Legal rights: was Order of Americans of Armigerous Ancestry

 
Nick B II
 
Avatar
 
 
Nick B II
Total Posts:  203
Joined  26-11-2007
 
 
 
26 February 2008 12:37
 

Joseph McMillan;54644 wrote:

The details are buried somewhere in some other thread, but as I’ve mentioned before there is one US court case that decided exactly this:  Orsini v. Eastern Wine Corporation, back in the 1940s.  Maybe the only thing that’s kept other similar decisions from being made is that no one has brought a lawsuit for armorial infringement.  Of course, Orsini was able to show actual damages—Eastern Wine was making money off his armorial identity.  Simple usurpation might not suffice, but who knows?

It almost certainly would not suffice. The US Courts are very big on "standing to sue," and you only have standing if there’s a monetary dispute.

If many people would have to know about your coat of arms, and were able to identify it as yours you could have a case because the Courts recognize a person’s reputation has monetary value. If the other side were making money off your Coat of Arms you might have standing, because you might be entitled to some of it. But they’d probably decide that figuring out the laws of heraldry is way above a District Judges pay-grade, and dismiss the case out-of-hand.

 

Nick

 
Andrew J Vidal
 
Avatar
 
 
Andrew J Vidal
Total Posts:  567
Joined  13-10-2006
 
 
 
26 February 2008 15:11
 

Patrick Williams;54740 wrote:

I am a serious amateur genealogist and have done extensive work on my ancestors. My mother and her family were thrilled at the scope of my research until I demonstrated that they could all become members of DAR/SAR and announced my intention of joining. To them, all Southwest Missouri farmers of humble origin, DAR/SAR and any other heritage society is "putting on airs". Therefore, while membership in SAR is "natural and appropriate to my station in life", to my mother, her surviving siblings and my cousins on her side of the family, it is a betrayal of shared family values.

 


Funny how small our world is!  My father had a very similar reaction when I began to delve into our family past, and his sister (my aunt) was very upset because she thought I was "rooting in other peoples closets".  My father thought I was trying to prove I was descended from royalty/nobility and didn’t understand my intentions.

 

Luckily, once he saw what I was able to dig up on his mother’s side (such as his great grandfather x4 being a Civil War Vet) he began to sing a very different tune.  My aunt…not so much!

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
26 February 2008 16:32
 

Very interesting how different families react in different ways.  My relatives all take it for granted that when people reach a certain age they will become genealogically obsessed, preferably for the purpose of proving eligibility for the DAR.  Less so for the male counterpart organizations (although I actually did join the SR and have a whole stack of additional lineages to submit if I ever get around to it).  My main motive for joining the SR was that it allows me free use of the DAR library for further research., but I have distant cousins who have enthusiastically seized on my research to file their DAR papers.  Maybe it’s a Southern thing.

At the same time, I wish I could remember which President it was who observed that the only member of his family with a proven noble lineage with his dog.  And yet even with a pedigree full of champions, he was still a son of a bitch.  There’s a lesson there somewhere.

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
26 February 2008 17:25
 

Fascinating thread. I’m amused by some of the stories of over-reaching one’s station and recognizing that better than or worse than are all relics of the stratified social order and fundamentally unegalitarian. How rarefied is the air in the SAR after-all if the descendents of poor Missouri farmers qualify for membership. There are numerous ways of defining us/them and all of them are unfortunate if they stand in the way of bridging an ‘us’ where we had presumed to be only a ‘them’.

I’m also bemused by the idea that elites are suspect (professional sports and acting excepted) and that within this looking at heritage is somehow even more suspect - or that we should feign some amnesia and tunnel vision to only look at individuals through their individual accomplishments - as though each individual should be seen as though they had no mother or father or siblings or history for that matter. Elites are natural in any society and they are undoubtedly raised, supported and nurtured. Certain families and institutions can be a crucible for this process. Strong shared traditions oriented towards leadership and service, as well as strong bonds of kinship and association are all helpful in supporting this process - as long as a healthy openness or accesibility to talented others from outside this network remains. As in centuries past education, financial prowess, military or government service, unique talents or simple good fortune can lead to an entree of others into a society’s elite while the vagaries of misfortune and the disinclination to nurture leadership, service and the bonds of kinship or association can lead to drifting away from participation in any society’s elite.

 

I will draw on the example of a republic much older than that of the United States. Poland disappeared off Europe’s map in the eighteenth century. After more than a century of partition among foreign empires, two terrible world wars the last resulting in the death of almost 20% of the population and the ravages of communism all of which took a particularly great toll on what were the historical families - it is interesting to take a look at the disproportionate representation of historic families in the modern political, economic, military and social life of the country - something that could only be accounted for by the beneficial effects of heritage (certainly not in a genetic sense - but in the transmission of an ethos of leadership and service).

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
26 February 2008 19:52
 

George Lucki;54736 wrote:

If a person is behaving in a way that is ‘natural and appropriate to his station in life’ - in other words being himself, how can that possibly be affected regardless of how someone else might view it? Affected by definition implies some behaviour that has been assumed artificially and falsely. . .

Only the first of them is correct . . .


George, since the original question hinges on matters that are ultimately subjective, my point was that neither person is necessarily right or wrong, although I agree with the substance of the remainder of your post above. Of course, "affected" by definition entails artifice and falsehood, but a person can sincerely believe his behavior to be in perfect accordance with his station while seeming like a perfect ass to someone else. At the same time, a person who bristles with antagonism at the imputation of honor to circumstances of birth may be engaging in nothing more than reverse snobbery, which to me is no less distasteful than ostentation for reasons encapsulated in both of your most recent posts. Elites are natural in any society, there is such a thing as intergenerational rootedness in laudable ways, and to deny this or try to obstruct it is to be oblivious of the facts of life. I do, however, fervently embrace the idea that elites need to have transparent rules of entry and to be accessible to new talent.  I also know that it is well within the power of rising generations to completely undo all that has been done for them and find themselves right back where their ancestors started.

 
Michael Swanson
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Swanson
Total Posts:  2462
Joined  26-02-2005
 
 
 
26 February 2008 20:00
 

The democratic model of heraldry (as opposed to the British aristocratic model) is more supportive of families and ancestral histories since it allows more families—including families without noble bloodlines or resources needed to buy into the system—to acquire arms.  So I think we can say that one system is better than another.

The fact that many Americans have aristocratic obsessions is really not a good argument to favor one system of heraldic acquisition over another.  I think the "People Magazine" obsessed should not be our gold standard.

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
26 February 2008 20:52
 

Ben Foster;54738 wrote:

I think you have hit on a fundamental tension in American society. We have strong populist sentiments (with a disdain for the trappings of privilege) coupled with a fascination for elites.

The American concept of an "elite" has more to do with personal accomplishment (education, business/professional) than birth, but that is not to say that we do not see the concentration of wealth and power in certain families (as you note in your examples).

 

Still, I think that the perception of heraldry as pretentious has alot to do with the perception in America that status should come from personal accomplishment and not the so-called genetic lottery.


Thank you for your post. I do agree with your point.

 

However….. the weird thing about the article I cited was that its author (presumably an average American), had no problem about people inheriting arms "from the time of the Magna Carta", but did find it pretentious for modern Americans to seek a grant of arms/assume arms.  In other words, the author did not seem to ridicule those that inherit arms by the "genetic lottery", but did seem to ridicule those that sought new arms.  So old ancestral arms are okay, but not modern arms even though modern arms in the Scottish, English and Canadian concept are earned and assumed arms make no pretension to ancient nobility.

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
26 February 2008 20:55
 

Charles E. Drake;54743 wrote:

Hopefully for a chuckle.

From the New Yorker, 1936, by Arthur Guiterman:

 

The D.A.R.lings

Chatter like starlings

Telling their ancestors’ names,

While grimly aloof

With looks of reproof,

Sit the Colonial Dames.

And The Cincinnati

All merry and chatty

Dangle their badges and pendants,

But haughty and proud

Disdaining the crowd

Brood the Mayflower Descendants.

 


I chuckled!!!  :D Thank you for your posts.

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
26 February 2008 21:03
 

Joseph McMillan;54760 wrote:

Very interesting how different families react in different ways.  My relatives all take it for granted that when people reach a certain age they will become genealogically obsessed….....


Of course genealogy is also a very American/New World thing.  My old world relatives think it’s all a bunch of pretentious nonsense when I began delving into my family tree.  They don’t feel any need to dig up their ancestors in a search of some "lost" heritage since they never left the old country and their curiosity has never been piqued.

 


Joseph McMillan;54760 wrote:

At the same time, I wish I could remember which President it was who observed that the only member of his family with a proven noble lineage with his dog.  And yet even with a pedigree full of champions, he was still a son of a bitch.  There’s a lesson there somewhere.


:D   I have a gut feeling it was Thomas Jefferson or maybe Andrew Jackson.

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
26 February 2008 21:16
 

The British model of heraldry is not one that is ‘aristocratic’ although there are some elements these being the notion that arms are granted to individuals who are not only desirous of arms but also evaluated to be in the Scottish sense "virtous and well-deserving" or in the British sense "having acquired gentility". In neither case is the bar set at all high. Some combination of middling family heritage or a university education or military or government or community service is sufficient along with some money to cover the cost of the associated fees - fees that while high are not impossible for many people and quite reasonable for the service provided. Think of the cost of legal or medical or dental services or the price of a well used yet reliable vehicle and you have a reasonable comparison of cost. Given that grants are forever then this is one of the few things that is bought that can be said to appreciate rather than depreciate at time (although it is intangible and can’t really be sold). But grants of arms do not ennoble in themselves and the status of the armiger is not at all a lofty one. I really am clear that things of value are worth their cost - and even individuals of modest means if they really wish a grant of arms should be able to afford one sacrificing things that they value less than creating a symbol of their heritage and lineage.

I am myself not overly fond of the bureaucritization of heraldry but the American system is in one sense poor with respect to the British or some of the earlier continental ones. Assumed arms in the US are a purely private and individual undertaking and without any honour in that sense (and I’m not suggesting that there is no honour in the individual who assumes them or that they might not be a treasured family heritage but they are simply private keepsakes or mementos. It is frequently (and this is my theory) misunderstood but grants of arms are a species of honour. The petitioners wishes to create an armorial connection between themselves and their sovereign or nation and petitions for arms that he might bear as a citizen of the realm and might pass on to his descendents. The sovereign representing the polity honours the recipient with the gift of a unique symbol that the recipient bears not just as a private symbol but as a public one - arms that through the request and gift registered publicly connect the individual and their lineage to the sovereign and the nation. Bearing arms you bear not only a personal device but a ‘national’ one peculiar to yourself or your family - and so it also was when knights wore or carried their own arms into battle on behalf of their king. Their personal surcoat or banner was also their uniform. Historically ‘noble’ arms (granted or recognized) connected individuals to the nation and created a symbolic bond. If you browse through the books of the Register of Arms Flags and Badges of Canada (and by analogy the English or Scottish registers) you will find both the personal armorial bearings of individuals and the corporate bearings of universities, municipalities, police forces, etc. It was for this reason that I wished to see my Polish arms entered undifferenced into the Canadian register - because they are the arms of my heritage and a symbol of my presence here. Although it was clear that without any fear of the heraldry police there was no obstacle to my simply using them, I wanted to see them included in the Canadian Register along with the other personal arms that are symbols of Canadians. In the same volume along with my confirmation (not grant because my right to arms predates any recognition or registration) in sequence are the arms of military units, municipalities, universities, symbols of national institutions and local societies - and all of these are really Canadian symbols properly used by constituent elements of our polity, all connected to one another and to Canada through the sovereign and through her register.

 

I can claim with some truth that my arms are no different than the arms of the city or the province or the badge a military unit - those are the officially recorded Canadian symbols proper to the city, province or military unit and my arms are the Canadian symbol proper to my lineage and they all have a connection with our Queen and through our head of state with one another.

No American assuming arms has the benefit of such a connection between their arms and the republic - they are not symbols confirmed by the republic or any state as a gift or connection with that polity. Canadian or British arms are not an honour because they elevate an individual (they don’t) but because they create a connection between individual and national heritage. In exchyange for that connection it seems reasonable that some test of service or accomplishment and some willingness to cover the cost would be in order.

 
Charles E. Drake
 
Avatar
 
 
Charles E. Drake
Total Posts:  553
Joined  27-05-2006
 
 
 
27 February 2008 01:51
 

George Lucki;54761 wrote:

Fascinating thread. I’m amused by some of the stories of over-reaching one’s station and recognizing that better than or worse than are all relics of the stratified social order and fundamentally unegalitarian. How rarefied is the air in the SAR after-all if the descendents of poor Missouri farmers qualify for membership.


I have done genealogy for over 35 years.  When I started, the idea of joining an hereditary society seemed totally out of reach.  However, as my research progressed, I began to see that joining some of them was possible.  I joined a few, and later joined many more. It has become something of a challenge to prove the lineages.  I also see it as a way to validate my research, as well as to preserve it for relatives and future generations.

 

I have not been able to qualify for some because I don’t have the requisite ancestry. I have been lucky, however, in that I could find ancestral lines for most that I set my sights on.  I did have some advantages, however, mainly that most of my ancestors have been in this country for centuries.

 

I found that joining one organization often led to meeting someone who belonged to another and could serve as a sponsor. It is a bit like playing checkers, jumping from one square to another. In a few cases I have simply said that I’m sure I would know someone who is a member, if I only knew who the members were, and the secretary has given me a list of members in my area, so I could approach them.

 

My wife, whose ancestry is almost totally French Canadian, and whose ancestors came to the United States after the War Between the States, qualifies for almost no hereditary societies.  And yet our daughter will qualify through me.  In a few generations, every family who fails to qualify now, will qualify through intermarriage (save for the new immigrants, who will have to wait a few generations). It seems to me that such organizations will tend to become more broadly represented in the population over time.

 

In my experience, the air inside most of these groups is not rarefied at all.  I entertained some misconception about this years ago, but once I became a member, I found very little snobbery, and I think what non-members think they see is mostly projection of their own fears. It is a lot like the fears some entertain about people from other countries or about what goes on inside fraternal organizations or different religions. Once you get inside the group or get to know the people, you find that all people are pretty much alike, and there is usually nothing scary there at all.

 

Kind regards,

 

/Charles

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
27 February 2008 02:57
 

George Lucki;54768 wrote:

I am myself not overly fond of the bureaucritization of heraldry but the American system is in one sense poor with respect to the British or some of the earlier continental ones. . . . The petitioners wishes to create an armorial connection between themselves and their sovereign or nation and petitions for arms that he might bear as a citizen of the realm and might pass on to his descendents. . . . No American assuming arms has the benefit of such a connection between their arms and the republic - they are not symbols confirmed by the republic or any state as a gift or connection with that polity.


I agree that this is a regrettable state of affairs, but I have a hard time imagining it ever changing.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
27 February 2008 03:10
 

Charles E. Drake;54769 wrote:

My wife, whose ancestry is almost totally French Canadian, and whose ancestors came to the United States after the War Between the States, qualifies for almost no hereditary societies.


FYI, your wife almost certainly qualifies for the Society of the Daughters of the King and the Soldiers of the Carignan (http://www.fillesduroi.org/index.html). I think there’s hardly anyone of French Canadian descent who doesn’t have at least one qualifying ancestor. I found out about this organization when I was looking into my direct paternal line, which from my great-grandfather back is entirely French Canadian ("Wilfred Henri Leblanc" became "Fred Henry White").


Charles E. Drake;54769 wrote:

In my experience, the air inside most of these groups is not rarefied at all.


Mine, too. Even the ones that do strive for an elevated tone (like the ones mentioned in the New Yorker poem you posted) are populated mainly with people who are basically magnanimous and hospitable. But I think George was being facetious, BTW. He knows the air in the SAR is none too rarefied.

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
27 February 2008 03:22
 

Fred, you’ve seen through me. smile Goodness, how rarefied can groups be that might accept the likes of present company.

Actually any association that is based in interest in heritage and community service is one that is likely to draw some fine people.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
27 February 2008 03:24
 

It’s too bad Canada won’t grant arms to persons of Canadian descent. I think I’d go for it.