Ludwig von Mises Institute

 
Michael Swanson
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Swanson
Total Posts:  2462
Joined  26-02-2005
 
 
 
17 October 2006 22:31
 

Ludwig von Mises Institute

Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528

The Mises Institute’s coat of arms is that of the Mises family, awarded in 1881 when Ludwig von Mises’s great-grandfather Mayer Rachmiel Mises was ennobled by the Emperor Franz Josef I of Austria. In the upper right-hand quadrant is the staff of Mercury, god of commerce and communication (the Mises family was successful in both; they were merchants and bankers). In the lower left-hand quadrant is a representation of the Ten Commandments. Mayer Rachmiel, as well as his father, presided over various Jewish cultural organizations in Lemberg, the city where Ludwig was born. The red banner displays the Rose of Sharon, which in the litany is one of the names given to the Blessed Mother, as well as the Stars of the Royal House of David, a symbol of the Jewish people. Ludwig’s lifelong motto was from Virgil: tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.

http://www.mises.org/content/mises.asp

http://www.mises.org/images/misescrest.gif

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
18 October 2006 00:18
 

this is very nice. very, very nice. granted i’m not a fan of the ‘Baroque’ style of mantling, but i really love the arms and crest and helm. i sure like the symbolism of the charges. frankly, i think arms are best when old and inherited. but, most of us don’t have that. so, the best alternative is arms with charges that have significance to the family in this way. very, very nice indeed (and of course i personally have always loved the Star of David, so to use a star similar to that is neat to see).

 
Marcus K
 
Avatar
 
 
Marcus K
Total Posts:  3368
Joined  06-05-2005
 
 
 
18 October 2006 13:49
 

Nice, but they doesn’t seem to understand that just because they are named after Ludwig von Mises they can’t use the undifferented arms of the von Mises family.

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
18 October 2006 15:57
 

do we know if they were given permission to do so or not? j/c

 
Madalch
 
Avatar
 
 
Madalch
Total Posts:  792
Joined  30-09-2005
 
 
 
18 October 2006 17:29
 

Donnchadh wrote:

do we know if they were given permission to do so or not?


Such permission wouldn’t be valid, since the institution is not the family, and not a member of it.  You wouldn’t give someone permission to use your driver’s license, or your university degree, would you?

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
18 October 2006 18:53
 

Quote:

Such permission wouldn’t be valid, since the institution is not the family, and not a member of it. You wouldn’t give someone permission to use your driver’s license, or your university degree, would you?


Darren, yes I understand the implication of not being a part of the family. However, I can’t see the second part of the statement.

 

Were I some Bill Gates type person and founded a college and it was named after me I would see no ‘absolute’ problem with them using my arms as a means of further identifying with the founder of the institution per se. Granted this won’t happen, however I wouldn’t absolutely rule it out if it were a real life occurrence. And since I am the holder of my arms whomever I grant their use to is valid because I, the owner, have given them permission to… if this were real and if I did so, which neither are likely.

 

On the other hand I can see where some differencing would be important. In fact I would likely ‘prefer’ (read make mandatory) some sort of differencing, but I would not be ‘absolutely’ averse to the use of the arms on the grounds that it is a governmental plastic permission slip to drive or a paper certification of scholastic work completed by a corporation of higher learning.

 

So, yes I can see what you mean on the family thing, but not on the driver’s license/diploma issue.

 
Madalch
 
Avatar
 
 
Madalch
Total Posts:  792
Joined  30-09-2005
 
 
 
18 October 2006 19:31
 

Donnchadh wrote:

Darren, yes I understand the implication of not being a part of the family. However, I can’t see the second part of the statement.

Were I some Bill Gates type person and founded a college and it was named after me I would see no ‘absolute’ problem with them using my arms as a means of further identifying with the founder of the institution per se.


I’m Canadian, so I view arms from the Anglo-Scottish "One coat of arms = one person" viewpoint.  My coat of arms (when I get them) will be part of my identity, just like my name is.  The fictitious Darren George University will not -be- Darren George (I am!), it will be Darren George University.  It has its own name, its own identity, and will have its own coat of arms (presumably a differenced version of my own arms).

 

My analogy was with other things that are integral to a person’s identity, and thus cannot be lent out- a driver’s license is legal identification, and anyone caught using it can’t get away with claiming I lent it to him.  My piece of paper from the U of A allows me to put letters after my name, but I can’t lend out those post-nominals, even to someone who shares my last name.

 

Those who stand by a more continental view of "family arms" will probably not see it so strictly, I’m sure.

 

But I do.  So there.

(It’s been a looong day of lecturing, but I retain enough energy to resist adding "The trash heap has spoken!", which I think only you would be young enough to recognize….)

 
Madalch
 
Avatar
 
 
Madalch
Total Posts:  792
Joined  30-09-2005
 
 
 
18 October 2006 19:40
 

Just to add to my previous post, I know of towns in Canada who decided that, since they were named after a particular settler, they would use the arms of that person (who was almost assuredly nonarmigerous).  So they looked up the "bucket-shop" arms associated with that surname, wrote off a letter to a random person of that name in England asking for permission to use the arms, and now believe that they have legitimate arms.

It’s incredibly ugly, since they don’t realize that the little bunches of lines actually indicate colour, or that "early Victorian" is not the only permissible heraldic style, or that it’s not a crest.  But they’re absolutely sure that this is -their- device.

 

And I freely admit that much of my insistance on "one arm = one person" is based on anti-bucket-shopism, inspired by such horrific examples of usurpation.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
18 October 2006 20:51
 

Consider the arms of many of the colleges at Oxford—some of the colleges do use the arms of their founder, with or without differencing e.g. Balliol, but I believe there are others (Seb??)  I don’t think that’s the same thing as a non-related family or person sharing only the same surname usurping the arms.

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
19 October 2006 01:04
 

Quote:

But I do. So there.

(It’s been a looong day of lecturing, but I retain enough energy to resist adding "The trash heap has spoken!", which I think only you would be young enough to recognize….)


ROFL… OK Oscar… LOL… point taken… oh man Darren… that was pretty dang funny…


Quote:

Just to add to my previous post, I know of towns in Canada who decided that, since they were named after a particular settler, they would use the arms of that person (who was almost assuredly nonarmigerous). So they looked up the "bucket-shop" arms associated with that surname, wrote off a letter to a random person of that name in England asking for permission to use the arms, and now believe that they have legitimate arms.

It’s incredibly ugly, since they don’t realize that the little bunches of lines actually indicate colour, or that "early Victorian" is not the only permissible heraldic style, or that it’s not a crest. But they’re absolutely sure that this is -their- device.

 

And I freely admit that much of my insistance on "one arm = one person" is based on anti-bucket-shopism, inspired by such horrific examples of usurpation.


I share in this sort of disgust. I once came across a pub (go figure) in the resort town of Steamboat Springs here in Colorado. The name of the pub was an Irish “O” name but etched on the beautiful glass of the front doors was the coat of arms of Northern Ireland as depicted in Boutelle’s, or maybe Brooke-Little I forget which, book on heraldry! I was shocked, as the name was encircling the arms as if they belonged to any Irish name and in particular to this owner of this pub! It was terrible and I stopped cold and would not enter the pub – that is the only time I did not enter an Irish pub including when I was in Ireland and Northern Ireland when I even went into a ‘Loyalist’ pub in Armagh (originally by accident) and when a man there bought me a pint ‘cuz I was a ‘Yank’ and was showing me typical Irish hospitality and then asked me to drink to the health of the queen, which I did and would do again despite the fact I am an Irish nationalist through and through. So, yes, bucket-shop gimics and even this artistic plagiarism on this pub disgust me too.

 
emrys
 
Avatar
 
 
emrys
Total Posts:  852
Joined  08-04-2006
 
 
 
19 October 2006 03:42
 

Madalch wrote:

Those who stand by a more continental view of "family arms" will probably not see it so strictly, I’m sure.


Well I do, and I do have the continental view of family arms but I think that an institute like a school or university is not a part of the family smile and as such should use a different CoA. Probably with a book or something else associated with learning as an addition to the arms.

 
Kelisli
 
Avatar
 
 
Kelisli
Total Posts:  570
Joined  13-08-2006
 
 
 
19 October 2006 08:21
 

While I agree with Ton, an institution should use a differenced version of familial arms of its patron, founder….etc., In the US, I find two equally acceptable traditions.  In some cases, a differenced version of the arms of Washington has been used for several organizations and institutions.  While in other cases such as Maryland, Washington DC, Loudon Country, Montgomery Country, and Fairfax County, to name a few, have used the personal or familial arms undifferenced (at least the shield).

My opinion is that institutions and governments are welcome to use a slightly differenced version of affiliated personal or familial arms. However, I think it is incorrect and probably as a result of lack of heraldic education, on their part, to assume personal arms without some form of difference.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
19 October 2006 08:58
 

I would make an exception for Maryland on this basis:  the Calvert family (Lords Baltimore) converted their personal arms into arms of dominion—they upgraded their baron’s coronet to an earl’s coronet (on the grounds that the royal charter for Maryland gave them the status of counts palatine), shifted the barred peer’s helmet from profile to affronty, and changed the supporters—originally a pair of leopards—to a farmer and a fisherman.  They used this modified achievement as the arms of the Province of Maryland, and it seems to me that the State of Maryland was within its rights to continue its use as the arms of the same sovereign entity.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
19 October 2006 09:04
 

Also, the Montgomery County, Maryland, arms are not the undifferenced arms of the Scottish Montgomeries.  The three fleurs-de-lis in the 1st and 4th quarters of the personal arms are replaced by a single fleur-de-lis in each quarter, and the fesswise line of the quartering is embattled on the county’s arms.  (The county arms were devised by the English College of Arms on the basis of those of the Scottish family.)

(By the way, the Montgomery arms are a perfect example of there being no such thing as armorial usurpation across national boundaries.  The stem arms of the Montgomeries of Scotland are "Azure three fleurs-de-lis Or."  Sound familiar?)

 
Michael Swanson
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Swanson
Total Posts:  2462
Joined  26-02-2005
 
 
 
19 October 2006 09:19
 

Joseph McMillan wrote:

there being no such thing as armorial usurpation across national boundaries.


You mean "no such thing in law, but not in armorial ethics."