Well…technically the design of the arms that are on the flag of the President of the United States are different than the Arms of the United States of America. So when the flag is flying on the car, i guess it is flying the "arms" of the President of the United States. Not the personal arms, but the arms of office.

Dave Shorey

I know what Dave is saying about the arms of the President differing from those of the country is the conventional wisdom, and is even implied by Truman and Eisenhower’s executive orders defining the Presidential arms, but I think that heraldically it’s not correct.  I believe the more accurate way of referring to the "Presidential arms" is "the arms of the United States for Presidential use" (similar to the British expression, "Royal arms for Parliamentary use").  Here’s why.

We all know (at least I hope we do) that differences in the artistic treatment of particular bearings do not make the arms themselves different.  Any two rendering that comply with the terms of the official blazon are heraldically the same arms.

So here’s the official blazon of the arms of the United States, by resolution of the United States in Congress Assembled (i.e., the Congress under the Articles of Confederation) on 20 May 1782:

Quote:

"ARMS. Paleways of thirteen pieces, argent and gules; a chief, azure; the escutcheon on the breast of the American eagle displayed proper, holding in his dexter talon an olive branch, and in his sinister a bundle of thirteen arrows, all proper, and in his beak a scroll, inscribed with this motto, E Pluribus Unum.

For the CREST. Over the head of the eagle, which appears above the escutcheon, a glory, or, breaking through a cloud, proper, and surrounding thirteen stars, forming a constellation argent, on an azure field."

And here’s the official blazon of the "coat of arms of the President," from Executive Order 10860, 5 February 1960:

Quote:

SHIELD: Paleways of thirteen pieces argent and gules, a chief azure; upon the breast of an American eagle displayed holding in his dexter talon an olive branch and in his sinister a bundle of thirteen arrows all proper, and in his beak a white scroll inscribed "E PLURIBUS UNUM" sable.

CREST: Behind and above the eagle a radiating glory or, on which appears an arc of thirteen cloud puffs proper, and a constellation of thirteen mullets argent.

The whole surrounded by white stars arranged in the form of an annulet with one point of each star outward on the imaginary radiating center lines, the number of stars conforming to the number of stars in the union of the Flag of the United States as established by chapter 1 of title 4 of the United States Code.

What are the differences here?
<ul class=“bbcode_list”>
<li>The Presidential version prescribes the color of the scroll and lettering.  But since the national arms don’t, emblazoning the scroll as black on white would comply with the national blazon, so therefore is not a difference.</li>
<li>The placement of the crest as "behind and above" and not just "above" the eagle; the description of the glory as radiating.  Early renderings of the national arms frequently showed the glory as going behind the eagle’s head; there’s nothing in the blazon of the national arms that precludes this.  And of course the term "radiating" applied to a glory is superfluous.</li>
<li>The specification that the cloud will appear in an arc (rather than in the circle usually shown on the national arms) and that it will consist of 13 cloudpuffs.  There’s nothing in the blazon of the national arms that precludes an artist from showing the cloud in an arc—in fact, a number of early emblazonments do this, some even in the form of an inverted arc—or from composing the cloud of any number of "puffs" he chooses, including 13.</li>
<li>The specification that the arms be surrounded by stars representing the states.  This is the only feature that would not be within the range of artistic license in depicting the 1782 blazon.  I don’t think this external element justifies describing the Presidential arms as being a different coat of arms than those prescribed as the US arms in 1782.</li>
</ul>
I conclude that the "Presidential coat of arms" is not heraldically different from the national coat of arms; it is simply a variant emblazonment from the one used on the great seal.  Getting this concept out to people—that different emblazonments don’t mean different arms—is something I see as part of our educational mission.

Not really on point, but the newspaper stated this morning that the national motto is "In God We Trust" as adopted by a joint resolution of Congress in the mid-1950s as a counterpoint to godless Communism. So I guess "E Pluribus Unum" joins "Semper Eadem".

I was always under the impression that there was no presidential coat of arms. Rather there is a seal of the President of the United States which also bears the arms of the U.S. with some slight differences of the overall appearance of the seal. The arms on the seal of the President is the same arms as depicted on the Great Seal of the U.S.

It is the seals that are different, not the arms.

Has anyone ever seen the President use arms separate from the seal? I never have.

Fr Guy asked:

Quote:

Has anyone ever seen the President use arms separate from the seal? I never have.

Yes. The executive order defines the difference between the President’s coat of arms and his seal as the inclusion of the words around the circumference "Seal of the President of the United States." The arms without these words appear on the Presidential flag (defined in the executive order as "a dark blue rectangular background of sizes and proportions to conform to military and naval custom, on which shall appear the Coat of Arms of the President in proper colors"), White House invitations (embossed in gold), several sets of White House china, and at the head of the certificates of award of the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

There are probably a few other similar uses. Personally, I think it would be preferable for the arms to be used more often (without the words) on things like speaking podiums (podia?) and the side of the Presidential automobile and airplane—the tradition is for arms to be placed on carriages and cars, not seals.

The seal as seal (I mean as a design impressed into wax, wafer, or paper) is only used for a very few purposes. The official history of the Great Seal (The Eagle and the Shield) says it is used only to seal the envelopes of official Presidential communications to Congress, but it has more recently been impressed on the appointment certificates of some members of the White House staff as well.

Reagan china:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/whtour/images/reagan-tn.jpg

Presidential Medal of Freedom certificate:

http://www.hellenic.hchc.edu/images/iakovoscollection/fullsize/medal_of_freedom_cert.png

Joseph McMillan wrote:

The executive order defines the difference between the President’s coat of arms and his seal as the inclusion of the words around the circumference "Seal of the President of the United States." The arms without these words appear on the Presidential flag (defined in the executive order as "a dark blue rectangular background of sizes and proportions to conform to military and naval custom, on which shall appear the Coat of Arms of the President in proper colors")[.]

It’s still a little early for me since I was reading briefs all night, but since it was explained earlier that there’s no heraldic difference between the coat of arms used in the Great Seal and in the President’s seal, there really isn’t a coat of arms of the President, but rather the President is using the United States’ arms of dominion. Right?

I would view it a bit differently (but just speaking for me).  The arms "as used" in fact are a little different, even if the blazon is a bit imprecise—that is, the two crests, as actually used, are visibly different & IMO the difference goes beyond mere artistic license.  The difference is clearly purposeful, to distinguish the two.

There are also minor differences in the shield—the shape of the two shields, which f course is not heraldically significant but still useful as a visual distinction; and the lighter shade of blue in the chief - if the blazon were modified to say "bleu celeste" this would be heraldically significant, though I agree that as it now stands, it isn’t.

This is why I prefer the term "Arms of the United States for Presidential Use."

The British use at least three main standardized versions of the royal arms.  All of these are from .gov.uk websites.

First, there’s the version used by the Queen herself and in situations associated with the Royal Household:  heater shaped shield, clearly depicted compartment, helm, mantling and crest.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/files/images/Insight_Sept03_Focus_QArmsE.gif

Secondly, there’s a version that I understand to be "for Parliamentary use", which appears on White Papers and published statutes and so on.  Heater shaped shield, compartment (if any) mostly hidden by the scroll, and St. Edward’s crown replacing the helm, mantling, and crest.

http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/royal_arms.jpg

Thirdly, there’s a version used by ministers of the Government, including the Prime Minister:  oval shield, St. Edward’s crown as in the parliamentary version, no compartment.

http://www.pm.gov.uk/files/images/Crest.jpg

It seems to me (disagreeing with Mike McCartney) that the treatment of the crest on the great seal and presidential versions of the US arms are in fact within the acceptable range of artistic interpretation of the original 1782 blazon, but I would agree that the great seal version is not within the range of interpretation of the blazon in the 1960 executive order.  What I’m suggesting is simply that we change the way we refer to the "Presidential coat of arms;" I agree that the particular way of depicting it with the cloud in an arc, the rays breaking through upward instead of breaking through a ring of clouds toward the viewer, etc., should continue to be reserved for presidential use.

I don’t think Joe & I are that far apart.

The fault (if I may use that term) is in the "latent ambiguity" - a term we just got hit with by an arbitrator—in the 1782 blazon.  My geberal view is that two depictions are heraldically iddentical (interchangeable) if they can be described by the same blazon, & two blazons heraldically identical (interchangeable) if they can both produre the same drawing.  In this case, undfortunately, the interchangeability runs one way but not the other—a case of reality messing up my pet theory!

By the way, see the new issue of Newsweek for another use of the "coat of arms for Presidential use," embroidered on the President’s Air Force One jacket.

As an aside…Did anyone notice that the post I was responding to at the very begining of this thread has dissappeared?

I definately have learned a lot from this discussion.

Dave SHorey

Did it disappear altogether, or is it still in the original thread?  I had asked the moderators to move the discussion of presidential arms to the public part of the forum.

Well…I just went through the member’s section and couldn’t find the original post. It might be me however as for some reasons I find these forums to be more confusing than the old ones.

Dave