Has anybody heard of (or belong to) the "Order of Americans of Armorial Ancestry"?
Heard of, don’t belong. I gave a talk on the heraldry of the Presidents at their national meeting in DC last spring.
I don’t qualify to be a member, being a 2nd generation and all, but why exclude Alaska and Hawaii? Not to mention the US territories.
Also, why use 1776 when most of what is the USA today joined the Union way after that?
Naturally, I’m moving beyond the whole concept of having a hereditary "order" for those of armigerous descent as if the coat of arms isn’t enough. Perhaps create an "Order of American with Surnames"? :D
kimon;101081 wrote:
I don’t qualify to be a member, being a 2nd generation and all, but why exclude Alaska and Hawaii? Not to mention the US territories.
Also, why use 1776 when most of what is the USA today joined the Union way after that?
Naturally, I’m moving beyond the whole concept of having a hereditary "order" for those of armigerous descent as if the coat of arms isn’t enough. Perhaps create an "Order of American with Surnames"? :D
Sign me up.
Actually there’s already a published membership list for each part of the country, usually bound up with the Yellow Pages…
Michael F. McCartney;101140 wrote:
Actually there’s already a published membership list for each part of the country, usually bound up with the Yellow Pages…
The order of the pages Or at least has a published membership roll. :rofl:
Quote:
Membership
The Order of Americans of Armorial Ancestry is the only order based upon the right to bear arms as a qualification for membership.
Any person aged eighteen or over, of good moral character and reputation is eligible for membership in the Order provided the candidates prove descent from an immigrant ancestor who settled on or before 04 July 1776 within a territory that became the forty-eight contiguous states of the United States of America and who had a proven right to bear arms in the settler’s country of origin.
An applicant is proposed by two members of the Order who know the applicant. Only one proposer is necessary if the applicant is a member of lineage societies with local chapters: DAR, SAR, SR, OFPA, DFPA, Colonial Wars, etc.
For further information, contact the President General of the Order.
The above is from their website: http://www.armorial.us/.
Since most of us on this forum assumed arms or had them granted or registered in the recent past, I don’t think the vast majority of us would qualify for membership. Conceivably, however, a modern American with roots hailing from Scotland or England/Wales/Northern Ireland could apply for a retroactive grant for an otherwise qualified ancestor and then matriculate the arms down to himself or herself. In theory, such a person should then qualify.
Michael F. McCartney;101140 wrote:
Actually there’s already a published membership list for each part of the country, usually bound up with the Yellow Pages…
I secured a copy of one of their directories a few years ago. None of the names seemed familiar (i.e., they are not names I have seen on rec.heraldry, on this forum, at the American College of Heraldry, listed in the Armorial Register or USHR, etc). Many of the members seem to be in SAR, DAR, Cincinnati, etc so I suspect it is essentially an ancillary hereditary society to the more recognized ones.
eploy;104491 wrote:
I secured a copy of one of their directories a few years ago. None of the names seemed familiar (i.e., they are not names I have seen on rec.heraldry, on this forum, at the American College of Heraldry, listed in the Armorial Register or USHR, etc). Many of the members seem to be in SAR, DAR, Cincinnati, etc so I suspect it is essentially an ancillary hereditary society to the more recognized ones.
I think Charles Drake is a member; at least he was at the talk I gave to the OAAA meeting, mentioned earlier in this thread. I seem to recall that there were one or two others there whom I knew online, but don’t remember who they were.
I doubt that the OAAA would call themselves "ancillary," but they are indeed basically a hereditary society like the scores of others out there, very British-focused in practice if not by charter, of course, as the expression "proven right to bear arms" would imply. Note that, because descent can be through female as well as male lines, most members are not themselves entitled to the arms borne by their respective qualifying ancestors. Very nice people, but on the whole much more about the ancestry than the heraldry.
Edward, I doubt that a retrospective grant to an ancestor would pass muster; the criterion is that the ancestor himself had the right to the arms, which is not the case with posthumous grantees.
Zieber’s book Heraldry in America, published IIRC in very early 1900’s, has a chapter listing a bunch of these hereditary / ancestral societies, mostly based on colonial or revolutionary ancestry, with a few tied to more recent wars (1812, Civil War, etc.). I’ve also occasionally heard /read of others based on ancestors who kept taverns (alehouses) or who were burned as witches in Salem or other fun stuff.
(I could probably start a spam war by asking if it would be Proper to hang their respective gongs beneath one’s shield, but that sort of troublemaking would be beneath what passes for my dignity. Personally, with a few exceptions like the Cincinnati & DAR /SAR, my interest in these groups is inversely proportional to how seriously they take themselves…but freedom of association is generally considered as one of our inalienable rights, so to each his own.)
Joseph McMillan;104493 wrote:
I think Charles Drake is a member; at least he was at the talk I gave to the OAAA meeting, mentioned earlier in this thread. . . . Edward, I doubt that a retrospective grant to an ancestor would pass muster; the criterion is that the ancestor himself had the right to the arms, which is not the case with posthumous grantees.
Charles wasn’t a member in the directory I have, but that directory is rather old and Charles may have since joined. While Charles should have ancestral arms (his agnatic ancestor was armigerous), I noticed his day-to-day arms come from recent English and Scottish grants so he might not qualify based on what you are telling me if he is relying on his recent grants.
Interestingly at least within the British langue of the SMOM AFAIK a retrospective grant does pass muster and may entitle a British applicant admission into one of the noble grades of the SMOM. So the OAAA may have more rigid standards than the venerable SMOM.
Joseph McMillan;104493 wrote:
I doubt that the OAAA would call themselves "ancillary," but they are indeed basically a hereditary society like the scores of others out there, very British-focused in practice if not by charter, of course, as the expression "proven right to bear arms" would imply. Note that, because descent can be through female as well as male lines, most members are not themselves entitled to the arms borne by their respective qualifying ancestors. Very nice people, but on the whole much more about the ancestry than the heraldry.
By "ancillary" I mean that it is not the first hereditary society one normally thinks of when joining such organizations. My impression is that most people start off targeting Sons of the Union or Daughters of the Confederacy and then work their way back to SAR or DAR and finally Cincinnati. Once the key ancestors have been found on the family tree then eligibility in other hereditary societies follows quite readily. For example if you are a descendant of a British King such as required by the Royal Bastards then you normally can qualify for Descendants of the Garter or other hereditary society.
You are of course right about the OAAA. Looking over the directory, I see many of the members are women of British descent who technically would not have inherited their ancestral arms lest the male line of descent had died out and they were heraldic heiresses in their own right.
eploy;104506 wrote:
While Charles should have ancestral arms (his agnatic ancestor was armigerous), I noticed his day-to-day arms come from recent English and Scottish grants so he might not qualify based on what you are telling me if he is relying on his recent grants.
Once again, based on my encounter with the group, most members of the OAAA are not entitled to use the arms of the ancestor who qualifies them for membership, because the descent need not be in the male line. For example, I would qualify for membership by descent from a Robert Barham who was in Virginia by the late 1600s. But the direct male line from him to me only goes to the late 1800s, after which it passes through two females. I can’t even quarter Barham.
Quote:
So the OAAA may have more rigid standards than the venerable SMOM.
Not really. Even if we accept that possession of English arms signifies nobility, as the SMOM seems to do, one can get into the OAAA with one female quarter out of the canonical seize quartiers (as I would do), or even one out 32, 64, 128, 256, or 512.