Including Society of the Cincinnati eagle

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
08 September 2007 12:58
 

I notice that in the Society’s guidelines for American heraldic usage, the inclusion of lineage society medals in the full achievement of arms is discouraged. I understand and embrace what I take to be the reasoning behind this recommendation. I wonder, however, if at least one finer distinction shouldn’t be made. The Society of the Cincinnati has a bona fide chivalric and nobiliary character (cf. the argument of Guy Stair Sainty), is our only home-grown such order, and is arguably as worthy of inclusion in a full achievement of arms as an order of knighthood (e.g., Malta). Any thoughts on this?

 
Dcgb7f
 
Avatar
 
 
Dcgb7f
Total Posts:  516
Joined  07-07-2007
 
 
 
08 September 2007 13:05
 

I’ve never heard of this society. Could you provide more information on them?

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
08 September 2007 13:13
 

Just go to this website—http://www.hereditary.us/—and click on the Cincinnati icon. This will yield a drop-down menu with several options.

 
DRShorey
 
Avatar
 
 
DRShorey
Total Posts:  528
Joined  11-12-2005
 
 
 
08 September 2007 13:53
 

This is my personal opinion

When I first started my journey in heraldry, I was easily impressed by the fancy orders and shiny objects that people liked to show off. As I have learned more and have come to appreciate the way that Heraldry has evolved in the United States, I am much less impressed.

 

Heraldry in the United States is not about class or status. Heraldry in the United States is not male only. Heraldry in the United States in not about showing off.

 

Heraldry in the United States is inclusive effort that connects personal identity with history, community and culture.

 

I personally would discourage the display of any "order, etc." that hints of aristocracy.

 

That being said, since the guidelines are guidelines, you can follow them or not.

 

Dave Shorey

 
David Pritchard
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pritchard
Total Posts:  2058
Joined  26-01-2007
 
 
 
08 September 2007 14:33
 

fwhite;49377 wrote:

I notice that in the Society’s guidelines for American heraldic usage, the inclusion of lineage society medals in the full achievement of arms is discouraged. I understand and embrace what I take to be the reasoning behind this recommendation. I wonder, however, if at least one finer distinction shouldn’t be made. The Society of the Cincinnati has a bona fide chivalric and nobiliary character (cf. the argument of Guy Stair Sainty), is our only home-grown such order, and is arguably as worthy of inclusion in a full achievement of arms as an order of knighthood (e.g., Malta). Any thoughts on this?


The French Branch of the Order of the Cincinnati definitely had a nobiliary aspect to it as all of the members were to the best of my knowledge nobles. However, the American branch was in essence following the British tradition that being a commissioned officer made one a Gentleman (which is a different classification to a European noble), a tradition that is still followed in the commissions of officers of the United States armed forces.

 

Are you a member of the Society of the Cincinnati? If so I am certain that they would already have a policy regarding the use of the badge of the society in an heraldic achievement. That said, I have some recollection of seeing the badge of the society used in a heraldic achievement. I do want to make it clear that wearing or depicting the badge of the Society of the Cincinnati in your achievement when you are not an official member is as deplorable as wearing the Congressional Medal of Honor when it has not been bestowed upon you.

 
David Pritchard
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pritchard
Total Posts:  2058
Joined  26-01-2007
 
 
 
08 September 2007 14:47
 

DRShorey;49381 wrote:

This is my personal opinion

When I first started my journey in heraldry, I was easily impressed by the fancy orders and shiny objects that people liked to show off. As I have learned more and have come to appreciate the way that Heraldry has evolved in the United States, I am much less impressed.


This is my personal opinion

 

I not care for the practice of orders and decorations hanging below shields, however when there is a historical tradition of the members of a particular order following certain heraldic practices, such as placing the escutcheon on the cross of the order, as in the Order of Malta, Order of Christ and Order of Santiago, I encourage the maintainence of this tradition. Likewise the practice of the Knightly Order of Saint John (Johanniter Ordern) placing the badge of the order near the helm is ancient and most acceptable.

 

I think most Americans have difficulty with orders as they do not possess even a basic knowledge as to how to evaluate each individual order on its own merits and determine its value or lack thereof.

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
08 September 2007 15:24
 

DRShorey;49381 wrote:

This is my personal opinion

Heraldry in the United States is not about class or status. Heraldry in the United States is not male only. Heraldry in the United States in not about showing off.

 

Heraldry in the United States is inclusive effort that connects personal identity with history, community and culture.


I think I understand your point but I respectfully disagree with your reasoning. What I mean is that since heraldry is primarily about displaying a form of identification that belongs to you and you alone it is, by its nature, exclusive not inclusive. Heraldry itself, that is, the having of an achievement of arms is for everyone. However, that doesn’t mean that all coats of arms have to be watered down to the least common denominators so that everyone will feel that their coat of arms is the same as everyone else’s. In connecting your coat of arms, a means of identification, with community and culture what better way is there than displaying the insignia of those communities and groups to which you belong? I’m more with d’Arcy Boulton on this. Limiting the display to only certain kinds of insignia contributes more to making heraldry snobbish and anti-egalitarian. So, for those who wish to see heraldry be more inclusive, it would seem to me that a desire to open up the parameters of display, rather than narrow them, would be desirable.

 
Michael Swanson
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Swanson
Total Posts:  2462
Joined  26-02-2005
 
 
 
08 September 2007 15:31
 

David Pritchard;49385 wrote:

I think most Americans have difficulty with orders as they do not possess even a basic knowledge as to how to evaluate each individual order on its own merits and determine its value or lack thereof.


If I remember correctly, the only criterion put forth by Dr. Lucki for legitimate orders (and the heraldic display of medals of membership) was that the order was awarded by the legitimate government, or an official designee, of a country in power at the time of the award.  Vatican City is included.  This criterion was both a necessary and sufficient condition.

 

Ditto for medals of achievement whether connected or unconnected with orders.

 

As a simple American, I can get my mind around this.

 
David Pritchard
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pritchard
Total Posts:  2058
Joined  26-01-2007
 
 
 
08 September 2007 15:51
 

Michael Swanson;49390 wrote:

As a simple American, I can get my mind around this.


Michael, please do not give yourself a headache thinking about this, it is not that important.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
08 September 2007 18:20
 

Michael Swanson;49390 wrote:

If I remember correctly, the only criterion put forth by Dr. Lucki for legitimate orders (and the heraldic display of medals of membership) was that the order was awarded by the legitimate government, or an official designee, of a country in power at the time of the award.  Vatican City is included.  This criterion was both a necessary and sufficient condition.


Well, the Society was formed while the U.S. government was yet inchoate, by the officers of the Continental Army themselves, but Louis XVI did sign on as patron (or what have you) of the French Society, so perhaps the Cincinnati eagle meets Dr. Lucki’s requirements, perhaps not.

 

To answer David Pritchard’s question, I am, as it happens, a member of the Virginia Society. Moreover, I am quite aware of and embrace the principle that claiming unearned memberships and honors is to be avoided. But thanks for the thoughtful reminder all the same!

 

As for the Society’s rules, I am not aware of any that have to do with heraldry (which doesn’t mean there are none). In my observation, the basic guideline for using the Society’s emblem is just some normative sense of good taste and whatever social conventions obtain in a given situation. They certainly don’t tell members what they must or must not do, and I think all can be trusted to have solid instincts for what’s appropriate, or else make the effort to find out.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
08 September 2007 18:45
 

gselvester;49389 wrote:

What I mean is that since heraldry is primarily about displaying a form of identification that belongs to you and you alone it is, by its nature, exclusive not inclusive.


I agree, Father, although David Shorey’s sentiment is one I also appreciate. We as a people have abided by our early decision not to permit the use of titles of nobility, and the basic thrust of our development has been towards creating equality of opportunity for one another. However, I think Americans are at most ambivalent about aristocracy, and that there’s a fair amount of evidence that they like it just fine.


gselvester;49389 wrote:

Heraldry itself, that is, the having of an achievement of arms is for everyone. However, that doesn’t mean that all coats of arms have to be watered down to the least common denominators so that everyone will feel that their coat of arms is the same as everyone else’s.


I, too, feel that assuming a coat of arms is intrinsically, inescapably part of a search for personal distinction of some kind. At the same time, I accept the principle that everyone should feel free to take arms, it being understood that some are apt to wear them better than others, and that, in any case, it is probably unlikely that more than a tiny minority will ever bother with it at all.


gselvester;49389 wrote:

So, for those who wish to see heraldry be more inclusive, it would seem to me that a desire to open up the parameters of display, rather than narrow them, would be desirable.


Q.E.D.

 
Dcgb7f
 
Avatar
 
 
Dcgb7f
Total Posts:  516
Joined  07-07-2007
 
 
 
08 September 2007 18:53
 

I personally think one shouldn’t display the insignia of this society. I think it’s just very pretentious of someone to display unofficial insignia. I define unofficial as those that weren’t issued by a sovereign entity. I see a significant difference between official insignia and the insignia of any private association. I understand the comment that restricting what gets displayed risks rendering such displays snobbish (they may already be seen as snobbish), but I see an equally disturbing situation by loosening up restrictions in which the display of insignia outside the shield is degraded in value and possibility into frivolity. I could just as easily create a Society of Montclair and restrict membership in it to those living in my neighborhood. That sounds absurd to me because that society means nothing. But, how different is this Society of Monfort from the Society of the Cincinnatti? Except for one being older, there isn’t that big of a difference. Both are just private associations of people that restrict membership. In themselves they signify nothing but mankind’s desire to band together in groups. Official insignia on the other hand signify a people, through their legitimate government, has decided to honor a person. The difference I see, therefore, is the difference between persons associating themselves with others and a people honoring a person.

But that’s just my opinion.

 
Dcgb7f
 
Avatar
 
 
Dcgb7f
Total Posts:  516
Joined  07-07-2007
 
 
 
08 September 2007 19:01
 

fwhite;49398 wrote:

Well, the Society was formed while the U.S. government was yet inchoate, by the officers of the Continental Army themselves, but Louis XVI did sign on as patron (or what have you) of the French Society, so perhaps the Cincinnati eagle meets Dr. Lucki’s requirements, perhaps not.

I don’t think it does unless the King of France was awarding the awards. Permitting someone to wear them I don’t think constitutes "awarding" as Dr. Lucki specified. Now if King Louis XVI adopted it as a French insignia then that’s a different case. Even if he had though, the fact that the French Republic has abolished the awards of the Ancien Regime would mean that nowadays it no longer is awarded by a sovereign entity.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
08 September 2007 19:45
 

I hear what you’re saying, Daniel, and you may be quite right—nothing but empty pretense to have some gewgaw dangling from your shield.

Perhaps it is worth noting, though, that members of the U.S. military are authorized to wear the SoC eagle on their dress uniforms, and that members of the SoC have a federal rank analagous to a junior commissioned officer or something. In the order of precedence for the U.S., the President of the SoC ranks alongside a lieutenant governor of a territory like Puerto Rico or Guam. The latter points are not true of any other lineage societies, though the insignia of two others—Aztec Club of 1847 and the Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the U.S.—can be word on U.S. military uniforms. Like the SoC, the Aztec Club and MOLLUS are hereditary.

 

I can see where, on a cursory inspection, one might fail to detect a difference between the SoC and your hypothetical Society of Montclair, or even the SoC and the DAR or the Colonial Dames or the Society of Colonial Wars, but I would contend that a second glance reveals a great deal of difference. Still, it is entirely possible that the SoC should not appear on a full achievement of arms, though if not the SoC then surely not any other hereditary order.

 
David Pritchard
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pritchard
Total Posts:  2058
Joined  26-01-2007
 
 
 
08 September 2007 19:52
 

Dcgb7f;49404 wrote:

I don’t think it does unless the King of France was awarding the awards. Permitting someone to wear them I don’t think constitutes "awarding" as Dr. Lucki specified. Now if King Louis XVI adopted it as a French insignia then that’s a different case. Even if he had though, the fact that the French Republic has abolished the awards of the Ancien Regime would mean that nowadays it no longer is awarded by a sovereign entity.


To the best of my knowledge George Lucki holds a master’s degree not a doctoral degree. Not that this lessens the value of his learned opinions in any way.

 

King Louis XVIII put the Ancien Régime orders to rest, that is into abeyance, and retained the Légion d’Honneur.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
08 September 2007 20:07
 

Dcgb7f;49404 wrote:

I don’t think it does unless the King of France was awarding the awards. Permitting someone to wear them I don’t think constitutes "awarding" as Dr. Lucki specified. Now if King Louis XVI adopted it as a French insignia then that’s a different case. Even if he had though, the fact that the French Republic has abolished the awards of the Ancien Regime would mean that nowadays it no longer is awarded by a sovereign entity.


Well, all I know is that George Washington was the first President of the Society of the Cincinnati—and this, before he was President of the U.S.—and that he signed all the "diplomas," or whatever they should be called, for the original members. Louis XVI’s precise relationship to the SoC is described thus by Guy Stair Sainty: "By a decision of Louis XVI in Council dated 18 December 1783, French officers were given permission to accept membership of the society, whose French branch was put under his royal authority" (http://www.chivalricorders.org/nobility/cincin.htm). However, the subsequent history of the SoC in France was tumultuous, as Sainty goes on to explain. He concludes by describing the present status of the Society in France as follows:

 

"Since 1974 the Vice-President of the whole Society has always been a Frenchman. The French hoped to obtain the same official recognition for their society that it had enjoyed in its early years, but there was opposition to recognizing a purely "hereditary" association. If the statutes had been altered, so that the structure (at least in respect of certain of the qualifications for membership) more closely approximated that of the Order of Malta, i.e. that candidates could not become members purely by right, it might have been recognized as an Order, but instead it enjoys the character of a private society dedicated to good works. The question of how the badge should be worn came up more recently, and in 1979 the Grand Chancellor of the Legion of Honor (subsequently elected an honorary member) agreed that its badge could be worn on the right breast on official occasions, separated from officially acknowledged Orders, and suspended from a knot instead of a ribbon."

 

Now, I must say I’m not quite sure what Sainty means above in referring to membership "purely by right." The Cincinnati, in my experience, are a generous-hearted group, and in general, if you’re the legitimate heir to a member, I think the SoC are glad to have you, but I’m pretty sure the by-laws of the individual state societies and the French Society permit them to reject applicants they disapprove of, even for entirely subjective reasons, and even if the applicants’ genealogical ducks are in a razor-straight row. But forgetting such by-laws, the application process itself (even if you inherit a place, you still have to apply and your application has to stand on its own) entails getting character references "from men of prominence" or some such, a substantial personal essay, and the meeting of another criterion or two that impart a certain flavor of merit to the election process.