Including Society of the Cincinnati eagle

 
David Pritchard
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pritchard
Total Posts:  2058
Joined  26-01-2007
 
 
 
09 September 2007 18:31
 

gselvester;49425 wrote:

A truly egalitarian view of heraldry would allow for the display of those ornaments that each individual would desire. Otherwise it becomes conformist and oppressive. If you legislate that all display of arms must be done equally not only might it undercut the very nature of heraldry but it then limits freedom of expression.


This is a position that I have advocated in earlier discussions, limited of course by good heraldic design and taste.

 
Michael Swanson
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Swanson
Total Posts:  2462
Joined  26-02-2005
 
 
 
09 September 2007 21:33
 

I have a couple of brief replies.

To Fr. Guy:

 

I don’t suggest oppressive regulation by government.  Instead, I suggest self-restraint by the AHS membership.  I think self-restraint sets the example for others.  Just as with sexual freedom, one should not want authoritarian oppression, but self-restraint is still needed.  The exact boundaries of this heraldic self-restaint are still fuzzy, but symbols of nobility are clearly to be avoided.

 

To Fred White:

 

By “equal moral value,” I mean that in evaluating a moral act, each affected person’s harms and benefits are counted equally.  For example, one would not count an African American’s pain less than an Irish American’s.  Even though equal value is the moral ideal, bias often gets in the way.  Thus, I suggest we do not use trappings that further this tendency to bias, e.g., heraldic trappings that imply nobility.

 

My recent argument regarded your statement about nobility, not genealogical organizations.  If you want to display any decorations, go ahead.  I just think it muddies the waters when marketing heraldry because displaying them together links the ideas of birthright and heraldry.  These two concepts are what we are trying to un-link in our educational efforts.

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
09 September 2007 22:24
 

Michael Swanson;49442 wrote:

I have a couple of brief replies.

To Fr. Guy:

 

I don’t suggest oppressive regulation by government.  Instead, I suggest self-restraint by the AHS membership.  I think self-restraint sets the example for others.  Just as with sexual freedom, one should not want authoritarian oppression, but self-restraint is still needed.  The exact boundaries of this heraldic self-restaint are still fuzzy, but symbols of nobility are clearly to be avoided.


Yes, I understood what you meant. Over-regulation doesn’t have to come from a government.

 
Patrick Williams
 
Avatar
 
 
Patrick Williams
Total Posts:  1356
Joined  29-07-2006
 
 
 
10 September 2007 09:23
 

Hi, everyone!

Let’s go back and look at our Guidelines document:

 

2.2.3.3. In addition to those conferred by recognized heads of state, many orders of chivalry exist autonomously or are granted by former monarchs, former ruling families, and royal pretenders. Some of these are universally recognized as legitimate, while others are the subject of considerable controversy and still others are clearly fraudulent. It is not the business of the American Heraldry Society to adjudicate the claims of such bodies. Armigers are urged to consider carefully whether the display of their insignia is appropriate other than in connection with the affairs of the organization itself. ... my emphasis.

 

(I chose this section specifically for the discussion going on, but please read the entirety of section 2.2 Additions to Basic Arms. In fact, I challenge you all to re-read that section and re-read it carefully.)

 

Clearly, we do not prohibit the display of orders, awards, membership jewelry, etc. We merely ask that armigers consider the appropriateness of those displays in context. So if a Cincinnatus wished to display his deely-bob (no offense intended, I just don’t know what they call it) suspended from the base of his shield, he most certainly could. And I could display all the gongs, frilly aprons and funny hats that I have earned and/or been presented from my service in the Masonic fraternities (believe me, that would make an impressive display ... horrifically impressive).

 

The argument that helms and therefore crests are nobiliary by virtue of their having been within the purview of knighthood seems a bit of a red herring: we can merely go back a hundred more years or so and then even the shield would not be allowed to anyone of less than noble birth. Therefore, almost all of us should abandon our arms, even if the custom of our professions allow them. You may or may not be afforded a motto. That simply bearing arms once meant knighthood, and hence noble status, is interesting history, but we have more than 500 years of them meaning something else as well.

 

I tried the egalitarianism arguments back when the guidelines for section 2were in draft. Should you choose to search out that thread, you’ll notice that I was soundly whacked about the head and shoulders at that time for my efforts. :D Our guidelines are meant to inculcate, foster and promote an uniquely American (as in US American) style and approach to things heraldic. That they, therefore, touch upon egalitarianism by eschewing nobiliary trappings and heraldic additaments is not an expression of a political agenda, but an attempt to bring heraldic expression in line with the ideals on which this nation was founded. That the current (or, indeed, historical) political and social realities in the USA might not reflect those ideals as brightly is, in my opinion, moot.

 

Now, time to jump down from my soap box!

 
Charles E. Drake
 
Avatar
 
 
Charles E. Drake
Total Posts:  553
Joined  27-05-2006
 
 
 
10 September 2007 11:04
 

The recurring debate about nobility and the guidelines, notwithstanding, I can think of two examples.

I recall that the late David Garrison had a bookplate which featured his arms within a decorative border featuring at each corner a badge from a chivalric order, and one of these was the Cincinnati eagle.  I can’t find this image now, and it may have been removed from the web. Whether he chose not to display this as pendant for artistic or substantive reasons, I do not know.

 

Here is one example of a pendant Cincinnati eagle:

 

http://www.medieval-arts.co.uk/Ludwig 11.jpg

 

/Charles

 
Patrick Williams
 
Avatar
 
 
Patrick Williams
Total Posts:  1356
Joined  29-07-2006
 
 
 
10 September 2007 12:37
 

fwhite;49419 wrote:

What is any of this about if not nostalgia (conscious or no) for an explicitly aristocratic society?


It’s about a lot of things, and those things differ by individual. For Fr. Guy, if I may speak for him, it’s about centuries of tradition within his faith. For me, it’s about an artistic expression that I fell in love with as a teenager. For others, it’s about connecting to one’s ancestry in a personal manner. And, there are those who are nostalgic for an explicity aristocratic society. All these reasons are valid. Rest assured that there are other reasons, too.


Andrew J Vidal;49427 wrote:

I’ll throw my two cents into the ring for what it’s worth.  I personally feel that if you’re inducted into a chivalric order or if you’ve been awarded special recognition by any government, you should display those awards/insignia in your achievement if it pleases you.  I don’t see anything aristocratic about it at all.  Even if the award/order is inherited, be proud of your father’s, grand father’s or great grand father’s accomplishments and strive to reach that level of greatness or surpass it.


And, indeed, these are valid points. However, Andrew (to present the contrarian viewpoint), while these are valid points, they do not necessarily reflect our Guidelines. Currently, at least, the guidelines are accepted by our Board of Governors as policy. So while one may honor their ancestors as they wish, or heraldically declare whatever honours they may have achieved, they must also realize that when they step outside of our guidelines, we will not post those achievements on the Members’ Arms Pages. We will, however, post a link to outside pages that show them.

 
Guy Power
 
Avatar
 
 
Guy Power
Total Posts:  1576
Joined  05-01-2006
 
 
 
10 September 2007 14:26
 

Patrick,
Patrick Williams;49464 wrote:

...So while one may honor their ancestors as they wish, or heraldically declare whatever honours they may have achieved, they must also realize that when they step outside of our guidelines, we will not post those achievements on the Members’ Arms Pages. We will, however, post a link to outside pages that show them.


I think that is a very fair compromise.

 

—Guy Power

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
10 September 2007 18:47
 

It seems like the question needs to be reframed. I infer that there is no real consensus here on whether or not it is appropriate to display honors heraldically. But in terms of the Cincinnati eagle specifically, is it or is it not going to be permitted as part of a full achievement of arms for display in the AHS armorial?

If what is being aimed at is a nativist, distinctly American armorial, it seems like this is the last decoration whose inclusion you would want to prohibit, given the original members’ contributions to the founding of the country. But especially if essentially foreign devices like the Maltese cross are being permitted (see the arms of Osvaldo Marcenaro on this site, http://americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=Armorial.MarcenaroO), I can’t fathom why the AHS would want to disdain the Cincinnati eagle. Would that not be hypocritical?

 

In terms of whether, after this enlightened discussion, I would want to display the SoC eagle on my own arms, I’m actually not so sure. I stick to the position that to assume arms at all is in some sense to claim for oneself a prestigious social commodity, and is therefore, by definition, a somewhat immodest gesture (even in the rare case where one’s chosen shield evokes the flags of such paragons of romantic egalitarianism as the USSR or the PRC). Therefore, taking the position that honors should not be included in coats of arms seems to me like a logical error. Still, understatement is a quality I value highly in my everyday life, and if a widely held view in this organization is that "proclaiming honors heraldically" is hurtfully exclusive, I don’t think it would be very gracious of any of us to disregard that view. Also, in the specifically SoC connection, let’s not forget what Lucius Cincinnatus was all about—eschewing the emoluments of high office when the job of defending Rome was done, and going back to his poverty and his plow. "Proclaiming honors" in any fashion is not the Cincinnati way.

 
David Pritchard
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pritchard
Total Posts:  2058
Joined  26-01-2007
 
 
 
10 September 2007 20:07
 

Charles E. Drake;49463 wrote:

I recall that the late David Garrison had a bookplate which featured his arms within a decorative border featuring at each corner a badge from a chivalric order, and one of these was the Cincinnati eagle.  I can’t find this image now, and it may have been removed from the web.


David Garrison’s bookplate was the image that I was referencing when wrote that I had seen the use of the badge of the Society of the Cincinnati in personal heraldry earlier in this thread.

 
David Pritchard
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pritchard
Total Posts:  2058
Joined  26-01-2007
 
 
 
10 September 2007 20:28
 

fwhite;49476 wrote:

It seems like the question needs to be reframed. I infer that there is no real consensus here on whether or not it is appropriate to display honors heraldically. But in terms of the Cincinnati eagle specifically, is it or is it not going to be permitted as part of a full achievement of arms for display in the AHS armorial?


It is my opinion that the use of orders and decorations in the images of the members’ arms on the website of the American Heraldry Society is best to be avoided. The society is here to encourage heraldry in the United States, not to post visual reminders to 90% of the society’s membership and most of the visitors that they will never belong to a hereditary society or an order of knighthood for reasons of their birth, non-noble status, religion or lack thereof, lack of funds, social contacts, cultural reasons or general unclubability. It would seem to me that introducing anything potentially negative into the discussion of heraldry in the United States is counter-productive to the raison d’être of the society.

 
Jonathan R. Baker
 
Avatar
 
 
Jonathan R. Baker
Total Posts:  625
Joined  27-03-2007
 
 
 
10 September 2007 20:35
 

David Pritchard;49482 wrote:

It is my opinion that the use of orders and decorations in the images of the members’ arms on the website of the American Heraldry Society is best to be avoided. The society is here to encourage heraldry in the United States, not to post visual reminders to 90% of the society’s membership and most of the visitors that they will never belong to a hereditary society or an order of knighthood for reasons of their birth, non-noble status, religion or lack thereof, lack of funds, social contacts, cultural reasons or general unclubability. It would seem to me that introducing anything potentially negative into the discussion of heraldry in the United States is counter-productive to the raison d’être of the society.


I have been absent from most of this discussion due to technical difficulties, but I’d like to offer my agreement with David on this point.

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
10 September 2007 20:57
 

If we are containing this discussion within the parameters of the website of the AHS only then I would tend to agree as well.

 
WBHenry
 
Avatar
 
 
WBHenry
Total Posts:  1078
Joined  12-02-2007
 
 
 
11 September 2007 02:33
 

And yet, what of the martial beginnings of heraldry itself?  The American public at large would be offended or "turned off" to heraldry by noting a Congretional Medal of Honor hanging from the shield of a CMH awardee?  Nothing hereditary there, nothing to do with family, nothing to do with blood lines, but the highest honor this country can bestow, a good faith achievement on the part of that individual.  The original intent of heraldry is that arms would be born by honorable persons.  This would harm American heraldry in what way?

 
David Pritchard
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pritchard
Total Posts:  2058
Joined  26-01-2007
 
 
 
11 September 2007 04:49
 

WBHenry;49500 wrote:

The American public at large would be offended or "turned off" to heraldry by noting a Congretional Medal of Honor hanging from the shield of a CMH awardee?


Do you mean a Congregational Medal of Honor or a Congressional Medal of Honor Pastor?

 

Invite a recipient of the CMH to join our august society and I doubt that you would find a single objection to the display of this exalted decoration in the new member’s personal armorial.

 
WBHenry
 
Avatar
 
 
WBHenry
Total Posts:  1078
Joined  12-02-2007
 
 
 
11 September 2007 08:39
 

Interesting Freudian slip?  Can’t deal properly with separation of Church and state?  Congressional.  :oops: