Nobiliary Entitlements (was Spanish/Mexican Law)

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
19 October 2015 13:17
 

And I was going to mention, separately from David’s post, the point made by several Congressmen in debate over the 1795 Naturalization Act.  The particular wording of the renunciation of allegiance and of noble status in various drafts of the bill led to questions as to whether we would thereby prevent, say, French noblemen fleeing persecution by the Jacobins from taking refuge in the United States.

And the answer was "no."  A foreign nobleman can come to the United States, and even settle here permanently, to become what we would today call a green card holder, without renouncing anything at all.  But not if he wants to become a citizen—to become a full member of our polity.  As one Congressman picturesquely put it (I’m paraphrasing a little), a foreign nobleman is welcome to wear his star and riband in this country, but not in this chamber.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
19 October 2015 13:40
 

Sorry to do this piecemeal, but at least two baronets living in Virginia at the time of the Revolution understood that their titles were inconsistent with the new order.

* Marmaduke Beckwith, a younger son of Sir Roger Beckwith, Bt, came to Virginia in about 1700 and inherited the baronetcy upon his elder brother’s death in 1743. After Sir Marmaduke’s death circa 1780 (or possibly a few years before), his son Jonathan succeeded to the title, but apparently never took the formal steps required to confirm it, although the Complete Baronetage says that he was "called the ‘present baronet’ [not clear by whom], in both 1803 and 1811." Upon Jonathan’s death in 1815, his younger brother and heir, Marmaduke, definitely did not lay claim to the title, and at that point the Complete Baronetage says it "became extinct, or at all events dormant."

 

* Robert Peyton, who came to Virginia in the 1670s, was a grandson of Sir Edward Peyton, second baronet of Iselham, Cambs. When the 4th baronet died without issue in 1720, the immigrant’s grandson John was next in line to the title, but contact had been lost between the two branches of the family and the baronetcy was successfully claimed by his cousin. John Peyton of Virginia became aware of his right to the title some time in the 1750s, and from 1756 until the Revolution official Virginia records routinely referred to him as Sir John Peyton. But after the Revolution, of which Sir John was a strong supporter, he and his heirs dropped their claim and ceased using the title.

 
snelson
 
Avatar
 
 
snelson
Total Posts:  464
Joined  03-06-2005
 
 
 
19 October 2015 21:40
 

Quote:

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.

Thanks Joe!  The mention of General Schwarzkopf reminded me of the strange case of General Edgar Erskine Hume (1889-1952): http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/eehume.htm

General Hume was apparently granted the title of Conde di Hume de Chérisy in the Kingdom of Italy in 1944 (when General Hume was serving as a military governor).  This title was apparently mentioned in the US Senate in 1947:

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031914230;view=1up;seq=168

 

Does anyone here know what arms, if any, General Hume used?

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
20 October 2015 02:03
 

The Roll of Early American arms linked to our home page includes one Hume, in Culpepper County VA in mid-1700’s.  Don’t know if he was an ancestor of General Hume, who was born in KY a century plus later - but many Kentuckians had Virginia roots, so maybe ... or maybe not.  As a member of the Society of the Cincinnati, his descent from an officer in the Continental army should be available, and would be within a generation of the time of the armigerous Hume.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
20 October 2015 09:07
 

The War Department was sadly in error in permitting General Hume to accept this title.  The authorizing legislation referred to decorations, not to titles of nobility.  The Congressman has it more or less right—although the ability to use a title in Italy does not, of course, imply the right to use it outside Italy.

The Department of the Army has made similar errors in recent years in applying the modern statute on this matter, 10 US Code 7342(d):  "The Congress consents to the accepting, retaining, and wearing by an employee of a decoration tendered in recognition of active field service in time of combat operations or awarded for other outstanding or unusually meritorious performance, subject to the approval of the employing agency of such employee."

 

The Army Personnel Command (or whatever it calls itself at the moment; the Army seems to have trouble making up its mind on such things) has given approval for officers to accept and wear the Venerable Order of St. John and the Constantinian Order of St. George, neither of which is awarded either for combat service or for meritorious performance.  Moreover, the statute defines "decoration" as "an order, device, medal, badge, insignia, emblem, or award tendered by, or received from, a foreign government."  As a non-state order, it is arguable that the VOSJ is not granted by a foreign "government;" the COSG certainly isn’t.  Both, however, fall under the Constitutional prohibition against the acceptance of gifts from "any king, prince, or foreign state" without Congressional consent.  Since they do not meet the criteria specified in the statute, their acceptance is unconstitutional.

 
JJB1
 
Avatar
 
 
JJB1
Total Posts:  83
Joined  31-10-2014
 
 
 
20 October 2015 12:57
 

Fred,

I’ll agree to disagree on most points. On others, I’ll agree to a few of yours.


Wilfred Leblanc;104882 wrote:

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.


Anyone who Googles their surname + “family crest” or “coat of arms” will get a result unless their name is of non-European origin. When I do this, the bucket shop site shows me a slightly-modified version of arms that I happen to know were granted to a George Bolding circa the 1890s; who is of no relation to me. But the site insists that the arms apply to my surname, Bouldin. It is a reasonable assumption for me to say that because everyone with a European surname has one of these by this method, there can be no perception of distinction or superiority by the millions who believe it is correct. However, yes, anyone without a European name might feel left out in this context.


Wilfred Leblanc;104882 wrote:

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.


Generally speaking we’re beyond ridicule in the 21st Century United States. We have a person who’s dubbed herself “Lady Ga-Ga” who travels with a retinue of bodyguards and who gets invited to formal state dinners.

 

I don’t see what’s tasteless about a signet ring. I’ll admit that the signet ring is iffy in the business community, which is one of our few upholders of contemporary standards of pragmatic American communication, style and manners. Only business owners, consultants and board members might wear heraldic signet rings without anyone thinking anything of it. Even if I were a hired CEO of a large company, I might want to be cautious to avoid arousing jealousies more than ridicule. Corporations are something of a vacuum within society where to deeply offend is sacrilegious. Cufflinks, on the other hand, are never taboo in business—even if heraldic. Yes, in the niche of business, the nautical-like blue blazer is more common than an English hunter’s tweed if we’re splitting hairs on everything (or so is golf attire for that matter).

 

I’ll also concede that this is a large country and parts of it are very different than others. There are people I know personally (particularly in the midwest or northeast) for example who I’m sure would be offended by heraldry or mock its use. But people are free to think what they want.

 

In substance, the Chief Herald of Ireland has proved that even officially-sanctioned hereditary heraldry does not have to be associated with social rank and is in keeping with republican values. In spite of this truth, some people within the US can still perceive it as a snobbish practice.

 

I can see where those who agree with the Chief Herald of Ireland might likewise have a problem with the open display of supporters and golden-barred helms or caps when one uses them as a citizen of a republic. We might all have opinions on this that vary only slightly.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
20 October 2015 15:30
 

Generally agree with Jeff, though not every European surname will find arms in the bucket shops - nothing is perfect!

Corporate dress codes are a bit of a joke in Silicon Valley, where a polo shirt with a collar is often considered overdressed - but one’s tee shirt should be clean, and hopefully also one’s Nike running shoes, Crocs or Birkenstocks.  I’m retired now, but even when working in a Federal government HR shop, I can’t remember the last time I wore a tie at work, church or otherwise.  A blazer, much less one with any sort of patch anywhere (other than the elbows) is over the top.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
20 October 2015 15:52
 

Joseph McMillan;104930 wrote:

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.


I’m tempted to tease out the reason for your describing your credentials this way rather than stating the highest degree you have earned and mentioning the relevant field(s), but perhaps the way you’ve put it really is more illuminating.

 

It seems like piecemeal replies are the order of the day, so please bear with me as I sandwich mine between other obligations. (Cue Adlai Stevenson’s riposte to Valerian Zorin?)

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
20 October 2015 16:23
 

Wilfred Leblanc;104953 wrote:

I’m tempted to tease out the reason for your describing your credentials this way rather than stating the highest degree you have earned and mentioning the relevant field(s), but perhaps the way you’ve put it really is more illuminating.


I passed my comps, did my dissertation proposal, but never finished the dissertation.  Political science, Vanderbilt.  I’ve never hidden this, but always felt that putting "ABD" on a resume was silly.  I only mention it upon being provoked by the patronizing suggestion that I don’t know what I’m talking about.

 

If you really care about credentials, mine are easily found by Googling my name.  My CV is linked from https://independent.academia.edu/JosephMcMillan.

 
snelson
 
Avatar
 
 
snelson
Total Posts:  464
Joined  03-06-2005
 
 
 
20 October 2015 20:54
 

Quote:

Sorry to do this piecemeal, but at least two baronets living in Virginia at the time of the Revolution understood that their titles were inconsistent with the new order.


Joe do you think either one of these gentlemen might be the "harmless baronet" in Congress mentioned earlier in the thread?

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
20 October 2015 22:53
 

snelson;104958 wrote:

Joe do you think either one of these gentlemen might be the "harmless baronet" in Congress mentioned earlier in the thread?


I don’t think so; I don’t think either family provided a Congressman.  But I may be wrong.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
20 October 2015 23:06
 

Wilfred Leblanc;104953 wrote:

It seems like piecemeal replies are the order of the day, so please bear with me as I sandwich mine between other obligations. (Cue Adlai Stevenson’s riposte to Valerian Zorin?)


I definitely understand the other obligations thing, and in any case it’s probably a good thing to pause and think about the issues rather than exchanging rapid-fire salvos.

 

Other obligations:  My attempts to put together a coherent explanation of my views on what if anything the display of a coat of arms asserts or implies have to take second place to the care and feeding of three visiting members of a collateral branch of the only family in our household that can make a convincing claim to nobility.  Our three Bedlington terriers, mother, daughter, and granddaughter, have been joined for the week by the oldest one’s son and his consort and daughter.  Between feeding, watering, and almost continuously taking one or more of the six dogs out to pee, poop, or play, there’s not much time for anything else.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
21 October 2015 00:17
 

Michael F. McCartney;104943 wrote:

The Roll of Early American arms linked to our home page includes one Hume, in Culpepper County VA in mid-1700’s.  Don’t know if he was an ancestor of General Hume, who was born in KY a century plus later - but many Kentuckians had Virginia roots, so maybe ... or maybe not.  As a member of the Society of the Cincinnati, his descent from an officer in the Continental army should be available, and would be within a generation of the time of the armigerous Hume.


Same Humes. See the genealogy authored by E. E. Hume himself: http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hume/biblio/A_Colonial_Scottish_Jacobite_Family.pdf

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
21 October 2015 00:18
 

Joseph McMillan;104960 wrote:

I definitely understand the other obligations thing, and in any case it’s probably a good thing to pause and think about the issues rather than exchanging rapid-fire salvos.

Other obligations:  My attempts to put together a coherent explanation of my views on what if anything the display of a coat of arms asserts or implies have to take second place to the care and feeding of three visiting members of a collateral branch of the only family in our household that can make a convincing claim to nobility.  Our three Bedlington terriers, mother, daughter, and granddaughter, have been joined for the week by the oldest one’s son and his consort and daughter.  Between feeding, watering, and almost continuously taking one or more of the six dogs out to pee, poop, or play, there’s not much time for anything else.


Yikes. I think I’ll take my two-career marriage and two boys under five.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
21 October 2015 09:54
 

The entry for this family in the draft of my long-in-progress book on heraldry in Virginia (E. E. Hume’s book was one of the sources; I’d forgotten).


Quote:

George Hume, second son of George Hume of Wedderburn and his wife Margaret, daughter of Sir Patrick Hume of Lumsden, was born at Wedderburn, Berwickshire, in 1697.  He, his father, and his uncle Sir Francis Hume were all involved in the 1715 Jacobite rebellion, for which the younger George was imprisoned while Sir Francis was banished to the colonies.  In Virginia, Sir Francis’s cousin Governor Alexander Spotswood included him among the Knights of the Golden Horseshoe, the participants in Spotswood’s expedition into the Appalachians.  He married Elizabeth, another daughter of Sir Patrick Hume of Lumsden, left issue by her, and died in Virginia in 1719.

In 1721, George Hume was released from prison on condition of exile to Virginia, where Spotswood arranged for him to be trained as a surveyor atWilliam and Mary.  In 1728 he married Elizabeth Proctor of Fredericksburg.  He died in 1760 leaving six sons, of whom the eldest, George, succeeded to the headship of the house of Hume of Wedderburn when the immigrant’s elder brother David died without issue in 1764.  This last George Hume moved to what is now Madison County, Kentucky.

 

The arms are those of George Hume of Wedderburn, father of the immigrant, differenced with a crescent for a second son.  This crescent would correctly have been removed by George Hume III when he became the senior representative of the Wedderburn line.  At that point he and the senior heirs of his line would also have become entitled under Scottish heraldic law to the supporters Two falcons regardant wings elevated and addorsed proper jessed and belled Or as representatives of the ancient feudal barony of Wedderburn.  In fact, the immigrant used the arms undifferenced well before then; they appear on the seal on a deed at the Orange County courthouse dating to 1737.


Coincidentally, just this situation occurred to me last night, supporters borne by prescriptive right that are not indicative of nobility.  I’m not sure what I think of using them in the U.S.  I strongly believe in the principle of prescription, but have the sense that the supporters still assert—or at least imply—a superior status inconsistent with our norms.  Must think this over.