Joseph McMillan;104829 wrote:
The county (which I do live in) is flatly wrong to display the arms on its seal, with or without the nobiliary elements. But two wrongs wouldn’t make a right.
Joe,
Just so I understand (and sometimes I’m a little thick), what exactly, in your view, is the wrong committed by Sir James Michael Dunbar, 14th Baronet of Mochrum and 39th Hereditary Chief of the Name and Arms of Dunbar when he displays his arms with supporters and open helm in a personal context? Bad Taste? Snobbery? Anti-Americanism?
David Pope;104830 wrote:
Joe,
Just so I understand (and sometimes I’m a little thick), what exactly, in your view, is the wrong committed by Sir James Michael Dunbar, 14th Baronet of Mochrum and 39th Hereditary Chief of the Name and Arms of Dunbar when he displays his arms with supporters and open helm in a personal context? Bad Taste? Snobbery? Anti-Americanism?
"Wrong" is not the precise word, but we don’t have a proverb that one wrong and a case of bad judgment don’t make a right.
It has always struck me that we Americans should give foreign (generally British) nobles, chiefs, baronets, etc., exactly the same amount of slack with regard to nobiliary ornaments that the British accord to foreign nobles, chiefs, etc.
A Swedish count who moves to England or Scotland and petitions for arms will not be granted an earl’s coronet, because in Britain he is not a count/earl, merely another gentleman. A caballero of one of the Spanish military orders will not receive an open-visored helm. The paramount shaykh of a Bedouin tribe will not receive supporters, even though Bedouin tribes are far more real and important entities in the modern world than are Highland clans. As a matter of fact, if the chief of a Highland clan applies for arms in England, he will not receive supporters unless he is either a peer or a KG, KT, or grand cross of one of the other British orders.
If the English and Scottish heraldic authorities deny these holders of foreign dignities the ability to symbolize those dignities in their arms, why is it unreasonable for Americans to do the same vis-a-vis holders of English/Scottish dignities?
David Pope;104830 wrote:
Joe,
Just so I understand (and sometimes I’m a little thick), what exactly, in your view, is the wrong committed by Sir James Michael Dunbar, 14th Baronet of Mochrum and 39th Hereditary Chief of the Name and Arms of Dunbar when he displays his arms with supporters and open helm in a personal context? Bad Taste? Snobbery? Anti-Americanism?
Not to avoid a straight answer, I would suppose that Mr. Dunbar simply had not reflected much on the issue. If I had to put a label on it, then perhaps "solecism," or simply "mistake, error."
(And, comet to think of it, the same is probably true of the county.)
Joseph McMillan;104833 wrote:
Not to avoid a straight answer, I would suppose that Mr. Dunbar simply had not reflected much on the issue. If I had to put a label on it, then perhaps "solecism," or simply "mistake, error."
(And, comet to think of it, the same is probably true of the county.)
Joe,
I tend to agree with you. I think in most cases there’s not much thought given to these things. I suspect that Fairfax County officials probably would have a hard time understanding what our beef is with their seal.
I do wonder, though, what Baron Haden-Guest would make out of this discussion. He’s sort of the test case, right? Dual citizen, peer, resident in America…
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/06/Spinal_Tap_-_Up_to_Eleven.jpg
Joseph McMillan;104832 wrote:
If the English and Scottish heraldic authorities deny these holders of foreign dignities the ability to symbolize those dignities in their arms, why is it unreasonable for Americans to do the same vis-a-vis holders of English/Scottish dignities?
Two wrongs don’t make a right?
If the foreign titled folks already have arms with supporters, etc., are they required to drop them in Britain, or may they continue using their own arms? The analysis is a bit more complicated in the US since there’s no heraldic authority, no relevant law, etc. We don’t really have anyone to do the denying…
Does anyone here know if those naturalized US citizens who formally renounce their noble status have to file any paperwork for this aspect of the naturalization process? If such records exists, the statistics might be interesting. It may also be a potential avenue for further research about Americans who have inherited a coat of arms (although not all nobles use a coat of arms).
Also, I wonder if it is necessary to also renounce one’s noble status in the country-of-origin to satisfy the naturalization process. I can think of many instances when this might be impossible. I don’t think that British peers could disclaim their title before the passage of the Peerage Act of 1963…before then I think a British peer could only cease to be a peer by death or attainder?
snelson;104836 wrote:
Does anyone here know if those naturalized US citizens who formally renounce their noble status have to file any paperwork for this aspect of the naturalization process? If such records exists, the statistics might be interesting.
I don’t know for a fact, but would be willing to bet that records were/are kept. I know the National Archives has a huge collection of naturalization files, and one would think that, if an immigrant renounced nobility as part of the process, that would be recorded there.
Quote:
Also, I wonder if it is necessary to also renounce one’s noble status in the country-of-origin to satisfy the naturalization process.
No, it isn’t.
David Pope;104835 wrote:
Two wrongs don’t make a right?
No, but reciprocity is a fundamental tenet of both public and private international law. (I know this isn’t a matter of law in the US, but if (in principle) the Brits won’t let us use our validly assumed arms at all if we emigrate to their country, it seems more than generous to let British immigrants to the US use their arms here provided only that they drop the objectionable bits.
Quote:
If the foreign titled folks already have arms with supporters, etc., are they required to drop them in Britain, or may they continue using their own arms?
That depends on whether you believe that the English law of arms prohibits the bearing of arms that are not on record at the College.
It would be clearly against the law for someone to take up permanent residence in Scotland and continue using arms without matriculating them in Lyon Register.
I have to wonder how much Mr. Guest uses his arms in the United States. Not that I expect anyone to know.
Happy to pass the baton of republican righteousness back to Joe, who is both better informed and less long-winded.
Only one point, and one question, at this point. First, re: Joe’s hypothetical heir of a penniless peerage - in Scottish terms, a room tabard - I would only add that while in England tying up lose ends, he might also inquire about applying for UK citizenship. If he’s gonna talk the talk, he should walk the walk. Either way, when he returns here, whether with a US passport or a shiny new UK model, if he were gauche enough to play the peer at work or in the neighborhood, he would be rightly laughed at, behind his back if not to his face. (From an earlier post in this thread, seems Joe would be more polite than I might be.).
And the question - who, what and why is Mr. Guest?
Michael F. McCartney;104840 wrote:
And the question - who, what and why is Mr. Guest?
http://www.founditemclothing.com/halloween/spinal-tap-cap-1.jpg
Christopher Guest is an American / Englishman who is known for a series of mockumentary films. His first was Spinal Tap. He inherited his father’s title. He’s married to Jamie Lee Curtis.
http://coolspotters.com/files/photos/247905/christopher-guest-and-jamie-lee-curtis-gallery.jpg
Michael F. McCartney;104840 wrote:
And the question - who, what and why is Mr. Guest?
Christopher Guest, actor, director, author, musician, etc. Husband of Jamie Lee Curtis. Count Rugen (the Six-Fingered Man) from The Princess Bride, Nigel Tufnel ("The numbers all go up to eleven") from This Is Spinal Tap. Harlan Pepper, the bloodhound owner in Best in Show, and 5th Baron Haden-Guest in the peerage of the UK. He was born in New York to a British father (the 4th baron, then a diplomat assigned to the UN) and an American mother.
http://www.celebrityrockstarguitars.com/rock/images/Christopher Haden-Guest.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_v7Nd6pidYeQ/TTcTtAn5yyI/AAAAAAAADc8/c8BjiE4mZqg/s1600/cg.jpg
And click here:
Michael,
Just one thought: While I agree that someone who puts on airs would face deserved derision, I think that we should be careful about using the reaction of others as an indicator of the rightness or wrongness of a particular course of action. I can well imagine a not dissimilar episode that would go like this:
Quote:
...if he were gauche enough to [display his newly assumed coat of arms] at work or in the neighborhood, he would be rightly laughed at, behind his back if not to his face.
Of course, the party line in response to the above hypothetical has always been, "I’d educate the folks involved about the richness of American heraldry, why assumption is the historic and preferred way of obtaining arms in America, that heraldry is not an elitist field of interest, etc." (We’d explain to them that we’re right and their reactions are wrong…)
My point is simply that the reaction of folks "back on the block" standard would likely result in all of us being convicted of pretentiousness for merely having a coat of arms.
David - we disagree as to the party line! Your summary would apply to the display by an American of arms appropriate for an American per the AHS Guidelines - shield & crest - no supporters, coronets, or other nobiliary nonsense; and of course no flaunting of a title! The Guidelines don’t condone, nor would we try to justify, display of nobiliary arms or title by an American citizen, other than in the limited circumstances described in the Guidelines.
My personal reaction - snickers and thinly (if at all) veiled derision - is reserved for those Americans who in their everyday life as citizens of this republic flaunt a foreign nobiliary title, and/or related nobiliary trappings, that are by their very nature inconsistent with that citizenship outside of the limited exceptions noted in the Guidelines.
Note that this is my personal reaction. It is stronger and more strident than the more diplomatic language in the Guidelines which address "best practices" while recognizing that they are not binding and enforceable legal requirements. I respect that aspect of the Society’s approach.
But for me personally, they are rules that any American is IMO morally obligated to follow. Just because we "can" do certain things that no laws prohibit, doesn’t mean that we "should" or that others can’t or shouldn’t condemn or look down on us for doing.