Nobiliary Entitlements (was Spanish/Mexican Law)

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
30 October 2015 20:17
 

My view is that the Bigham stones in Mecklenburg and surrounding counties clearly don’t say much for the heraldic knowledge of patrons and carvers, but the sheer volume suggests that the Scotch-Irish Presbyterians in the "hornet’s nest of rebellion" didn’t see heraldry as intrinsically at odds with their republican values.

The Akins stone at Steele Creek is real, by the way. It’s the stone that was allegedly at Bethel Presbyterian Church in Harford Co, Md (mysteriously nowhere to be found when I was there a couple of years ago) and the one he got caught trying to smuggle into Scotland that were problematic. That and the alleged will referring to the arms that’s in suspiciously modern handwriting and that for some reason can’t be found in the Maryland Archives, either in the volume and page cited or anywhere else.

 

As an aside, I think the arms on the Bigham stones are worthy of closer study for a more substantive reason. There are a few recurring patterns that each appear on the arms of several unrelated people, including "per fess the chief per pale overall thirteen stars" and "three swords points downward pilewise." In each case, the person in the grave served in the Revolutionary War, and the arms may be intended to symbolize that service. It would be interesting to dig into this, and see if there are any other commonalities among various carvings that could have a similar significance.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
31 October 2015 10:18
 

Wilfred Leblanc;105059 wrote:

At what point was it decided by American heraldry enthusiasts that any inherited coat of arms consisting of anything beyond a shield, crest surmounting a tilting helm, and motto should be purged for use in the U.S.? Does this view appear explicitly outside the AHS Guidelines or is it arrived at purely by way of extrapolation and analogy, and articulated only in the AHS Guidelines?


The same view appears in Zieber’s proposed "Rules to Govern Heraldry in America" in Heraldry in America (1895).

 

Rule #4:  "Men should avoid the bearing of such helmets as designate technically a rank not possessed by them.  The use of the esquire’s helmet is permissible and advised."

 

Rule #5.  "Great care should be taken against the bearing of the coronet of an English duke, a French count, a German prince, or other foreign nobleman.  Coronets indicate the rank of the bearers."

 

Elsewhere in the American heraldic community, the ACH does not permit the inclusion of coronets or supporters in its registrations (although it went through a bit of wobbliness on the matter some years ago).  From the ACH website:  "Because the American College of Heraldry operates in the context of a republic, and because titles of nobility or other distinctions of social class are absent from the American political and social structure, the College will normally register only the core elements of an heraldic achievement which do not denote specific status. These are the shield of arms, the crest, and the livery colors (i.e., the colors depicted in the mantling and wreath of the achievement)."  Of course, the ACH is mainly concerned with newly assumed arms, not inherited ones.

 

On the other hand, Zieber took it for granted that the only valid arms were those inherited from a male-line ancestor (rule #17:  "If you are uncertain of your claim to a coat of arms, apply to any competent genealogist.  If he cannot trace the connection, DO NOT BEAR ARMS.")  Assumption of original arms wasn’t on his scope, so his cautions against noble/knightly helms and coronets were aimed at inherited arms.

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
31 October 2015 11:57
 

Wilfred Leblanc;105097 wrote:

It seems appropriate to me, especially for such a first-rate place as North Carolina, though I suppose it undermines its famous, endearing characterization as "a vale of humility between two mountains of conceit."


Fred,

 

Thanks for the kind words for my native land.  The apparent contradiction is easily solved:  we are conceited in our humility!

 

In all truth, we do tend to be prideful of our humility in comparison to historical Virginia and South Carolina.  In later years, South Carolina (Charleston excluded) has come down a few pegs in public opinion and Virginia has become suspect of even qualifying as Southern…:cool:

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
31 October 2015 12:48
 

David Pope;105107 wrote:

... and Virginia has become suspect of even qualifying as Southern…:cool:


Those of us from the real South have our doubts about North Carolina as well.  I mean, the first word of the name is sort of a giveaway, and really… basketball?  If it weren’t for NASCAR, there would be no question.

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
31 October 2015 12:53
 

Joseph McMillan;105108 wrote:

Those of us from the real South have our doubts about North Carolina as well.  I mean, the first word of the name is sort of a giveaway, and really… basketball?  If it weren’t for NASCAR, there would be no question.


I actually take that amount of indulgence from an Alabamian as a compliment.  Most that I’ve spoke with have already excommunicated us from the South.

 

FWIW, if I wasn’t allowed to live in N. or S. Carolina, we’d move to AL or TX.  If they’d have me…

 

Joe, was your Pope connection in GA or AL, or earlier in VA?

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
31 October 2015 17:34
 

Joseph McMillan;105102 wrote:

The same view appears in Zieber’s proposed "Rules to Govern Heraldry in America" in Heraldry in America (1895).

Rule #4:  "Men should avoid the bearing of such helmets as designate technically a rank not possessed by them.  The use of the esquire’s helmet is permissible and advised."

 

Rule #5.  "Great care should be taken against the bearing of the coronet of an English duke, a French count, a German prince, or other foreign nobleman.  Coronets indicate the rank of the bearers."


It being understood that I don’t profess intimacy with Zieber’s work, I would say that if he were talking assumed arms, his wording would actually be a little liberal for my tastes. I wouldn’t say "should avoid the bearing of" and "care should be taken against the bearing of." I’d simply say "should not bear," while conceding that if a foreign award changed one’s status (e.g., if he became a papal count or something), his arms could change with them.

 

Insofar as Zieber doesn’t support the assumption of arms de novo, I take him to be saying simply that you should make sure that any emblazonments you commission take no liberty with the facts of your inheritance (or your new grant). He doesn’t seem to be saying that it’s impossible for an American to bear a rank in some foreign place while still being a mere citizen here, or that it would be improper for the arms such an American displays here to reflect that.

 

I note the use of the word "rank" in both rule #4 and rule #5, which indicates a) a preoccupation with rank and b) ranks below as well as above that of esquire, suggesting Zieber understood heraldry to be most coherent in a stratified society.


Quote:

Elsewhere in the American heraldic community, the ACH does not permit the inclusion of coronets or supporters in its registrations (although it went through a bit of wobbliness on the matter some years ago).  From the ACH website:  "Because the American College of Heraldry operates in the context of a republic, and because titles of nobility or other distinctions of social class are absent from the American political and social structure, the College will normally register only the core elements of an heraldic achievement which do not denote specific status. These are the shield of arms, the crest, and the livery colors (i.e., the colors depicted in the mantling and wreath of the achievement)."  Of course, the ACH is mainly concerned with newly assumed arms, not inherited ones.


Perhaps this sounds like a more nuanced position to me than it does to you. I note the qualifier "normally," for instance, and I take the primary context to be new assumptions. I don’t see the ACH taking a clear position on what the American who inherits arms with nobiliary additaments can, within the bounds of good taste, display, only on what they will "normally" agree to register. In any case, I would expect only a minority of legacy arms to be registered by the legatees themselves with the ACH. If the arms are of any antiquity at all, their rightful ownership is well attested in other, more venerable places.


Quote:

On the other hand, Zieber took it for granted that the only valid arms were those inherited from a male-line ancestor . . . Assumption of original arms wasn’t on his scope, so his cautions against noble/knightly helms and coronets were aimed at inherited arms.


Again, given that his admonition is qualified, I take him to be saying, simply, "Take no liberty with the facts of your inheritance," not "Censor your inheritance."

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
31 October 2015 17:56
 

Joseph McMillan;105099 wrote:

My view is that the Bigham stones in Mecklenburg and surrounding counties clearly don’t say much for the heraldic knowledge of patrons and carvers, but the sheer volume suggests that the Scotch-Irish Presbyterians in the "hornet’s nest of rebellion" didn’t see heraldry as intrinsically at odds with their republican values.


I agree. It does suggest that. But as you know, I think there’s no reason they should have seen it otherwise, given the examples of republican government most familiar to their generation. And some of them would have been quite justified in thinking they had earned the right to bear armorial ensigns. My own great x 5 or so grandfather, William "Little Gabriel" Stevenson (land holdings of 3,400 acres by the end of his life, pillar of his church, etc.) comes to mind. Whether any of the Bigham customers fit the bill, I don’t know, but it can’t be surprising that they aspired to. BTW, as far as I know, Stevenson was not armigerous, and his descendants have not pretended otherwise.


Quote:

As an aside, I think the arms on the Bigham stones are worthy of closer study for a more substantive reason. There are a few recurring patterns that each appear on the arms of several unrelated people, including "per fess the chief per pale overall thirteen stars" and "three swords points downward pilewise." In each case, the person in the grave served in the Revolutionary War, and the arms may be intended to symbolize that service. It would be interesting to dig into this, and see if there are any other commonalities among various carvings that could have a similar significance.


It does sound like an effort to think up a sort of label that would make sense in an American context—perhaps like the Guelph and Ghibelline chiefs in Italian heraldry.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
31 October 2015 17:57
 

David Pope;105107 wrote:

Fred,

Thanks for the kind words for my native land.


Don’t forget, David, that it’s my native land, too, at least from the standpoint of place of birth (Durham) and a fair amount of family history.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
31 October 2015 18:04
 

David Pope;105109 wrote:

Joe, was your Pope connection in GA or AL, or earlier in VA?


I give up on keeping this on topic and throw myself on the mercy of the moderators (who don’t seem to check in too often these days anyhow) and fellow members.

 

Re the Pope connection: all of the above.

 

1. William Pope (ca 1634-ca 1708 ), lived in Nansemond Co, Va.

2. Henry Pope (Nansemond Co, 1663-Isle of Wight Co, Va, 1728 ).

3. John Pope (Isle of Wight Co, 1700-Edgecombe Co, NC, bef Feb 1745); to Bertie Pct, NC, by 1723.

4. Jesse Pope (Bertie Pct, ca 1738-Hancock Co, Ga, 1820), to Wilkes Co, Ga, about 1785.

5. Jesse McKinne Pope (Edgecombe Co, NC, 1755-Jones Co, Ga, 1824).

6. Thomas L. Pope (Hancock Co, Ga, 1799-Talladega Co, Ala, 1878 ), to Talladega Co by 1843.

7. Sarah E. Pope (Monroe Co, Ga, 1834-Talladega Co, Ala, before 1880 ); married William Warthen Taylor.

8. Eugenia E. Taylor (Talladega Co, 1853-1879), married my great-great-grandfather Jesse M. McMillan.

 
arriano
 
Avatar
 
 
arriano
Total Posts:  1303
Joined  20-08-2004
 
 
 
02 November 2015 16:27
 

Joseph McMillan;105116 wrote:

1. William Pope (ca 1634-ca 1708 ), lived in Nansemond Co, Va.

2. Henry Pope (Nansemond Co, 1663-Isle of Wight Co, Va, 1728 ).

3. John Pope (Isle of Wight Co, 1700-Edgecombe Co, NC, bef Feb 1745); to Bertie Pct, NC, by 1723.

4. Jesse Pope (Bertie Pct, ca 1738-Hancock Co, Ga, 1820), to Wilkes Co, Ga, about 1785.


Well, as long as we’re gonna continue off the rails, I’m descended from some of these Popes as well via Henry Pope, son of Jesse Pope above.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
02 November 2015 18:52
 

All these Popes, and not an ombrellino or triple tiara to be seen!

 
kimon
 
Avatar
 
 
kimon
Total Posts:  1035
Joined  28-03-2008
 
 
 
05 November 2015 09:44
 

Michael F. McCartney;105122 wrote:

All these Popes, and not an ombrellino or triple tiara to be seen!


Coincidentally, though I don’t have any relation to the Popes listed above, I descend from the brother of Pope Julius III smile

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
05 November 2015 11:24
 

A hotbed of Popal nepotism! wink

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
05 November 2015 14:17
 

This pedigree competition is leaving me feeling pretty popeless.

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
05 November 2015 14:54
 

Well, from one Pope to another, Happy Guy Fawke’s Day!

Arian, my g’g'grandfather, Owen Pope, married Elizabeth Collins.  Perhaps we’re doubly related!