Legal rights: was Order of Americans of Armigerous Ancestry

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
27 February 2008 05:08
 

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. Assumed arms in the US are a purely private and individual undertaking .....

No American assuming arms has the benefit of .... 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.

 


What you say is quite true.  But from a US context, however, such a formal connection whereby a the Federal government or a State agency grants arms might not be appropriate.  The US FFs gave little thought to private heraldry and left it totally unregulated and unrecognized unlike the Canadian model.

 

While I remain a big fan of the South African model of heraldry (i.e., any person can simply assume arms on their own, but arms registered with the State body receive legal protection), I think even this relatively liberal model would not do well in the US.  I would be much, much more content with just having private, assumed arms being granted legal protection (i.e., recognized and protected in US law as a form of property).  In that way, all Americans would be able to assume arms willy nilly and they would receive protection for their arms on par with what might be seen in South Africa and certainly in Scotland.  I think this is a much more plausible goal than a national, state-run heraldic office dispensing arms as honours.

 

Now regarding the lack of connection between American armigers and the federal government or their state, perhaps this could be rectified, unofficially of course.  Here are some suggestions:

 

1.  American armigers might choose to display some national symbol or American flag in the hoist of their standard.  Historically, the hoist of an armiger’s standard would have displayed the arms or national symbol of the armiger’s nation or Kingdom.  Scots display a "Azure, a saltire Argent".  The English display "Argent a cross Gules".  Perhaps we Americans might display our national flag in the hoist or perhaps an earlier version of the flag.  Those with a strong southern heritage might want to display a differenced version of the confederate flag in their hoist.  Those whose ancestors took part in the revolutionary war might want to include one of the earlier American flags into the hoist of their standard.

 

2.  Perhaps a canton or other similar charge could be devised to represent US heritage/citizenship.  A canton Azure charged with a mullet Argent might be useful for identifying American armigers.  Likewise, a border Azure charged with 13 mullets Argent might be used as well.

 

3.  Armigers with a passion for their state might want to include the state flower, tree, bird, animal, etc. in their arms.  Perhaps a canton or device placed in the hoists of the armigers’ standards would also be possible.

 

The above are just 3 easy ideas.  Certainly someone more creative and artistic can come up even better suggestions.

 

Best regards,

 

Edward

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
27 February 2008 05:09
 

Fred White;54774 wrote:

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


Or persons with significant connections to Canada such as education in Canada, service to Canada by non-Canadians, etc.

 

The Canadians also have a wonderful system of heraldry (its pretty much wide open), of which they should be extremely proud.

 
Michael Swanson
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Swanson
Total Posts:  2462
Joined  26-02-2005
 
 
 
27 February 2008 08:50
 

George Lucki;54768 wrote:

... Given that grants are forever ...

... 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 descendants. ....


Thanks, George, for explaining the royalist mindset.

 

If a grant is forever, and its authority is derivative from the government, then one assumes government is forever.  However, America’s founding fathers saw the American government (and all governments) as temporary by definition, and subject to overthrow.  In the Declaration we see a statement of that belief:


Quote:

That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


Making   a grant (or registration) necessary for heraldry does not make sense if the goal is to have a cross generational family symbol, since one would want symbols of family to survive new governments.


Quote:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.  (Jefferson, letter to W.S. Smith, Nov. 13, 1787)


Perhaps this is why continental Europeans, with their many historical changes in government, see heraldry differently.

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
27 February 2008 09:12
 

Michael,

You don’t understand. The grants of arms derive from the sovereign or head of state and not from the government. Governments come and go the state continues. This is as true of constitutional monarchies as republics. I don’t think that what I am writing applies any less to the continental perspective (as varied as that is) - and does not require a bureaucratized heraldry but some official recognition of arms as an honour derived from the connection between the armiger and state through the bearing of arms. I’ve also drawn analogy to bearing arms in the ancient Polish republic and its hould be remembered that Poles elected their kings. I could also have drawn analogy to absolutist states such as Napoleonic arms.

Jefferson’s quote though is rather appalling - containing within in the seeds of a potentially new tyranny of revolution or terror - but then the United States had a regrettably violent birth and history,

 
Michael Swanson
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Swanson
Total Posts:  2462
Joined  26-02-2005
 
 
 
27 February 2008 09:24
 

George Lucki;54780 wrote:

Michael,

You don’t understand. The grants of arms derive from the sovereign or head of state and not from the government. Governments come and go the state continues.


Jefferson was talking about abolishing the whole thing and starting over, even making a new state or states from the old.  It is a more radical idea than you suppose.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
27 February 2008 09:58
 

George Lucki;54780 wrote:

- but then the United States had a regrettably violent birth and history,


Yes, indeed. Too bad the Brits wouldn’t just let us go peacefully. Or even have acceded to our reasonable demands for self-government in personal union with the Crown before a complete divorce became unavoidable. Canada was very fortunate that by the 1860s London had learned from the nasty experience of 1775-1781.

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
27 February 2008 10:57
 

Joseph McMillan;54782 wrote:

.....Too bad the Brits wouldn’t just .... acceded to our reasonable demands for self-government in personal union with the Crown before a complete divorce became unavoidable. Canada was very fortunate that by the 1860s London had learned from the nasty experience of 1775-1781.


That would have been interesting.  Then perhaps we would have our own national heraldic authority much like the one that currently exists in Canada.  On the other, I am pretty happy with the current state of affairs.  IMO, no national heraldic authority is necessary.  What I would like to see is less disdain for heraldry from the greater US public, and federal laws recognizing assumed arms as property.

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
27 February 2008 12:41
 

Joseph McMillan;54782 wrote:

Yes, indeed. Too bad the Brits wouldn’t just let us go peacefully. Or even have acceded to our reasonable demands for self-government in personal union with the Crown before a complete divorce became unavoidable. Canada was very fortunate that by the 1860s London had learned from the nasty experience of 1775-1781.


Quite right. Had there been a more measured approach and peaceable approach on both sides the secession might not have occurred or occurred more amicably. With respect to Canada I think it important to note that despite incursions by our neighbours to the south both in the aftermath of the 1775 troubles and during the Napoleonic conflict the northern colonies chose to stay with the crown and there was little popular secessionist sentiment. Even in teh 1860s the establishment of a united Canada was a progression toward effective and responsible government and not a secessionist movement. There are differing models of moving towards liberty and democracy. I favour the rule of law and reform over revolution.

 

I also make no suggestion that liberties should not be protected vigorously or that liberties lost by violence should not be regained by whatever means necessary - rather my critical observation about Mr. Jefferson’s comment comes from a perspective that responsible government along with the rule of law is the greatest guarantor of liberty - citizens vigorously protecting their natural and legal liberties by active (small p) political participation and through the effective execution of stable laws will prevent the devlopment of tyranny and address any legitimate grievances. This is an aside from the heraldic but the discussion is germane to the status of arms and the relationship between teh individual and the state.

 

Michael - your contrast between ‘royalist’ and republican-democratic, I think is based upon some unfortunate stereotypes and a bit of a caricature. The freedoms and status of citizens of modern constitutional monarchies is little different from that of citizens of a republic. The United Kingdom, the several Commonwealth realms, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, Norway, Luxembourg are all examples of mature democratic constitutional monarchies - and I think you would be hard-pressed to suggest that the liberties of the citizens of these states are in any way diminished. An argument could be made that some of the European states have achieved a more perfect liberty than the United States by virtue of their creation of a stronger social welfare saftey net that removes obstacles to citizens’ fuller participation in their society.

 

Returning to the question of the continuity of the state - the United States’ sovereignty as I understand it is based upon the will of the people and however they might choose to reorganize the machinery of government the sovereignty of the people through their constitution for a United States continues through the various changes of government (Presidents and executives) and legislatures. You will find I think that the laws and sovereignty of constitutional monarchies also derives from the people though it may be embodied symbolically in the monarch as head of state. Monarchy and republic are not necessarily exclusive concepts - the 1st Polish republic 16th-18th centuries was one in which the position of the monarch was as the elective chief executive of the republic. Spain is an example of a country that in its move towards democracy returned to a constitutional monarchy and the Netherlands’ republican and federal tradtions and most importantly their development of a model of consensus based government are tied closely to the stabilizing role of the constitutional monarchy.

 
Michael Swanson
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Swanson
Total Posts:  2462
Joined  26-02-2005
 
 
 
27 February 2008 16:52
 

George Lucki;54784 wrote:

Monarchy and republic are not necessarily exclusive concepts ...


Of course.  My limited point is that the American colonial revolutionaries patched together the present democratic republic, but stated—shockingly—that it was not meant to be eternal.  People have the moral right to pull the plug. This option exists outside the rule of law—as a moral right.  My suggestion is that if   cross-generational symbols can outlast the state, then assumption is the right way to think about acquisition.  Legal protections should be thought of, by definition, as protections offered only within each incarnation of the state.  An analog to this point is thinking of the high mobility of people, and how they move from country to country, and what effect this has on cross generational symbols if local regulations suppress their use in certain jurisdictions.

 

My mention of "royalist thought" is not against certain governments, but concerns a mindset that assumes that the state/monarchy will rule forever and people derive their identity from the sovereign.  As long as subjects of the state don’t move anywhere else, and the state allows them to keep their family symbols, then all is right in their world.

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
27 February 2008 18:04
 

Michael Swanson;54788 wrote:

Of course.  My limited point is that the American colonial revolutionaries patched together the present democratic republic, but stated—shockingly—that it was not meant to be eternal.  People have the moral right to pull the plug. This option exists outside the rule of law—as a moral right.  My suggestion is that if   cross-generational symbols can outlast the state, then assumption is the right way to think about acquisition.  Legal protections should be thought of, by definition, as protections offered only within each incarnation of the state.  An analog to this point is thinking of the high mobility of people, and how they move from country to country, and what effect this has on cross generational symbols if local regulations suppress their use in certain jurisdictions.


What I think you are getting it as what I would call individual sovereignty - each of us as individuals is sovereign in the sense that we command our will and make choices relative to our allegiance. We have the capacity to rebel and perhaps in terms of the natural law of men sometimes sufficient reason to do so.

 

When it comes to arms you are focused on acquisition - on arms as property - how one comes into possession of property, protects it and transmits it. Arms can also be thought of as identity - much as a name or a signature - is a signature a property or is it a stand-in for the person? Arms can also be considered as a link - a symbol of a connection between father and son or between siblings or even extended family or an organization, church, etc. - and my discussion have focused on the relationship between personal arms and the larger polity and the extent to which arms borne by a citizen are specific symbols of the polity particular to one of its members. Remember that arms have their origin in mediaeval times - individual military service and feudal relationships. Their various meaningas and functions were shaped at this time and some echo of them continues.


Quote:

My mention of "royalist thought" is not against certain governments, but concerns a mindset that assumes that the state/monarchy will rule forever and people derive their identity from the sovereign.  As long as subjects of the state don’t move anywhere else, and the state allows them to keep their family symbols, then all is right in their world.


Sovereigns can also take their identity from their people as in the King of the Belgians, as a servant of the sovereign crown (Hungary), etc. I would not generalise to ‘royalist thought’. I think that if we recognize that states including monarchies have a legal personality and a corporate existence we will recognzie that some sort of mutual relationship between state and subject or citizen exists. I am musing about the advantages of official recognition of heraldry integrating private symbols withg the larger community, state, nation of which they are a member.

 
Charles E. Drake
 
Avatar
 
 
Charles E. Drake
Total Posts:  553
Joined  27-05-2006
 
 
 
27 February 2008 18:24
 

George Lucki wrote:
Quote:

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.


As one who leans toward a royalist position I agree here.  But I think part of the problem lies with the word "honour." Usually we associate this word with the honours system and think of an honour as an award given by the sovereign for some service. I prefer to think of granted arms as an honour in the sense of medieval property.  An honour was, specifically, a large fief, which conveyed a special status to its holder. Similarly, granted arms are a form of property which descend according to medieval rules and which also convey a certain status (armiger in the granting jurisdiction). It is not unreasonable that one pays a fee to get granted arms, for one usually pays for property received, unless it is inherited.

 

Fred White wrote:
Quote:

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.


Yes, I think she probably does qualify for Filles du Roi, which I why I said almost none.  I haven’t worked it enough to apply, but plan to some day.

 

/Charles

 
Michael Swanson
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Swanson
Total Posts:  2462
Joined  26-02-2005
 
 
 
27 February 2008 19:00
 

Charles E. Drake;54795 wrote:

... a large fief, which conveyed a special status to its holder. Similarly, granted arms are a form of property which descend according to medieval rules and which also convey a certain status (armiger in the granting jurisdiction). It is not unreasonable that one pays a fee to get granted arms, for one usually pays for property received, unless it is inherited.


I don’t think this historical narrative has any force on present day heraldry in Continental Europe and the US because the tradition of freely assumed burgher arms overwhelms it.

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
27 February 2008 19:19
 

Michael Swanson;54797 wrote:

I don’t think this historical narrative has any force on present day heraldry in Continental Europe and the US because the tradition of freely assumed burgher arms overwhelms it.


Hmmm, I’m not sure I would agree that freely assumed arms have overwhelmed the European tradition of noble arms or that the traditions of heraldry - its chivalric roots can be simply suspended. If one cuts heraldry away from its roots - then all you have is a pretty picture, an ahistorical logo that mimics arms - something that looks like armorial bearings except comes from the tradition of graphic design.

 

An important qualification for burgher or burgess or patrician arms is that historically these have been the arms often of a privileged group. The European tradition for such arms comes from the practical need of wealthy citizens - the merchant, artisan and official class residents of cities and towns to use seals and bear arms. Although these folks were not nobles unless ennobled they were part of the society’s elite. Switzerland, France (as a revenue device) and to a limited extent Germany might be examples of countries with larger numbers of burgess arms. Certainly in the most recent times since World War I in many countries assumption is the only way to acquire arms but even where free assumption is legal it has not overwhelmed earlier heraldry. In countries with strong traditions of noble arms relatively few people assume arms. Of course it is true that the earliest arms were assumed - assumed generally by the feudal elites, but these should be seen historically as coming into the fold of official or noble arms. Gayre I think overstates the case (strongly overstates) but makes an argument for the tradition of granted or official arms across Europe.

 

I am a an advocate of citizens assuming arms - but of course this would seem to involve some acceptance of the real origins and heritage of heraldry in the ethos of mediaeval chivalry - which is, adapted to the modern world, a fine ethos, at least to my mind. Heraldry makes no sense outside that context. I will also suggest taht what we are discussing is primarily only an aspect of heraldry - armory. Heraldry is also about organizing ceremony, determining precedence and the documentation of pedigree.

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

George Lucki;54798 wrote:

Heraldry makes no sense outside that context. I will also suggest taht what we are discussing is primarily only an aspect of heraldry - armory. Heraldry is also about organizing ceremony, determining precedence and the documentation of pedigree.


If you would require all armigers to be fully informed of the medieval historical context for it to make sense and meaning to them (or as a condition of participation), then heraldry is pretty much dead in the water.  If you would require medieval ceremony and government approval of ancestry, then we need to reform all of Continental Europe.  If you are talking about what heraldry means to a historian, then yes, the history and evolution of the practice is necessary.

 
Charles E. Drake
 
Avatar
 
 
Charles E. Drake
Total Posts:  553
Joined  27-05-2006
 
 
 
28 February 2008 01:44
 

Michael Swanson;54797 wrote:

I don’t think this historical narrative has any force on present day heraldry in Continental Europe and the US because the tradition of freely assumed burgher arms overwhelms it.


Even if this is true, and I don’t concede that it is, I was specifically writing about granted arms, i.e. the "devizalist" position, where arms are an honour granted by a Sovereign.

 

To return to my much earlier post about the two traditions in heraldry, the "assumptionist" and the "devizalist," I did not contend that the historical roots associating arms with the nobility or aristocracy overwhelmed or abrogated the present right of Americans to assume arms, which I support.  Rather, I argued that the historical association of arms with nobility or aristocracy was sufficiently strong to justify the choice some Americans make in obtaining granted arms. Further, to connect this idea with the original topic in this thread, the OAAA, the aristocratic origins of heraldry, which are perpetuated in the royalist position and legally enshrined in the doctrines underlying grants of arms in the British Isles, are sufficient to render the admission criteria of that organization understandable, even if not acceptable, to those who favor the assumptionist pathway to arms.

 

I argued that there were two ways to look at this, and that both positions had validity, and I suggested that they might coexist.

 

/Charles