is that, when South Africa withdrew from the
Commonwealth, the legislation followed very closely that which had
obtained when South Africa worked through the College of Arms. I
must have a word with the former State Herald, Mr F. E. Brownell and
get his response.
It occurs to me that any action upheld by the South African courts may
be based on a misunderstanding of English law.
The literal record of the Mancheter Palace of Varieties case of 1954 is
really worth getting hold of if you can find a copy as it contains
superb summaries of aspects of heraldry law, or the lack of same, over
the centuries.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Frank Bullen
Re: a bastard?
Dear Tim
You wrote -
<It occurs to me that any action upheld by the South <African courts may
<be based on a misunderstanding of English law.
Not wishing to initiate yet another of the emotional and childish exchanges
that mar this discussion group, but - simply as a matter of interest - you
make quite an assumption that the South African court might have
misunderstood English law.
Though not a South African other than by residence, having lived here on and
off since 1948, I do have a very high regard for the high standards and
knowledge possessed by the South African legal profession and by the
heraldic authorities of the day, and seriously doubt that there was any
question as to their misunderstanding English law.
Regards - and thanks for your suggestion.
Frank
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2005 2:01 AM
Subject: Re: a bastard?
You wrote -
<It occurs to me that any action upheld by the South <African courts may
<be based on a misunderstanding of English law.
Not wishing to initiate yet another of the emotional and childish exchanges
that mar this discussion group, but - simply as a matter of interest - you
make quite an assumption that the South African court might have
misunderstood English law.
Though not a South African other than by residence, having lived here on and
off since 1948, I do have a very high regard for the high standards and
knowledge possessed by the South African legal profession and by the
heraldic authorities of the day, and seriously doubt that there was any
question as to their misunderstanding English law.
Regards - and thanks for your suggestion.
Frank
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2005 2:01 AM
Subject: Re: a bastard?
In message of 16 Apr, bullenfw41@telkomsa.net ("Frank Bullen") wrote:
Thank you, Tim, for clarifying the situation in England. It was, in
fact the Manchester case I hads in miind.
My understanding is that, when South Africa withdrew from the
Commonwealth, the legislation followed very closely that which had
obtained when South Africa worked through the College of Arms. I
must have a word with the former State Herald, Mr F. E. Brownell and
get his response.
It occurs to me that any action upheld by the South African courts may
be based on a misunderstanding of English law.
The literal record of the Mancheter Palace of Varieties case of 1954 is
really worth getting hold of if you can find a copy as it contains
superb summaries of aspects of heraldry law, or the lack of same, over
the centuries.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
______________________________
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: a bastard?
In message of 17 Apr, bullenfw41@telkomsa.net ("Frank Bullen") wrote:
This is why I said that a reading of the record of the 1954 case was
vital. Apologies for continuing on this matter to those who are not
interested; it should really be raised on the rec.heraldry newsgroup. So
I'll be brief.
In the time of Richard II a law was passed in parliament that no
matters belonging to the court of the constable and marshal (ie the
court of chivalry) were to be held in the common courts - and vice
versa. So all heraldry cases were held in the court of chivalry until
hearings ceased in the early 1700s, mostly because all judgements were
being overturned in the appeal courts.
In the mid 19th century this law of Richard II's time was repealed
along with a shed-load of other ancient and probably irrelevant laws.
So in principle matters of heraldry could then be tried in the common
courts. In fact no such cases have been taken there and the only
subsequent case has been held in 1954 in the Court of Chivalry.
For a case to be held in the common courts (ie the normal magistrates
and high courts), some law has to be established as relevant. This law
would have to be either statute law, of which there is none, or common
law or precedent, of which also there is none as all cases had been
held in the court of chivalry. So some other common or statute law
would have to be treated as relevant and precedents thereby established.
This question of what law was relevant to the court in South Africa is
the one that they would have had to have treated upon first. I cannot
believe that they sat as a successor to the court of chivalry. Hence
my suspicion remains that they tried such a case based on a
misunderstanding of English law. Or was it that South Africa has some
special statute laws that protect arms?
If there is some useful account available on South African law, I
really do suggest it is taken to the rec.heraldry newsgroup where there
are many other people who would make excellent contributions.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
I had written
It occurs to me that any action upheld by the South <African courts
may be based on a misunderstanding of English law.
Not wishing to initiate yet another of the emotional and childish exchanges
that mar this discussion group, but - simply as a matter of interest - you
make quite an assumption that the South African court might have
misunderstood English law.
Though not a South African other than by residence, having lived here on and
off since 1948, I do have a very high regard for the high standards and
knowledge possessed by the South African legal profession and by the
heraldic authorities of the day, and seriously doubt that there was any
question as to their misunderstanding English law.
This is why I said that a reading of the record of the 1954 case was
vital. Apologies for continuing on this matter to those who are not
interested; it should really be raised on the rec.heraldry newsgroup. So
I'll be brief.
In the time of Richard II a law was passed in parliament that no
matters belonging to the court of the constable and marshal (ie the
court of chivalry) were to be held in the common courts - and vice
versa. So all heraldry cases were held in the court of chivalry until
hearings ceased in the early 1700s, mostly because all judgements were
being overturned in the appeal courts.
In the mid 19th century this law of Richard II's time was repealed
along with a shed-load of other ancient and probably irrelevant laws.
So in principle matters of heraldry could then be tried in the common
courts. In fact no such cases have been taken there and the only
subsequent case has been held in 1954 in the Court of Chivalry.
For a case to be held in the common courts (ie the normal magistrates
and high courts), some law has to be established as relevant. This law
would have to be either statute law, of which there is none, or common
law or precedent, of which also there is none as all cases had been
held in the court of chivalry. So some other common or statute law
would have to be treated as relevant and precedents thereby established.
This question of what law was relevant to the court in South Africa is
the one that they would have had to have treated upon first. I cannot
believe that they sat as a successor to the court of chivalry. Hence
my suspicion remains that they tried such a case based on a
misunderstanding of English law. Or was it that South Africa has some
special statute laws that protect arms?
If there is some useful account available on South African law, I
really do suggest it is taken to the rec.heraldry newsgroup where there
are many other people who would make excellent contributions.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Gjest
Re: a bastard?
I've now turned up the earliest reference to Sir Rowland, which places
his residence as Twyning, Gloucestershire. Only one member of the
family had property in that county, Cardinal Morton's nephew Thomas, a
lawyer who practiced in Cirencester and lived in Lechlade. I am
wondering whether Rowland was Thomas Morton's bastard, and as a young
man he turned up on his famous uncle's doorstop asking for help getting
started in life. Cardinal John was deeply devoted to Thomas' brother
Robert, to whom he repeatedly gave lofty positions. I suppose he would
have helped out Thomas too, by helping his natural son. (Alternative
theory: Rowland was Dr. John's natural son, born back when Dr. John
was already ordained but his career was completely secular He gave
the boy to the person most logical to see to his raising, his closest
nephew outside the clergy, Thomas, who kept it all discretely hushed up
and placed him with a family in Twyning.)
his residence as Twyning, Gloucestershire. Only one member of the
family had property in that county, Cardinal Morton's nephew Thomas, a
lawyer who practiced in Cirencester and lived in Lechlade. I am
wondering whether Rowland was Thomas Morton's bastard, and as a young
man he turned up on his famous uncle's doorstop asking for help getting
started in life. Cardinal John was deeply devoted to Thomas' brother
Robert, to whom he repeatedly gave lofty positions. I suppose he would
have helped out Thomas too, by helping his natural son. (Alternative
theory: Rowland was Dr. John's natural son, born back when Dr. John
was already ordained but his career was completely secular He gave
the boy to the person most logical to see to his raising, his closest
nephew outside the clergy, Thomas, who kept it all discretely hushed up
and placed him with a family in Twyning.)
-
Gjest
Re: a bastard?
I now think the last detail I added, that he can be placed in Twynings,
Glouc., is mistaken. I found it in only one pedigree, of a family his
descendants intermarried with, and I think that person was confused.
Twynings was the home of his brother-in-law from his second marriage,
Richard Monington. I think the family -- or herald -- or editor --
simply got them mixed up.
Glouc., is mistaken. I found it in only one pedigree, of a family his
descendants intermarried with, and I think that person was confused.
Twynings was the home of his brother-in-law from his second marriage,
Richard Monington. I think the family -- or herald -- or editor --
simply got them mixed up.