Haven’t posted in a while. I was wondering, does anyone know if the US Heraldic Registry is still active? I emailed them a while ago, but no one has replied. If I recall correctly, one of our own members is in charge of it, I think?
Thanks a lot!
]]>This is what I really think.
If an American chooses to shop abroad for arms for sentimental reasons, or for the quality of the artwork and calligraphy, or for a hopefully more permanent record, and is willing and able to pay the sticker price, swell. The arms are usually well-designed and executed, and on that basis are something to be proud of.
But…
If he does it for some perceived increase or validation of social status flowing from a foreign sovereign, thus in his mind setting himself above the rest of his fellow citizens, shame on him - the very desire is unworthy of a citizen of a democratic republic and a betrayal of those who founded and have fought for it.
Social standing based on personal accomplishment, public service, and good character is entirely consistent with our values; attempting to bypass those troublesome personal criteria and substitute some bought and paid for foreign honour, heraldic or otherwise, isn’t.
]]>It’s a philosophical question, but I wonder if a personal seal is not more representative of US citizens than a personal shield and crest. Traditional heraldry has its roots in knightly combat and in chivalric pageantry among the warlike aristocracies of Europe. Although most Americans are originally of European extract, our nation is not one built on warrior castes. Ours has been a commercial republic, more or less governed by lawyers and businessmen. And what else is a seal but the exemplification of a world of signatures, contracts and official correspondence?—symbolic of the American “aristocracy”. As heraldic authorities themselves, state and federal legislatures, the US Army Institute of Heraldry and many agencies have more or less already set a precedent in the US.
So if the US government gave itself the responsibility of making personalized heraldic grants to US citizens, would the personal seal not be a more apt heraldic achievement for Americans? I ask this question objectively since I certainly prefer the beauty and discipline of traditional heraldry to seals; which seem to have no governing standards of correctness.
]]>https://twitter.com/TheWhiteShield/status/359363694284640256
]]>usheraldicregistry.com
]]>If an ancestor, maybe about 100 years back, adopted arms illegitimately, but it was so heavily utilized by the false-armiger and subsequently proudly adopted by descendants, could that potentially be acceptable use by the descendants in congruence with AHS guidelines?
No doubt history is full of medieval families usurping arms. Why else pay to have visitations? Some must have gotten away with it. Aren’t there families that (incidentally or not) use the same arms?
There is this section in the guidelines:
Quote:
5.2.4. If it is clear that one of the parties concerned is using the arms without having made a good faith effort to ensure their uniqueness (as discussed in section 2.1.1.2) before adopting the arms, or if one of the arms was clearly usurped at the time it was assumed, then obviously the party without a bona fide right to the design should alter his arms with a sufficient difference to make clear that they are the arms of an unrelated person.
However, the guidelines state that duplication of arms in the US can be tolerated if there is no proximity between two families bearing the same arms. Would use of these arms be "acceptable" so long as they can "get away with it?"
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not advocating one way or the other. But lots of things - even crowns - have been taken through illegitimate means, but as time passes they seem to auto-legitimize.
]]>
Quote:
The Committee on Heraldry was constituted in 1864 *by the New England Historic Genealogical Society in rebuttal to a comment made in the secessionist legislature in Richmond that the northern states were colonised by riff-raff, all the better people having emigrated to the South. Boston, taking itself seriosly as it ever has done, immediately set up the Committee to expose the lie. The charge of the Committee, as formed, is to collect for the Society all instances of the usage of coats of arms in the United States. This, it continues to do nearly a century and a half later.
Interesting motive.
If so, is this something the AHS would see itself championing and pursuing?
If not, I assume its because the freedom to assume arms and avoid regulation is the preference of the vast majority?
I’m new to the board (and US heraldry), so thanks for indulging me on this. I’d like to understand the general consensus here and I appreciate your comments.
]]>