Including Society of the Cincinnati eagle

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
17 September 2007 01:41
 

David Pritchard;49762 wrote:

It is good to see another baseless ‘fact’ debunked. This just stands as another warning to all about putting too much trust in Wikipedia entries.


I beg your pardon, David. I’m not sure about the title of the fin de siecle volume I flipped through at Anderson House for my "facts," but I don’t "trust in Wikipedia entries," and don’t appreciate the implication that I’ve had a mendacious agenda throughout this discussion.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
17 September 2007 01:54
 

Joseph McMillan;49761 wrote:

One might as well look at the seating chart for a state dinner and deduce that Academy award winning actors or professional golfers have permanent fixed places in the official order of precedence.


Well, Joe, you’re clearly a veteran analyst of congressional orders and manuals of protocol, so perhaps the foregoing is a perfectly meet comparison, but it doesn’t seem to be tendered in the spirit of adding anything new to the discussion, and it belies a concession about the SoC—that it has historically cut ice at state functions. May I ask where exactly the Knights of Malta (or even Columbus) were invited to march at the event referenced?

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
17 September 2007 01:56
 

Joe, I’m sure they adhere scrupulously to the AHS guidelines for display of additaments, but would you mind identifying the gongs hanging beneath your own COA (http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=Armorial.McMillanJ)?

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
17 September 2007 07:59
 

fwhite;49770 wrote:

Joe, I’m sure they adhere scrupulously to the AHS guidelines for display of additaments, but would you mind identifying the gongs hanging beneath your own COA (http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=Armorial.McMillanJ)?


Certainly.  They are the Defense Meritorious Civilian Service Medal with Bronze Palm and the Defense Exceptional Civilian Service Medal, both awarded by the US Department of Defense.  I explained their significance when I originally posted the image to the forum, and only added the image to the gallery at the urging of other members.

 
Dcgb7f
 
Avatar
 
 
Dcgb7f
Total Posts:  516
Joined  07-07-2007
 
 
 
17 September 2007 11:30
 

WBHenry;49773 wrote:

Repeat third down.

*yells at TV as he launches his chip bowl at it* You kidding me! That deserved at least a five yard penalty! A yellow card! An error! Something. *storms off into other room*

Just joking, but I couldn’t resist. I just had to say that :p (And yes, I am aware that I mixed items from different sports.)

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
17 September 2007 17:59
 

Joseph McMillan;49592 wrote:

I’ve been round and round on this with Guy Sainty (I wrote the section on US decorations in his 2-volume work, Burke’s World Orders of Knighthood and Merit) and ended up frustrated that I could not budge him from the position that the Cincinnati have a "chivalric and nobiliary character."


May I ask why he didn’t budge? I understand that his desire to see Americans admitted to the higher ranks of the SMOM (And while I’m at it, regarding my earlier remark about them being hereditary, what I meant to say was that admission to them seems to depend on heredity—viz., a certain percentage of noble ancestry—so there is privilege and exclusion in this outfit based on birth, n’est-ce pas?), but I don’t get the impression Sainty is the kind of guy :smile:  who would misrepresent his actual beliefs for that purpose. So why did he stick to that wording—"chivalric and nobiliary character"?

 

And should one construe your words to mean that you feel the AHS guidelines are a higher authority that Burke’s World Orders of Knighthood and Merit (it being understood that this is to contrast for-profit with non-profit)?


Joseph McMillan;49592 wrote:

My argument against displaying these insignia with arms is not based on what kind of body the Soc. of Cinc. is—I, unlike GSS, am happy to defer to the Society’s own self-description—but rather that, as far as I know:

(a) The Society of the Cincinnati has no rules authorizing the display of the badge as part of an armorial achievement (unlike most orders of chivalry), and

 

(b) There seems to be no tradition of members of the society so displaying the badge.


Perhaps these are quite reasonable criteria. But do you mind if I ask what the Defense Department’s regulations are on the display of your civilian ribbons with an armorial achievement? Is there a tradition of recipients of those awards so displaying them? If you have more time, would it be possible for you to explain how your overall argument against displaying the SoC eagle has not been based, after all, to a very large extent on what kind of body the SoC is?

 
David Pritchard
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pritchard
Total Posts:  2058
Joined  26-01-2007
 
 
 
17 September 2007 18:38
 

Dear Fred,

It would seem to me that you will only be satisfied when the society and its members are in agreement with your views on the use of the insignia of the Society of the Cincinnati in heraldic achievements. I have serious doubts that this will ever happen. As you should well know, you do not need our approval to hang a medal beneath your shield. Do as you please outside of the confines of this society and allow this thread of debate to end before it is locked down by a moderator.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
17 September 2007 18:55
 

fwhite;49806 wrote:

May I ask why he didn’t budge? I understand that his desire to see Americans admitted to the higher ranks of the SMOM (And while I’m at it, regarding my earlier remark about them being hereditary, what I meant to say was that admission to them seems to depend on heredity—viz., a certain percentage of noble ancestry—so there is privilege and exclusion in this outfit based on birth, n’est-ce pas?), but I don’t get the impression Sainty is the kind of guy :smile: who would misrepresent his actual beliefs for that purpose. So why did he stick to that wording—"chivalric and nobiliary character"?


I don’t know why he didn’t budge.  Ask him.  I assume he believes what he says.  I just think he’s wrong.  Since the founders of your society were roundly criticized for trying to set up a hereditary order of chivalry, and denied vehemently that that was their purpose, I think they’d probably think GSS is wrong as well.

 

For the record, GSS’s actual wording from BWOKM is "While neither a ‘noble’ association nor an Order of Chivalry, the Society of the Cincinnati has something of the character of both."


Quote:

And should one construe your words to mean that you feel the AHS guidelines are a higher authority that Burke’s World Orders of Knighthood and Merit (it being understood that this is to contrast for-profit with non-profit)?


The two are not remotely comparable.  It’s like asking if Emily Post is a higher authority than Gray’s Anatomy.  But, as a matter of fact, there are a number of factual errors and debatable categorizations in BWOKM.


Quote:

Perhaps these are quite reasonable criteria. But do you mind if I ask what the Defense Department’s regulations are on the display of your civilian ribbons with an armorial achievement? Is there a tradition of recipients of those awards so displaying them?


Of course not.  But they are decorations conferred by a sovereign government—that of the United States—and anyone who’s been studying heraldry more than five minutes knows that there is no question such government decorations can be displayed with a coat of arms.

 

But I’ll make a deal with you.  If you’ll drop this entire subject, I’ll remove from the armorial the emblazonment of my arms with the two medals that two different Secretaries of Defense pinned on my chest.  Done?


Quote:

If you have more time, would it be possible for you to explain how your overall argument against displaying the SoC eagle has not been based, after all, to a very large extent on what kind of body the SoC is?


No, I can’t explain that because my argument against displaying the SoC eagle is precisely based on what kind of body it is:  a private society founded and run by private individuals and heraldically no different than the Boy Scouts, the Knights of Columbus, or the Friendly Sons of St Patrick.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
17 September 2007 19:00
 

Dear David,

Thanks for your concern, but I think the questions I’ve posed to Joseph are germane and politely worded. I don’t see why the moderator would shut this thread down just yet. And insofar as it’s been such satisfying entertainment for you in particular, I would think you’d refrain from tempting fate and not raise the specter of censorship.smile

 

And BTW, I do understand that I can display whatever I want with my COA outside the AHS armorial, and do not feel like the discussion can’t end until the AHS sees things my way, but I do feel like the discussion has raised a lot questions that get at the heart of ambiguities in what American heraldry is all about, and that it should therefore be allowed to continue as long as it remains active.

 

Is that not reasonable?

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
17 September 2007 19:13
 

Joseph McMillan;49809 wrote:

But I’ll make a deal with you.  If you’ll drop this entire subject, I’ll remove from the armorial the emblazonment of my arms with the two medals that two different Secretaries of Defense pinned on my chest.  Done?


Deal? Joe, if you would like to stop having this discussion, I’m happy to oblige you, but I wouldn’t think of depriving you of an opportunity to display decorations of which you are understandably so proud.

 
Joe123
 
Avatar
 
 
Joe123
Total Posts:  82
Joined  02-08-2007
 
 
 
17 September 2007 19:19
 

...sure would be a shame to see those medals removed from that version of your arms.

Not sure what else to say..;  well, actually, I really know what to say, but since I am a Marine in training and deportment, I tend to be not nearly as diplomatic (and patient) as this discussion board deserves - so I’ll check-fire on my comments.

 

Is perhaps now the time to "stop the madness"?  :wink:

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
17 September 2007 23:03
 

fwhite;49768 wrote:

Well, Joe, you’re clearly a veteran analyst of congressional orders and manuals of protocol, so perhaps the foregoing is a perfectly meet comparison, but it doesn’t seem to be tendered in the spirit of adding anything new to the discussion, and it belies a concession about the SoC—that it has historically cut ice at state functions.


What it added to the discussion was to undercut the contention that the SoC has been formally and officially accorded special status that is not available to other organizations.

 

Now that is not to demean the SoC one whit.  It is indeed a highly esteemed body with a proud history, and it has indeed been given a prominent role at official and quasi-official events dating back at least to the processions in 1788 to celebrate the ratification of the Constitution.  But that is not the same thing as being given anything analogous to official status.  It doesn’t seem to me to serve the Society’s interests to promote such claims (unless it can sustain them), any more than it ever served the interests of such distinguished royal orders of knighthood as the Thistle (Scotland), Bath (England), and Elephant (Denmark) to assert greater antiquity than they actually possess.  I don’t understand why a group that is already very special needs to make itself seem even more special.

 

The Masons have also historically "cut ice" at major occasions.  Yet

I haven’t heard that the Masons or any of the other bodies in the Washington Monument ceremony—as listed at the link given in my previous post—claim civil rank or a place in the official order of precedence on the strength of such events.  If the SoC has some other basis for the claims made on its behalf, I think the burden rests on those who make the claims to support them with evidence.


Quote:

May I ask where exactly the Knights of Malta (or even Columbus) were invited to march at the event referenced?


Of course the Knights of Malta and the Knights of Columbus didn’t march in the Washington Monument dedication.  Neither was relevant to the celebration.  But the Masons were relevant, and they were there. After all, Washington was a member of both societies.  Had Washington been a Knight of Malta, I’m sure someone would have invited the Grand Master to the 1885 festivities.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
17 September 2007 23:54
 

Okay, now I’m the one who wants to call it quits. Can we just shake hands and be pals, please?

 
Dcgb7f
 
Avatar
 
 
Dcgb7f
Total Posts:  516
Joined  07-07-2007
 
 
 
18 September 2007 00:19
 

Yippee! Drinks all around. *Heads off to fridge*

Very lively debate… a bit long in reading, but interesting nonetheless.

 
DRShorey
 
Avatar
 
 
DRShorey
Total Posts:  528
Joined  11-12-2005
 
 
 
18 September 2007 01:01
 

So mote it be.