Ex-Bonapartists in America

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
30 December 2013 21:53
 

A while back I posted the arms of several of Napoleon I’s former generals who came to Alabama in the late 1810s to establish a "Vine and Olive Colony" in present-day Marengo County. They were not the only former Bonapartists to come to the U.S., however.

Two others were:

 

Brig Gen Baron Antoine Rigau (also spelled Rigaux or Rigaud) was born at Agen, in Aquitaine, in 1758 and died in New Orleans in 1820. He came to the U.S. in 1817 and was involved in the attempt to establish a Bonapartist stronghold in Texas in 1818. His arms were Tierced per fess the chief per pale, 1st Sable two stars in fess Argent; 2nd Gules a sword palewise Argent(the insignia of a military baron of the empire); 3rd Azure a foi (two hands clasped) fesswise Or.

http://www.americanheraldry.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1300&stc=1&d=1388458036

 

Maj Gen Count Dominique-Joseph-Réné Vandamme d’Unsenbourg (d. Cassel, French Flanders, 1830). He was in Philadelphia 1817-19. He bore Gules on a champagne Vert a fortress flanked by two towers Argent port and windows Sable, the port surmounted by the figure of Fame Or; overall a diminished chief per pale of three, 1st Azure a sword palewise Argent hilted and pommelled Or (the insignia of a military count of the empire); 2nd Or a shield Azure charged with an S within an orle Or; 3rd Sable four grenades in bend Or flamed Gules.

http://www.americanheraldry.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1301&stc=1&d=1388458052

 

Neither one a candidate for anyone’s design award.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
31 December 2013 18:19
 

Hmmm—would it be impolite to wonder whether those French imperial cantons of rank are really appropriate in an American context?  Would inclusion in the shield be less/more/just as inappropriate as nobility external additaments?

Not questioning them in an historical record or display of actual use, but if they have descendants in the US today…

 

Just to end the year with a bit of hopefully interesting controversy smile

 
Nick B II
 
Avatar
 
 
Nick B II
Total Posts:  203
Joined  26-11-2007
 
 
 
01 January 2014 10:49
 

Question:

If a Wellesley immigrated to the US, would you object to them using their ancestral arms because the first Duke received an augmentation as one of the honors associated with his title?

How about a Howard descended from the Dukes of Norfolk?

 

I wouldn’t. One of the things I love about heraldry is that it allows you to know the family history of the user, and even if the generations immediately succeeding the Revolution decreed Lord Sterling was a terrible American for using his title, a lot of the interesting bits of the family history of a Wellesley or a Howard are intimately connected to the title.

 

The Cantons granted by Napoleon are just the French Imperial period equivalent of those augmentations. Why would a French family have to get rid of one of the more interesting bits of history on their CoA if the English don’t? If it’s enough for a Swedish nobleman to stop using his additaments, why isn’t it enough for a French one?

 

If you’re arguing they should change it on aesthetic grounds I’ll agree with you. French Imperial Arms aren’t very pretty, mostly the Canton almost never goes with the rest of the Arms, but partly for the same reason almost every thread on Bishop’s arms includes the phrase "we’ve seen worse." When you make heraldry something everybody who achieves a certain level of success has to do on the day they get promoted a lot of them won’t take it very seriously, and won’t put the time/effort into it that good heraldry requires.

 
Jeremy Keith Hammond
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeremy Keith Hammond
Total Posts:  789
Joined  20-06-2008
 
 
 
01 January 2014 12:05
 

Joseph,

In addition to sharing your curious heraldic discoveries and the accompanying illustrations, I wonder if you might also share your sources. I’m wicked curious about how you come across all these - it’s fascinating.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
01 January 2014 12:24
 

Nick B II;101208 wrote:

Question:

If a Wellesley immigrated to the US, would you object to them using their ancestral arms because the first Duke received an augmentation as one of the honors associated with his title?

How about a Howard descended from the Dukes of Norfolk?

 

I wouldn’t. One of the things I love about heraldry is that it allows you to know the family history of the user, and even if the generations immediately succeeding the Revolution decreed Lord Sterling was a terrible American for using his title, a lot of the interesting bits of the family history of a Wellesley or a Howard are intimately connected to the title.

 

The Cantons granted by Napoleon are just the French Imperial period equivalent of those augmentations. Why would a French family have to get rid of one of the more interesting bits of history on their CoA if the English don’t? If it’s enough for a Swedish nobleman to stop using his additaments, why isn’t it enough for a French one?

 

If you’re arguing they should change it on aesthetic grounds I’ll agree with you. French Imperial Arms aren’t very pretty, mostly the Canton almost never goes with the rest of the Arms, but partly for the same reason almost every thread on Bishop’s arms includes the phrase "we’ve seen worse." When you make heraldry something everybody who achieves a certain level of success has to do on the day they get promoted a lot of them won’t take it very seriously, and won’t put the time/effort into it that good heraldry requires.


But the Napoleonic cantons/quarters differ fundamentally from other augmentations, in that each of them indicates a specific status in the Napoleonic system of noble titles. The augmentation of a Union escutcheon in the arms of Wellington does not assert noble status, nor does the augmentation for the Battle of Flodden in the arms of Howard. The Wellington augmentation was granted on Aug 25, 1812, for the victory at Salamanca a month earlier. Arthur Wellesley had already been ennobled as Viscount Wellington in 1809. The Flodden augmentation did indeed come at the same time as the restoration of the Norfolk dukedom to Thomas Howard, but he was already a peer as Earl of Surrey and therefore a nobleman long before that.

 

Furthermore, the French quarters and cantons were inherited not by all the descendants (as English and Scottish augmentations are), but only by the single living descendant who held the title. In other words, they don’t say "my 5 x great-grandfather was a count" but rather "I am a count."

 

The underlying principle involved here is that a person should not use any heraldic insignia—on or off the shield—that proclaims a status he doesn’t have. These devices should therefore be subject to the same strictures against assertions of noble status in American arms that we recommend for coronets and supporters.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
04 January 2014 21:53
 

Ditto Joe on all points (ratz, no fun controversy).

I wasn’t aware that only the descendant inheriting the title could use the canton of rank—makes sense, just hadn’t thought about it—so if there are a flock of cousins the question would only arise with "the" heir, not the junior cadets.  IMO the canton of inherited noble rank would be inappropriate here even if all descendants could use it elsewhere under Napoleonic rules, but since that isn’t the case this argument is merely academic unless/until it should arise up under some other foreign practice.