Legal rights: was Order of Americans of Armigerous Ancestry

 
Chuck Glass
 
Avatar
 
 
Chuck Glass
Total Posts:  265
Joined  12-06-2007
 
 
 
18 February 2008 19:03
 

I guess there was no room for the arms of Imperial Russia, Mexico and The Netherlands.

 
Chuck Glass
 
Avatar
 
 
Chuck Glass
Total Posts:  265
Joined  12-06-2007
 
 
 
18 February 2008 19:03
 

I guess there was no room for the arms of Imperial Russia, Mexico and The Netherlands.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
23 February 2008 00:53
 

Joseph McMillan;54612 wrote:

. . . some have gone a little overboard in criticizing the OAAA.  Let’s remember that a lot of people consider our own interest in heraldry to be snobbish in itself and at least think twice before casting stones.


Well, I think the word "snobbish" connotes immodesty about a generally agreed-upon asset that’s at some kind of premium, and in that sense fails to capture the nature of the scorn we in the AHS are apt to provoke. The Scotsmen with whom Mike Swanson recently gave his presentation neatly captured the problem many see with the assumption of arms—not just in the U.K. but here, too, as evidenced by the Newsweek piece just discussed here. The normative view in the English-speaking world seems to be that arms are an honor legitimately acquired only as a reward from a sovereign for meritorious service of some sort. According to this view, to assume arms is at best to flatter oneself, and at worst to commit outright fraud. With some, we may succeed in arguing against the applicability of the U.K. model to our situation by citing our republican heritage and Continental counterexamples, but to a lot of people this sounds like nothing more than a self-serving rationalization.

 

I can sympathize with the feelings of exclusion engendered by lineage societies, but membership in them does at least rest on a firm bedrock of fact in a way that the right to assume arms does not. Eligibility for lineage society membership is defined by descent from a well-defined group of people (or an individual person) whose historicity and notable actions are generally not open to dispute. The value one places on those actions is of course subjective. For instance, I belong to the Military Order of the Stars and Bars, an organization for descendants of Confederate officers and government officials. Many would say my Confederate ancestors defended a reprehensible social order and are therefore best concealed, not celebrated. But no one can reasonably deny that I am in fact their descendant, even if their worthiness to be memorialized—and the significance of ancestry, period—are far from unanimously felt.

 

The "right" to assume arms in the context of the English-speaking world rests on things a bit more conjectural and abstract than bloodlines, and assuming them is certainly no less fanciful, frivolous, or self-congratulatory than belonging to a lineage society. Moreover, we encourage heraldry as vehicle for the establishment of proud family traditions—precisely the thing lineage societies cultivate, which makes it pretty hypocritical for any of us to attack them.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
23 February 2008 02:04
 

Stuart;54455 wrote:

It ought to be entitled, "Descendents of Colonists with Foreign Arms" as it celebrates the traditions of other nations (all the while breaking the laws of our own and possibly others.)


The OAAA is not breaking any laws and there’s nothing at all misleading about its name, which should be whatever the altogether harmless members want it to be. And heraldry certainly isn’t an indigenous American practice, so we can’t very well fault the OAAA for celebrating the traditions of other nations, can we?

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
23 February 2008 07:50
 

Fred White;54613 wrote:

The "right" to assume arms in the context of the English-speaking world rests on things a bit more conjectural and abstract than bloodlines, and assuming them is certainly no less fanciful, frivolous, or self-congratulatory than belonging to a lineage society. Moreover, we encourage heraldry as vehicle for the establishment of proud family traditions—precisely the thing lineage societies cultivate, which makes it pretty hypocritical for any of us to attack them.


I think there are many levels of snobbishness.

 

Anyone in the US can simply assume a coat of arms.  Such arms can be used to establish new family traditions or recognize old ones.  This practice is well within the grasp of every American.  So while an interest in heraldry or the assumption of arms may appear eccentric and snobbish to most other American, the fact is that heraldry is very open in the US as it was for hundreds of years in many continental European countries.  It welcomes all takers.  The only thing "elitist" about heraldry in the US is that so few people are aware of or even have an interest in heraldry.  In this way, it really is no more elitist than those with an interest in underwater basket weaving - presumably another narrow field of interest.

 

The same same is not true for lineage societies.  Lineage societies are closed to all but those with the requisite lineage and who have been invited to join.  This normally requires nominations from at least two other members…. not unlike an order of chivalry.  Orders are intended to be noble corporations or at the very least, elite bodies.  Lineage societies are America’s answer to orders.

 

Personally, I have nothing against lineage societies especially with their historical preservation and many charity work, but to equate the levels of snobbishness in assuming arms with the level of snobbishness in lineage societies is IMO erroneous.

 
Ben Foster
 
Avatar
 
 
Ben Foster
Total Posts:  208
Joined  12-05-2006
 
 
 
23 February 2008 08:54
 

Fred White;54613 wrote:

The normative view in the English-speaking world seems to be that arms are an honor legitimately acquired only as a reward from a sovereign for meritorious service of some sort.

 


By simply paying a fee of about $6000.

 

But seriously, a very interesting point.  I suspect that our tradition of free assumption will always meet with a degree of scorn, but we are in good company, in my opinion.  As discussed before Switzerland, Germany, Scandinavia, etc., all have traditions based on assumption.  The ultimate origin of heraldry, of course, also lies in assumption (although I have always found this to be somewhat of a pejorative term fraught with value judgments).

 
Michael Y. Medvedev
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Y. Medvedev
Total Posts:  844
Joined  18-01-2008
 
 
 
23 February 2008 09:27
 

Fred White;54613 wrote:

The "right" to assume arms in the context of the English-speaking world rests on things a bit more conjectural and abstract than bloodlines, and assuming them is certainly no less fanciful, frivolous, or self-congratulatory than belonging to a lineage society.

Dear Fred, I just cannot agree. The assumption is an ancient, primitive and fundamentally natural practice which is pretty well founded in the legal aspect (so it is about the right, not about the "right") and from which all other practices emerged. It may be regarded by some of us "fanciful, frivolous, or self-congratulatory" but it is not.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
23 February 2008 11:00
 

Ben Foster;54621 wrote:

I suspect that our tradition of free assumption will always meet with a degree of scorn.


Actually, there is more acceptance among modern British heraldists of our practice of unilateral adoption than we might think, although even many of those who understand that the UK is the deviation rather than the norm still can’t get past the notion that granted arms are better than unilaterally adopted arms. It is a position that has some basis in medieval legal writing—which treated arms granted by a sovereign as superior to those merely adopted by the bearer on his own—but in my opinion ultimately fails in light of the fact that UK granted arms are not actually given by the sovereign but by a functionary upon application and payment of fees. Furthermore, in practice even Brits don’t treat arms granted by heralds as superior to arms that were originally assumed and only much later confirmed by the heralds (or, in the Scottish case, matriculated by Lord Lyon).  Critics of Fox-Davies pointed out this inconsistency over 100 years ago—which would anyone rather have, a coat of arms that’s been in the family since 1200, or one designed by the staff at the College of Arms last week?—but his writings served the interests of the English heraldic establishment so well that the criticisms are largely ignored in British heraldic writings. Heck, English heraldic texts still assert that the supposed ban on unilateral adoption in England stems from Henry V’s 1417 order on the subject, when serious historians have known for well over 100 years that (a) the 1417 order only had to do with the bearing of arms on one specific military expedition, and (b) that royal decrees and proclamations issued without basis in either statutory or common law have not been considered binding on the subject since the reforms of the late 17th century.

 

Interestingly, however, such criticisms did inform the realization on the part of serious American heraldists, like Bolton and the NEHGS COH in the early 20th century, that assumption/unilateral adoption of arms was valid in the US.

 
Andrew J Vidal
 
Avatar
 
 
Andrew J Vidal
Total Posts:  567
Joined  13-10-2006
 
 
 
23 February 2008 13:02
 

I will say that all but one of my friends in England didn’t have a problem with the assumption of arms based on America’s lack of a heraldic authority.

As a matter of fact, one gentleman even went as far as to tell me to be wary of heralds.  As he put it, Heralds are like government employee’s with a pen.  If they can change it, they will.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
23 February 2008 13:39
 

Andrew J Vidal;54632 wrote:

As a matter of fact, one gentleman even went as far as to tell me to be wary of heralds.  As he put it, Heralds are like government employee’s with a pen.  If they can change it, they will.


That’s a hoot!

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
23 February 2008 13:49
 

Michael Y. Medvedev;54623 wrote:

. . . assumption is an ancient, primitive and fundamentally natural practice which is pretty well founded in the legal aspect (so it is about the right, not about the "right").


Philosophically, I am on the side of free assumption. Don’t get me wrong. But fundamentally, if the law doesn’t recognize a right, it doesn’t exist. Since we in the U.S. have no legal apparatus that even acknowledges the enterprise of heraldry (other than as a function of freedom of expression, I guess), it’s a perfectly appropriate nod to the skeptics to keep the inverted commas around "‘right’ to assume arms."

 
Michael Swanson
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Swanson
Total Posts:  2462
Joined  26-02-2005
 
 
 
23 February 2008 13:59
 

Fred White;54635 wrote:

Philosophically, I am on the side of free assumption. Don’t get me wrong. But fundamentally, if the law doesn’t recognize a right, it doesn’t exist. Since we in the U.S. have no legal apparatus that even acknowledges the enterprise of heraldry (other than as a function of freedom of expression, I guess), it’s a perfectly appropriate nod to the skeptics to keep the inverted commas around "‘right’ to assume arms."

 


I have wondered what laws regulate surnames in the USA and I came across this article.  For a mind-bender, just substitute "arms" for "surname" when you read it and see what you think.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20030812.html

 
Michael Y. Medvedev
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Y. Medvedev
Total Posts:  844
Joined  18-01-2008
 
 
 
23 February 2008 14:15
 

Dear Joseph,

I am inclined to think that Bartholo’s words are not to be understood too litterally; they probably may be applied metonymically to all the arms which got a formal confirmation from the State.

Dear Fred,

I understand you but in principle arms may be protected by the customary law and in certain cases as a matter of private law. Theoretically I wonder if it is absolutely impossible to get some degree of protection for assumed arms in a court of justice just because they are de facto identifyers.

Yours

 
Michael Swanson
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Swanson
Total Posts:  2462
Joined  26-02-2005
 
 
 
23 February 2008 14:39
 

Opposing Michael M., I think mass practice is a more important goal than legal protection.

I think the 800-pound-gorilla-sized myth in America (and Britain and Canada) is not the surname-arms myth, since this is so easily refuted, but the myth that coats of arms are intrinsically associated with social class.  In Continental Europe, heraldry is alive and well almost everywhere.  I think three conditions account for this: (1) young people are exposed to, and immersed in, so much good heraldry—schools, church, companies, farms, street signs, relatives, etc.—that heraldic education is implicit in daily life, (2) there is no lingering perception that arms suggest social standing, i.e., arms are more like surnames than badges of honor, and (3) heraldry is free so any poor sap can have a coat of arms.  In Britain the opposite of these conditions exist, and this undermines heraldry.  So, while government regulation is theoretically good for an ordered and controlled practice, I think such a practice is not the ultimate goal that a country should strive for.

 
Michael Y. Medvedev
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Y. Medvedev
Total Posts:  844
Joined  18-01-2008
 
 
 
23 February 2008 15:22
 

Michael Swanson;54639 wrote:

Opposing Michael M., I think mass practice is a more important goal than legal protection.

Sorry, my dear namesake, you certainly failed to oppose me because I am of the very same opinion on the predominant importance of the living good heraldry. If there is no mass practice which deserves protection, what - and indeed why - to protect?—Well, I understand that the answer is "the remains of the mass practice of the past", because the heraldic heritage deserves (and sometimes needs) protection itself, but there is no better way of protecting a tradition than to continue it.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
23 February 2008 16:25
 

Fred White;54635 wrote:

But fundamentally, if the law doesn’t recognize a right, it doesn’t exist.


A lot of people think this, but it’s basically an un-American point of view.  See the 9th Amendment to the US Constitution (and equivalent provisions in many state constitutions).