Marshalling Arms of the Presidency

 
Chuck Glass
 
Avatar
 
 
Chuck Glass
Total Posts:  265
Joined  12-06-2007
 
 
 
16 December 2007 08:48
 

Is is not acceptable for an arigerous president to impale or otherwise marshal his own hereditary arms with the official arms of the Presidency?  And if it is, would this be done only while he holds the office or could he do so even after leaving office?  Would he still use the eagle supporter?

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
17 December 2007 07:52
 

There are (in my idiosyncratic opinion) correctly speaking no "arms of the President," only "arms of the United States for Presidential use."  That issue aside, while British heraldic rules would allow such impalement, it has never been the custom in the United States.  To the best of my knowledge, none of our Presidents who have borne coats of arms, from Washington to Clinton, have followed this practice.  I think we can safely say that such marshalling of personal arms with the arms of civil office would be contrary to accepted American armorial practice.

A comment:  In my view, not combining arms of office with personal arms is more appropriate for the US view of civil office than combining them would be.  Although some Presidents (and others) seem to have had difficulty with the matter, we are supposed to distinguish between the public and private roles of our officials.  This is, I think, appropriately symbolized by the use of the national (Presidential) arms for official purposes and of the personal arms for personal purposes.

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
17 December 2007 12:08
 

Joseph,

I thought the president (from what I recall of his seal) used a differenced version of the national coat of arms (a different crest - or are those alterations insignial elements)

The evolution of the presidency is such that it would be appropriate for some armorial recognition of the person of the president on the arms of the United States used by its president. My own proposal would be to place the personal arms or device of the president on a small escutcheon on the shield of arms rather than impaling in the English style. I’m not sure how such a thing would not inappropriate in a republic. The United States would bear the arms of the President in pretense - expressing the subordination of the president to the republic he serves.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
17 December 2007 13:34
 

Here’s the blazon of the crest of the arms of the United States:


Quote:

... a glory, or, breaking through a cloud, proper, and surrounding thirteen stars, forming a constellation, argent, on an azure field


Here’s the blazon of the crest of the "Coat of arms of the President":


Quote:

... a radiating glory or, on which appears an arc of thirteen cloud puffs proper, and a constellation of thirteen mullets argent


My contention is that the latter is only a more specific description of the former, in that the number of puffs in the cloud is specified, but that an emblazonment that conforms to the latter blazon also by definition conforms to the former.

 

This interpretation is supported by the fact that several early emblazonments of the national arms, before anyone had ever heard of the Presidential arms, have the same basic arrangement of rays, clouds, and stars.

 

1786 engraving by James Trenchard (rays breaking through arc of cloud puffs with stars underneath):

http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/uploads/Official/Trenchard.jpg

 

1793 Indian peace medal (rays breaking through arc of cloud puffs with stars underneath):

http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/uploads/Official/IndPeace.jpg

 

1797 $5 gold piece (cloud in the form of an arc of cloud puffs, with stars underneath)

http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/uploads/Official/17975.jpg

 

 

Thus, I would contend, the arms as shown on the Presidential seal are merely a different emblazonment of the same coat of arms shown on the great seal, just as there are different emblazonments of the arms of other countries for different purposes, such as the British arms as used by Parliament, as displayed above the doors of British embassies, as worn on the sleeve of warrant officers of the British Army, etc.

 

As noted, this is an idiosyncratic position which I have little hope that others will ever accept.

 

As for George’s proposal for how the national and personal arms of the President should be marshalled, it is, I suppose of academic interest, but I am confident that any President who tried this would find himself the target of unbearable national ridicule, if not wrath.  This simply is not our way.

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
17 December 2007 13:52
 

I find myself in the weird position of seeing things in a more rigid/restricted republican manner, as opposed to my more liberal/open feelings on republican heraldry even within an egalitarian republic normally, on this one and in so doing I couldn’t agree more than the 100% I do with Joe on the use of a marshalling of president’s personal arms with those of the republic he serves and protects.

I don’t know that it is an “accepted” thing not to do so as there, IMHO only, isn’t much general care for heraldry in the population (as the general populace and not that part that is interested in heraldry) – as opposed to our good neighbors to the north even though they are not a republic. It could be Joe is more educated on that than I and is therefore right…I just dunno on that part of it.

 

But, irrespective of the “accepted” idea or not I do think Joe is dead on right in that it just would seem too…..far reaching…..and in so being appear really fake…..for me to see the personal arms of a president with those that are used for his office. If, however, one day it came to be via legislation and all then I would not complain, but I would prefer it not happen at all and simply stay the way it is.

 

Disclaimer: I did not always hold this position and once thought that they not only could, which they may be able to, but should. Obviously I don’t hold that view now.

 
Cristian A. C.
 
Avatar
 
 
Cristian A. C.
Total Posts:  46
Joined  06-12-2007
 
 
 
17 December 2007 14:56
 

Perhaps we could look to other republics and see how their leaders used their arms with their national arms. Although they weren’t exactly founded on the most egalitarian of ideals, we could see what, if anything the leaders of Venice (or any of the number of Italian Republics of the time), the Dutch Republic, or the Swiss did with their arms in relation to the arms of their republic. A more similar republic to compare to philosophically would be the French Republic, but I don’t know if the revolutionaries would have continued with heraldry or if they would have found it contrary to egalitarian principles. Perhaps we could even see if any modern republic has or has recently had a president or other leader that has used their coat of arms with the national arms somehow and see how they’ve done it.

 
Dohrman Byers
 
Avatar
 
 
Dohrman Byers
Total Posts:  760
Joined  02-08-2007
 
 
 
17 December 2007 15:34
 

I agree wholeheartedly with those who consider the marshaling of a president’s personal arms with those of the republic as profoundly un-American. The marshalling of personal and jurisdictional/official arms on one shield suggests a more personal union between the individual office holder and the body politic which he/she serves than befits the American understanding of government. The president is not a sovereign, and is not in his/her person "wedded" to the nation. He/she is, at best, one of three co-equal branches of the government which serves the sovereign people. To marshal his/her personal arms with those of the United States would seem a usurpation.

On the other had, I would see no problem with a president’s incoporating some of the elements of the the national and/or presidential insignia into his/her coa as augmentations, either on or outside the shield, in commemoration of his/her service.

 

As for other republics, the French republics have generally eschewed the use of arms. Some presidents have adopted monograms or badges to display on the national colors, as a presidential flag; but the French Republic itself uses only the RF monogram, not heraldic arms.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
17 December 2007 16:29
 

At the risk of redundant waste of bandwidth, Ditto to most of what’s already been said.  Unlike a king or even a bishop, whose rank is personal to them, the President (or any other American office-holder) is, like the Roman hero Cincinnatus (sp?) primarily a private citizen who only temporarily is vested with the authority of his or her office.

There is a social convention of addressing ex-Presidents, ex-Governors, ex-Senators etc by their former title, but there is not & never has been, here, a corresponding social convention for arms.  And this is not merely an absence of any historical precedent; rather, there are any number of examples of former Presidents, governors, senators etc. who have used personal or family arms but AFAIK have never marshalled them with the insignia of their office, either during or following their term of office.  Elsewhere in the world, perhaps; but not here.

 

I’m not even comfortable with inventing some sort of external additament for former Presidents etc.  If they have been awarded some order or other for their public service, fine; that award is theirs after they leave office (or in the case of an American President, AFAIK none have ever received such an award during their term—they may have before being elected, or after they have left office, & those would IMO be fair game; but the award stands on its own merits, it doesn’t "come with the job" and there is (& IMO shouldn’t be) any "Legion of Post-Presidential Honor" awarded by our government.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
17 December 2007 16:35
 

I’m glad Fr. Byers brought up the "wedded to the position" point.  In classic British common law theory, believe it or not, an office is considered a type of property (an incorporeal hereditament, like dignities, titles, easements, corodies, tithes, and many other things) with which the holder is vested in the same way he is vested with any other property.  The language of letters patent conferring office (even in the United States) is strikingly similar to that conferring land, monopolies to the development of inventions (patents), and other kinds of property.  Some offices are held for a term of years, some during the pleasure of the sovereign, some for life, and some (like the Earl Marshal-ship of England) by the grantee and his heirs forever.

Some early American jurists held that the same was true in the US—that the President, for example, actually had a non-assignable property right to the office of the Presidency that was valid for a term of four years; the Chief Justice a similar right during good behavior.  However, this understanding was generally rejected within the first couple of decades, and we came to understand office more in a fiduciary light, as a trust of which the public official is the trustee, not the owner.  The guarantee of the office-holder’s entitlement to his office is not a common-law property right but the language of the Constitution or statute establishing the office.

 

On the other matter, how other republics do and have done things heraldically is truly an interesting question, but ultimately it has no more to do with this particular republic than English heraldic practice has to do with Spain or Japan.

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
17 December 2007 18:27
 

Michael F. McCartney;52309 wrote:

At the risk of redundant waste of bandwidth, Ditto to most of what’s already been said.  Unlike a king or even a bishop, whose rank is personal to them, the President (or any other American office-holder) is, like the Roman hero Cincinnatus (sp?) primarily a private citizen who only temporarily is vested with the authority of his or her office.


I’ve spontaneously burst into song.

 

"Hail to the Chief we have chosen for the nation,

Hail to the Chief! We salute him, one and all.

Hail to the Chief, as we pledge cooperation

In proud fulfillment of a great, noble call.

Yours is the aim to make this grand country grander,

This you will do, that’s our strong, firm belief.

Hail to the one we selected as commander,

Hail to the President! Hail to the Chief!"

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
17 December 2007 18:48
 

Joseph McMillan;52310 wrote:

On the other matter, how other republics do and have done things heraldically is truly an interesting question, but ultimately it has no more to do with this particular republic than English heraldic practice has to do with Spain or Japan.


Of course Joseph is correct in this - it is ultimately about US sensibilities not foreign practices - and the spontaneous reaction of a fair number of posters makes it clear that marshalling of any sort would not fly with heraldists let alone the greater population. It is a non-starter. At the same HE the President is the chief Executive of the republic and is not further accountable (except when impeached and convicted of trason, bribery, etc.) in the lawful exercise of his powers. The office of president is wedded for its term to a specific man.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
17 December 2007 20:38
 

Well, whether he’s "wedded" to the job or just shacking up till the next election is sometimes a matter of debate smile —if I were to ask about Lewinski most Americans wouldn’t assume I was asking about arms.

If we’re searching for foreign precedents (no pun intended) perhaps a better one might be the practice of a new dynasty sometimes dropping their former arms entirely & adopting the arms of sovereignty of their new realm.

 

What was the practice of the elective Polish kings, for example?  Quartering with e.g. Lithuania would have signified the union of two nations; but was that done with "mere" family arms?  (Not looking to start a lengthy diversion off-topic to this thread, but thought that a brief look at an elective chief of state might be an interesting comparison.)

 
Cristian A. C.
 
Avatar
 
 
Cristian A. C.
Total Posts:  46
Joined  06-12-2007
 
 
 
17 December 2007 21:22
 

Quote:

On the other matter, how other republics do and have done things heraldically is truly an interesting question, but ultimately it has no more to do with this particular republic than English heraldic practice has to do with Spain or Japan.

Quote:

Of course Joseph is correct in this - it is ultimately about US sensibilities not foreign practices - and the spontaneous reaction of a fair number of posters makes it clear that marshalling of any sort would not fly with heraldists let alone the greater population. It is a non-starter. At the same HE the President is the chief Executive of the republic and is not further accountable (except when impeached and convicted of trason, bribery, etc.) in the lawful exercise of his powers. The office of president is wedded for its term to a specific man.

I never meant to imply that we look to these other republics and copy what they did simply because they were republics and did things that way. I only meant to suggest that if people wanted to marshall the the arms of the president (as it appears isn’t very popular to begin with)—and as there is no precedent of it happening in our nation—to look for some way to do it that is consistent with our values as an egalitarian republic, we could look to what was done in other republics and see if any of their methods would be suitable in our own country’s tradition.

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
17 December 2007 21:39
 

Michael F. McCartney;52316 wrote:

Well, whether he’s "wedded" to the job or just shacking up till the next election is sometimes a matter of debate smile Several Saxe kings

In contrast when Poland was partitioned the arms of the Polish Tsar Nicholas I placed Poland in pretense on his arms and the Prussian Grand Duchy of Poznan placed Great Poland in pretense on Prussia. The difference (reversal) is significant.