Social Criteria for Assumed Arms:  Pro and Con

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
09 April 2015 02:05
 

I usually try to maintain a polite face online, but every so often…

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.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
09 April 2015 02:05
 

I usually try to maintain a polite face online, but every so often…

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.

 
zebulon
 
Avatar
 
 
zebulon
Total Posts:  65
Joined  23-12-2013
 
 
 
09 April 2015 05:27
 

Michael F. McCartney;103832 wrote:

I usually try to maintain a polite face online, but every so often…

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.


I very much and wholeheartedly agree with your opinion.

 

Though, interestingly, many months ago reading an issue of the OFPA newsletter (it has a more illustrious name, I forget what it is) - a friend is a member and I glanced at it while visiting him - it appeared many or most of that organization’s principal officers have received (honorary) grants from the COA, facts that were mentioned in their biographies (usually crammed in among exhaustive lists of earned and honorary titles ... Order of St John, Order of St Olav, Order of the Palmetto [which I didn’t even know was a thing], Kentucky Colonelships, Dr, Rev, Gen, Esq., Legion of Merit ... the only thing missing was the Eagle Scout). That stood out to me that the slate of leadership of an organization, a requirement for membership of which is descent from someone who participated in the violent overthrow of the monarchy, had mostly decided to apply for grants of arms from the heralds of said monarchy.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
09 April 2015 09:15
 

zebulon;103833 wrote:

I very much and wholeheartedly agree with your opinion.

Though, interestingly, many months ago reading an issue of the OFPA newsletter (it has a more illustrious name, I forget what it is)


Order of the Founders and Patriots of America.  A hereditary organization whose membership requirement is (in brief) to have both an early settler and a Revolutionary patriot in the same male line of descent.


Quote:

it appeared many or most of that organization’s principal officers have received (honorary) grants from the COA, facts that were mentioned in their biographies


I recognize the names of two current national officers as having honorary grants from the college and there may be others.  It doesn’t particularly surprise me.


Quote:

(usually crammed in among exhaustive lists of earned and honorary titles ... Order of St John, Order of St Olav, Order of the Palmetto [which I didn’t even know was a thing], Kentucky Colonelships, Dr, Rev, Gen, Esq., Legion of Merit ... the only thing missing was the Eagle Scout).


Quite a hodgepodge here.  The Legion of Merit is a U.S. military decoration.  General is a military rank.  Dr and Rev are commonly accepted titles in the learned professions.  Esq is probably an indication that the gentleman is a lawyer—a usage I find silly, but generally accepted.  All of these are indications of achievement that are in no way at odds with American norms and values.

 

The Order of St. Olav is a real Norwegian order conferred for real merit and achievement.

 

I’ll leave it to those who are members (several people in this society) to explain the motives for joining the Order of St. John.  It considers itself an honor from the British Crown, but has always seemed to me more like a fairly—not terribly—selective social/charitable organization with a somewhat shaky historical pedigree and a propensity for fancy dress, but one that funds a great deal of good work.  Undoubtedly there are some people who join for the opportunity to hobnob occasionally with peripheral British royals and whatever glamor accrues from being a member of an order of chivalry.  (A disclaimer:  a friend once offered to put me forward for membership, which I declined because membership requires swearing an oath of allegiance to the British monarch, which I will not do.)

 

Kentucky colonelcies and the Order of the Palmetto are honors bestowed by the governors of those states on prominent citizens and others, usually for some kind of contribution to public life—I don’t know if this includes campaign contributions.  (I know one Kentucky colonel who was honored by Kentucky for basically the same achievements for which he received an honorary knighthood from Elizabeth II, namely his role in the development of U.S. nuclear strategy over a period of 25 years or so as a senior Department of Defense civil servant.  So it’s not a good idea to guess what might be behind such honors when we don’t know the honorees involved.)


Quote:

That stood out to me that the slate of leadership of an organization, a requirement for membership of which is descent from someone who participated in the violent overthrow of the monarchy, had mostly decided to apply for grants of arms from the heralds of said monarchy.


Without knowing these people personally and without talking to them, I don’t think it’s fair to guess at their reasons for pursuing such grants unless they have explained themselves publicly.  The possible motives range from the belief that such a grant makes them "noble" to that they simply wanted a coat of arms and had swallowed the old canard that the only valid way to get one was from the British heralds.  (A position I thought I had read here on this very forum just last night, no?)

 

Somewhat perversely, the American hereditary society community has evolved into a hotbed of Anglophilia, even in organizations such as the Cincinnati, the SAR, the Sons of the Revolution (to which I belong), and the Society of the War of 1812 (to which I also belong).  I find it very peculiar to see the British flag paraded and the Queen of the UK toasted at events celebrating ancestors who risked their lives to reject her 4xgreat-grandfather along with all his works and pomps and the glamour of monarchism.  (I’m quite willing to drink the lady’s health, it just seems incongruous in that particular setting.)

 

But to me, all of this strengthens rather than weakens the case for honest, straightforward armorial assumption in the United States.  With a small handful of exceptions, the people in the 13 colonies who used arms before Independence did so without seeking permission from the heralds back in Britain, and it’s not obvious why dumping German George should have changed that.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
09 April 2015 16:08
 

Ditto Joe.

As to David’s desire for the armorial world to be different than it is, as a motivational speaker once said, "Fix your wanter" smile  For better or worse (I think better) arms here, whatever they may be elsewhere, are identifiers only - tokens of kinship in a family context.  Personal or family accomplishments may reflect glory (and hightened expectations) on the rest of the family, the family name, their home, pets and neighborhood, and to that degree on their shared arms; but not vice versa.  Any armorial "honors" are expressed, if at all, in externals, e.g. gongs or collars, not in the shared heritable arms.

 

The one point on which I do agree is that felons should be excluded.  IMO all citizens in good standing, however great or humble, are equal under the law, and therefore equally entitled to assume or inherit and bear arms as personal or family identifiers.  Felons, on the other hand, have by their own actions forfeited their right to enjoy the privileges of citizenship, among which IMO should be the right to bear arms.  (The law does deny convicted felons the right to bear arms i.e. weapons in spite of the Second Amendment, unless and until the courts later restore that right; and following the general principle in our Guidelines that our heraldic practice should reflect the larger world of our laws and values, I would deny the right of felons to bear heraldic arms on the same basis.)

 

On that level only, would I see arms in this country as tokens of status or honor - as citizens (or other law-abiding residents subject to our Constitution and laws) of the republic.

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
09 April 2015 17:47
 

I have to agree with Ben. If we accept that arms are a form of graphic or symbolic identification, then attaching conditions of having coats of arms, whether good or bad, is inappropriate.  It’s like denying a felon a name or setting a standard for a person to earn a name rather than being given a name at birth.  Certainly there have bee cultures that have done such, but it’s not the US culture to do so at this time.

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
09 April 2015 18:17
 

Kathy McClurg;103864 wrote:

I have to agree with Ben. If we accept that arms are a form of graphic or symbolic identification, then attaching conditions of having coats of arms, whether good or bad, is inappropriate.  It’s like denying a felon a name or setting a standard for a person to earn a name rather than being given a name at birth.  Certainly there have bee cultures that have done such, but it’s not the US culture to do so at this time.


Kathy,

 

Thanks for your post.  I think that this "felon litmus test" has helped me to flesh out what I really think about free assumption of arms in America.

 

I admit that it makes me sad to think there is no bar to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev bearing American arms…

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
09 April 2015 18:22
 

From the other thread:


Kathy McClurg;103864 wrote:

I have to agree with Ben. If we accept that arms are a form of graphic or symbolic identification, then attaching conditions of having coats of arms, whether good or bad, is inappropriate.  It’s like denying a felon a name or setting a standard for a person to earn a name rather than being given a name at birth.  Certainly there have bee cultures that have done such, but it’s not the US culture to do so at this time.


Kathy,

 

Thanks for your post.  I think that this "felon litmus test" has helped me to flesh out what I really think about free assumption of arms in America.

 

I admit that it makes me sad to think there is no bar to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev bearing American arms…

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
09 April 2015 20:15
 

I am more sympathetic than Mike or Kathy to the issue David is raising, although I’m not sure I can imagine a workable way forward.

Historically (which matters to me), the use of a coat of arms makes a statement that goes at least slightly beyond "this is who I am." It also makes a statement about "this is what I am."

 

The "what" that using a coat of arms asserts is somewhat hard to pin down. The fact that heraldry in the USA combines several different national streams makes the task even more difficult. But I think some common elements can be discerned.

 

With specific reference to Continental Europe, Donald L. Galbreath and Léon Jéquier, Manuel du Blason (Lausanne, 1977), say that "The theory that, in order to bear arms, it was necessary to have a specific quality or ability, a kind of lesser nobility, cannot stand when confronted with the facts," but also that "The possession of a coat of arms did not rest on any right, but came out of a social habit. Just as today that of a top-hat, the possession of arms was, in the Middle Ages, unchanging and inevitable among the higher classes of society; going down the social scale, arms became rarer and indicated at the same time social aspirations." (Translation from Francois Velde, heraldica.org)

 

In my view, adopting any hereditary emblem such as a coat of arms necessarily implies consciousness of the family as an organism enduring backward and forward over time. If this is true, then the sequence of adoption of arms by various social classes reflects the time at which the various groups became aware of their place in the world. I believe that the adoption of armorial "tokens of kinship"* by urban merchants, professionals, artisans, and rural smallholders reflected their growing sense of family identity, a consciousness that was undoubtedly fostered by the accumulation of sufficient wealth to be passed on to future generations, as did the spread of literacy necessary to the keeping of genealogical records. (Without literacy, there are no family Bibles, for example.)

 

Socio-economic advancement also led the newly self-aware bourgeoisie and yeomanry to feel entitled to a voice in their political future, which also seems to have had a bearing on their adoption of heraldic devices.

 

In a similar vein, Patricia Fortini Brown observes with respect to the use of heraldry in late medieval Venice that the “display of a coat of arms [was] no proof of nobility,” but it did declare that the family using the arms possessed “a certain level of politia.” This term, which can be translated approximately as “civility” or “urbanity,” referred not only to refined manners, as we understand those words today, but also to the collective competency of the family’s members to participate in governing the state.

 

Which brings us to England. Purely by coincidence, I had an opportunity to look through Maurice Keen’s Origins of the English Gentleman: Heraldry, Chivalry, and Gentility in Medieval England. Keen associates many of these same trends with the development of the concept of "mere gentleman" as a social rank below knights and esquires but above "the commonalty" over the course of the 15th century. Growing prosperity enabled yeomen and merchants to purchase lands with manorial rights attached, which in turn made the new owners participants in the governance of the kingdom. Successful merchants held municipal office, which put them in close contact with the crown and the higher nobility. Their sons went to school with the sons of the nobility; they entered the learned professions and became advisers to the great magnates of the kingdom. "The fine line drawn in purist theory between gentlemen on the one hand and merchant and citizen on the other was infinitely permeable—in both directions," Keen observes. Soon merchants and the old landed gentry were marrying each other’s daughters, serving as godparents and guardians to each other’s children and as executors to each other’s wills.

 

This was the same period when the heralds, as Oswald Barron tells us, were busy persuading Englishmen that arms were the distinctive mark of a gentleman. Keen says that a wealthy yeoman or merchant who assumed a coat of arms for use on his seal was thus laying claim to gentle status, and that if the seal was used publicly for a couple of generations, that reflected implicit acceptance of that claim by other gentlemen.

 

Now, if what set an English gentleman apart from non-gentleman was ultimately a matter of manners, repute, association with other gentlemen, and participation in governing the kingdom, then we are back at a concept very much like the Venetian politia as what a person who used arms was claiming for himself and his family.

 

This brings us to the period of the colonial settlement of North America. I think it very likely that any person using a coat of arms in colonial America was asserting his politia that he had a certain standing in the community. Keen acknowledges the difficulty of defining the boundaries of this quality in the English context—and I think it’s even harder in the colonial setting—but offers what he calls an "identi-kit" for how people at the time would have judged the matter. I’ll have to turn to that in a future post, as this is already way too long.

 

 

____________

*The correct translation of Pietrasancta’s phrase, tesserae gentilitas.

 
J. Stolarz
 
Avatar
 
 
J. Stolarz
Total Posts:  1483
Joined  30-11-2007
 
 
 
09 April 2015 20:32
 

I can see both sides of this, but I question what my own motive would be if I were to whole heartedly agree with David’s position.  I have to ask myself why I would be motivated to desire a granting authority, or that it did "signify a certain level of meritorious achievement" as David puts it.  I feel that it would be coming from a place of pride or being desirous of having a visual identification so that the world can see my lofty position.  While I can sympathize with a level of tradition or wanting it to have some form of history, it does kind of fly in the face of our country desiring for all men to be created equal.  If bearing arms meant that you had reached a certain level of achievement, you’re basically saying you’re better than everybody else who doesn’t.  I’m not sure any of us would say it out right, but I know in searching my own heart, that would be the ugly head of pride that would cause it in me.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
09 April 2015 22:02
 

Joe’s account of European / English armorial evolution is both interesting and AFAIK accurate; but translated to this country IMO misses the mark.  Yes, the bulk of our colonial settlers came from these traditions; but just as (or because) English common law applied to the colonies only to the extent applicable to local conditions and was trumped by subsequent changes in our laws - e.g. repeal of primogeniture, changes in laws of adoption and repudiation of noblesse upon naturalization, our heraldic practices also necessarily diverged from the old country.

Or if you prefer, American law (and thus our heraldic practices) didn’t extend civil rights to serfs - instead they essentially over time promoted our population, wholesale, to a higher legal (and thus heraldic) status.

 

But either wày the underlying concepts of arms signifying ability to participate in civic and military affairs and governance IMO still apply.  The difference, both as to our laws and values generally and "heraldic capacity" in particular, is the breadth of civil rights and political participation there in colonial times vs. here both then and subsequently.  The use of arms, like the right to participate in governance, was in Europe largely limited to the "better classes.". Here, participation was broader, eventually being universal suffrage; and thus, even applying the concepts underlying European criteria for bearing arms, that is also essentially universal here.

 

The exception I favor for felons merely reflects the restrictions imposed on felons’ civil rights generally - can’t vote, can’t bear arms (waffen), can’t come and go (those pesky bars and later parole officers), etc.; unless later restored to full civil rights by competent authority, generally the courts, or maybe a a Federal or State pardon.

 

Of course absent positive law specifically addressing arms (wappen) no one can stop a would-be armorial wannabe felon with a magic marker; but I see no reason or justification in our "best practices" world view of basing heraldic practice on our laws and customs generally, for condoning it.  For example, if one of our members or registered users were to be convicted of a felony involving loss of liberty and civil rights, I would favor removing his arms from our Members armorial and/or forum avatar until such time as he paid his debt to society and was restored to his civil rights by competent authority - just as (I hope) we would insist on removing from any member’s emblazonment any gongs rescinded by the granting authority.  Both admittedly unlikely occurrences, given the high moral level of our esteemed members and registered users, but that IMO should be our rule here, even though we can’t control what he might display elsewhere e.g. graffiti on his cell walls.

 

As to Ben’s question re: children of felons - our Constitution explicitly bars any attainder or corruption of blood, so stripping a felon of his civil rights (and thus his arms) doesn’t affect anyone else in his family - unless they were also convicted individually smile.  It doesn’t even affect the felon personally, once (if) his civil rights are restored.

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
10 April 2015 13:24
 

From another current thread (trying not to get that one off-topic again):


Kathy McClurg;103894 wrote:

Sorry, was busy with other things for about 24 hours.  I’d like to make a couple points:

1.  Earning your PhD certainly does include a social status change, IMHO -  particularly within the academic community.  Is it the "same" as the clergy?  Perhaps not, but.. I don’t think the argument is strong enough to not use


Kathy, perhaps it’s just word choice (and maybe I misunderstand what is meant), but does this mean that shield and crest are not indicative of social status, but your proposed alternative headgear and mantling are?

 

If that’s the case, then haven’t we just (to borrow a Spinal Tap reference) "turned it up to 11"?

 

If arms are just a visual identifier, but then we go and add all sorts of little geegaws and bits to communicate our social standing (military officer, advanced degree holder, public official, etc.) , then haven’t we made arms simply a vehicle for communicating social status?

 

If so, then this reinforces (perhaps clumsily) my contention that arms aren’t really and only about visual identification.  They’re really designed to make a personal statement (of some sort) about the bearer.

 

The other point that I would make is that the "visual identifier" argument makes sense to me in a vacuum but falls short in practice.  The arms on your IPAD cover aren’t necessary to identify you.  It would be far better to have simply written your name on the IPAD cover with a Sharpie.  As I see it, they’re really just pretty decoration, and perhaps a little bit more (they communicate that you have arms, you like the esoteric field of heraldry, etc.).  You’re easily identified by the people who know you because they see and recognize your face.

 

Arms’ primary role as a visual identifier made sense at a time when knights were encased in armor and all looked the same.  They still have a practical purpose at modern highland games where one can quickly see which chiefs are in attendance.

 

Where the "visual identifier" argument doesn’t make sense is when folks commission a beautiful emblazonment to put on their wall.  Maybe it’s art, maybe there’s a sense of inward satisfaction that "these are my arms", but it’s not a visual identifier.

 

I’m thinking out loud, here, so I don’t want to be perceived as unnecessarily antagonistic.  I’m just trying to better understand different individuals’ rationales for having arms, if they don’t convey (at least some) social message.

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
10 April 2015 14:00
 

Joseph McMillan;103892 wrote:

As promised, here’s the 1788 paper he forwarded asking for Washington’s endorsement, famously and politely declined, advocating an official U.S. office of arms. I think John DuLong published this is the Armiger’s News, so please treat his introduction as copyrighted material.

http://beaconsfield-strategy.com/BartonConcise.pdf


Joe, Thanks for providing access to this essay.  Just finished reading it.  Barton nails it, in my view.  This is exactly what I wish would have happened:


Quote:

I.  That an officer be appointed whose duty it shall be, to proclaim war & peace, to conduct the Etiquette of certain State solemnities; to assign suitable Coat-Armour, and armorial augmentations of honor to [insert word] such [end insert] civil and military officers, and even private citizens of the American Republic, as they should be decreed to by Congress; and to devise proper Armorial ensigns, flags, seals etc. for Congress, and the various offices and departments of Government.

II. That this officer, who might be stiled Herald-Marshall, be invested with the sole & exclusive right of registering, Marshalling and Confirming family Coats-of-Arms, etc. of granting them to those individuals to whom they might be decreed by Authority; and of recording Genealogies. A Seal of Office would be requisite, in order to certify and authenticate Grants and confirmations of Arms, and other other [sic] official Documents.


I’m afraid, though, that Barton was right about this:


Quote:

And unless some such regulation as that proposed, be adopted by the Government of the United States, with respect to Coat-Armour it must sink into insignificance…

 

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
10 April 2015 14:38
 

I agree with Mike’s position completely.  I would only add that my feeling is that arms are not valid unless and until they are published somehow, with a date certain, and with the explicit intent shown that the bearer (I don’t like "armiger") and his heraldic heirs have exclusive rights to the public use of such device against all others.  The felon in his jail cell (or on parole/probation) would not and should not have the legal or practical ability to publish his assumption/adoption of new armorial bearings.

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
10 April 2015 16:42
 

David Pope;103898 wrote:

Joe, Thanks for providing access to this essay.  Just finished reading it.  Barton nails it, in my view.  This is exactly what I wish would have happened:

 

 

I’m afraid, though, that Barton was right about this:


Barton was right only to the extent that he wished personal/family heraldry to have the same status it had in the United Kingdom; which it already did not have in the United States.

 

Our heraldic tradition was different then and continues to be different today.  I would add that the status of non-civic heraldry in the United States today is much closer to what it is in most other nations with a heraldic tradition than it is to the United Kingdom (in regard to arms being an honor or exclusive to the nobility).

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
10 April 2015 19:26
 

Actually, Barton himself eventually realized that he had been wrong in 1788.  He thought about it for a while and wrote the second essay in 1815, showing how heraldry could thrive without any government role.

(I hold out hope for you, too, David, but hope it won’t take you 27 years to see the light!  The NEHGS Committee on Heraldry managed a similar reversal in only 15 years—1899 to 1914—although I think it took a pretty much complete turnover of the membership to accomplish it.)