The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-05-21
Editor Tllnes-plspatch GENEALOGICAL Coli
Gregory

= &
Times nM Dispatch Of March lsih. evidently set
ties tho Gregory genenlogy Ihere ns1 IN, NJ
terest in this family being descended from n,
James Taylor. and his second Vile, Mary
Gregory, who were maried IN leS2 THIS May
been an Engiishman. us William Gregory, ,yiN
cmlgrated 10 New England, near or IN !!
" ne
There was Gee Gregory,s q Sog.,s
Gregory born in Yirginia i7 The GregorSsa
to tbe descended from tho Scotch Clan Nc,
Gregor but there Is no proof (only con1ecturell
that they are descendants O. ne aT Saeid
III, OF Scotland. tho direct line OF the chiefs
OF the Mcaregor clan ended IN e !, woman oman
q scot
Gregorys bearing the nrms Of the !. present sn.
William Gregory. who aemErated to Mn {, y
chusetts. did bear those arms Did William n,
Gregory bear the MeGregog arms oa have
done SO lawfully (except by special royal per
lnlsson). unless he was descended from On! tno
chiefs tha elan None nave 1a 9yho n
1T is first granted and his descendants. Some-
times when a noble line ends IN woman, tn y,
man whom she marries allowed (by roynity)
TO assume her famIly5arms because OF his ma
rlage. Many people In tho lnted ht y, So
have Of late years adoptea atnorea thsi
own. But they have no real rights to those
inrmorlal bearings OF families whose surname
is the same 40 their own Bnt .nsy naSe
proof OF descent from the man to whom tho
coat-of arms was first granted. Bearing tn
been said that Benjamin Franklin bore the
arms OF an English family named FranR nm
w"eh families III s1 naed TsaaHln NORTH
Of ngant1 and "a na % ae Ie Went q The
village OF Eotors (from which his father emil
grated In 1855 to New England) and searcn O.,
tho parish records. He found records Of h., his
father ancestry for many generations. but
said he could find no reason to suppose he wns
descended from either q tho armor, aavsr
printed on the inside OF his prayer book. but
there has never been any reason, 70 tho best PEI.
oi Saowsdse 9 y ney aet II
colonial times We know that 1either OF tho
arnor- bearing Franklin families had the honor
OF claiming SO famous descendant as As, Ben1n,
min FRANKLIN In the letters Of 1g!lzabeth
Bancroft written during her husbands resi-,
dence in England she says that hsr i so rs.
family name of Il famous 'ducal family IN
England, It Is well known to students OF MS ts.
sTy sat ss esn @
slrnanles and those surnames descended TO
tho posterity OF those servants it, II y n'so
Europe generality often used the name OF thor
dwelling place for a surname. Take the naro
Ludlowe or Ludlow y ls ne name q q rs, none 30
their servants could use IT. Ludlow Is also tho
name OF a town in Wales. Therefore. inhabi-
surname .r Truly mention this to prove how
misleading 1t Is to depend on a surname as
a surc proof Of descent. There Is no authentic
proof OF descent except old, authentic records,
in which guess work never, comes, or In tho
absence OF such records, the public use o. o.
coat-ar'nor during the colonla, perton. ~, y,
course. speak OF american lal''i'ea OF or'''sn
Il Is easier to know what French. German
Da''h than aam to know ass ' WHAT Families "a
British, origin have a. similar right, All Ger
man noble families have the. prefix dc lor
Moltke The same may be stated Of Dutch.
noble families only sTbsna'ns va, van ior ye
Wrench revolution, It was illegal In France for
any ono not entitled 10 eoat,armor to use Dc
The French revolution, this prefix has been
| sometimes adopted without legal right thereto,
But all who can automatically prove descent
from French family which publicly used ssh
revolution. are certainly entitled to- coat
armor For example Do r R@han Mi p ~ onS
AMERICA, sarnaimes Of noble French origin are
written az one word, such as the Franco
American names puPM Ply. pnsa aa nat i' s
Titled to de before their names were com,
PEELED Ia relInquish that prefix when 0bligN
iInt,enot Fontaines wrots their names With.
ne which Mas Rsr Sr'hEt "
names Of irish and British origin have not
4 f' de or Won before their family Alrnames,
Therefore no Irish Donegal can rightly s.sn
challsc his nains Into u tlnyegan, nor an Eng
ijsh 'Tenhan, become y lsnhnm, have twice
sNen published statements fnm ths iiera ~ y
Ne Oldest family In Great Britain Ia that Of
tihs FarI nf Mar, in Scotland He can anthen,
| Ninth, century have not the book now and
| do noS remember II It was the eighth or
I ninth sentury. Other sensalogies IN Great
1 mn early date Al that time, other families
| Of British descent hays only traditions 3,