Letter thoughtfully submitted by Rob Chaddock 3/99:

Dear Mr. Chaddock,

Thank you for your letters of 12 December and 23 February, and your cheque for £60. The required search has indeed been carried out, and I was on the point of sending you my report when I received your second letter.

The official records of the College of Arms contain only one reference to any family of Chaddock (in any likely spelling). This is an entry in the office copy of the Heralds' Visitation of Lancashire 1664-65, consisting of a five-generation pedigree dated 23 September 1664 and headed by Thomas Chaddock of Chaddock, in the Hundred of Derby in that county. His grandson Thomas Chaddock of Chaddock (died about 1644) married Jane Tonge, and had two sons and three daughters. At the time of the Visitation, the elder son Thomas was aged 24; the younger son John Chaddock of Leigh was then aged 22, married with a nine-month old son named Thomas.

They were using the Arms Gules within an Orle of Martlets an Escutcheon Argent charged with a Cross Gules together with the Crest A Martlet Argent. However, a note written below the drawing reads "Respite given for proofe of these Armes" (in the original draft of the pedigree, a similar note reads "The proofe of these Armes are respited till next Terme".) This is of some significance, because it means that the family was unable to establish a right to the Arms and Crest, and time was therefore given for the production of evidence of such entitlement. No subsequent addition was made to this entry, which suggests that no evidence was ever submitted.

It is therefore apparent that the Arms and Crest on the seal were being used in the 17th century by the family of Chaddock of Chaddock, but without authority; also that no other Chaddock family can be found registered here at any time, This means that there is no authorised Chaddock coat on official record, and it would not be possible for any Chaddock to prove a right to Arms by descent.

As well as the rough draft and the office copy of the 1664-65 Visitation, our library contains a volume of papers relating to the Visitation - warrants, lists of names of local gentry, correspondence and so on - but it has neither an index nor a table of contents and would take some time to examine thoroughly. A brief search of the papers has revealed no further information about the Chaddock family.

The 1664-65 Lancashire Visitation was transcribed and printed by the Chetham Society in 1872, and I enclose a photostat of the relevant page showing the Chaddock pedigree. This matches the pedigree on official record, apart from one or two minor differences. However, as no indication is given that the family was unable to establish its right to the Arms and Crest, it wrongly implies that they did.

As you know, Burke's The General Armory (1884) lists the Arms and Crest from the Lancashire Visitation for "Chadock". It attributes the same Arms with a very similar Crest to "Chadwick or Chadock (Cornwall)", but there is no entry for "Chaddock". I should perhaps explain that The General Armory is concerned with heraldic usage rather than with strict entitlement.

I also made a search in our official records to see whether the Arms on the seal were registered here for any other family, but I could find nothing other than the unauthorised usage recorded in the Lancashire Visitation. With the inescuthceon plain the Arms are on record here in a variety of colours for families of Brownlow, Chadwick of Lancashire (an extensive pedigree registered in 1778 shows their descent from Nicholaus de Chadwyk who held land in Rochdale in the late 14th century), Chidcock Enfield, Erpingham, Genney, Maydwell, Rashedale and Smalpage. With a different object or objects on the inescutcheon, the Arms are on record for families of Bagnoll, Bolling, Bowater, Maidenwell, Vaux and Wayer.

It is possible that the Visitation family of Chaddock had adopted the Arms of Chadwick since the names are so similar; but altered the design by adding a cross to the inescutcheon.

I am sorry to have to send a somewhat negative report, but hope that it is nonetheless of interest. I shall be happy to answer any further queries you may have.

	Yours sincerely,
	Richmond Herald