Social Criteria for Assumed Arms:  Pro and Con

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
13 April 2015 20:16
 

My bad - sorry!

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
13 April 2015 21:01
 

Something triggered by David’s occasional use of the term "achievements" as being relevant to whether a person assumes a coat of arm, and by re-skimming through E. Digby Baltzell’s classic Philadelphia Gentlemen, also prompted by this thread:

Sociologists distinguish between "ascribed status" and "achieved status." "Ascribed status" is something you’re born with (or not), and can’t do anything about. "Achieved status" is anything else.

 

Baltzell illustrates the concept with an example from Newburyport, Massachusetts. A man might have gone to Harvard and been a member of the Porcellian club, and be a leader of the local Congregationalist or Unitarian Church, and send his sons to Groton, and be in all respects a pillar of the community: all examples of "achieved" status. But if his 5xgreat grandfather had been merely the captain of a ship in the colonial triangular trade rather than an owner, then he was not in the local top drawer and never could be.

 

Another example is captured by the proverbial first questions you’re asked by the natives of three Georgia cities:

 

Atlanta: What do you do for a living? (Pure achieved status).

Macon: Where do you go to church? (Achieved with a trace of ascribed).

Augusta: Who are your people [i.e., ancestors]? (Pure ascribed).

 

(In Savannah the stereotypical question is "What are you drinking?")

 

Heraldry traditionally gravitates toward the ascribed status end of the spectrum. In the 17th-18th centuries, getting a coat of arms confirmed or even granted depended a lot more on how far back you could trace your ancestry, how long the arms had been in use, what offices, etc., your ancestors had held, than what you yourself had accomplished in life.

 

Over the 19th century, the balance obviously shifted, but (it is my impression) not completely.

 

The notion of ascribed status is not a politically correct one in the U.S. nowadays, but it does still exist. What I’m wondering is whether it should have a place in how we think about the social criteria for assumed arms, or should it all be about achievement?

 

(If, that is, there should be any criteria at all.)

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
13 April 2015 21:38
 

I’m not at all sure that this dichotomy is or should be considered relevant to heraldic capacity in an American context.  (Other nations are of course free to adopt or retain whatever criteria they deem relevant and proper under their laws, norms and customs - interesting for historical context and "compare and contrast" exercises, but essentially irrelevant at the "gotta" or "no can do" stage.)

In that context, could we say that for those of us born here, the status of American citizenship and it’s related rights, privileges and obligations, is ascribed; while for our immigrant ancestors and those more recent immigrants living and having taken the oath, that status was/is achieved?

 

And in either case, that status is/ought to be, quite sufficient to meet any reasonable American criteria for bearing arms? (And extend that courtesy to others living under and subject to our Constitution and laws.)

 

Excepting of course (in my somewhat unpopular view wink

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
13 April 2015 23:27
 

Michael F. McCartney;104014 wrote:

I’m not at all sure that this dichotomy is or should be considered relevant to heraldic capacity in an American context. (Other nations are of course free to adopt or retain whatever criteria they deem relevant and proper under their laws, norms and customs - interesting for historical context and "compare and contrast" exercises, but essentially irrelevant at the "gotta" or "no can do" stage.)

In that context, could we say that for those of us born here, the status of American citizenship and it’s related rights, privileges and obligations, is ascribed; while for our immigrant ancestors and those more recent immigrants living and having taken the oath, that status was/is achieved?

 

And in either case, that status is/ought to be, quite sufficient to meet any reasonable American criteria for bearing arms? (And extend that courtesy to others living under and subject to our Constitution and laws.)


Well, IF one accepts David’s premise that assumption of a coat of arms is intended to make a statement beyond being merely a graphic form of family identification, I doubt that living here and staying out of jail would be considered a high enough hurdle to get over. There might as well be no criteria at all.

 

As I’ve said, I’m not persuaded that there should be, let alone that there can be in practical terms. But it doesn’t seem to me that the issue should be dismissed out of hand, considering that the use of heraldry has historically had status associations of one kind or another, even if they fell well short of Learney’s "noble in the noblesse" concept.

 

If nothing else, the practice of assuming arms in honor and memory of an ancestor for use of their descendants raises implications of achieved vs. ascriptive status. Do we, as John Tunesi and David Pope say the College of Arms does, insist that the person in whose name the arms are assumed meet whatever criteria we would hypothetically impose on someone assuming arms in his own name? Does everyone within the destination of the arms living at the time the arms are assumed also have to meet the standards? If not, haven’t we then ascribed the ancestor’s status to the descendants? Is that all right or not?

 

Obviously this is all moot if there are no criteria, or if the criteria are negligible.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
13 April 2015 23:53
 

Michael F. McCartney;104014 wrote:

Excepting of course (in my somewhat unpopular view smile) those who, by their own felonious actions, have forfeited those rights and privileges of citizens until they have paid their debt to society and been readmitted to full enjoyment of that citizenship.


I’m not sure how unpopular it is; there is the attainder of blood deal with respect to descendants, but we’re talking about social sanctions, not legal ones. In any case, I don’t see any suggestion that arms once assumed would be lost to the descendants of people who subsequently commit felonies, only that a convicted felon should not himself assume a coat of arms.

 

Which gets me to another notional set of ascriptive and achievement standards, not that translate directly but that I offer as an example. They’re a little bit tongue in cheek, but bear with me.

 

In the late 1980s, a lady named Ann Barrett Babson wrote a book called Having It Y’all, which is in part a sort of Southerner’s counterpart to The Preppy Handbook. I don’t suppose Mrs. Babson would have a clue what "ascriptive" and "achieved" status are, but the questions she poses for how to know where you stand in Southern society could have been written by a sociologist.

 

If you can answer "yes" to most of these questions, you’re in pretty good shape:

1. Has your family lived in the same county for at least five generations?

2. Was an ancestor a Confederate officer in the Civil War?

3. Does at least one street or building in your hometown bear your family name?

4. Was your mother a member of the Junior League?

5. Was your father a deacon or elder in your church?

6. Was at least one man in your family a judge or elected official?

7. Is there an endowment or scholarship bearing your family name at the state university?

 

If any of the following are true, your social aspirations are probably doomed.

1. Your family moved to town in 1954 when the mill opened.

2. You have a satellite dish in the front yard. (This was written in 1988, remember).

3. One or more of your ancestors was a bluecoat.

4. Your mother worked outside the home. (Again, written in 1988.)

5. Your father seldom darkens the church door.

6. Someone in your family did time in prison.

7. It’s a family tradition to attend the local technical school.

 

This is tongue-in-cheek, but it will resonate with people who are at all familiar with Southern small towns up through medium-sized cities. More importantly to the issue at hand (and to make clear that this is relevant to a heraldry forum), these are the same kind of things that (according to Keen) English heralds looked at in the 16th century when deciding whether a yeoman who was rising into the gentry had yet come up to the mark required for a grant of arms.

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
14 April 2015 10:22
 

I’ve been convinced by the arguments by Joe and others that there is no practical way in the United States to tie bearing arms to meritorious achievement/social class.  Without an official arms-granting, or perhaps an official arms-registering body, I am convinced that arms in the United States are merely a hereditary visual identifier.

I’m not yet convinced that arms ought not be an indicator of meritorious achievement/social class.  That said, arms granted on an individual’s meritorious achievements become a hereditary asset that get passed on to descendants whether they exhibit the same meritorious achievements or not.  That doesn’t square with my initial premise that bearing arms signifies meritorious achievements.  If a coat of arms becomes like Grandpa’s WWII medals, and each generation has to earn their own medals, then arms cease to have a hereditary aspect, which is fundamental to our understanding of heraldry.

 

Continuing the theoretical argument, though, mere lack of felony convictions wouldn’t be enough to satisfy my criteria.  Nor would citizenship status alone.  I recognize that this is not a popular view for this group, but in a context where citizenship (the naturalization process excepted) is based on which side of an imaginary geographical line you’re born on, that wouldn’t be enough.  If citizenship was based on some other criteria (e.g. the Roman republic, Starship Troopers) then it would likely be enough.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
14 April 2015 12:52
 

DAVID: "I’ve been convinced by the arguments by Joe and others that there is no practical way in the United States to tie bearing arms to meritorious achievement/social class."

ME:  Hallelujah! - another brother has seen the light smile

 

DAVID:  "Without an official arms-granting, or perhaps an official arms-registering body, I am convinced that arms in the United States are merely a hereditary visual identifier. "

 

ME: But if there were an official government registry, that’s all they could legally grant or register.  In the early discussions leading to our Guidelines, one line of reasoning (not the only line, but relevant) was, if there were an official American registry, what could / should it grant or register?  Assuming for argument that ever happens, IMO our Guidelines in this area were designed to reflect that limitation and would essentially become binding law, at least as to what could be officially granted, registered or recognized.

 

But"merely"??—IMO that’s a good thing! - but for better or worse, it’s what would have to be, absent some law to the contrary that likely wouldn’t pass Constitutional muster.

 

DAVE:  "I’m not yet convinced that arms ought not be an indicator of meritorious achievement/social class.  That said, arms granted on an individual’s meritorious achievements become a hereditary asset that get passed on to descendants whether they exhibit the same meritorious achievements or not.  That doesn’t square with my initial premise that bearing arms signifies meritorious achievements.  If a coat of arms becomes like Grandpa’s WWII medals, and each generation has to earn their own medals, then arms cease to have a hereditary aspect, which is fundamental to our understanding of heraldry. "

 

ME:  Not at all!  The hereditary aspect or function is personal or family identity and kinship, pure and simple, reflected in the arms & crest; the nonhereditary honors, which our governments can and do award to recognize / reward personal achievement / merit, are the dangling gongs and whatever other earned or ascribed bric-a-brac we might display along with, but not as a part of, our hereditary arms.

 

Also note that the design of the arms quite properly may (or may not) honor the memory of the first actual bearer or honored ancestor by reflecting in some appropriate way his life and achievements; so long as it is not actually a copy of the associated honor or award.  If gramps was killed in action, or invented the cotton gin, a small-p purple heart or a cotton boll wouldn’t IMO be inappropriate minor charges; but not the actual medal awarded by DOD or the Dept of Agriculture or State Fair. The medals could hang beneath the shield in an emblazonment clearly labeled as grandpa’s and/or immediately adjacent to his portrait, but not personally used by his descendants.

 

DAVE: "Continuing the theoretical argument, though, mere lack of felony convictions wouldn’t be enough to satisfy my criteria.  Nor would citizenship status alone.  I recognize that this is not a popular view for this group, but in a context where citizenship (the naturalization process excepted) is based on which side of an imaginary geographical line you’re born on, that wouldn’t be enough.  If citizenship was based on some other criteria (e.g. the Roman republic, Starship Troopers) then it would likely be enough."

 

ME: I can respect your opinion, though obviously not agreeing.  But to the extent we think of heraldry as more than mere fantasy, in this part of the real world "mere" (!!) citizenship and the exercise of civil rights is all we can realistically ask for.  And compared to much of the rest of the world, that’s no small honor!

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
14 April 2015 13:09
 

Michael F. McCartney;104025 wrote:

But to the extent we think of heraldry as more than mere fantasy, in this part of the real world "mere" (!!) citizenship and the exercise of civil rights is all we can realistically ask for.  And compared to much of the rest of the world, that’s no small honor!


No small hereditary distinction, no small ascription of status, and no small award of tangible benefits based on accidents of birth.

 

(Pardon my butting in when I tend to merely lurk these days.)

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
14 April 2015 13:12
 

OJoe’s tongue in cheek criteria for decayed Southern gentry reminds me of "You might be a Redneck if…"—more relevant to some of my ancestors & kin no matter how much they might prefer Joe’s list. smile

Unrelated - Joe, thanks for the info & link re: lawborrows.  It shed new (to me) light on several bonds of caution I ran across in the Scottish Register of the Privy Council in the late 1500’s - essentially promises by one or more individuals not to harm one or more others, with yet others signing on as surities (sp?)

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
14 April 2015 13:19
 

Joseph McMillan;103859 wrote:

Somewhat perversely, the American hereditary society community has evolved into a hotbed of Anglophilia, even in organizations such as the Cincinnati . . .


Perhaps you’re right, Joe, but what evidence of a shift do you have in mind for this particular group? A certain number of instances of overlapping membership in the VOSJ and SoC? A lot of people in the audience for talks at the College of Arms foundation who are members of the SoC?

 

Indeed, the current prior of the VOSJ in the US is a Cincinnatus, likewise the outgoing head of the CoAF. Prominent examples like this notwithstanding, it seems to me the SoC’s Francophilia is a little more in evidence (and appropriately so) than its Anglophilia.

 
liongam
 
Avatar
 
 
liongam
Total Posts:  343
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
14 April 2015 13:21
 

Joe,

I am sure that I have read somewhere that once an individual has shown certain evidences that qualifies him/her to petition the Earl Marshal for a grant of arms once in receipt of same that individual (along with their descendants) can be scurrilous as they may dare.  In the old days one was said to arrived at ‘the port, charge, and countenance of a gentleman’, ie: having the education, income, deportment and courteous conduct that would be expected of one professing to be gentleman.  As in the past, the Earl Marshal by granting his Warrant to the Kings of Arms to grant an individual arms it may be deemed to be a tacit recognition of gentility, the state of being a ‘gentleman’.  For those ‘gentleman’ who are unruly or criminal, the applications of abatements no longer obtain.  In the recent past there have been a number of peers who have received custodial sentences at Her Majesty’s Pleasure but have not lost the dignity of being a peer.  Acts of Attainder no longer apply.

 

It is interesting to note that I recall at least one individual who petitioned and obtained a grant of arms had his grant rescinded and made void by Earl Marshal’s Warrant upon the discovery that he had been a knave.  The College was not at fault here.  The individual concerned had built up such false network about himself that viewing his CV and picking up his references one would have thought he was a thoroughly decent chap.  By the time all this had transpired, the office copy of his grant had been bound into one of the grant books so it had to be scored through and annotated that the grant was void.  So beware that your sins will find you out!

 

Generally once a grant is made it stands for all time even as mentioned above the grantee or one of his immediate family and/or their descendants have been caught with their hand in the ‘biscuit jar’.  Other than the example as described above - which was unusual, no machinery exists to my certain knowledge to rescind and make void a grant of arms unlike membership of orders of knighthood, decorations and medals which have written into their regulations forfeiture and removal of the name of the individual concerned from the registers of the orders, etc.

 

In closing, although citizens of the USA fight shy of anything that smacks of privilege in consequence of the terms of the American Constitution - there should no bar to having a corpus of individuals who are armigerous whether by inheritance, grants de novo or by assumption to be collectively an ‘American Gentry’.  In doing so, you are not claiming to be better than fellow citizens but are joining a ‘club’ of like minded individuals with a common interest, and, perhaps, following the mores of gentility.

 

As ever

 

John

 
mghofer
 
Avatar
 
 
mghofer
Total Posts:  46
Joined  14-09-2014
 
 
 
14 April 2015 15:09
 

liongam;104030 wrote:

In closing, although citizens of the USA fight shy of anything that smacks of privilege in consequence of the terms of the American Constitution - there should no bar to having a corpus of individuals who are armigerous whether by inheritance, grants de novo or by assumption to be collectively an ‘American Gentry’.  In doing so, you are not claiming to be better than fellow citizens but are joining a ‘club’ of like minded individuals with a common interest, and, perhaps, following the mores of gentility.


I would argue that it is not because of the Constitution that we stay away from institutional privilege, but that the Constitution reflects the American character.  Also, while an "natural aristocracy" (i.e. one based upon merit and ability) as John Adams put it, is quite understandable and perhaps desirable, those in it have not all been armigerous and linking it to heraldry would be post hoc at best and pretentious at worst.

 

If "American Gentry" were a club or society like those social clubs in the D.C. area, then gentry isn’t the right word for it, and we would be debasing* the word.  Any group that forms to better society and/or its members should be welcome.  But to fit it into any hierarchical notion, even if borrowed, would an error.

 

*debasing in the sense of "removing meaning from"

 
liongam
 
Avatar
 
 
liongam
Total Posts:  343
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
14 April 2015 16:28
 

Mark,

Then let us call it ‘gentry’ with a small ‘g’.  I was just attempting to say that by bearing arms one should act in way consistent to being a ‘gentleman’ or ‘lady’ which may take many forms and as such one belongs to the ‘gentry’.  I used the word ‘club’ in its very loose form.  In other words a grouping of individuals who have a common interest or bond but not a bound together as a corporation.  You speak of not wishing to make the bearing of arms hierarchical but by the very nature of bearing arms whether inherited, granted or assumed it could/will be considered such by those US citizens and others who happen not to be armigerous.  In any society be it under a monarchical or republican system we all live in hierarchies of one kind or another - its a fact of life.  However, the general populace who are not heraldically aware will undoubtedly see it as pretentious and of no account in the world in which we live.  The using of arms whether inherited or not, granted or assumed, should not be a hole in the corner affair, otherwise we could be accused of playing make believe.  As I said in a previous post those of us who are armigerous should employ our arms as we wish, the only caveat being that it should be discreet and tasteful.  There is a tendency to be too ‘het up’ about a perceived privilege where often none exists.  None of us live in a society where that perfect level playing field exists.  Even in republics some are very much born more equal than others.  Heraldry should be a subject to be both enjoyed and gloried and not encumbered with too much baggage.

 

With every good wish

 

John

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
14 April 2015 16:50
 

IMO the most appropriate club for Americans bearing arms would be a society for the study and promotion of heraldry in America.  (Oh - that’s us!)

One of the purposes of a group like this is to educate the public, including debunking the notion that arms as used here are indicators, or at least claims, of elevated social status.

 

Any American club that explicitly promoted notions of specialness, or by silence allowed that impression to continue or grow, would thereby IMO damage American heraldry.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
14 April 2015 17:08
 

Wilfred Leblanc;104029 wrote:

Perhaps you’re right, Joe, but what evidence of a shift do you have in mind for this particular group? A certain number of instances of overlapping membership in the VOSJ and SoC? A lot of people in the audience for talks at the College of Arms foundation who are members of the SoC?

Indeed, the current prior of the VOSJ in the US is a Cincinnatus, likewise the outgoing head of the CoAF. Prominent examples like this notwithstanding, it seems to me the SoC’s Francophilia is a little more in evidence (and appropriately so) than its Anglophilia.


I don’t suppose I have any evidence for the SoC.  If they don’t toast the Queen and display the British flag at their events, then God bless ‘em, and I’ll limit my remarks for the SAR, SR, and GSW-1812, all of which do.

 

I don’t see anything objectionable or questionable in overlapping memberships.  It’s the tone deafness of the ceremonial that I find amusing.