I am not the first to criticize the mass of genealogical publications, or to insist upon a program of improvement. But the interest in genealogy appears to be spreading instead of diminishing, even despite the war, and I therefore feel that a few remarks on this subject, colored by my own observations and experiences, may not be entirely useless.

Let me discourage in two ways: first, by pointing out some common misconceptions concerning what is possible in genealogy and heraldry; and second by pointing out the truly exacting nature of real genealogical research. Both discussions will, I trust, discourage the error-propagating drabblers, but the second discussion, though it may give pause to the serious worker, will also, perhaps, show him a way and a hope.

Apparently one of the fondest dreams of the amateur genealogist is that he will be able to trace his family to a royal, or at least a noble origin. Admitted or unadmitted, this dream is the spur that goads him in his labors, and very frequently it is strong enough to cause him to overlook all sorts of inconsistencies and impossibilities in the pedigree which finally "proves" such origin. And yet the facts, as pointed out a few years ago by the late Mr. J. G. Bartlett, nationally known genealogist, are that not one of the five thousand heads of families who came to America between 1620 and 1640 was actually of royal or noble birth. Moreover, less than one per cent are known to have belonged to the upper gentry of England, and only five per cent were of the minor mercantile or landed gentry. Despite this fact, there are scores of published American family histories which claim royal or noble descent, and which are graced by handsome colored reproductions of the family coat of arms.

We have often heard it said that any person with English blood might (if all the records were available) trace his ancestry to Alfred the Great. This may be 'true, but the line would be so long that there would probably be small satisfaction in the possession of a very tiny drop of the blood of Alfred the Great.

The point may be better illustrated by an example much closer home. Many Americans are thrilled to learn, or strive mightily to prove, that their families arrived on the "Mayflower." We can sympathize with their enthusiasm, but we can only smile when knowledge of such descent leads them to think that they are in exclusive company. The simple genealogical fact is that the descendants of John Alden alone number at least five million.

Again, the passion of some Americans for coats-of-arms has resulted in a situation distressing to the serious genealogical worker. All professional genealogists and all genealogical librarians are constantly plagued by clients or readers, in search of the family arms. Such persons often seize upon the first handsome coat they see belonging to a family of the same surname and take it as their own. Or they may fall into the hands of an unscrupulous professional - and there are a few-who will provide them with anything they want for a fee.

Actually, very few American families are entitled to bear arms. A coat-of-arms belongs only to the person to whom it was granted and, like any other piece of property, to his direct descendants. Other persons of the same surname, no matter how closely or how distantly related, have no right to it unless they descend from the original owner. Consequently, the right to bear arms in this country is limited to those comparatively few families who can show direct descent from an arms-bearing ancestor.