Bulk of Arms Completed

 
Guy Power
 
Avatar
 
 
Guy Power
Total Posts:  1576
Joined  05-01-2006
 
 
 
16 January 2007 16:58
 

Joseph McMillan wrote:

It wasn’t "an" I had a problem with; it was "befitting his degree."


I dunno why you have a problem with that—his degree would be that of armiger/gentleman.  Especially since the AHS insists helmets of higher degrees be emblazoned.


Joseph McMillan wrote:

Are you channeling Thomas Innes of Learney out there on the left coast?


Probably—Shirley Mclane is only a phone-call away.  :D

 

—Guy

 
Guy Power
 
Avatar
 
 
Guy Power
Total Posts:  1576
Joined  05-01-2006
 
 
 
16 January 2007 17:14
 

loaba wrote:

On the subject of mottos, I’m thinking that Guy’s selection, while appealing funny, isn’t quite what I am after.


But it sounds so much more elegant in Latin: Tu, rattus turpis

 

Though, perhaps sordeo would be better: <i>Tu, rattus sordeo</i>

 

:D

 

—Gaius

 
MohamedHossam
 
Avatar
 
 
MohamedHossam
Total Posts:  967
Joined  03-12-2006
 
 
 
16 January 2007 23:48
 

LOL! I guess I am a bit slow on jokes, but I thought Guy was actually proposing "Pious Sentiment" as a motto. It actually sounds pretty legit. Hehe, I guess I am, as I have heard the butt of American jokes called , "the man from Nebraska". No offense to anyone from Nebraska, that was from a book from like the late 40’s, early 50’s.

What about for a motto, and this may be a bit (very) unimaginative.. "Quid Pro Quo"? This for that? As cockney rhyming slang for…a RAT.

 

Cheers,:rolleyes:

 
AVD1
 
Avatar
 
 
AVD1
Total Posts:  169
Joined  31-08-2006
 
 
 
17 January 2007 01:05
 

Regarding the motto:

I think the following translation could be more close to the meaning.

 

"operare insquequo suus (suum) opera impeccable"

 

Certainly help is needed

 
AVD1
 
Avatar
 
 
AVD1
Total Posts:  169
Joined  31-08-2006
 
 
 
20 January 2007 16:54
 

Jose Carrion just sent me what I think is the elegant and formal translation of your motto.

 

Fac usquead perfectum sit

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
22 January 2007 21:08
 

Perhaps more serious than needed, but -

"befitting his degree" clearly implies that there are different "degrees" warranting or needing to be "befitted."  That’s fine in e.g. Scotland or other dens of noblesse but IMO not appropriate here.  If there is only one "degree" then the phrase is at best redundant & unnecessary, & at worst seems to undercut or cloud the understanding that we have no "degrees" (other than collegiate or Masonic, neither of which AFAIK use differening helmets…)

 
Andrew J Vidal
 
Avatar
 
 
Andrew J Vidal
Total Posts:  567
Joined  13-10-2006
 
 
 
22 January 2007 21:21
 

Well stated, I hadn’t thought of it in that light.  I saw it more as historic verbiage, but I can definately see how it can be viewed as such.

 
Guy Power
 
Avatar
 
 
Guy Power
Total Posts:  1576
Joined  05-01-2006
 
 
 
23 January 2007 00:04
 

Michael F. McCartney wrote:

Perhaps more serious than needed, but -

"befitting his degree" clearly implies that there are different "degrees" warranting or needing to be "befitted."  That’s fine in e.g. Scotland or other dens of noblesse but IMO not appropriate here.  If there is only one "degree" then the phrase is at best redundant & unnecessary, & at worst seems to undercut or cloud the understanding that we have no "degrees" (other than collegiate or Masonic, neither of which AFAIK use differening helmets…)


What of the (albeit few) Americans who can rightfully claim an inhereted right to a helm other than the Gentleman’s helm?  Suppose one of the bona fide American baronets (I think two?), or one the many Knights of St. John (Venerable Order and Sovereign Order) joined the HSA—would he lose his right to display a frontal knight’s helm—a helm befitting his degree?

 

Or would we make the gentleman’s helm the default, then make allowances for the proportional few who have rights to other helms?

 

—Guy

 
Patrick Williams
 
Avatar
 
 
Patrick Williams
Total Posts:  1356
Joined  29-07-2006
 
 
 
23 January 2007 08:40
 

Guy Power wrote:

What of the (albeit few) Americans who can rightfully claim an inhereted right to a helm other than the Gentleman’s helm?  Suppose one of the bona fide American baronets (I think two?), or one the many Knights of St. John (Venerable Order and Sovereign Order) joined the HSA—would he lose his right to display a frontal knight’s helm—a helm befitting his degree?

Or would we make the gentleman’s helm the default, then make allowances for the proportional few who have rights to other helms?

 

—Guy


Guy, as I recall, we’ve said that those who have supporters, awards, helms, etc. due to legitimate grants of arms elsewhere can, through courtesy, display their achievements, complete with additaments, in the USA without too much worry of being thought gauche. At the same time, they are encouraged to use that achievement sparingly and only when they are acting in that capacity.

 

Please also remember that because we have no laws which either protect or limit arms, NOBODY has a right or entitlement to them in the USA. So nobody can ‘lose the right to display’ anything. We’re just saying that ‘best practice’ in the US is to use an achievement without supporters, front-facing open helms, coronets, or other additiaments which imply nobility, either by birth or rank.

 

To steal Joe’s line: this is the USA and people can do whatever they choose in relation to heraldry. The AHS, however, is developing (primarily through Joe’s hard work) a ‘best practices’ guide.

 
Guy Power
 
Avatar
 
 
Guy Power
Total Posts:  1576
Joined  05-01-2006
 
 
 
23 January 2007 11:31
 

Patrick Williams wrote:

To steal Joe’s line: this is the USA and people can do whatever they choose in relation to heraldry. The AHS, however, is developing (primarily through Joe’s hard work) a ‘best practices’ guide.


.................................................. oh all right.

 
Scotus
 
Avatar
 
 
Scotus
Total Posts:  322
Joined  13-05-2005
 
 
 
23 January 2007 11:51
 

Patrick Williams wrote:

this is the USA and people can do whatever they choose in relation to heraldry. The AHS, however, is developing (primarily through Joe’s hard work) a ‘best practices’ guide.

<sigh>


Patrick Williams wrote:

We’re just saying


Who is the "we" in your statement?  Respectfully, Joe’s guide is only intended to be that; a guide he developed from what he knows and the opinions (expert and otherwise) of others.

 

Father Archer

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
23 January 2007 12:14
 

First, Fr. Archer’s last post was deleted by him, not me.  It says I deleted it because I inadvertently restored it while trying to do something else, then redeleted it to reverse my mistake.

On the substantive point:  I have been persuaded by Mike McCartney that we need to think in terms of American arms vs. displays of foreign arms in the United States.  There’s nothing that prevents someone from displaying his Scottish or English arms in the US as Scottish or English arms.  But just as a Spaniard or Italian who establishes his domicile in England or Scotland is expected to regularize his arms with the College of Arms or Lyon Court, so it is reasonable to expect someone who brings arms into the United States to "naturalize" them here by bringing them into conformance with U.S. heraldic customs.  Generally, a Spaniard with a cronista’s certification showing a barred helmet or a noble coronet, who seeks to matriculate or record those arms in the UK, will get back a document exemplifying the arms with a regular gentleman’s helmet and no coronet.  Whatever he is in Spain, in the UK he is not entitled to these additaments.

 

Likewise, I think the principle of social equality in the US calls for Americans to eschew the use of insignia that implies "degrees."  The insignia of the order to which someone belongs does not imply degree—there are even many such insignia in the British system itself that don’t carry any social precedence, such as the Order of Merit or levels of the orders of knighthood below knight commander.  But knights outrank gentlemen in the UK and this higher social rank is signified with a different kind of helmet.  Knights do not outrank gentlemen in the US; membership in the VOStJ is no different here than membership in the Kiwanis, apart from the bizarre requirement to swear allegiance to a foreign head of state (yeah, I know, only insofar as it doesn’t interfere with loyalty to your own country, but still…).  If knights don’t outrank gentlemen, then they don’t need a different style of helmet.

 

But, of course, in the context of the VOStJ (or whatever other order), or some other foreign activity, members should feel free to display their foreign arms to their hearts content.  And of course they’re legally free to do so regardless.

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
23 January 2007 12:40
 

This makes me think of a topic that has sort of bothered me for some time. Perhaps it should be in an entirely separate thread instead of this one, but as it is touched on here, I will post it here.

I understand the reasons to have one&#8217;s arms matriculated in the country one is domiciled in however I wonder why there is such a lack of consideration by the powers that be in such cases?

 

What I mean is that in Scotland, for example, one would get them taken care of by Lyon. But, why wouldn&#8217;t Lyon accept the core of the arms as is and change only the style of helm or supporters or noble coronet etc when such a case comes before him?

 

So, in those cases where Lyon changes the actual arms I have a problem &#8211; I know who am I to have a problem with the internal workings of Lyon, but&#8230; The problem is, for me, courtesy. If I came in with legitimate, maybe ancient, arms from where I was born&#8230;say Spain&#8230;and I was now moving to Scotland I would hope that while things like a bared helm would be replaced for one &#8220;befitting my degree&#8221; the basic elements of the shield would remain the same. However, as I&#8217;ve seen (can&#8217;t site the examples right now though I think it was either an Irish or English grant that was so changed) Lyon can and will change even that.

 

So, to bring it back to the USA I wonder if not the same courtesy that I find lacking in Lyon&#8217;s decisions sometimes should not be used here. Yes, yes I know and agree with using an achievement that is American in appearance; that respects American heraldic tradition and contemporary thought. However, in those cases of arms that are ancient and have a history &#8211; a family history no less which to me is greater than general history &#8211; the courtesy ought not to be shown all the more.

 

Even as an Irishman of the nationalist (not republican, as they are different and I have a problem with the republic as well as British control&#8230;but that&#8217;s for another discussion area) variety I would not be offended if I met an armiger here whose arms show a reward (baronetcy was most often the gift) for what his ancestors did to mine in Ireland anymore so than as an American I would be upset that he used a knight&#8217;s helm as he was a baronet.

 

I don&#8217;t know&#8230;I would prefer the use in an American context, but I would not be repulsed by the use of their ancient form. Indeed it is important to respect the past (history) and sometimes that means offending the sensibilities of others. Tough subject though&#8230;tough indeed.

 
Patrick Williams
 
Avatar
 
 
Patrick Williams
Total Posts:  1356
Joined  29-07-2006
 
 
 
23 January 2007 13:04
 

Joseph, Thank you for the clarification of your position. It really makes things much clearer for me. It covers the courtesy use of arms when a foreigner is here, as well as best practice for citizens who have claim to honors or additaments from a foreign government/font of honor, etc.

I’d like to make sure, however, that I understand. Let’s pretend for a moment that I am a Knight of one of the many Orders of St. John. When I’m acting in that capacity then it’s within best practice for me to display my knightly additaments. For everyday use, however, I’m just plain me and display my achievement as in my avatar. Is this correct?

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
23 January 2007 13:26
 

By the way, my understanding is that the College of Arms does not allow the open knight’s helm to knights of the Venerable Order of St. John, nor supporters to knights grand cross, although Lord Lyon does.  The English logic is apparently that, since membership in the VOStJ confers no precedence, such membership should not by symbolized with the appurtenances (such as helms and supporters) associated with precedence.

Also, since the Supreme Military Order of Malta is a foreign order (as the VOStJ is here), the College of Arms apparently accords its members no particular heraldic privileges, such as open helms or supporters.  I don’t think it even takes note of insignia of membership in the order in exemplifications of arms.  True?

 

If my understanding is incorrect, I would be grateful for a correction.