What Makes a Coat of Arms "American?"

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
23 March 2016 04:13
 

But Fred’s last posting does (to me at least) suggest questions re: augmentations generally - or at least "on-shield" augmentations and/or new/additional crests_ in the American small-r republican context.

(Gongs, collars, supporters and coronets have been and still are subjects addressed elsewhere, but I don’t recall much discussion of goodies added to the shield of existing arms by or on behalf of a sovereign "fons honorum", or similar additions from non-sovereign groups or Orders, or self-assumed in imitation of augmentations.)

 

Examples that come to mind would include the use, here, of the inescutcheons or cantons of Baronets, or some/all? of the standardized cantons of Napoleonic heraldry; but there may be more.

 

If there is sufficient interest in this topic, perhaps the Moderators or others will move this to a new thread?  I would but don’t know how (one of the diseases of advancing age, " old dog/new tricks-itis")

 
JJB1
 
Avatar
 
 
JJB1
Total Posts:  83
Joined  31-10-2014
 
 
 
23 March 2016 09:16
 

Wilfred Leblanc;105702 wrote:

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.


I realize I’ve strayed off topic here. So this will be my last post on Schertz ’ proposed arms. But here’s some online info about it. http://www.mysanantonio.com/community/northeast/news/article/Schertz-committee-proposing-city-coat-of-arms-4272828.php

In principle the train probably isn’t bad due to the fact that it is a universally-recognizable image that will probably withstand the test of time. But how can it be done in a way that is simple without looking like a cartoon toy train?—I’d leave the train out too probably and think of another way to convey it without being too literal.

 

A lot of the official American styles I see coming from the IOH or adopted by city councils or businesses tend to lack helms and mantling altogether. So does the image of Carnegie’s arms for that matter. It’s probably out of pragmatism, but then again the helms and mantling do make the arms appear more "royalist" and less bureaucratic to many people. I’m probably wrong, but it might be worth consideration.

 

I think the natural tendency of one devising arms and who hasn’t made a minimal study of it is to clutter as much imagery on there as possible. But this is universal and not only particular to the US. So that can’t be called an American characteristic. Obviously, if we’re seeking a unique American style we can’t include devisals or grants or inherited arms from foreign offices. I don’t think varying artistic styles in anything are necessarily self-conscious, let alone codified.

 

Perhaps there are four areas to look for patterns.

1. The types of assumed arms developed by the ACH or the USHR

2. Arms assumed by Americans post-independence which often seem to take traces from one’s country of origin (some even include supporters apparently)

3. Arms developed by the IOH

4. National, military, state or municipal arms developed by councils or legislatures or agencies

 
snelson
 
Avatar
 
 
snelson
Total Posts:  464
Joined  03-06-2005
 
 
 
23 March 2016 22:18
 

Quote:

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.?

According to Ampelio Alonso de Cadenas y López, Ferdinand VII of Spain granted to the descendants of Santiago de Liniers (1753-1810) the right to display four British flags behind their arms in recognition of his successful recapture of Buenos Aires during the British invasion of 1806-1807.  The flags he captured were placed in a Dominican convent in Argentina, where they remain to this day (I think)...see Títulos nobiliarios españoles vinculados con Hispanoamérica y su heráldica (Hidalguía, 1995, volume 43, number 249, page 186).

Santiago de Liniers had previously served as an officer in the Spanish Navy and distinguished himself in battle against the British Navy during the American Revolution.

 

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-N6pjvqZAhko/U63jTruh1gI/AAAAAAAAMOs/0S_NoN7xXGg/s1600/invasiones-inglesas-banderas.jpg

 

According to wikipedia, Ferdinand VII specified this augmentation to include flags of the 71st Regiment of Foot (a Highland regiment) and the distinctive red flag with a black skull and crossbones of the 95th Rifle Regiment: http://akamai.lavozdelinterior.net/sites/default/files/styles/landscape_642_366/public/archivo/nota_periodistica/Domingo2.jpg

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banderas_británicas_de_las_Invasiones_Inglesas_conservadas_por_Argentina

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
23 March 2016 22:56
 

For those who haven’t been following the thread about the right to bear arms in America, everything in this thread before this posting was moved here from that thread (which after the first 18 or so pages of postings, was beginning to fragment, so this is a narrower selection of more or less related postings generally focused on "What Makes a Coat of Arms American" - or, looking at the other side of the coin, what makes a coat of arms not American.

I’m framing my arguments largely (but not entirely) on this other side of the coin - others may of course frame their arguments differently.

 

My focus recognizes that while heraldry on America has a history here from colonial times, it wasn’t invented here.  Rather, it is to a large degree derivative from a number of European traditions, originally mainly English but blended to varying degrees with other traditions over our history and adapted to our circumstances.  This is also true of our laws and social customs; for example, our use in English common law as adapted to local conditions, modified by statute law and affected by other legal systems such as French law in Louisiana, and Spanish and Mexican land and water law in the Southwest.

 

But this isn’t a uniquely American phenomenon.  Every modern state is the end result - or better, the latest stage over the course of history.  Heraldry as we know it is said to

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
23 March 2016 23:11
 

For those who haven’t been following the thread about the right to bear arms in America, everything in this thread before posting #33 or 34 was moved here from that thread (which after the first 18 or so pages of postings, was beginning to fragment, so this is a narrower selection of more or less related postings generally focused on "What Makes a Coat of Arms American" - or, looking at the other side of the coin, what makes a coat of arms not American.

I’m framing my arguments largely (but not entirely) on this other side of the coin - others may of course frame their arguments differently.

 

My focus recognizes that while heraldry on America has a history here from colonial times, it wasn’t invented here.  Rather, it is to a large degree derivative from a number of European traditions, originally mainly English but blended to varying degrees with other traditions over our history and adapted to our circumstances.  This is also true of our laws and social customs; for example, our use in English common law as adapted to local conditions, modified by statute law and affected by other legal systems such as French law in Louisiana, and Spanish and Mexican land and water law in the Southwest.

 

But this isn’t a uniquely American phenomenon.  Every modern state is the end result - or better, the latest stage over the course of history.  Heraldry as we know it is said to have originated in Flanders, with roots back to the insignia of various officials during and after the imperial structure of Charlemagne.  Whether or not that’s entirely true, we do know that what we know as heraldry spread from Northern France and Flanders to the rest of Western Europe, Britain, Southern Europe, and Eastern Europe, and thence to the various colonial offspring, including what became the US.

 

But while there are certain common features, there are also significant differences between, say, Scottish and Polish heraldry, or Spanish and German, or Swiss and Swedish etc.  These heraldic similarities and differences reflect the similarities and differences between the social and political structures and values, and in some cases the laws, of the different countries, countries, and cultures.

 

More to follow…

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
23 March 2016 23:27
 

One observation:  without scrolling up and down to see who observed the frequent omission of helms on American arms, using the crest alone on a torse: this is not peculiarly American.  It is found on many emblazonments, English as well as American, in the late 1700s/early 1800s.  Many artists and/or clients apparently found the helm and mantling incongruous with the rococo ("Chippendale") and neo-classical styles then in favor.

The omission of the helm in mililtary arms designed by TIOH stems from the primary use of these arms, which was to be embroidered on the regimental color.  On Army (and old Army Air Forces) colors, the shield is emblazoned on the breast of the eagle from the national arms, with the crest on its torse placed above the eagle’s head.  There was no place for a helm in this format.

 

(This dates to the early 1920s.  Before that there were no official regimental arms, and regimental colors bore the national arms.)

 
Arthur Radburn
 
Avatar
 
 
Arthur Radburn
Total Posts:  229
Joined  15-06-2005
 
 
 
24 March 2016 15:06
 

snelson;105725 wrote:

According to Ampelio Alonso de Cadenas y López, Ferdinand VII of Spain granted to the descendants of Santiago de Liniers (1753-1810) the right to display four British flags behind their arms in recognition of his successful recapture of Buenos Aires during the British invasion of 1806-1807.  The flags he captured were placed in a Dominican convent in Argentina, where they remain to this day (I think)...see Títulos nobiliarios españoles vinculados con Hispanoamérica y su heráldica (Hidalguía, 1995, volume 43, number 249, page 186) ...

According to wikipedia, Ferdinand VII specified this augmentation to include flags of the 71st Regiment of Foot (a Highland regiment) and the distinctive red flag with a black skull and crossbones of the 95th Rifle Regiment

This is very interesting, Seb.  Thanks for posting it.  The British invasion of Buenos Aires was an unofficial adventure, launched from Cape Town.  The British forces had seized the Cape Colony from the Dutch in January 1806 and, as things were quiet, the British commanders decided to send some ships and troops to South America, with a view to earning lots of prize money.

To return to the main topic : is much use is made of specifically American charges such as Native American weapons, or state flowers / trees / birds / animals, or representations of items such as the Liberty Bell or the Statue of Liberty?

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
25 March 2016 04:45
 

There seem to be at least two different views as to what this thread is about - either what general rules or sidebars distinguish American heraldry from that of other nations? - or what specific types of charges identify a particular coat of arms as American?

I began my thoughts re: general rules & sidebars in #35 above, which I will try to finish laying out soon.  This post is re: specific charges.

 

The simple answer of course, is that distinctly American flora, fauna, and cultural (man-made) items will identify one’s arms as American.  True enough, but not all that easy.

 

Some flora and fauna will signal North American, but most could slso as easily signal Canadian or Latin American.  Is a beaver or bald eagle or maple tree or Grizzly bear or Polar bear or badger or dogwood etc. American (USA) or Canadian?  Is a rattlesnake or cactus or coyote or condor or corn (maize) etc. American or Latin American?  And then there are migratory birds, sea life, and butterflies that barely identify hemisphere much less nation.

 

And of course much wildlife and wildflowers that could as easily be European as North American - deer and elk, bison (which IIRC are also found in Polish forests), oaks and pines, cross and ravens, salmon and brown bears, wildcats and bats, etc.  While there are often biological distinctions between e.g. European stags and North American elk (wapiti) or various species of pines or poplars there and here, these scientific differences often are heraldically indistinguishable.

 

Not saying there are no heraldically distinguishable and uniquely American flora or fauna, but how many Redwood trees can be blazoned before they are as overdone as maple leaves and beavers (neither uniquely Canadian) in Canadian heraldry?

 

Please note that I’m not arguing against anything I’ve mentioned, or any other North American flora or fauna from buckeyes to banana slugs, in American arms - any and all of these would enrich our heraldry, and meaningful to many as reflecting their local setting; but relatively few will be uniquely USA.

 
QuiQuog
 
Avatar
 
 
QuiQuog
Total Posts:  97
Joined  10-10-2013
 
 
 
25 March 2016 13:24
 

I think that to call a coat of arms "American" based on its content or design is like trying to classify people as American based on their knowledge or clothing. Am I not as American as someone who wears a star spangled shirt with red and white striped pants? If I design a COA that has a lion, is it less American than one with a bald eagle?

Without an American heraldic authority, the whole question is probably moot. If you say it’s American, then it probably is. If you say it’s not…

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
25 March 2016 14:29
 

I agree with Mike, there are very few charges that would be uniquely USA ("American" would also apply to our neighbors to the North and South of us).  What makes Canadian armory distinctive (surely notmaple leaves) are the innovations of the Canadian heraldic authorities, and little more.  Without an heraldic authority in the USA (excepting for Federal Government heraldry) I do not imagine there is going to be a distinctive USA style or usage for many generations to come.  When relying on the evolution of customary practices one must speak of mulitple generations.  I am sure some day there will in deed be a distinctive USA style - none of us will be around to see it.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
25 March 2016 16:59
 

The CHA does, however, employ some fairly distinctively Canadian charges, such as the five-petaled dogwood that often appears in the arms of British Columbia residents.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
25 March 2016 21:49
 

I was still editing my last post when the website cut me off - some nonsense about backing up, but I suspect it just decided I’d already burned up my bandwidth quota wink

What I had planned to add, was that what makes American heraldry distinctive is usually not uniquely American charges in individual arms; rather, it is the cumulative pattern of do’s and don’ts in the design and vetting of new arms, and the modification of existing or "imported" arms to conform to those do’s and don’ts.

 

For example, in vetting new designs, we do (or should) look beyond our own borders for possible conflicts, rather than playing the European official heralds’ game of blinders beyond our own borders.

 

We don’t (or shouldn’t) include items - typically extetnal adfitaments - that generally connote or suggest noblesse, which is contrary to our historical norms; and we do (or should) "prune" any of those items that may be part of an armorisl achievement inherited from or granted by any foreign heraldic tradition, retaining only those elements that are appropriate here.

 

Those sorts of practical do’s and don’ts, shoulds and shouldn’ts, are what define our heraldry as consistent with what it means to be an American, aware and respectful of others and avoiding the temptation of flying under false colors.

 
snelson
 
Avatar
 
 
snelson
Total Posts:  464
Joined  03-06-2005
 
 
 
25 March 2016 22:23
 

Quote:

what makes American heraldry distinctive is usually not uniquely American charges in individual arms; rather, it is the cumulative pattern of do’s and don’ts in the design and vetting of new arms, and the modification of existing or "imported" arms to conform to those do’s and don’ts.


Mike I agree with you, but wonder if there could be more to this?  Surely some of our sister republics in the Americas have similar prohibitions regarding nobility as does the US.  It is possible that new armigers in those countries might avoid such additaments, and that their countrymen and women might avoid using any inherited additaments.  But would there still be room to distinguish between US heraldry and, say, Columbian or Argentinian heraldry (for example)?

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
26 March 2016 03:34
 

Seb - good questions! - but I can only speculate…

So… to what degree might we share similar do’s and don’ts with some or all of the Latin American republics - or for that matter,  to what degree might they share similar etc. with each other?

 

The answers will likely will depend on or reflect the similarities and differences in our various national cultures, which in turn will reflect or depend in our various national histories, and the histories and cultures of the relevant European parent cultures at the key time periods for each colony/republic.  Not a simple set of questions!

 

Following comments roughly based on relevant parts of "The Founding of New Societies - Studies in the history of the United States, Latin America, South Africa, Australia and Canada" (Louis Hartz, Ed., Harcourt, Brace & World, 1964).  Basic theory is that each new society is a "fragment" and partial reflection of the norms and values of the parent country, at the time of initial settlement (and a reaction against that parent culture as it was at the time leading to Independence).  Depending on timing, the parent culture was either feudal, liberal or radical in nature, which set the direction of its colonial fragments.  (Vastly oversimplifying of course)

 

At the time of initial settlement of most of Latin America the parent Spanish culture was essentially feudal; while the parent English culture of the North American colonies was liberal.  Those differences, along with the political and military ups and downs of the colonial powers in Europe and the New World, shaped quite different cultures; and when the various new republics won Independence, those cultures remained different in spite of formally similar republican government structures.  (Again, vastly simplified)

 

Moving to heraldry (mercifully not addressed in the book!) it seems to me unlikely that the colonial and republican heraldryse different old-world and colonial cultures would be

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
26 March 2016 04:01
 

Seb - good questions! - but I can only speculate…

So… to what degree might we share similar do’s and don’ts with some or all of the Latin American republics - or for that matter,  to what degree might they share similar etc. with each other?

 

The answers will likely will depend on or reflect the similarities and differences in our various national cultures, which in turn will reflect or depend in our various national histories, and the histories and cultures of the relevant European parent cultures at the key time periods for each colony/republic.  Not a simple set of questions!

 

Following comments roughly based on relevant parts of "The Founding of New Societies - Studies in the history of the United States, Latin America, South Africa, Australia and Canada" (Louis Hartz, Ed., Harcourt, Brace & World, 1964).  Basic theory is that each new society is a "fragment" and partial reflection of the norms and values of the parent country, at the time of initial settlement (and a reaction against that parent culture as it was at the time leading to Independence).  Depending on timing, the parent culture was either feudal, liberal or radical in nature, which set the direction of its colonial fragments.  (Vastly oversimplifying of course)

 

At the time of initial settlement of most of Latin America the parent Spanish culture was essentially feudal; while the parent English culture of the North American colonies was liberal.  Those differences, along with the political and military ups and downs of the colonial powers in Europe and the New World, shaped quite different cultures; and when the various new republics won Independence, those cultures remained different in spite of formally similar republican government structures.  (Again, vastly simplified)

 

Moving to heraldry (mercifully not addressed in the book!) it seems to me unlikely that these differences in old-world social and political structures, reflected in their heraldic traditions, wouldn’t also be reflected in their new world "fragments".