Nobiliary Entitlements (was Spanish/Mexican Law)

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
17 October 2015 10:57
 

Joe’s overview sounds about right.  I’d also heard /read a little about the Cincinnati controversy (but less than TV critic’s differences about WKRP In Cincinnati smile )  I knew there was a negative public reaction in some quarters but not that it was so widespread or virulent.

The author’s primary purpose was to attack legacy admission practices in public colleges, which is way off-topic here, but the background and arguments re: the Nobiliary clauses and hereditary distinctions is spot on.

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
17 October 2015 16:56
 

Follow the link below to another excellent law review article on a similar subject:

http://www.thirdamendment.com/8SCIDLJ577.pdf

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
17 October 2015 17:02
 

I received Maurice Keen’s book Origins of the English Gentleman in yesterday’s post.  I was delighted to see that he spends considerable space discussing the relationship between heraldry and social status.  It looks like it will be an enjoyable read and pertinent to this discussion.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
17 October 2015 17:11
 

Joseph McMillan;104920 wrote:

John Adams, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and, of course, George Washington, all used coats of arms in one form or another . . . Washington, of course, expressed the clear view that heraldry was not at odds with republican principles, and John Adams described the contrary misconception as "vulgar insolence."


Perhaps republicanism and Jacobinism have become conflated in your thinking.

 

The blatantly obvious reason that there needn’t have been any conflict, in the Founders’ minds, between heraldry and republican principles is that the republics inspiring them—the Roman Republic, paramount among them—were stratified societies in which social mobility was possible but atypical, and status was, therefore, in large measure hereditary. The Founders clearly saw themselves as patricians (and undoubtedly preferred that condition to the plebeian alternative). This pretense was justifiable for all of them according to one or another line of sound reasoning. There was no inconsistency in their celebrating their status as patricians and arguing for republicanism.

 

Again, to denude heraldry of any traditional social status connotations and make it something fundamentally different than it generally has been (here or anywhere else) may be a worthy enterprise. But to argue that this strict egalitarianism has been the key dynamic in American heraldry from the beginning and that that dynamic emerges organically from—or coheres with—its source traditions requires resorting to logical fallacies and cherrypicking the available evidence to make it say things that it simply doesn’t. To go further and represent this strict egalitarianism as reflecting the consensus view of what heraldry signifies to most Americans right now is premature, at best.

 

The preponderance of your own evidence is on the side of viewing heraldry in the U.S. as making an objective assertion of social superiority (not necessarily enormous superiority, not necessarily unattainable superiority, but superiority all the same). You promote the use of heraldry by Americans. You have no meaningful rebuttal to the contention that Americans are comfortable with identities drawing on more than one nation or culture. You have no way to contradict the observation that American law prevents no one (and American custom dissuades no one) born a citizen from being a nobleman somewhere else simultaneously.

 

Can you try explaining again why it’s bad form for an American who inherits a coat of arms with nobiliary additaments to display it?

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
17 October 2015 18:53
 

David Pope;104922 wrote:

Follow the link below to another excellent law review article on a similar subject:

http://www.thirdamendment.com/8SCIDLJ577.pdf


Good article. The reminder that the the Titles of Nobility Amendment was never ratified is timely.

 
snelson
 
Avatar
 
 
snelson
Total Posts:  464
Joined  03-06-2005
 
 
 
17 October 2015 22:38
 

Personally, I have always tried to keep titles separate from hereditary nobility in my mind.  I find the examples of Joe and Rose Kennedy useful.  I believe when Rose was created a Countess by Pope Pius XII in 1952, it was only for life (ad personam).  However, when Joe was appointed a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Pope Pius IX in 1939 (when he was still serving as a US Ambassador), I believe that, at the time, this honor still conferred hereditary nobility upon the recipient.  Of course, many noble titles are inheritable, and I regard the use of those titles by US citizens as un-American.  But in the above examples, I find the knighthood much more problematic than the title of Countess.  Hypothetically, I wouldn’t be bothered if Rose had used a coronet above her arms, but I think I would be bothered if Joe had displayed the badge of the Pian Order from his arms.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
17 October 2015 22:55
 

snelson;104927 wrote:

I wouldn’t be bothered if Rose had used a coronet above her arms, but I think I would be bothered if Joe had displayed the badge of the Pian Order from his arms.


Why, Seb?

 
snelson
 
Avatar
 
 
snelson
Total Posts:  464
Joined  03-06-2005
 
 
 
17 October 2015 23:25
 

Quote:

If you’re referring to the descendants of Jerome Bonaparte (Napoleon I’s brother, King of Westphalia) and his wife Elizabeth Patterson, it’s not clear to me that they would have inherited any imperial titles whether they were Americans or not. Big brother had the marriage annulled before the birth of their son, Jerome Napoleon, which under French law even had the effect of denying them the use of the name Bonaparte.


I don’t think I’ve ever mentioned this before, but it was Jerome Bonaparte’s American marriage to Elizabeth Patterson that first sparked my interest in heraldry.  This is way off topic, but I hope you will forgive me if I share the following anecdote.  My maternal grandmother Jeroma Arenson (1929-2013) was named after her father Jerome Bonepart Eldridge (1906-1971):

 

http://heraldryjunkyard.tumblr.com/post/131390678487

 

http://heraldryjunkyard.tumblr.com/post/131390793382

 

He was named after his great-grand uncle Dr. Jerome Bonaparte Greene (1830-1906):

 

http://heraldryjunkyard.tumblr.com/post/131390541482

 

http://suvcw.org/past/jeromebgreene.htm

 

My family legend has always been that my grandmother was a descendant of Jerome Bonaparte and Elizabeth Patterson.  Of course, it has been known to professional genealogists that the last descendants of Jerome Bonaparte and Elizabeth Patterson died out in 1945, so my grandmother is not a descendant.  The closest link I could find is that Dr. Greene was born on December 20, 1830 in Uxbridge, Massachusetts.  Jerome Bonaparte and Elizabeth Patterson’s son Jerome married Susan May Williams the year before in 1829, and I think Susan’s family was from Roxbury, Massachusetts (about thirty-five miles away from where Dr. Greene would be born).

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
18 October 2015 15:24
 

Wilfred Leblanc;104925 wrote:

Perhaps republicanism and Jacobinism have become conflated in your thinking.


Yeah, that’s me.  The guy who somehow managed to pass doctoral comps in political theory and comparative politics without knowing the difference between republicanism and Jacobinism.

 

But if you want someone who apparently didn’t understand the fine points of this distinction, may I point you to the one founding father who probably would have been pleased to be labeled Jacobin, namely Patrick Henry.  Bizarrely enough, Henry seems to have been the only founding father to suggest that a hereditary element of the federal legislature might be useful (as a check on excessive presidential power).  It’s hard to tell whether he was serious, but James Monroe seems to have thought so, since he spent considerable time the following day rebutting Henry’s argument.  (In the Virginia Convention’s debates on ratification, 9-10 June 1788; see Elliot’s Debates, vol 3, pp. 164-65 and 208-09.)


Quote:

The blatantly obvious reason that there needn’t have been any conflict, in the Founders’ minds, between heraldry and republican principles is that the republics inspiring them—the Roman Republic, paramount among them—were stratified societies in which social mobility was possible but atypical, and status was, therefore, in large measure hereditary.


Did you bother to read the article that Seb pointed out?  Evidently not.  Or the debates surrounding the drafting and ratification of the Constitution?  Evidently not.  If you had, you would find a virtually unanimous view among the founding fathers that hereditary privilege was unacceptable in the United States.  This extended even to discomfort with legal institutions tending to create hereditary privilege indirectly by preserving enormous wealth in a few families.  Hence the abolition of primogeniture inheritance, between 1777 (Georgia) and 1798 (Rhode Island) inheritance in every state where it had existed in colonial times, and the almost universal abolition of entailed estates (everywhere except Massachusetts) within the next few decades after that.

 

You would also find in the Constitutional debates that (other than in describing various historic models of republics), the Roman class structure was raised only in the context of rejecting it as the pattern upon which U.S. society and government should and even could be based.  Thus:

 

* "The people of this country are not only very different from the inhabitants of any state we are acquainted with in the modern world, but I assert that their situation is distinct from either the people of Greece or Rome, or of any states we are acquainted with among the ancients… Are the distinction of patrician and plebeian known among us? ... I apprehend not. They are perfectly different, in their distinctions of rank, their constitutions, their manners, and their policy."  (Charles Pinckney, Const. Conv., Elliot’s Debates, vol 5, p. 236)

 

* "The division of the state into two classes, with distinct and independent organs of power, and without any intermingled agency whatever, might lead to contests and antipathies not dissimilar to those between the patricians and plebeians at Rome."  (James Madison, note responding to proposals in Const. Conv., to have one house elected by property holders and one elected by the unpropertied; Elliot’s Debates, vol 5, p. 582.

 

*"Gentlemen, [Mr. Jones of Boston] said, had compared the people of this country to those of Rome; but, he observed, the comparison was very erroneous: the Romans were divided into two classes, the nobility and plebeians; the nobility kept all kinds of knowledge to their own class; and the plebeians were, in general, very ignorant, and when unemployed, in time of peace, were ever ready for revolt, and to follow the dictates of any designing patrician. But, continued the worthy gentleman, the people of the United States are an enlightened, well-informed people, and are, therefore, not easily imposed on by designing men."  (Mass. Conv., Elliot’s Debates, vol 2, p. 75)

 

As for acceptance of stratification as the ideal or norm:

 

* "The people of the United States are perhaps the most singular of any we are acquainted with. Among them there are fewer distinctions of fortune, and less of rank, than among the inhabitants of any other nation. Every freeman has a right to the same protection and security; and a very moderate share of property entitles them to the possession of all the honors and privileges the public can bestow. Hence arises a greater equality than is to be found among the people of any other country; and an equality which is more likely to continue… For a people thus circumstanced are we, then, to form a government; and the question is, what sort of government is best suited to them?  Will it be the British government? No. Why? Because Great Britain contains three orders of people distinct in their situation, their possessions, and their principles… But the United States contain but one order that can be assimilated to the British nation—this is, the order of Commons.” (Charles Pinckney, op. cit., p. 233 ff)

 

* "The revolution, in having emancipated us from the shackles of Great Britain, has put the entire government in the hands of one order of people only freemen; not of nobles and freemen.” (James Monroe, Va. Conv., Elliot’s Debates, vol 3, pp. 208-209.

 

* "The American revolution was built upon the principle that all men are born with an equal right to liberty and property, and that officers have no right to any power but what is fairly given them by the consent of the people." (Rev. Isaac Backus, Mass. Conv., Elliot’s Debates , vol 2, p. 150.

 

You may say, if you wish, that the Founding Fathers were deluding themselves, particularly in light of their simultaneous acceptance of the continued existence of slavery, and I won’t argue with you.  I couldn’t read their minds if they were still alive, let alone at a distance of 200+ years.  I can only go by what they said and wrote.  On that basis, as the article cited by Seb makes clear and adduces considerable evidence to support, the Founding Fathers were virtually unanimous in believing not only that the U.S. should have no noble class but that, as an objective fact, it actually had no noble class.  They also agreed, without significant dissent, that this nobility-free situation should be preserved by means of the titles of nobility clauses in the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution and parallel provisions in many state constitutions.

 

* “The prohibition with respect to titles of nobility is copied from the articles of Confederation and needs no comment.” (Federalist No. 44 [Madison])

 

* “Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility. This may truly be denominated the corner-stone of republican government.”  (Federalist No. 84 [Hamilton])

 

Beyond that (and again, turn to the article cited by Seb), discussion of the issue revolved mainly around how to ensure that a de facto noble class not evolve unintentionally or surreptitiously.  The Naturalization Act of 1795, which introduced the requirement for immigrants who held noble status in their native country to repudiate that status as a condition of citizenship, is indicative of the determination to preserve the U.S. as a nobility-free zone.  Madison spoke in support of the amendment that added this requirement to the bill; so did John Page, as "aristocratic" a Virginian as one could ever find; so did Richard Bland Lee—one of those Lees.  Washington was the President who signed it into law.


Quote:

Again, to denude heraldry of any traditional social status connotations and make it something fundamentally different than it generally has been (here or anywhere else)...


This is really a separate issue from the question of whether nobility exists in the U.S. and/or whether foreign nobility should properly be represented in an American’s coat of arms.  I will therefore address it separately.


Quote:

You have no way to contradict the observation that American law prevents no one (and American custom dissuades no one) born a citizen from being a nobleman somewhere else smultaneously.


No kidding.  Check the thread—I’m the one who brought this possibility up in the first place.  The key phrase is "somewhere else."  Nobility is NOT some divinely instilled quality that is transferrable from one country to another.  The American citizen in question may well be a nobleman somewhere else.  He is emphatically not a nobleman here.  A person of Swedish extraction born in London may well inherit a Swedish countship.  If so, he becomes a count in Sweden.  He does not, however, become an earl or any other kind of nobleman in the United Kingdom, and if he goes to the College of Arms to regularize his hereditary arms (by whatever process they would use these days), he will not be allowed supporters, a peer’s helm, or a coronet.


Quote:

Can you try explaining again why it’s bad form for an American who inherits a coat of arms with nobiliary additaments to display it?


Yes, I can try until I’m blue in the face, apparently.

 

Presumably the person who insists on using the nobiliary additaments believes they represent something, right?  If they represented nothing, would he use them?

 

Well, in the United States they represent nothing, because there is nothing for them to represent.  They are symbols without a referent.  "The United States contain but one order…the order of Commons," and all your foreign noble titles put together plus $1.75 will get you a tall coffee at Starbucks.  Because the United States has no class of nobility, there is logically no room in American heraldry for things that symbolize nobility.

 

As stated above, I will explain separately why coats of arms in themselves are different from nobiliary additaments to coats of arms.  The simple version is:  because they do not signify that the bearer holds the status of a nobleman—not here, not in the UK, and not in most other places, not now, not ever.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
19 October 2015 01:50
 

Looking forward to Joe’s promised follow-up.

Seb noted that he sees titles and hereditary nobility as two different concepts, and referred to Rise and Joe Kennedy’s receiving Papal awards of, respectively, a non-heritable title of Countess, and a knighthood which apparently conveys heritable nobility but without the title of knight.

 

If the Pope granted these awards in his capacity as head of state of the sovereign Vatican State, seems to me they are not different from any similar grants of titles or noblesse to an Anerican citizen by any other foreign state - OK to accept and use the title & any related additaments in that foreign context (visiting that foreign state, or at functions sponsored by that state etc).  In Joe Kennedy’s case, if the knighthood was granted while he was a government official, of course the Constitutional requirement for Congressional approval would apply.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
19 October 2015 02:37
 

Looking forward to Joe’s promised follow-up.

Seb noted that he sees titles and hereditary nobility as two different concepts, and referred to Rose and Joe Kennedy’s receiving Papal awards of, respectively, a non-heritable title of Countess, and a knighthood which apparently conveys heritable nobility but without the title of knight.

 

If the Pope granted these awards in his capacity as head of state of the sovereign Vatican State, seems to me they are not different from any similar grants of titles or noblesse to an Anerican citizen by any other foreign state - OK to accept and use the title & any related additaments in that foreign context (visiting that foreign state, or at functions sponsored by that state etc).  In Joe Kennedy’s case, if the knighthood was granted while he was a government official, of course the Constitutional requirement for Congressional approval would apply.

 

If on the other hand the Pope was acting as head of the church., then IMO it’s not much different in kind (,though likely not in degree) from the Knights of Columbus - OK to use in the context of church activities but not otherwise.

 

Different possible cases, depending on nature of grantor, but same end result.

 

My opinions, others may differ.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
19 October 2015 02:45
 

Looking forward to Joe’s promised follow-up.

Seb noted that he sees titles and hereditary nobility as two different concepts, and referred to Rise and Joe Kennedy’s receiving Papal awards of, respectively, a non-heritable title of Countess, and a knighthood which apparently conveys heritable nobility but without the title of knight.

 

If the Pope granted these awards in his capacity as head of state of the sovereign Vatican State, seems to me they are not different from any similar grants of titles or noblesse to an Anerican citizen by any other foreign state - OK to accept and use the title & any related additaments in that foreign context (visiting that foreign state, or at functions sponsored by that state etc).  In Joe Kennedy’s case, if the knighthood was granted while he was a government official, of course the Constitutional requirement for Congressional approval would apply.

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
19 October 2015 08:59
 

Joe,

So what are we to make of this document that you previously posted in another thread?

 

http://vhs4.vahistorical.org/vhsimages/manuscripts/Mss2/MSS2W86853a1.jpg

 

 

Isn’t this evidence that the newly formed republican government officially recognized social distinctions within the broad class of commoners? Or do you view this as an early form of honorific to be used only while one is in office?

 

On a technical point, James Dunbar’s title of baronet, while a hereditary honor, is not one denoting nobility.  As such, he would be classed with gentlemen, esquires, and knights (including General Schwarzkopf), all of which fall on the non-noble side of the divide.  In such a case is the hang-up the fact that the honor is hereditary, as opposed to Schwarzkopf’s being personal?

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
19 October 2015 13:01
 

"Gentleman" is not a title of nobility and in this context in particular is not a matter of hereditary privilege. It is in the same vein as the UCMJ’s article concerning conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. The holding of this office presupposed and therefore implicitly carried with it the status of gentleman. That’s why the word "gentleman" could be printed on the form. It could not be written in for some officers and not for others.

The same applies to "esquire." One cannot be an esquire in the United States on the various hereditary bases by which one can be an esquire in England—eldest son of a knight, younger son of a peer, etc. "Esquire" was applied in the early post-independence period on the basis of an office held, and anyone who held that office, no matter how humble his origin, was referred to as esquire.  For example, my some-number-or-other great grandfather Edward Giles was a farmer with a few hundred acres and evidently a pro-Independence activist in Mecklenburg County, N.C.  He appears in no records prior to 1776 as anything other than "Edward Giles," but after he was named by the revolutionary government of the county to be a justice of the peace in 1776, every official mention of his name, even including his listing in the 1790 census, says "Edward Giles, esquire."

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
19 October 2015 13:12
 

Reading the rest of your post:

- Baronet is a hereditary honor and therefore unacceptable.

 

- To the extent that a knighthood presupposes nobility, as with various German, Low Countries, and a few French hereditary knighthoods, and with those orders that themselves confer nobility, then there is a problem.  British knighthoods do not, but note that the founding fathers nevertheless viewed them with suspicion.

 

-  Gen Schwarzkopf’s British knighthood was honorary, not substantive, even in British terms, but even if it weren’t, it is covered legally by the provision giving Congress the power to authorize the acceptance of a foreign "present, Emolument, Office, or Title."  Congress has authorized the acceptance of orders and decorations conferred in recognition of performance of a U.S. official’s regular duties, subject to approval of the head of the official’s/officer’s department or agency.  It has, as far as I know, never authorized the acceptance of a title, certainly not a title of nobility.