Augmentations in American Arms

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
04 April 2016 03:36
 

Awhile ago I questioned, in passing, the appropriateness of displaying foreign augmentations in American arms.  To clarify, I’m thinking primarily of augmentations appearing on the shield itself, not supporters or gongs or collars etc. external to the shield, which have been discussed at length elsewhere. Secondarily, some foreign augmentations have been in the form of additional crests, which I don’t recall being discussed in any depth and would fit here as easily as starting yet another new thread.

Examples would include the cantons or inescutcheons of British Baronets; the standardized charged cantons in Napoleonic heraldry signifying various military, civil and ecclesiastical offices or ranks;  the addition of (parts or all of) the arms or flag or other insignia of a nation or ruler; and additions commemorating some particular achievement or victory.

 

But the key element is that an augmentation is awarded by or on behalf of the head of state - and since the US has never AFAIK conferred any such heraldic augmentation, confrtted by the head of some foreign state.  It doesn’t include ordinary heraldic charges that may symbolize some achievement or profession or whatever that are included in the normal course of design rather than as a special award.

 

So the question is whether, or under what circumstances, would the display of an augmentation as defined above be appropriate or inappropriate in American arms, including foreign arms inherited by or granted to an American.

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
04 April 2016 07:27
 

I suppose if the augmentation doesn’t break any US laws it would be okay.

For argument, perhaps if Gen. Powell had been made a baronet he would display the augmentation on his LL-granted arms.

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
04 April 2016 08:44
 

Perhaps some would consider if the country in question is recognized by the US as a sovereign power and if we have any reciprocity-type agreements related to awards/honors… for instance, can our service members display on their uniforms any awards or honors awarded by that country—

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
04 April 2016 11:29
 

Kathy’s thoughtful post makes an example spring to mind: President Eisenhower was honored as a Knight of the Order of the Elephant.  Had that been symbolized by an augmentation on the shield, it would have been appropriate.

 
Claus K Berntsen
 
Avatar
 
 
Claus K Berntsen
Total Posts:  308
Joined  25-05-2005
 
 
 
04 April 2016 14:24
 

David Pope;105764 wrote:

Kathy’s thoughtful post makes an example spring to mind: President Eisenhower was honored as a Knight of the Order of the Elephant.  Had that been symbolized by an augmentation on the shield, it would have been appropriate.


It would not have been appropriate, for two reasons:

1) Being a Knight of the Order of the Elephant does not confer a right to augmentations on the shield, but rather it is marked by surrounding the shield with the collar of the Order.

2) There are other heraldic privileges given to Knights of the Order of the Elephant, such as the right to use a barred helmet, and in particular, a noble coronet, as the Order confers personal nobility on the recipient.

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
04 April 2016 14:41
 

Claus K Berntsen;105768 wrote:

It would not have been appropriate, for two reasons:

1) Being a Knight of the Order of the Elephant does not confer a right to augmentations on the shield, but rather it is marked by surrounding the shield with the collar of the Order.

2) There are other heraldic privileges given to Knights of the Order of the Elephant, such as the right to use a barred helmet, and in particular, a noble coronet, as the Order confers personal nobility on the recipient.


Claus,

 

Thanks for your note.  I was aware that being honored as a RE wasn’t symbolized by an augmentation (hence the hypothetical in my comment), but I was unaware that it confers noble status.

 

I wonder, then, whether President Eisenhower should have accepted.  I was working under the assumption that it was like British knighthoods and baronetcies, which do not raise one to the nobility.

 

David

 
Claus K Berntsen
 
Avatar
 
 
Claus K Berntsen
Total Posts:  308
Joined  25-05-2005
 
 
 
04 April 2016 18:03
 

Quite possibly I was a bit sloppy with my choice of words. I think that technically they, and possibly their children as well, are counted as being in the same Class of Precedence (1st Class) as the nobility.

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
04 April 2016 19:28
 

Michael F. McCartney;105760 wrote:

Awhile ago I questioned, in passing, the appropriateness of displaying foreign augmentations in American arms.  To clarify, I’m thinking primarily of augmentations appearing on the shield itself, not supporters or gongs or collars etc. external to the shield, which have been discussed at length elsewhere. Secondarily, some foreign augmentations have been in the form of additional crests, which I don’t recall being discussed in any depth and would fit here as easily as starting yet another new thread.

Examples would include the cantons or inescutcheons of British Baronets; the standardized charged cantons in Napoleonic heraldry signifying various military, civil and ecclesiastical offices or ranks;  the addition of (parts or all of) the arms or flag or other insignia of a nation or ruler; and additions commemorating some particular achievement or victory.

 

But the key element is that an augmentation is awarded by or on behalf of the head of state - and since the US has never AFAIK conferred any such heraldic augmentation, confrtted by the head of some foreign state.  It doesn’t include ordinary heraldic charges that may symbolize some achievement or profession or whatever that are included in the normal course of design rather than as a special award.

 

So the question is whether, or under what circumstances, would the display of an augmentation as defined above be appropriate or inappropriate in American arms, including foreign arms inherited by or granted to an American.


Since there "augmentations of honor" by a foriegn head of state are generally placed on the shield rather than externally - and since they in themselves are not exclussively external signs of nobility they are very appropriate and within best practices here in the U.S..  This despite that our government does not grant such honors and they may not be assumed only granted.

 
snelson
 
Avatar
 
 
snelson
Total Posts:  464
Joined  03-06-2005
 
 
 
04 April 2016 22:08
 

At first glance, I feel that the circumstances of the granting of the original augmentation should be a consideration in an American armiger’s decision whether or not to use it in the US.  I seem to recall that some of the cantons and chiefs, etc, in Napoleonic heraldry relate specifically to titles of nobility.  IMO, since hereditary nobility is incompatible with American values, I would hope that any potential American heir of such a title would avoid using their ancestor’s augmentation in their arms.

Similarly, if I were entitled to quarter the arms of General Robert Ross of Blandesberg (1766-1814), I certainly wouldn’t use the augmentation he received for the burning of Washington in 1814: http://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/vtls000529301#page/297/mode/1up

 

On the other hand, if an heir of General Bernardo de Gálvez (1746-1786) held US citizenship, I wouldn’t have a problem with their use of either the 1781 and/or the 1783 augmentations granted by King Charles III in recognition of his victories over the British (since they helped us during the American Revolution).

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
05 April 2016 02:12
 

I think I’m pretty much in agreement with Seb.

To me the dividing line between OK and not OK is whether or not the particular augmentation signifies some type of nobiliary or titled status - that is, the very things a titled or otherwise noble immigrant would be required to renounce in his citizenship oath.

 

Some augmentations would clearly run afoul of this criteria - e.g. the canton or inescutcheon of a baronet, or the chief or charged canton of a Napoleonic Duke or Count.  Some as far as I can determine would not - e.g. the various augmentations granted to commoners who helped King Charles escape the Roundheads during the English civil war, or some of the heraldically questionable pictorial chiefs awarded to British commanders in the 1700’s and 1800’s, none AFAIK carrying or tied to a title.

 

Others I’m not sure about - e.g. the collection of augmentations awarded to Admiral Nelson, who also received a peerage - were any of his augmentations tied to his peerage?  Or some of the Napoleonic augmentations to Senators, bishops, and a bunch of other offices that I’ve seen recently on one of the FaceBook heraldry forums.  (Also unclear to me which of these Napoleonic augmentations, and/or the offices they represent, were or are considered hereditary or nobiliary- other than the clearly noble and hereditary titles like Duke or Count)

 

I suspect there are other examples, in all three categories, in other foreign jurisdictions.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
05 April 2016 02:25
 

I think I’m pretty much in agreement with Seb.

To me the dividing line between OK and not OK is whether or not the particular augmentation signifies some type of nobiliary or titled status - that is, the very things a titled or otherwise noble immigrant would be required to renounce in his citizenship oath.

 

Some augmentations would clearly run afoul of this criteria - e.g. the canton or inescutcheon of a baronet, or the chief or charged canton of a Napoleonic Duke or Count.  Some as far as I can determine would not - e.g. the various augmentations granted to commoners who helped King Charles escape the Roundheads during the English civil war, or some of the heraldically questionable pictorial chiefs awarded to British commanders in the 1700’s and 1800’s, none AFAIK carrying or tied to a title.  Others I’m not sure about - e.g. the collection of augmentations awarded to Admiral Nelson, who also received a peerage - were any of his augmentations tied to his peerage?  Or some of the Napoleonic augmentations to Senators, bishops, and a bunch of other offices that I’ve seen recently on one of the FaceBook heraldry forums.  (Also unclear to me which of these Napoleonic augmentations, and/or the offices they represent, were or are considered hereditary or nobiliary- other than the clearly noble and hereditary titles like Duke or Count)

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
05 April 2016 09:23
 

Michael F. McCartney;105780 wrote:

Others I’m not sure about - e.g. the collection of augmentations awarded to Admiral Nelson, who also received a peerage - were any of his augmentations tied to his peerage?


No.


Quote:

Or some of the Napoleonic augmentations to Senators, bishops, and a bunch of other offices that I’ve seen recently on one of the FaceBook heraldry forums.  (Also unclear to me which of these Napoleonic augmentations, and/or the offices they represent, were or are considered hereditary or nobiliary- other than the clearly noble and hereditary titles like Duke or Count)


The Napoleonic augmentations were tied to titles of nobility.  The ordinary and color indicated the noble rank, the charge on the ordinary indicated the function for which the person had been ennobled.  All counts had a blue quarter in dexter chief with a gold charge indicating function:  a sword for military service, a balance for a judge, a lion’s head for a minister of state, etc.  All barons had a red quarter in sinister chief charged with the appropriate functional emblem in silver.  See http://heraldica.org/topics/france/napolher.htm for the details.  It’s worth noting that the augmentations were inherited only by the son who inherited the title, and that not all titles were hereditary.  The rules on all that are at http://heraldica.org/topics/france/napoleon.htm#titles.

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
05 April 2016 12:12
 

Joseph McMillan;105783 wrote:

No.

 

 

The Napoleonic augmentations were tied to titles of nobility.  The ordinary and color indicated the noble rank, the charge on the ordinary indicated the function for which the person had been ennobled.  All counts had a blue quarter in dexter chief with a gold charge indicating function:  a sword for military service, a balance for a judge, a lion’s head for a minister of state, etc.  All barons had a red quarter in sinister chief charged with the appropriate functional emblem in silver.  See http://heraldica.org/topics/france/napolher.htm for the details.  It’s worth noting that the augmentations were inherited only by the son who inherited the title, and that not all titles were hereditary.  The rules on all that are at http://heraldica.org/topics/france/napoleon.htm#titles.


In cases where the augmentation can only be used in conjunction with a title, such as hereditary napoleonic augmentations, I would say it would not be best practice in the U.S.  However, augmentations that came with enoblement but not tied to use of the title should be seen very differently than external elements such as coronets - otherwise a case can be made that the use in the U.S. by heirs of Portuguese arms would not be accepted as within best practices here (merely allowable) as great overwhelming majority of Portuguese coats of arms today belong to the nobility since from 1510 (?) to 1910 the law disallowed the use of heraldry by anyone other than nobles (even disallowing the use of existing arms used by commoners.

 
snelson
 
Avatar
 
 
snelson
Total Posts:  464
Joined  03-06-2005
 
 
 
05 April 2016 22:12
 

What do you all think about the potential use of loyalist crest coronets (either military or civil) by US citizens?  I think the Canadian Heraldic Authority will grant such crest coronets to Canadians who descend from those colonists who supported the Crown during the American Revolution (I think the military version of the coronet is reserved for those who descend from loyalists who fought during the revolution).  It is conceivable that an heir of a recipient of such a grant may someday find himself a US citizen. Loyalist coronets don’t seem to neatly fit in the category of an augmentation.  I suppose such a coronet might be bad practice in the US as it is a reflection of nobility, but I don’t think there is a Canadian nobility (I think Conrad Black had to renounce his Canadian citizenship when he was made a life peer in 2001).  If there is no Canadian nobility, then I don’t suppose a crest coronet could symbolize it.  But at the same time, I wonder if the use of a loyalist coronet by an American armiger is compatible with American values.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
06 April 2016 00:50
 

So it seems that the Napoleonic augmentations were all tied to nobility, and thus not appropriate for American use (though the AHS Guidelines do allow the display of foreign ancestral arms, even those with elements not appropriate for use by Americans, so long as they are honestly labled; and personal use by the heirs, consistent with the relevant foreign rules, within that foreign context - in this case, perhaps in connection with a celebration of the life and times of the Napoleonic period,).  In some cases the removal of the nobiliary augmentations might require some thought as to what to do with the extra space…

Does that compute?

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
06 April 2016 12:50
 

snelson;105785 wrote:

What do you all think about the potential use of loyalist crest coronets (either military or civil) by US citizens?  I think the Canadian Heraldic Authority will grant such crest coronets to Canadians who descend from those colonists who supported the Crown during the American Revolution (I think the military version of the coronet is reserved for those who descend from loyalists who fought during the revolution).  It is conceivable that an heir of a recipient of such a grant may someday find himself a US citizen. Loyalist coronets don’t seem to neatly fit in the category of an augmentation.  I suppose such a coronet might be bad practice in the US as it is a reflection of nobility, but I don’t think there is a Canadian nobility (I think Conrad Black had to renounce his Canadian citizenship when he was made a life peer in 2001).  If there is no Canadian nobility, then I don’t suppose a crest coronet could symbolize it.  But at the same time, I wonder if the use of a loyalist coronet by an American armiger is compatible with American values.


The loyalist coronets should not be a problem here as they do not indicate nobility. Though technically all arms granted by the Canadian government are honors from the Queen of Canada, the fact that at least part of what is being honored and memorialized in the arms (open anti-U.S. actions or at least sympathies) should also not be a problem if these were simply inherited by the new immigrant to the U.S. as opposed to being a grant whose design he had to have requested or at least opproved. This is no different from inheriting a surname, with all of it’s history but not necessarily implying current sympathy or agreement with an ancestor’s actions, much less currently publicly expressing anti-U.S. opinions.  I would even go further and say that a Canadian that expresses anti-U.S. views publicly and has a loyalist coronet can do so her as well and be within heraldic best practices in the U.S.—he would simply be demonstating poor judgement and very bad taste—which is of course allowable here and most places where there is liberty.