What Makes a Coat of Arms "American?"

 
JJB1
 
Avatar
 
 
JJB1
Total Posts:  83
Joined  31-10-2014
 
 
 
19 March 2016 22:26
 

I do think it might be wrong to assume arms in the US with coronets and supporters. But if arms with coronets and supporters dropped into someone’s lap through inheritance, I think it would be the correct thing for that person to use them the way they were intended to be used.

Heraldry practiced in the US has absolutely nothing to do with the United States of America or with being a US citizen any more than taking a photograph or writing a song does.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
19 March 2016 22:52
 

Wilfred Leblanc;105688 wrote:

In 1881, Carnegie is declaring that he has no coat of arms. The one that eventually materializes on the wall of his home actually seems more like a parody of heraldry than anything. In what other setting did he use that (ironic?) coat of arms?


I don’t know, Fred.  In how many other settings do most of use our coats of arms?  The man had the design he adopted prominently painted on his personal library wall.  He also obviously let it be known publicly that he had adopted a coat of arms.  I have a painting of the arms I adopted hanging on my library wall.  That and a small home-made table banner are the sum total of my heraldic possessions.  Maybe neither Mr. Carnegie nor I are serious about heraldry.

 

As for irony or parody:  perhaps Mr. Carnegie didn’t share the perspective that a coat of arms must reflect elevated status of some sort, as it is only from that point of view that his arms could be seen as parody.  Political statement, yes, in putting the liberty cap on top of the crown, but irony?  To me, irony would have been the former ragged bairn from Dunfermline going hat in hand to Lord Lyon, under the delusion that a grant of arms patterned on those of the Earls of Southesk would somehow add luster to the fame and fortune he had already attained on his own.

 

As for the shield, well, weavers’ shuttles and cordwainers’ knives and similar charges appear over and over again in the history of heraldry.  I suppose that fact may fit uncomfortably with the notion that arms may be borne only by the exalted.  Frankly, I think it would make more sense to adjust the theory than to suppose that every man in the last 700 years who put artisans’ tools in his coat of arms was engaged in heraldic satire.

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
19 March 2016 23:03
 

Joseph McMillan;105692 wrote:

To me, irony would have been the former ragged bairn from Dunfermline going hat in hand to Lord Lyon, under the delusion that a grant of arms patterned on those of the Earls of Southesk would somehow add luster to the fame and fortune he had already attained on his own.


Not far off from the Senates of Virginia and North Carolina seeking out a devisal from the heraldic authority of a nation whose government they had overthrown by military force?

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
20 March 2016 08:59
 

David Pope;105693 wrote:

Not far off from the Senates of Virginia and North Carolina seeking out a devisal from the heraldic authority of a nation whose government they had overthrown by military force?


Exactly.  Perhaps, in those cases, even beyond irony into farce.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
20 March 2016 18:54
 

JJB voiced the opinion that heraldry practiced in the USA has nothing to do with the US or being a US citizen.  Not surprisingly, I mostly disagree.

First, heraldry practiced here by definition is what is practised by those who live here, though I would and have understood that to include both citizens and resident aliens.  Visitors from other places may and likely will do, while visiting, what they did and will continue to do back home.  That will vary considerably among visitors depending on where each visitor’s particular "back home" happens to be, but while interesting is not and cannot be determinative here - first, they aren’t part of the US "us" and second, since their own national practices vary, which "back home" version would we follow?

 

Second, whatever our individual roots, we are not English or Dutch or pick-a-place; that primary foreign identity is what we, or our immigrant ancestors, left behind to come here.  Even non-citizen residents have made that choice, at least for so long as they stay here.

 

Part of our national identity is is what we should or must do; part is what we should or must not do; and part is the broad freedom, within those sidebars, to do as we choose.  Heraldically, while our debate has focused on the relatively few should/must and shouldn’t/mustn’t sidebars, there is a huge range of freedom to choose.

 

That freedom, within those sidebars, is the American tradition in heraldry as in the broader concerns of life. (Of course every nation has it’s own set of shoulds and shouldn’ts, musts and mustn’ts, heraldically and otherwise; some looser, dome tighter, but each more or less unique, and while of interest for "compare and contrast" purposes, none binding per se anywhere else.

 

More later; SWMBO says I should and must mow the grass before it starts to rain.

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
21 March 2016 00:56
 

Carnegie’s arms seem quite properly ordered to me.  The charges are traditional, only the crest is non-traditional - but strongly expresses his political/social philosophy - this in itself would indicate he did not see his arms as a parody or satire of heraldry, but rather that he saw heraldry (and his own arms) as effective means of conveying his own identity and ideas to the world.  Carnegie was a unique and fascinating man.

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
21 March 2016 01:11
 

JJB;105690 wrote:

Here you go. Arms of Schertz, TX. https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SchertzCoatOfArms?sm=TorHpjQrLlfR9SVyXP0t5wkeuUlSxZ4Nfz+d4TiNb6I=


I like these proposed municipal, with the possible exception of the train as a crest - maybe gives too much importance to the railroad? Could work better perhaps as a charge on the shield or maybe just the tracks on the shield?

 

With the exception of the bison, I would not say this heraldic composition is unique to the U.S. (for that matter, even the bison is used as a charge in Canadian heraldry).

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
21 March 2016 13:32
 

Joseph McMillan;105692 wrote:

Maybe neither Mr. Carnegie nor I are serious about heraldry.


Joe, because of the internet, your arms, even if there are only two analog renderings of them, have a vastly higher profile than Carnegie’s ever could have, so from that standpoint, the two of you are not comparable. In any case, I think the more productive comparison would be to Carnegie’s Gilded Age peers, like the Vanderbilts, the Rockefellers, the Morgans, et al. I’m sure you’ve studied the primary sources on this more than I have, and if there are layers of relevant information I’m failing to access, I welcome a correction, but a cursory scan of what’s available online suggests that the Vanderbilts, especially, used very conventional-looking armorial devices in some profusion. The Rockefeller descendants seem to have been interested in asserting descent from medieval worthies and claiming a coat of arms. I see no ready-to-hand evidence of J. P. Morgan using a full coat of arms, but there is this reference to a crest, which then appears as a banner on the china for his sailboat the Corsair. Henry Ford, I might add, seems to have wanted to be taken seriously as the inheritor of a coat of arms.

 

Alongside his peers, who seem to have been fairly earnest and conventional in heraldic matters, Carnegie looks like a parodist, thumbing his nose at the newly-(stratospherically) wealthy who sought to ratify their right to their status by laying claim to an exalted lineage.

 

The supporters are interesting. I’m not positive we really are supposed to regard the crossed flags of the U.S. and Scotland as supporters, but if we are, and if you are correct that Carnegie is every bit as sincere in assuming arms as you have been, he would seem a noteworthy instance of an American finding nothing un-American about using (and assuming, for that matter) supporters. He also seems to an example of an American who finds nothing treasonous in identifying closely with his foreign origins: the U.S. and Scotland are given equal weight here.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
21 March 2016 13:36
 

JJB;105690 wrote:

Here you go. Arms of Schertz, TX. https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SchertzCoatOfArms?sm=TorHpjQrLlfR9SVyXP0t5wkeuUlSxZ4Nfz+d4TiNb6I=


This design strikes me as being in a specifically awful style, but not in a specifically American style, whatever the American-ness of the iconography.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
21 March 2016 13:40
 

Luis Cid;105697 wrote:

Carnegie’s arms seem quite properly ordered to me.  The charges are traditional, only the crest is non-traditional - but strongly expresses his political/social philosophy - this in itself would indicate he did not see his arms as a parody or satire of heraldry, but rather that he saw heraldry (and his own arms) as effective means of conveying his own identity and ideas to the world.  Carnegie was a unique and fascinating man.


That such as the charges on the shield have precedent is worth noting, yet the composition as a whole and the lack of evidence (on the internet, using the search terms I can dream up) that they were used beyond a relatively private setting suggest parody to me.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
21 March 2016 19:16
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
21 March 2016 22:46
 

Calling crossed flags behind a shield "supporters" in the same sense as two beasties or persons flanking the shield, seems to me a bit of a stretch.  You might as well lable the decorative laurel branches around the currently displayed AHS arms as supporters, which they most decidedly are not.  At best, referring to either as heraldic supporters is more indicative of challenged vocabulary than delusions of noblesse.

There are some instances of crossed flags used as insignia of office - e.g. the Scottish flags behind the arms of the Chief of the Scrymagers (which I can’t seem to spell right) indicating their office as Standard bearer; but they are no more "supporters" than the crossed batons behind the shields of the various heralds.  This side of the pond, crossed flags lack even the status of insignia; they are merely decorative flourishes.

 
JJB1
 
Avatar
 
 
JJB1
Total Posts:  83
Joined  31-10-2014
 
 
 
22 March 2016 22:41
 

Wilfred Leblanc;105701 wrote:

This design strikes me as being in a specifically awful style, but not in a specifically American style, whatever the American-ness of the iconography.


It’s a survey, so you are free to offer suggestions. I’m open to alternative ideas on what the unique American style is if it’s not something like this. I’d definitely get rid of the Texas crest from the shield and probably the ship.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
22 March 2016 23:10
 

Michael F. McCartney;105712 wrote:

Calling crossed flags behind a shield "supporters" in the same sense as two beasties or persons flanking the shield, seems to me a bit of a stretch.  You might as well lable the decorative laurel branches around the currently displayed AHS arms as supporters, which they most decidedly are not.  At best, referring to either as heraldic supporters is more indicative of challenged vocabulary than delusions of noblesse.


Actually, Carnegie’s crossed flags do seem to fit within the definition of the word, and I bet dollars to doughnuts the AHS wouldn’t permit arms illustrated in this way to appear in the members’ armorial for precisely that reason—or at least the broader one that they definitely look like an augmentation of honor inappropriate for a simple citizen of a republic.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
23 March 2016 02:17
 

I could abide (but wouldn’t actively advocate) the notion that crossed flags are inappropriate as suggesting a nobiliary augmentation; though I’m not aware of any instance of crossed flags behind the shield being awarded on that basis.  The only two examples I’m aware of are as symbols of office - which I suppose could be argued as inappropriate, but how common in the world of heraldry, as opposed to purely decorative fluff, or political / nationalistic statements, etc.?

If there are a number of other examples, great! - but I think that might warrant it’s own thread, interesting but only tangential to the current thread.