Augmentations in American Arms

 
JJB1
 
Avatar
 
 
JJB1
Total Posts:  83
Joined  31-10-2014
 
 
 
08 April 2016 01:28
 

Luis Cid;105811 wrote:

I would like to correct what I wrote above: I believe it would be perfectly okay for that new Canadian immigrant to the U.S. to publicly use his Canadian grant with the loyalist coronet.  Further yet, upon thinking this out it would be perfectly fine for a native born U.S. citizen of Canadian loyalist descent to receive a new Canadian grant with a loyalist coronet.  I believe a man should honor his family heritage (as long as it’s honorable) and commemorate it in his heraldic arms; the Canadians have a system for this and it’s in good taste absolutely.  Just because a man fought against the American Revolution doesn’t make him dishonorable nor his descendants dishonorable for memorializing that history two centuries later with a loyalist coronet from the CHA, just as no Southerner should be ashamed of ancestors who fought with the Confederacy, Mexicans who fought to defend their nation from U.S. invasion in 1946, Native Americans who fought the U.S. government to protect their land, or Phillipinos who fought the U.S. to keep the independence from Spain that the U.S. then hyjacked (the war that gave birth to the Colt 45 calibre semiautomatic handgun used in close quarters in Phillipine jungles against the native patriots).

Just because Seb’s hypothetical Canadian immigrant’s ancestor has arms that honor a Brittish colonist that stayed loyal to the Brittish government and left Virginia, Maryland or New York for Canada more than two centuries does not make him or his arms less honorable or in any way in bad taste - they merely reflect rather than hide the man’s family’s history.


This seems like a very realistic and mature point of view to me. I’m glad you said it. My wife’s family hails from the "Nueces Strip" of Texas and resisted the invaders in 1846. Nevertheless, they remained; and despite losing everything they came to be devoted to the US, served in WWII and are among the most nationalistic and loyal American citizens I’ve met (it’s only after a few glasses of tawny port that my father in law starts in on the 1850s and the King’s Ranch and everything else). But this is really just an academic question since he didn’t bear any augmentations related to the US-Mexican War. If he did, I wouldn’t judge him for it. The British burning of Washington was uncontroversial. It was done fair and square with no atrocities committed against citizens other than loss of property. And nothing was accomplished by it.

 

I guess I’m of two minds and I’m not sure there is a right answer. Whitewashing over one’s family history in heraldry might make sense in some cases, like if one becomes a politician. But the sober fact remains that nations and governments come and go throughout history. Altering arms to suit a particular time and place is substituting truth to suit a narrative. On the other hand, arguing against that point, this has always been done. There probably isn’t a right answer and people should just do what they think is right.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
08 April 2016 12:32
 

JJB;105815 wrote:

. . .But the sober fact remains that nations and governments come and go throughout history. Altering arms to suit a particular time and place is substituting truth to suit a narrative.


For me, this is the instinctual bottom line. I think we’ve concluded that a coat of arms makes no comment on the citizenship of the armiger. That our government cares nothing about personal heraldry would seem to affirm that one can be a good citizen while using a coat of arms with augmentations indicating an ancestor’s dissent from American laws and values.

 

That said, it occurs to me that, to JJB’s anecdote about his Mexican-American in-laws’ forebearers who fought against the U.S., many of us could add anecdotes about Confederate ancestors we’re proud of, and declare sincerely that our pride in them has no bearing at all on our commitment to the U.S. At the same time, in the current cultural climate, the descendants of Confederate veterans among us would likely hesitate to fly the Confederate flag to proclaim our pride in our ancestors. In fact, we’ve probably learned to have a very qualified sort of pride in them. So, anyway, perhaps using a coat of arms with the sort of augmentations we’ve been discussing is analogous to flying the Confederate flag. Perhaps not, but I think it’s something intellectual honesty requires us to at least consider.

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
08 April 2016 15:09
 

JJB;105815 wrote:

This seems like a very realistic and mature point of view to me. I’m glad you said it. My wife’s family hails from the "Nueces Strip" of Texas and resisted the invaders in 1846. Nevertheless, they remained; and despite losing everything they came to be devoted to the US, served in WWII and are among the most nationalistic and loyal American citizens I’ve met (it’s only after a few glasses of tawny port that my father in law starts in on the 1850s and the King’s Ranch and everything else). But this is really just an academic question since he didn’t bear any augmentations related to the US-Mexican War. If he did, I wouldn’t judge him for it. The British burning of Washington was uncontroversial. It was done fair and square with no atrocities committed against citizens other than loss of property. And nothing was accomplished by it.

I guess I’m of two minds and I’m not sure there is a right answer. Whitewashing over one’s family history in heraldry might make sense in some cases, like if one becomes a politician. But the sober fact remains that nations and governments come and go throughout history. Altering arms to suit a particular time and place is substituting truth to suit a narrative. On the other hand, arguing against that point, this has always been done. There probably isn’t a right answer and people should just do what they think is right.


JJB, I would also say that if your father-in-law had inherited arms that were certified by the Spanish kings of arms long prior to 1846 those arms need not follow the generally accepted best practices for U.S. arms as in that case no one immigrated to the U.S., rather the U.S. came to them (without a welcome other than bayonets).  The same could be said about members of the Hawaiian royal familty - who are entitled to their full heraldic acheivement according to their own customary usage, crown and all.

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
08 April 2016 15:56
 

Wilfred Leblanc;105817 wrote:

For me, this is the instinctual bottom line. I think we’ve concluded that a coat of arms makes no comment on the citizenship of the armiger. That our government, too, cares nothing about personal heraldry would seem to affirm that one can be a good citizen while using a coat of arms with augmentations indicating an ancestor’s dissent from American laws and values.

That said, it occurs to me that, to JJB’s anecdote about his Mexican-American in-laws’ forebearers who fought against the U.S., many of us could add anecdotes about Confederate ancestors we’re proud of, and declare sincerely that our pride in them has no bearing at all on our commitment to the U.S. At the same time, in the current cultural climate, the descendants of Confederate veterans among us would likely hesitate to fly the Confederate flag to proclaim our pride in our ancestors. In fact, we’ve probably learned to have a very qualified sort of pride in them. So, anyway, perhaps using a coat of arms with the sort of augmentations we’ve been discussing is analogous to flying the Confederate flag. Perhaps not, but I think it’s something intellectual honesty requires us to at least consider.


Fred, there is certainly nothing wrong with respecting and honoring the memory of Confederate ancestor (IMHO it’s actually very appropriate).  However, the Confederates were rebelling against their legitimate government, (not entirely dissimilar to the revolutionary patriots) whereas the Mexican citizens of the Southwest were fighting to defend their property and rights as citizens of the Rebublic of Mexico - not rebelling or attacking the U.S.A.). No U.S. citizen today or even in 1846 could, without hypocracy, begrudge their right to honorably defend their nation from a foreign invader.

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

Luis Cid;105821 wrote:

JJB, I would also say that if your father-in-law had inherited arms that were certified by the Spanish kings of arms long prior to 1846 those arms need not follow the generally accepted best practices for U.S. arms as in that case no one immigrated to the U.S., rather the U.S. came to them (without a welcome other than bayonets).  The same could be said about members of the Hawaiian royal familty - who are entitled to their full heraldic acheivement according to their own customary usage, crown and all.


Luis,

 

How is this any different than the US "coming to" the Fairfaxes?  In that analysis there seemed to be a consensus that supporters were not in keeping with US best practices, although their use predated the United States.

 

Shouldn’t sauce for the goose also be sauce for the gander?

 

David

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
08 April 2016 17:09
 

Luis Cid;105822 wrote:

Fred, there is certainly nothing wrong with respecting and honoring the memory of Confederate ancestor (IMHO it’s actually very appropriate).  However, the Confederates were rebelling against their legitimate government, (not entirely dissimilar to the revolutionary patriots) whereas the Mexican citizens of the Southwest were fighting to defend their property and rights as citizens of the Rebublic of Mexico - not rebelling or attacking the U.S.A.). No U.S. citizen today or even in 1846 could, without hypocracy, begrudge their right to honorably defend their nation from a foreign invader.


Luis,

 

Your analysis carries with it certain presuppositions which aren’t necessarily conceded as true.  I won’t get into further detail, but some would think that there is not a great difference between the two examples you cite.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
08 April 2016 19:40
 

David Pope;105824 wrote:

Luis,

Your analysis carries with it certain presuppositions which aren’t necessarily conceded as true.  I won’t get into further detail, but some would think that there is not a great difference between the two examples you cite.


I’m with David on this.

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
08 April 2016 22:29
 

David Pope;105823 wrote:

Luis,

How is this any different than the US "coming to" the Fairfaxes?  In that analysis there seemed to be a consensus that supporters were not in keeping with US best practices, although their use predated the United States.

 

Shouldn’t sauce for the goose also be sauce for the gander?

 

David


Very good point David, the U.S. did come to the Fairfaxes.  This matter of supporters is a vexing one.  They are not necessarily symbols of nobility in all cases, certainly there were extremely few peers residing in the 13 colonies, and the "Fairfaxes" certainly could not be said to import foreign heraldic practices as they were already being used.  Very interesting. We all need to think about this and discuss further.

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
08 April 2016 23:06
 

David Pope;105824 wrote:

Luis,

Your analysis carries with it certain presuppositions which aren’t necessarily conceded as true.  I won’t get into further detail, but some would think that there is not a great difference between the two examples you cite.


David, the only difference is a rather big one: rebellion vs a war between two sovereign states.  The winners in a civil war/rebellion usually have a much less generous view of the former enemy as he started out as a compatriot (maybe even a brother or cousin).  Memorializing leaders of failed rebellions is seldom well accepted by the winners.  In the case of the U.S. revolutionary war the rebels won, and the resulting new nation-state has become a great success - so that even the leaders of the former colonial power came to admire the new nation.

 

I do understand the emotions since my maternal grandfather was a socialist politician in Spain during the republic and also fought defending the republic against the nationalist rebels of Francisco Franco.  The rebels won, my grandfather suffered five years in prison and six years of internal exhile after the war.  His entire family was split as other relatives were with Franco.  Hard feelings on all sides to this very day.  By contrast my father fought the Japanese Empire in the South Pacific as part of an artillery unit in WWII - four years in steamy jungles and a lot of dead buddys.  Yet he never held hard feelings toward the Japanese as he saw them as just doing their duty - as he did his.  But my father also admited that he might have felt a little differently had he been fighting the Japs in a war- torn California rather than in the islands of the South Pacific.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
08 April 2016 23:24
 

Maybe I missed something, but do we know that the Lords Fairfax used supporters post-Revolution?  (Of course, only the current holder of the title would have been entitled to the supporters under anyone’s rules, not younger brothers, sons, etc.)  Thomas, 6th Lord, who was the incumbent during the war (d. 1781), did of course use the supporters, but his younger brother and successor, Robert, apparently never came to America.  Robert’s distant cousin and heir was the Rev. Bryan Fairfax, 8th Lord.  I’ve seen several contemporary emblazonments of his arms, none with supporters, although they may have preceded his inheritance of the title in 1793, or his belated decision to secure House of Lords recognition (which was granted in 1800).

Are there emblazonments extant of the arms used by any of the peers from between 1793 and the family’s emigration to England in the early 1900s?  Most accounts of the family say that they had essentially forgotten about the peerage over the years, although an obituary of John Contee Fairfax, 11th Lord (d. 1900) suggests that he was aware that he had a right to the title, but "preferred to be a simple American citizen."  It was his son Albert who pursued the matter, moved to England, and was recognized as 12th Lord in 1908.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
08 April 2016 23:46
 

Joseph McMillan;105829 wrote:

Maybe I missed something, but do we know that the Lords Fairfax used supporters post-Revolution?


Isn’t whether or not they did use them separate from the question of whether there is any clear reason they shouldn’t have felt free to?

 

In any case, to the extent that George Washington’s heraldic behavior is a frequent point of reference in discussions here, it seems worth asking whether any of us can really, truly envision George Washington assenting to the idea that his friends the Fairfaxes should stop using supporters. How about others from his generation who could have used or did use supporters, like the Rutledges, the Humes, and the Houstouns? Personally, I just can’t see it. I think he would have shrugged. I think we should, too.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
09 April 2016 00:05
 

Wilfred Leblanc;105817 wrote:

So, anyway, perhaps using a coat of arms with the sort of augmentations we’ve been discussing is analogous to flying the Confederate flag. Perhaps not, but I think it’s something intellectual honesty requires us to at least consider.


One weakness in the analogy may be that the Confederate flag is much more widely regarded as a loaded symbol—at least in the current climate—than just about anything we’re considering here could possibly be. And flying a flag is a lot more public than than wearing a signet ring (one would usually have to squint to make out whatever adorns it) and using armorial stationery or bookplates (seen only by a select few, probably).

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
09 April 2016 00:19
 

Luis Cid;105822 wrote:

Fred, there is certainly nothing wrong with respecting and honoring the memory of Confederate ancestor (IMHO it’s actually very appropriate).


I couldn’t agree more, but it’s a delicate matter. I don’t think it requires too much sensitivity (or too much of a commitment to good sportsmanship, for that matter) to feel some duty to refrain from respecting and honoring Confederate ancestors in ways that are guaranteed to be provocative and divisive.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
09 April 2016 04:17
 

Luckily for purposes of this discussion, the Confederacy never AFAIK granted augmentations, nobiliary or otherwise, to arms borne by their supporters (maybe a bad choice of terms!)  Whether or not it would be appropriate to dangle one’s Sons of the Confederacy badge below one’s shield is a different question, perhaps for a different thread…

I did a little research (if reading one Wiki article counts as research!) on the United Empire Loyalist designation, which while interesting shed scant light on what is to me the only relevant question in this discussion - does the UE designation, and therefore the formal UEL coronets in CHA grants, constitute or signify a titled or nobiliary status that a Canadian seeking US citizenship would be required to renounce as part of his or her oath?  If so, then whatever we might wish to the contrary, the Canadian UEL designation and crest coronets should not be used here; but if not, there is no legitimate reason to disallow them (though some may question whether it would be in good taste, given the history & etc.).  At this point, I’m inclined to tentatively agree with Luis that it’s not a nobiliary title or additaments, for aught yet seen…  wink

 

But still adamantly convinced that this is the necessary test for any such foreign honor, or honour.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
09 April 2016 08:55
 

The UEL thing is no different from the DAR, SAR, Cincinnati, etc.  It’s just another hereditary organization.  The British-Canadian obsession with postnominals shouldn’t mislead us about the nature of the thing, and the coronet is no more a coronet of rank than a mural crown commemorating that someone was a general or a naval crown that someone was an admiral.