Legal rights: was Order of Americans of Armigerous Ancestry

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
04 March 2008 00:35
 

Can we take a break for just one second and define "gentleman" and cognate words in the current British understanding? I realize that, historically, a gentleman was someone who didn’t have to work, but my perception is that other criteria are now applied.

 
Charles E. Drake
 
Avatar
 
 
Charles E. Drake
Total Posts:  553
Joined  27-05-2006
 
 
 
04 March 2008 02:18
 

Fred White;54944 wrote:

Can we take a break for just one second and define "gentleman" and cognate words in the current British understanding? I realize that, historically, a gentleman was someone who didn’t have to work, but my perception is that other criteria are now applied.


That discussion has happened on other forums before, and the end result is the conclusion that it is impossible.  grin

 

/Charles

 
Charles E. Drake
 
Avatar
 
 
Charles E. Drake
Total Posts:  553
Joined  27-05-2006
 
 
 
04 March 2008 02:22
 

George and Joe, this is a wonderful exposition of conflicting views.  Perhaps it should somehow be incorporated into a permanent essay on the website.

From the anecdotal experience I have with my own ancestral families which were armigerous in England, there is evidence that they assumed their arms long before there was any registration and enjoyed them without the benefit of a grant. As I have traced the rise and fall socially of these families, I can see that they sometimes only reached (or re-reached) the "port of gentility" a generation or two before they were allowed the arms they claimed in the Visitations.  Families all over England who were unrelated usurped the arms of someone with the same surname, and they got away with it.  It seems that if you were rich enough or seemed like a gentleman, then you could do as you pleased.

 

On the other hand, I don’t think this necessarily proves the idea that the heralds believed that arms could be assumed as long as one were a gentleman.  The mind set of the day tended to ignore the concept of the rise of families.  Anyone who was a gentleman must have been of ancient and gentle blood. I think is why the concept of ancient user developed in the first place.

 

As an aside, several of my families in this country in colonial times just copied the arms of someone famous of the same name.  They put them on their bookplates and engraved them on their silver. Nowadays, we might think that was good enough.  Some of them seem to have just made them up from scratch, for I can’t find them in any Ordinary.  Nowadays we might think that was even better.

 

But all this seems to me to be irrelevant to the discussion topic. Given that the doctrine of arms was a moving target in colonial times, regardless of the position one takes, assumption of arms is still legal and appropriate for Americans. Regardless of what the law of arms was in colonial times, the OAAA (remember that?) can set whatever criteria for admission it wishes, however restrictive. Even if Joseph’s argument is held to win the day, there is ample historical precedent for granted arms to justify an American choosing that pathway, if he can do so, and if he so wishes.

 

Kind regards,

 

/Charles

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
04 March 2008 02:35
 

Charles E. Drake;54948 wrote:

That discussion has happened on other forums before, and the end result is the conclusion that it is impossible.  grin

/Charles


Let me rephrase: How does the College of Arms currently define the word "gentleman"? Or, if that word isn’t in vogue, what are their criteria for eligibility for a grant of arms. Their website says, "There are no fixed criteria of eligibility for a grant of arms, but such things as awards or honours from the Crown, civil or military commissions, university degrees, professional qualifications, public and charitable services, and eminence or good standing in national or local life, are taken into account. When approaching a herald with a view to petitioning for a grant of arms it is desirable to submit a curriculum vitae," but obviously there are some criteria. The larger question is, how have the College of Arms’ criteria evolved and changed?

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
04 March 2008 06:50
 

This very discussion has gone on repeatedly in rec.heraldry over the past 10 years or so.  It always seems to end when someone asks:

"When was the last time the English kings of arms refused a grant to anyone within their jurisdiction who was able to pay the fees?"

 

On the term "gentleman," here’s what Sir Thomas Smith, Regius Professor of Civil Law at Cambridge, wrote in 1584.  Charles Drake’s point about resistance to "new men" is evident in the sneering tone Smith adopts toward those who became gentlemen by acquiring arms from the heralds:


Quote:

As for gentlemen they be made good cheape in England. For whosoever studieth the lawes of the realme, who studieth in the Universities, who professeth liverall sciences, and to be short, who can live idly and without manuall labor, and will bear the port, charge and countenance of a gentleman, he shall be called master, for that is the title which men give to esquires and other gentlemen, and shall be taken for a gentleman; for true it is with us as is said, Tanti eris aliis quanti ibi feceris; (and if need be) a king of heraulds shall also give him for money armes newly made and invented, the title whereof shall pretend to have beene found by the sayd Herauld in perusing and viewing olde registers, where his auncestrors in times past had bin recorded to beare the same; or he will do it more truely and of better faith, he will write that for the merites of that man and certain qualities which he doth see in him, and for sundrie noble actes which he hath perfourmed, he by the authoritie which he hath as king of heraldes and armes, giveth to him and to his heires these and these armes, which being done he may be called a squire, for he beareth ever after those armes.


Note that the vaunted "port of a gentleman" is not a doorway (or a beverage) but an old word for comportment or behavior.  To say someone bore the port of gentility meant that he conducted himself as a gentleman.

 

Also, Smith’s last statement, that the recipient of a grant of arms is addressed as "[e]squire" should not be taken literally.  This entire passage is sarcastic, a lament for the decline in social standards with all this riff-raff getting phony confirmations or new grants of arms upon payment of fees and thus calling themselves gentlemen and esquire.  It always amazes me the extent to which this and similar passages are quoted seriously as straight-faced statements of 16th century law.

 

For more on this issue, I recommend (as I often do on many things) Francois Velde’s excellent resources at heraldica.org.  In this case, specifically http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/england1.htm and http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/england2.htm.

 
Ben Foster
 
Avatar
 
 
Ben Foster
Total Posts:  208
Joined  12-05-2006
 
 
 
04 March 2008 09:10
 

Joseph McMillan;54939 wrote:

The question then is how things got to be this way.

 

 


Spot on…a welcome visit by historical empiricism.  Part of the problem I see in focusing on grants, royal prerogatives and the like is that it tends to ignore the cultural and historical realities of heraldry.  There can be no argument that in its inception, heraldry is an autochthonous phenomenon divorced from state control.  Its locus was the individual and his heirs, not the state.  Not surprisingly, the state sought to regulate this phenomenon, as noted by Joe, by instituting various forms of control over times.  Interestingly, even the language of heraldry reflects the assertion of state control (e.g., a base assumption v. a proper grant).

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
04 March 2008 09:39
 

Charles E. Drake;54949 wrote:

On the other hand, I don’t think this necessarily proves the idea that the heralds believed that arms could be assumed as long as one were a gentleman. The mind set of the day tended to ignore the concept of the rise of families. Anyone who was a gentleman must have been of ancient and gentle blood. I think is why the concept of ancient user developed in the first place.


But see the comments by Sir Thomas Smith quoted above.  He, at least, saw what was going on (and didn’t like it):  the heralds were ratifying new-found gentlemanly status in return for money.


Quote:

As an aside, several of my families in this country in colonial times just copied the arms of someone famous of the same name. They put them on their bookplates and engraved them on their silver. Nowadays, we might think that was good enough.


Apparently so would the heralds of the time, if Visitations had been conducted in the colonies and the person using the arms had the good sense to have a grandfather who had stolen the same arms.  Sixty years, ancient user, good to go.  There actually was an officer of arms, whose name I’ve forgotten, who travelled in the colonies in the late 1600s and met, among other notables, one of the progenitors of the Lee dynasty of Virginia.  He did not hesitate to accept the Lees’ use of the same arms as Lee of Coton Hall, Shropshire, as evidence of shared ancestry.  There’s probably no reason to suppose he would have used a higher standard of proof if he’d been conducting a formal visitation.  After all, the man was clearly a gentleman (tens of thousands of acres of land, hundreds of slaves, well-mannered, well-dressed, and well-married) and, moreover, a member of the governor’s council.  What doubt could there be?

 
Charles E. Drake
 
Avatar
 
 
Charles E. Drake
Total Posts:  553
Joined  27-05-2006
 
 
 
04 March 2008 11:39
 

Fred White;54950 wrote:

Let me rephrase: How does the College of Arms currently define the word "gentleman"? Or, if that word isn’t in vogue, what are their criteria for eligibility for a grant of arms.


Yes, I think your implication is right on target.  If they give you arms, you must be a gentleman, because only a gentleman can get arms. wink

 

To supplement Joseph’s quote, I am very fond of the categories Ferne used in "Blazon of Gentry," (1586) which I placed on my website some time ago.  This is no help for a modern definition, however.

 

http://www.wyverngules.com/Documents/Gentleman.htm

 

/Charles

 
Michael Swanson
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Swanson
Total Posts:  2462
Joined  26-02-2005
 
 
 
04 March 2008 13:10
 

Allow me to be my own devil’s advocate for a moment.

Just as people with degrees from accredited universities view degrees from diploma mills with disdain, I think armigers from countries with the stiffest heraldic acquisition standards   naturally take a dim view of heraldry in countries where free assumption is allowed. Those in the British tradition have a difficult time accepting that an American coat of arms means anything because all one needs to do in America to become an armiger is doodle a shield on toilet paper in one’s death row prison cell.

 

I understand this argument from fairness, although it has not been made in this thread.  Heraldic assumption, just like diploma mills, is globally unfair.  People in one country get family symbols at will, without demonstrated virtue or official approval or quality control, while in other countries one must jump through at least one of these "quality" hoops.

 

If diploma mills eventually dominate the market place, and they are seen as acceptable, then this threatens all of academia and scholarship. The associated symbols and ceremonies lose their meaning.  Similarly, if heraldic assumption becomes more widespread, it can threaten traditions where some minimum standards are still in place—where being an armiger still has "meaning."

 

To put it starkly, it is better to live in a country where only one person has a coat of arms and being an armiger means something, than in a country where everyone has coats of arms but being an armiger means nothing.

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
04 March 2008 13:15
 

Fred,

The definition of a gentleman has changed substantially over time. Gentleman or generosus - literally born or really well-born was originally a status of birth. Lineages rather than men were gentle. The gentleman was noble by blood, while the noble could also be noble by office or creation. As the laws changed and the higher nobility in the UK retained and the lower nobility lost much of its legal distinctiveness the definition of gentle also changed. On the continent the distinctions noble and gentle were more synonymous than in the UK where the Peerage became the sole legal nobility. As society changed so did the practical sense of gentle. One of the challenges was ddetermining who was gentle. Those who continued to hold land and provide military and civil leadership continued to be gentle. Those descended from emminent families continued to be gentle, but there were new folks making careers and money at various times who on the continent might have become ennobled but in the UK mainly were or were not gentlemen by how they lived, the offices they held and the views of their peers - to what extent their claims were in practice accepted. From this evolved the various tests of gentility that you see enumerated in lists or in the general description used by the College. Over time the category of gentleman broadened and so now some of these measures indicators are trivial - they are so widely distributed that they include a substantial part of the population. That is not a bad thing and certainly in keeping with the increasing democratization fo society and broader access to some of the valuable goods a society might offer such as education. It is also perhaps a sad reflection on our society (my bias) that we have created such an industry of government and warfare that the ranks of middling and higher civil service and military officers have swelled with the growth these sectors have enjoyed. There was also a notion of the perfection of nobility or the perfection of gentility that is now lost - that it took several generations of gentle life to establish the fullness of gentility or on the continent at times to move from anobli to full membership in the noblesse in France or to remove the restrictions of skartabellat for the newly ennobled in Poland. The mind set of former times was naturally suspicious of the new and valued the proven over time. Some of this comes through still in Fox-Davies but it is really a last hurrah for the concept. In England the bearing of arms particularly over the course of several generations became a surrogate proof of gentility to the point that still a hundred years ago some authors would try to equate gentleman with gentleman of coat armour.

All of this though is peripheral to the discussion. It comes up in the context of the postulated perscriptive right of the gentleman (noblesse de race) to assume arms - a right which existed in the early days of heraldry but which in England was supplanted by the exercise of the royal perogative of arms through the Earl Marshal. Joseph would argue, I think, that notwithstanding the significant change in the meaning of gentleman and the establishment of the College, etc., that right somehow continued.

 

Joseph also raises the question, which is an aside from our current discussion in most respects, of whether the bar for gentleman is set so low that if one no one might be denied arms by the College. The bar for gentleman is currently (but has not been historically) so low that it is losing its meaning. That does not mean that it has not had meaning in the past. Nonetheless I have been assured that arms are not and have not been granted to all who apply (even in liberal Canada), but my guess is that one might have to be a declared dangerous offender currently serving an indeterminate sentence for axe murder to clearly fall outside the current criteria. Many current gentlemen of coat armour would not be recognizable as gentlemen under the older criteria. All this notwithstanding - the situation in England is that those who desire legitimate arms must petition for them.

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
04 March 2008 13:27
 

Ben Foster;54960 wrote:

Spot on…a welcome visit by historical empiricism.  Part of the problem I see in focusing on grants, royal prerogatives and the like is that it tends to ignore the cultural and historical realities of heraldry.  There can be no argument that in its inception, heraldry is an autochthonous phenomenon divorced from state control.  Its locus was the individual and his heirs, not the state. Not surprisingly, the state sought to regulate this phenomenon, as noted by Joe, by instituting various forms of control over times.  Interestingly, even the language of heraldry reflects the assertion of state control (e.g., a base assumption v. a proper grant).


That’s not really correct. In each case heraldry was tied up with state - with power and its display. Arms expressed authority, power, property and office, and most importantly lineage. This last one was a matter of public concern in the mediaeval perspective. State in mediaeval times was a question of personal sovereignty and feudal and kinship relationships. Kings and the powerful men in the kingdom were the state. By ties of descent and marriage the state was really an extended family of related and powerful families.

 

Arms were assumed by those who needed arms or those of a similar high station. Arms were not just a private matter but a display of rank, social role and authority. While there are examples in France of arms being used by peasant freemen or in Switzerland of yeoman arms or in Germany of merchant or artisan marks, the great tradition of heraldry as heraldry and not as a heraldicized property mark was chivalric in origin and inspiration. Over time the use of heraldry has broadened, but it was not a democratic phenomenon for the most part. As the central state exerted more control it is not surprising that the regulation of arms became more centralised. Decentralised countries like Poland where feudalism really never took hold of course would not have developed a heraldic authority - the nobles had simply assumed arms and regulated new ennoblements accompanied by grants of arms either by heraldic adoption in earlier times or by explicit parliamentary acts in later times.

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
04 March 2008 13:41
 

Michael Swanson;54968 wrote:

Allow me to be my own devil’s advocate for a moment.

Just as people with degrees from accredited universities view degrees from diploma mills with disdain, I think armigers from countries with the stiffest heraldic acquisition standards   naturally take a dim view of heraldry in countries where free assumption is allowed. Those in the British tradition have a difficult time accepting that an American coat of arms means anything because all one needs to do in America to become an armiger is doodle a shield on toilet paper in one’s death row prison cell.

 

I understand this argument from fairness, although it has not been made in this thread.  Heraldic assumption, just like diploma mills, is globally unfair.  People in one country get family symbols at will, without demonstrated virtue or official approval or quality control, while in other countries one must jump through at least one of these "quality" hoops.

 

If diploma mills eventually dominate the market place, and they are seen as acceptable, then this threatens all of academia and scholarship. The associated symbols and ceremonies lose their meaning.  Similarly, if heraldic assumption becomes more widespread, it can threaten traditions where some minimum standards are still in place—where being an armiger still has "meaning."

 

To put it starkly, it is better to live in a country where only one person has a coat of arms and being an armiger means something, than in a country where everyone has coats of arms but being an armiger means nothing.


I’m all in favour of the broad assumption of arms by US citizens. I think it is consistent with the ethos of your republic. I think the firmest ground on which such a thing can be built is the simple declaration "we do so because we want to and we can", without trying to make the case that it was always thus and so and basing it on some alternative view of English or continental traditions, that would try to proove that the US or republican view of assumed arms has been the secret tradition and heritage of heraldry. There has been a genuine place for assuemd arms in many European nations but such arms have not generally, unless borne by the nobility or equivalent had pride of place or the fullest recognition accorded by a state. The US is a revolutionary state and is free to be revolutionary about this as well - the US revolution in a sense has made the citizen as the nobleman (though not necessarily the gentleman smile) of the republic. At the same time I would like to see the meaning of assumed arms strengthened in the United States to tie personal arms with the greater polity.

 

I also wouldn’t overvalue the "meaning" of being an armiger. In the scheme of things it is trivial. There are far greater honours.

 
Charles E. Drake
 
Avatar
 
 
Charles E. Drake
Total Posts:  553
Joined  27-05-2006
 
 
 
04 March 2008 16:59
 

Michael Swanson;54968 wrote:

Allow me to be my own devil’s advocate for a moment.


I admire the intellectual objectivity it takes to do this!


Quote:

Just as people with degrees from accredited universities view degrees from diploma mills with disdain, I think armigers from countries with the stiffest heraldic acquisition standards naturally take a dim view of heraldry in countries where free assumption is allowed.


The analogy breaks down, however, because diploma mills usually operate alongside genuine universities. In this case, for Americans there is no legally sanctioned granting authority, and assumption is legal.


Quote:

Similarly, if heraldic assumption becomes more widespread, it can threaten traditions where some minimum standards are still in place—where being an armiger still has "meaning."

To put it starkly, it is better to live in a country where only one person has a coat of arms and being an armiger means something, than in a country where everyone has coats of arms but being an armiger means nothing.


I don’t think we have to worry about that. To me having arms and a crest is like having tuxedo shoes.  Don’t look for everyone to go out and get them. grin

 

I have made the point before elsewhere that I believe having the desire to be armigerous and following through with it by assuming arms is presumptive that one has reached the port of gentility.  In this I agree with George Lucki, when someone displays a coat of arms they are not merely displaying a personal logo, but they are (or should be) making the pretention that they are of the equestrian social class, or perhaps that they embrace the chivalric code of honor. We take our place in a long line of gentlemen, and we should draw inspiration from that. "Since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses…."

 

/Charles

 
Ben Foster
 
Avatar
 
 
Ben Foster
Total Posts:  208
Joined  12-05-2006
 
 
 
04 March 2008 18:57
 

George Lucki;54970 wrote:

That’s not really correct. In each case heraldry was tied up with state - with power and its display. Arms expressed authority, power, property and office, and most importantly lineage. This last one was a matter of public concern in the mediaeval perspective. State in mediaeval times was a question of personal sovereignty and feudal and kinship relationships. Kings and the powerful men in the kingdom were the state. By ties of descent and marriage the state was really an extended family of related and powerful families.


I think you are defining state too broadly, even for purposes of medieval Europe.  This would essentially make all cultural practices of the powerful families a "state" issue.  With respect to the origins of heraldry, the emphasis is on lineage and kinship and displays of social power, which are social and cultural phenomena, and not state directed. If we go even further back, the display is essentially totemic.  In any event, this is clearly distinct from the essentially regulatory role played by the heralds.

 
Michael Swanson
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Swanson
Total Posts:  2462
Joined  26-02-2005
 
 
 
04 March 2008 20:06
 

Charles E. Drake;54976 wrote:

I have made the point before elsewhere that I believe having the desire to be armigerous and following through with it by assuming arms is presumptive that one has reached the port of gentility. In this I agree with George Lucki, when someone displays a coat of arms they are not merely displaying a personal logo, but they are (or should be) making the pretention that they are of the equestrian social class, or perhaps that they embrace the chivalric code of honor. We take our place in a long line of gentlemen, and we should draw inspiration from that.


I will think about the code, of course the devil is in the details:


Quote:

1. Thou shalt believe all the Church teaches and shalt obey her commandments.

2. Thou shalt defend the Church.

3. Thou shalt respect all weaknesses and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.

4. Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy.

5. Thou shalt make war against the infidel without cessation and without mercy.

6. Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties, if they be not contrary to the laws of God.

7. Thou shalt never lie, and shalt remain faithful to thy pledged word.

8. Thou shalt be generous, and give largesse to everyone.

9. Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.


As for the port of gentility, well….I spent a few early years at the port of desirability, followed by a few years at the port of marketability, with annual side trips to the port of taxibility.  Recently I entered the port of predictability with occasional visits to the port of tranquility.  As I look ahead, I see the ports of senility and possibly the port of infertility.  Certainly, this is enough for a coat of arms.