Nobiliary Entitlements (was Spanish/Mexican Law)

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
12 October 2015 08:14
 

There’s no such thing as a U.S. citizen who "happens to be a nobleman" in this country.  We have no noblemen in this country.

Even if, as Fred insists, the display of any coat of arms at all is an assertion that one is part of an "elite," it is at most an assertion that one is a gentleman, a condition to which it has always been acceptable to aspire.

 

As for perceptions:  (a) I have not met with the same reactions Fred seems to have had with regard to my own arms.  (b) I cannot extrapolate my experience to other people.  (c) Until someone spends the time and money to conduct serious research about this issue, it’s pointless to go around and around about it.  (d) Very few things are self evident; there are all kinds of generalizations that people used to make about attitudes and behavior that have turned out, upon further review, not to be true.

 

We (the AHS) still offer the Barton scholarship, which could fund some sociology grad student’s thesis on this matter.  When he or she does this study, it would be interesting to compare attitudes to heraldry with attitudes toward various hereditary societies and see just where Americans put what on the snobbery scale.

 

Repetition of positions on this is not going to change anyone’s mind, so until someone has something new to say on the matter, I’d suggest we all take a breath and move on to more productive fields of discussion.  That’s not a moderator’s warning or a threat to close the thread, merely my personal opinion, one which I intend to heed myself.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
12 October 2015 21:56
 

The only self-evident American values I recognize, in heraldry as in life, are those beginng with "all men are created equal…" - beyond that, it’s all argument based on experience, evidence, and extrapolation from the self-evident basics.  (I have very few other personal self-evidents, e.g. religious, but not relevant here.)

I think the only other relevant self-evident truth is Joe’s last paragraph, though the rest of his posting makes good sense too.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
12 October 2015 23:24
 

Mike, if you really think it self-evident that all men are created equal, then what do you suppose you are communicating to all your "equals" by publicly identifying yourself with a symbol explicitly designed to affirm inequality in the places where symbols of that sort evolved? Are you engaging in some sort of subversion?

 
JJB1
 
Avatar
 
 
JJB1
Total Posts:  83
Joined  31-10-2014
 
 
 
13 October 2015 08:47
 

Wilfred Leblanc;104866 wrote:

It is certainly perceived as one, the intentions of the individual armiger nowithstanding. How can there be any serious debate about this?

The perception of heraldry of most people in the US is that everyone has a "family crest" associated with their surname. Does this majority think arms are associated with snobbery?—no, probably not. I think most people who follow this way of heraldry have a sense of pride in whatever their family history may or may not be. But nothing more.

I think this perception argument (though it works elsewhere) is barking up the wrong tree when applied to the US. Our cultural mindset is just too far removed from places that have traditional social “castes”. Class distinctions in the US are based on socio-economic status; and perhaps a little on education, public office or celebrity—maybe “access” is a good word. This is an important distinction that makes any social implications associated with heraldry irrelevant to or incongruous with the US.

 

When we say “middle class” in the US, we’re talking about how much money someone has. We’re not placing them in a social category that they wear around their necks for life. Words like parvenu and upstart are virtually meaningless in the US. We might have words like "bootlickers", "careerists", "showoffs”, "opportunists" or “gold diggers”. But those aren’t the same things as a social climber in the old sense. The Nouveau Riche term exists here, though that term is generally applied to rough people who made money in some way and who will probably lose it all within their lifetime. It isn’t applied to self-made entrepreneurs who become elderly and donate to build a wing of a hospital or university. And it certainly isn’t applied to their children.

 

If someone in the US were to inherit an English title or have a very old coat of arms, I’d bet most US Citizens would simply nod and say without irony "That’s neat. Good for you." They won’t be offended. But when someone has inherited wealth and lives openly in opulence and behaves obnoxiously, or the path to wealth seems closed to others, then that’s when the American public might reach for their “torches and pitchforks”. At the same time, they don’t think a thing about the gentleman in tweed with a heraldic signet ring other than, “there’s a nice man”. Money is a very seriously-perceived thing in the US. Traditional social hierarchy is not. Heraldry is perceived no differently than a family pedigree might be; or as some other historical curiosity.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
13 October 2015 15:00
 

JJB;104881 wrote:

The perception of heraldry of most people in the US is that everyone has a "family crest" associated with their surname. Does this majority think arms are associated with snobbery?—no, probably not. I think most people who follow this way of heraldry have a sense of pride in whatever their family history may or may not be. But nothing more.


There plainly are many people who uncritically subscribe to the "family crest" understanding of heraldry, but the allure of using bucket shop arms is clearly that they confer some distinction—that of belonging to a family whose history is more illustrious than others’. Pride only makes sense if the thing you are proud of is in contrast to something else. If that’s your family, then you are contrasting it with other families, not merely saying it’s great in its own way, but that there are some that are great, others that aren’t, and that yours belongs in the great category. There is no neutral use of heraldry.


Quote:

I think this perception argument (though it works elsewhere) is barking up the wrong tree when applied to the US. Our cultural mindset is just too far removed from places that have traditional social “castes”. Class distinctions in the US are based on socio-economic status; and perhaps a little on education, public office or celebrity—maybe “access” is a good word. This is an important distinction that makes any social implications associated with heraldry irrelevant to or incongruous with the US.


I think there’s a lot to recommend your description of the way Americans view social class, but you beg the question of how heraldry can have any relevance here at all.


Quote:

When we say “middle class” in the US, we’re talking about how much money someone has. We’re not placing them in a social category that they wear around their necks for life. Words like parvenu and upstart are virtually meaningless in the US. We might have words like "bootlickers", "careerists", "showoffs”, "opportunists" or “gold diggers”. But those aren’t the same things as a social climber in the old sense. The Nouveau Riche term exists here, though that term is generally applied to rough people who made money in some way and who will probably lose it all within their lifetime. It isn’t applied to self-made entrepreneurs who become elderly and donate to build a wing of a hospital or university. And it certainly isn’t applied to their children.


For sure, the niche communities of the U.S. where status is ascribed based on genealogy are dwindling and are certainly outside the center of gravity. But if it is then the case that the normative American view is that every generation has to recreate its social status de novo, then what is heraldry’s relevance here? Arms, after all, are meant to be inherited. They communicate that not only individuals but families have identities. They tie the status of each individual in the family line to the other individuals in the family line.


Quote:

If someone in the US were to inherit an English title or have a very old coat of arms, I’d bet most US Citizens would simply nod and say without irony "That’s neat. Good for you." They won’t be offended.


Then perhaps that should be better reflected here.


Quote:

But when . . . the path to wealth seems closed to others, then that’s when the American public might reach for their “torches and pitchforks”.


Right. Americans don’t like feeling excluded, but heraldry is by its very nature exclusionary.


Quote:

At the same time, they don’t think a thing about the gentleman in tweed with a heraldic signet ring other than, “there’s a nice man”.


Not a safe generalization. The gentleman needs to confine his tweed and signet ring wearing to a niche community where these things count as good form. Otherwise, he will invite ridicule.


Quote:

Money is a very seriously-perceived thing in the US. Traditional social hierarchy is not. Heraldry is perceived no differently than a family pedigree might be; or as some other historical curiosity.


Insofar as you’re conceding that there’s not a whole lot at stake here, I agree with you. I would just emphasize that pride in pedigree (something expressed by heraldry) doesn’t fit with individualism. The two are incommensurable.

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
13 October 2015 20:32
 

I lost in this same argument with Fred some years ago in this forum.  The most I could add to this conversation is that my experience has been that many people here do seem to see personal/family heraldry as reflecting social standing.  It does not matter if they are right or wrong in this belief - it simply is so.  Trying to explain otherwise is usually a loosing proposition (all despite the AHS guidelines).

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
13 October 2015 23:39
 

Luis, yes, it is a belief, but it is one that is grounded in evidence—namely, the history of heraldry. One isn’t engaging in magical thinking by connecting that history with what contemporary Americans do when they use coats of arms to identify themselves.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
14 October 2015 00:08
 

Joseph McMillan;104874 wrote:

There’s no such thing as a U.S. citizen who "happens to be a nobleman" in this country.  We have no noblemen in this country.


The fact that we don’t mint them is irrelevant. A few reasons for that have already been adduced.

 

But look at this way: We have dual citizens in this country. They don’t cease to be citizens of the other country when they’re resident here. American culture plainly gets that. U.S. law gets that. It tolerates dual citizens’ voting in elections overseas. It tolerates—and in the case of Israel, for instance, positively enables—dual citizens’ serving in foreign militaries. What possible justification, then, could there be for saying that an American who has inherited a title of nobility is somehow "not a nobleman" when he’s in the U.S. and that his non-American identity should be suppressed on the level of heraldry?

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
14 October 2015 02:28
 

(Posted before seeing Fred’s latest)

Luis - Did you really lose the argument, or just get tired of arguing with someone whose mindset was on a different frequency? wink

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
14 October 2015 10:54
 

Wilfred Leblanc;104885 wrote:

The fact that we don’t mint them is irrelevant. A few reasons for that have already been adduced.


Did I say anything about the Constitutional prohibitions on granting titles of nobility?  That we don’t mint new nobles is a choice deriving from the prior choice not to have such a thing as a noble class in the United States.  "Nobility" in the sense we’re talking about (as opposed to nobility of character, etc.) is something that exists only by virtue of the socio-legal system in a particular society and (like any other matter of personal status) is not automatically transferrable from one society to another.

 

Illustration:  before the Obergefell decision this summer, if two Swedish women who had been married in their home country had moved to, say, Kentucky, they would not have been recognized as married, could not have held property as tenants by the entirety, etc.  Were they married or weren’t they?  In Sweden they were, in Kentucky they were not.

 

In Westminster SW1, the Earl of Carnarvon is a nobleman.  In Westminster, Md., 21157, he isn’t.


Quote:

But look at this way: We have dual citizens in this country. They don’t cease to be citizens of the other country when they’re resident here. American culture plainly gets that. U.S. law gets that.


Actually, U.S. law "gets" dual citizenship in precisely the same way I’m suggesting we need to understand the concept of nobility outside its country of origin.  It is not illegal to be a dual citizen, but the foreign citizenship is of zero legal and practical consequence within the United States.  A dual citizen’s rights and responsibilities in the United States are the same as any other citizen’s.  In the U.S. context, he is not a French, British, or Israeli citizen; he is an American citizen.

 

As for whether American culture "gets" dual citizenship, by which I take it that Fred means that the consensus of Americans is comfortable with or indifferent to multiple citizenship, I am strongly disposed to doubt it.  Understanding this subject requires a level of sophistication that seems wholly inconsistent with what we know of public opinion on the immigration question.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
14 October 2015 11:06
 

Wilfred Leblanc;104884 wrote:

Luis, yes, it is a belief, but it is one that is grounded in evidence—namely, the history of heraldry. One isn’t engaging in magical thinking by connecting that history with what contemporary Americans do when they use coats of arms to identify themselves.


The history of heraldry is useful as evidence for what Americans think they’re doing when they use coats of arms only to the extent that said Americans know anything about the history of heraldry.  If Americans overwhelmingly believe that every surname has a coat of arms, then displaying the arms of that surname is no more an assertion of elite status than signing one’s name.

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
14 October 2015 12:21
 

Michael F. McCartney;104886 wrote:

(Posted before seeing Fred’s latest)

Luis - Did you really lose the argument, or just get tired of arguing with someone whose mindset was on a different frequency? wink


This entire debate is an excellent example of of the importance of this heraldry society’s public education role.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
14 October 2015 12:28
 

Fred write, "The fact that we don’t mint them is irrelevant."

I’ll remember that argument the next time Safeway objects to my paying with pesos or Canadian nickels.  wink

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
14 October 2015 13:29
 

Joseph McMillan;104889 wrote:

If Americans overwhelmingly believe that every surname has a coat of arms, then displaying the arms of that surname is no more an assertion of elite status than signing one’s name.


I see no evidence of an "overwhelming" belief to this effect. A not uncommon misconception, sure, but an overwhelming belief, no, and the sense I get is that rubes who go for bucket shop arms tend very often to find out in short order that they’ve been misled.

 

Meanwhile, American heraldry does not exist in a vacuum. The history of heraldry remains what it is, and the norms of the rest of the heraldic world remain what they are. This is not to assert that there’s no room for variation and change, but the idea that an American’s coat of arms makes no objective assertion of high social status is not tenable.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
14 October 2015 13:29
 

Michael F. McCartney;104893 wrote:

Fred write, "The fact that we don’t mint them is irrelevant."

I’ll remember that argument the next time Safeway objects to my paying with pesos or Canadian nickels.  wink


Good idea, Mike!