Consulting College of Arms

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
20 March 2008 17:50
 

In the effort to codify an American law of arms, have we ever thought of soliciting input from the primary source? To the extent that the College of Arms has had an ongoing relationship with American citizens, state governments, and other organizations, they might have some insights worth noting. Obviously, they are not disinterested from a financial standpoint, but maybe—if we’re going to investigate this idea that any American law of arms rests upon the mother country’s in 1776—they would be willing to assist. I envision an exchange of letters, perhaps phone conversations, perhaps a visit.

 
Hugh Brady
 
Avatar
 
 
Hugh Brady
Total Posts:  989
Joined  16-08-2005
 
 
 
20 March 2008 19:07
 

Fred White;55812 wrote:

In the effort to codify an American law of arms, have we ever thought of soliciting input from the primary source [the English College of Arms]?


At a minimum, this presumes that the Law of Arms of England is the starting point. As I think has been repeatedly pointed out, that may or not may be the case. (It also presumes that the heralds may state the Law of Arms rather than administer it.)

 

You may read the following articles for an introduction to two views of the Earl Marshal’s imperial jurisdiction: (1) Sir Crispin Agnew of Lochnaw, "The Conflict of Heraldic Laws" (1988) Juridical Review 61 and (2) G D Squibb, "Heraldic Authority in the British Commonwealth" (1968) 10 Coat of Arms (no 76) 125.

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
20 March 2008 19:32
 

Hugh Brady;55815 wrote:

At a minimum, this presumes that the Law of Arms of England is the starting point. As I think has been repeatedly pointed out, that may or not may be the case.


I’m not sure the Law of Arms of England is applicable to the US. The law of arms in England derives from civil law (it is codified).  The rest of English law derives from common law/case law (judge-made law).  While we Americans inherited much of our common law from the English, I do not believe we necessarily inherited their law of arms, which is civil law.

 
Ben Foster
 
Avatar
 
 
Ben Foster
Total Posts:  208
Joined  12-05-2006
 
 
 
20 March 2008 19:50
 

Fred White;55812 wrote:

In the effort to codify an American law of arms, have we ever thought of soliciting input from the primary source? To the extent that the College of Arms has had an ongoing relationship with American citizens, state governments, and other organizations, they might have some insights worth noting. Obviously, they are not disinterested from a financial standpoint, but maybe—if we’re going to investigate this idea that any American law of arms rests upon the mother country’s in 1776—they would be willing to assist. I envision an exchange of letters, perhaps phone conversations, perhaps a visit.


My inclination is that they would wish to steer well clear of this issue.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
20 March 2008 19:56
 

Hugh Brady;55815 wrote:

At a minimum, this presumes that the Law of Arms of England is the starting point. As I think has been repeatedly pointed out, that may or not may be the case.


Exactly. It is the fact that it may be the case and that this has repeatedly been brought up that elicited my suggestion, which has not been made in this discussion as yet, so I’m not sure I see what your point is.

 

Thanks, though, for the suggested reading.

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
20 March 2008 20:20
 

I’m sorry, but I’m unclear as to what you mean. Are you saying that English heraldic practice (College of Arms) is, or should be, the "mother" of American heraldry ... so to speak?

If so I most sincerely disagree and I do not see how one can assert this over the other nations with their own heraldic tradition/law who were here before the USA became the USA (the Dutch, the French, etc) and those later arriving Americans whose ancestry is from a place, also with a heraldic tradition/law, that is most decidedly not English.

 

One thinks of the clear differences between English and Scottish (or Canadian) heraldic law/tradition and they occupy the same island and share the same monarchy. How can we presume to place the whole of American Armory, as that is what would be done with a heraldic law, under the wing of England when she does not even have Scotland (or Canada) under her other wing?

 

Last I checked according to the census figures put out not long ago most Americans identify themselves as having a German heritage with the Irish coming in second ... I do not recall seeing the English listed, but they might have been. Certainly those two nations have just as valid a heraldic tradition/law as the English, do they not? The same for the Latin-Americans whose variety is even starker given it is Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, or even Brazilian (had its own monarchy with heraldry - not sure if different than Portuguese or not), etc ad nauseum.

 

I’m sorry, but I can not see how that is either fair, right or practical. I could, of course, have your premise all wrong and if so I apologize.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
20 March 2008 20:57
 

Donnchadh;55823 wrote:

I’m sorry, but I’m unclear as to what you mean. Are you saying that English heraldic practice (College of Arms) is, or should be, the "mother" of American heraldry ... so to speak?

I’m sorry, but I can not see how that is either fair, right or practical. I could, of course, have your premise all wrong and if so I apologize.


No need to apologize but I think you have mostly misunderstood me. My premise is simply that English heraldry might be the mother of American heraldry, for reasons that have been outlined here in the recent past. I should add, though, that this would not be an eccentric position. I absolutely do not think we are in any sense under the "jurisdiction" of the College of Arms. I think that goes without saying. The point is that it might be an interesting and helpful dialogue.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
20 March 2008 21:10
 

Also, Denny, to the extent that I detect some Hibernian sensitivities behind your last post, and may have given others the impression that I am nostalgic for the colonial era, let me emphasize that I am not simply an Anglophile. I have easily two dozen ancestors who fought in the American Revolution and none who were loyalists during it. My French-Canadian ancestors went from being lords of the manor to being in the Canadian underclass as a result of France’s loss of Canada to the British. One of my g-g-g-grandfathers lost 14 uncles at the Battle of Culloden Moor. His own parents were chased down in Ireland and hung for treason by the crown. I served in the U.S. military with a modicum of distinction and fully exploit the privilege of universal suffrage because I know how precious it is and at what cost it was obtained. So please, don’t tar me with the simpering Anglophile brush. Like any liberal-minded person, I find much about England worthy of admiration, but I don’t long for reversion to America’s status as part of the British Empire.

 
Andrew J Vidal
 
Avatar
 
 
Andrew J Vidal
Total Posts:  567
Joined  13-10-2006
 
 
 
20 March 2008 22:38
 

I’ve had quite a few wonderful conversations with the Lancaster Herald and have remained close with Roland Symons over the years.  If the Board would so wish, I could reach out and at least ask them for their opinion would be.  I would be sure to remind them that America is made up of many nationalities and that we are interested in trying to find the "middle ground" with all the heraldic traditions we have here.

The worst they could say is "not interested, but good luck".  One very amusing thing about the English, even when they give you bad news it always sounds so cheery!;)

 
Nick B II
 
Avatar
 
 
Nick B II
Total Posts:  203
Joined  26-11-2007
 
 
 
20 March 2008 23:05
 

Donnchadh;55823 wrote:

I’m sorry, but I’m unclear as to what you mean. Are you saying that English heraldic practice (College of Arms) is, or should be, the "mother" of American heraldry ... so to speak?

It should certainly be one of them. The only other tradition that’s easily accessible for us English-speakers is the Scottish one, which is way too legalistic for Americans.

The Irish tradition could apply, but who do you correspond with? The Chief Herald should certainly be consulted, but his office is under a bit of a cloud. Besides, I have difficulty believing his staunchly Republican bosses would not squirm if they found out he was standing in for the very British-sounding Ulster King of Arms.

 

Northern Ireland uses the Norroy and Ulster King of Arms in London, so we’re consulting the English again.
Donnchadh;55823 wrote:

If so I most sincerely disagree and I do not see how one can assert this over the other nations with their own heraldic tradition/law who were here before the USA became the USA (the Dutch, the French, etc) and those later arriving Americans whose ancestry is from a place, also with a heraldic tradition/law, that is most decidedly not English.

OK. Ask them for input, too.

Which leads to another question:

Anybody know French? Or Dutch?
Donnchadh;55823 wrote:

One thinks of the clear differences between English and Scottish (or Canadian) heraldic law/tradition and they occupy the same island and share the same monarchy. How can we presume to place the whole of American Armory, as that is what would be done with a heraldic law, under the wing of England when she does not even have Scotland (or Canada) under her other wing?

Last I checked according to the census figures put out not long ago most Americans identify themselves as having a German heritage with the Irish coming in second ... I do not recall seeing the English listed, but they might have been. Certainly those two nations have just as valid a heraldic tradition/law as the English, do they not?

Last time I checked self-identified English-Americans were third. But keep in mind there really isn’t a point in being English-American, most English-Americans have no connection to England, and have ancestry from other ethnic groups.

I’m 3/8 English, but I identify as Swedish (1/4), or Scottish (1/8). The only people in my family who tried to keep ethnic traditions alive are my grandmothers; one grew up in Scotland, and the other is still in touch with the Swedish side of the family.
Donnchadh;55823 wrote:

The same for the Latin-Americans whose variety is even starker given it is Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, or even Brazilian (had its own monarchy with heraldry - not sure if different than Portuguese or not), etc ad nauseum.

I’m sorry, but I can not see how that is either fair, right or practical. I could, of course, have your premise all wrong and if so I apologize.

These traditions probably have many similarities—the Brazilian Emperors were a cadet line of Portugal’s Kings; and Spain ran southern Italy for centuries.

Nick

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
21 March 2008 01:49
 

Fred, there is no Hibernian sensitivities there at all. This is strictly a heraldic issue and one that I have found creep up time and again. I have no problems with the English heraldic tradition, for Englishmen. I would never think that a Scotsman should have to incorporate English practices simply because of the antiquity, or even excellence, of their college’s work, history and reputation. It is illogical. Just as illogical would be a Spaniard, Russian, Dutchman, German, etc to have to do the same. So to, for me, is the American position. American heraldry is in large part very Anglicized IMO, but it is far from the position of the child of the English system any more than the other non-English nations/people I mentioned above.

How you got Hibernian sensitivity in there I do not know. We were talking about American, by definition its own nation made up of countless nationalities who are not English, not about Irish vs. English heraldry, or soccer for that matter. wink

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
21 March 2008 01:50
 

Nick, of course it would be one of the traditions Americans should look to - I never said it shouldn’t, but as such it is far from the only, or the mother, of American heraldry especially where I live where Spanish culture was here long, long before English ever thought of being here. I would venture half, plus or minus, of our towns, cities, mountain passes, ranges etc are of Spanish origin and of a Spanish name. I have found some Spanish heraldry here. One ranchero family that is renowned for having the most spectacular horses (all types really, but Arabian mostly) you will ever see lead the parade in Pueblo every summer and they have a banner with their arms on it and have even passed out literature on their ranch, which included more than 200 years of existence – before the USA and certainly before any Anglo-centric culture was spread here.

So, included amongst many? I would agree. The font of American heraldry? I would disagree, most earnestly so in the contemporary context as the USA has ceased long ago to be an Anglo-centric nation. It is its own interesting American mix of everything including English culture and I can not see how a vision for the future of American heraldry could, or would, try and ignore that. I doubt Frenchmen from Louisiana would take kindly to that, nor the Spaniards/Mexicans I know here, nor the Irishmen, nor the Germans, etc, etc, etc. America is not the child of England that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once envisioned it to be, certainly not today, so why pretend our heraldry should be so too? It should be boldly American and in that finest of American cultural traditions a mix of multiple cultures.

 

That’s all my point was…not a slap at the English that you and Fred seemed to have inferred.

 

As to Ireland, both the Chief and Ulster are Irish even if Ulster is now a part of the COA whereas it never used to be. The Chief’s office is not so cloudy anymore unless you are drinking from the same kool-aid as some of the members of the Irish Genealogy community. As to Ulster, his traditions prior to unification with Norroy were always his own and in fact for several hundred years arms were granted much differently than in England. So, Ulster’s current condition is on lesser footing, historically speaking, than he was when he was his own King of Arms. Dr. MacLysahgt refers to this, as does O’Laughlin and others in showing how time and again Ulster ran things differently than his English counterparts from familial grants, which he did, to recognizing existing arms without granting them himself and so on.

 

As to the English-Americans, I will have to go back and check again, but that is not what I recall. If it is correct I will amend my statement.

 

Yes, I know the Brazilian a bit thanks to David Pritchard some time ago showing me where to look that info up as I was struck by the claimants coat of arms some time ago. To say that Latin-Americans (Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, etc) have similarities is akin to saying that all heraldry has similarities, of course it does, but they also have differences that make them unique, hence my point in including them and everyone else. To surmise that because several different houses of the same family were rulers of different nations does not mean that the people, their traditions and cultures, including heraldic culture, is one and the same is, frankly, wanting.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
21 March 2008 12:03
 

Donnchadh;55833 wrote:

So, included amongst many? I would agree. The font of American heraldry? I would disagree, most earnestly so in the contemporary context as the USA has ceased long ago to be an Anglo-centric nation. It is its own interesting American mix of everything including English culture and I can not see how a vision for the future of American heraldry could, or would, try and ignore that. I doubt Frenchmen from Louisiana would take kindly to that, nor the Spaniards/Mexicans I know here, nor the Irishmen, nor the Germans, etc, etc, etc. . . .


Denny, on a certain level, you’re preaching to the choir. I haven’t seen any evidence here of a consensus in favor of rejecting input from multiple heraldic traditions. Yet, there is no denying that the United States’ roots are firmly English. The Dutch, the French, the German, the Spanish, the Russian, the Hawaiian, etc. territories gave way to an English-speaking, English-derived civilization. So what if the names of towns and cities lack an English etymology? So what if there are petroglyphs and pueblos about? They’re part of our heritage, sure, but they aren’t the foundation of our culture.

 

Yes, our population has never been more diverse in its origins than it is now, but arguably, there is a very unhealthy process of fragmentation underway that bodes poorly for any kind of boldly unified American anything, much less heraldry. To emphasize the diversity of our population’s origins is to embark on an argument whereby the preservation (much less the promotion ) of something EUROcentric, like heraldry, could be deemed a chauvinistic and therefore unwelcome archaism by the Africans, the Asians, the Native Americans, et al. Then where do we go?

 

Culturally, our situation is not too much different from that of Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, even if our break with rule from London was decisive. They celebrate the contributions of indigenous and non-British cultures to their particular national identities, but at the end of the day, they’re mainly offshoots of England, as are we.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
21 March 2008 13:05
 

Donnchadh;55823 wrote:

Last I checked according to the census figures put out not long ago most Americans identify themselves as having a German heritage with the Irish coming in second ... I do not recall seeing the English listed, but they might have been.


My guess is that what you are referring to is this series of maps published by the Census Bureau. They certainly do warrant contemplation, but they do not indicate that "most Americans identify themselves as having a German heritage with the Irish coming in second."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maps_of_American_ancestries

 
Nick B II
 
Avatar
 
 
Nick B II
Total Posts:  203
Joined  26-11-2007
 
 
 
22 March 2008 00:09
 

Fred White;55853 wrote:

My guess is that what you are referring to is this series of maps published by the Census Bureau. They certainly do warrant contemplation, but they do not indicate that "most Americans identify themselves as having a German heritage with the Irish coming in second."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maps_of_American_ancestries


My source is the Student Handbook put out by Southwestern Book Co. Specifically page 57, of volume 2, of the 1993 edition. They used the 1990 census, so the raw numbers are useless today, but the rankings of the top 4 probably haven’t changed:

Germans 58 million

Irish 39 million

English 33 million

Italians 15 million

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
22 March 2008 00:27
 

Quote:

They’re part of our heritage, sure, but they aren’t the foundation of our culture.

Fred, I respectfully disagree. Further, I do not understand how you can not see that in of all places California where its history – pre-USA – is seriously Latin-American as well as its current cultural identity. English culture is not here in Colorado as much as Hispanic is. Although, there is a great mix of American frontier/pioneer culture as well, but even that is decidedly American and not English. Doesn’t mean it is not here, just that it is not the dominant underlying cultural influence.


Quote:

They celebrate the contributions of indigenous and non-British cultures to their particular national identities, but at the end of the day, they’re mainly offshoots of England, as are we.

Respectfully, I can not disagree more. I can not for the life of me see that Quebec is an offshoot of England in any manner whatsoever – I doubt very seriously that those people in Quebec do either, as they seem to me to be very outwardly French.


Quote:

My guess is that what you are referring to is this series of maps published by the Census Bureau. They certainly do warrant contemplation, but they do not indicate that "most Americans identify themselves as having a German heritage with the Irish coming in second."

Haven’t even seen the maps. I was referring to this article found here (go down to first paragraph): http://www.census2010.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/006328.html

Or simply read it here:
Quote:

Irish is the nation&#8217;s second most frequently reported ancestry, trailing only those of German ancestry. (The ancestry estimates exclude people living in group quarters.) (Source: American FactFinder and <http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/population/current/popmig.pdf>)

As you can see by visiting the first link, this is from the US Census Bureau itself, not Wikipedia.

Here’s the stats on the Mexican-Americans who are at +28 million with the Irish being second and ahead of them as seen in the one above at 36 million, so I don’t see how the English are 3rd, but I may be missing it.

http://www.census2010.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/011613.html

 

And here’s Hispanics in total (not just Mexicans) who are at 44.3 million when grouped together.

http://www.census2010.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/010327.html

 

French at 8.3 million nationally and 4.5 million in Louisiana found here:

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/001619.html

 

And here’s the info on the Germans at 43 million and they do mention the English at 24.5 million and behind the Germans, the Irish, the African-Americans, and indeed as seen above the Mexicans/Hispanics.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/census_2000/001870.html

 

So, while I was in error on the English being there, they are not in the top 3 as Nick said they were and when one considers the numbers of the others like Spanish, German, Irish, etc, they are hardly in position to assert "dominant" cultural influence. Historical? Probably given it was brave Englishmen and mostly Scots-Irish who made the Revolution a reality, but outside of that it is confined to the original 13 and almost non-existant in the western USA.

 

Still, I think that American heraldry is clearly influenced by English heraldry, but it need not be the only, or even the prime source…especially for those of us whose ancestry is not English, but is Spanish, Irish, German, French, etc.

 

Finally, I will say that my opinion is that American heraldry should be fiercely, decidely American in character and not a step-child of English, or any other group.