Legal rights: was Order of Americans of Armigerous Ancestry

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

George Lucki;57341 wrote:

I’m trying to reconcile the lack of need to reemphasize personal connection with the polity with the wide personal display of flags, repeated pledges of allegiance (as though once in a lifetime isn’t enough smile), the existence of patriotic societies including genealogically based ones, etc.

None of that comes from the government.

Some of it gets recognized by the government, but it’s all private initiative. This kind of thing exists specifically to reaffirm a connection that already exists. And, as far as most of us are concerned, could not be made deeper.

 

Nick

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
17 April 2008 22:17
 

Charles E. Drake;57435 wrote:

Nevertheless, I shall remain steadfast as our token royalist. smile

 
Charles E. Drake
 
Avatar
 
 
Charles E. Drake
Total Posts:  553
Joined  27-05-2006
 
 
 
18 April 2008 02:06
 

Fred White;57475 wrote:

As a member of the Connecticut Cincinnati, you must be at pains to reconcile your revolutionary heritage with your monarchical leanings. Perhaps not an insoluble problem, but I would be curious to know its solution.smile


This is very off-topic, so I beg everyone’s indulgence.

 

Although I am very patriotic, I also have royalist leanings. I think there are advantages to having a king or queen as head of state.  They can largely remain above politics. However, because I see advantages in a different form of government does not mean I want to change ours.

 

As to your question, I have ancestors who were on both sides of the Revolutionary War (I am a member of Loyalists and Patriots), on both sides of various wars of religion, etc.  I honor their bravery, their integrity, and their sacrifices, but I try not to judge them in terms of right and wrong. Some of my ancestors did things we would condemn today, but I think it is unfair to retrofit today’s morals onto yesterday’s people. So I have all kinds of heritage, not all of which are consistent.

 

My male line ancestors served the English, and later British crown, for 700 years. Before that they were vassals of the sovereigns of the HRE and France. In view of a thousand years of history, the 200+ years they have served under the American flag is still something of an experiment in progress.

 

On a mythic level I believe my Drake family has a mission of protection and support for the British monarchy, associated symbolically with the red wyvern in the arms. Marlborough, Churchill, and Sir Francis Drake were all Drake descendants. Henry Newboldt’s poem "Drake’s Drum" has more than trivial meaning for me.

 

Kind regards,

 

/Charles

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
18 April 2008 02:21
 

Charles E. Drake;57477 wrote:

Although I am very patriotic, I also have royalist leanings. I think there are advantages to having a king or queen as head of state.  They can largely remain above politics. However, because I see advantages in a different form of government does not mean I want to change ours. . . .


Thank you for such a candid and thorough answer, Charles. I’ve harbored much the same view of monarchy but, like you, am very patriotic and proud of the way the American experiment has shaped up thus far. I also share your belief in the value of honoring the valor of ancestors on opposing sides of a conflict. Indeed, it is bootless to try to fit them into our moral schemata.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
18 April 2008 16:15
 

I guess I view kings & queens rather like Mary Queen of Scots—an attractive and interesting figure but I wouldn’t want to be married to her.  (Not that she would have asked…)

Alternatively, Nice place to visit but…

 
Chris W.
 
Avatar
 
 
Chris W.
Total Posts:  53
Joined  24-12-2007
 
 
 
18 April 2008 18:13
 

Am I a naive fool, or perhaps too much of a relativist, to believe one can be both a royalist and a republican in that one can support the continuance or reintroduction of the constitutional monarchy in countries which have or had a longstanding, culturally relevant history of it (say Spain and Portugal, respectively) while believing that a democratic republic may be the answer for other countries where it is not so enculturated, and/or which have a mixed cultural background (Switzerland and the USA, respectively?)

Chris

 
Patrick Williams
 
Avatar
 
 
Patrick Williams
Total Posts:  1356
Joined  29-07-2006
 
 
 
19 April 2008 08:47
 

Hi, guys. We’re drifting away from the topic of this thread (and this forum). Please limit your discussion here to:

a) Status of arms in the US and

b) Legal rights.

 

Thanks!

 
David Pritchard
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pritchard
Total Posts:  2058
Joined  26-01-2007
 
 
 
19 April 2008 09:07
 

kimon;57372 wrote:

My understanding of the South African model is that all the registry does is register the arms (if the armiger chooses to) and it provides some legal protection.


The South African Bureau of Heraldry not only legally protects the registered heraldic symbols from assumption or misuse by other parties in the Republic of South Africa, it also makes certain that all registered heraldic symbols conform to accepted heraldic design practices* and regulates the official inheritance and marks of cadency of said registered symbols.

 

 

*As all should have noticed, bringing newly designed arms for Americans into line with long accepted heraldic design practices is a recurring theme on this forum. Having any heraldic authority on US soil would be a great step toward assuring that US arms met basic heraldic standards.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
19 April 2008 12:16
 

David Pritchard;57525 wrote:

The South African Bureau of Heraldry not only legally protects . . .


For a republic desiring a heraldic authority, the South African model seems like the optimal one. The question, I think, is simply how Americans could ever be persuaded to underwrite something analogous as part of a government budget. Even if cost weren’t a consideration, what would it take to disabuse the skeptics of their apprehensions about enshrining an expression of old-world elitism alongside other regulatory bodies here?

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
19 April 2008 12:19
 

David,

I am in agreement with you. At the very least there would be some greater consistency in applying heraldic rules - a check and balance on what people might for various reasons design for themselves.

With respect to Chris’ statement (which is not off topic as the thread has meandered into the purportedly necessary differences between heraldry in monarchical and republican states) he is of course absolutely correct and od course a monarchy can be a fine way of framing the office of a CEO of a republic - there are historic models for this going back to the Roman Empire which continued to be essentially a republican form at least through the early stages of the empire.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
19 April 2008 17:06
 

Chris W.;57512 wrote:

Am I a naive fool, or perhaps too much of a relativist, to believe one can be both a royalist and a republican in that one can support the continuance or reintroduction of the constitutional monarchy in countries which have or had a longstanding, culturally relevant history of it (say Spain and Portugal, respectively) while believing that a democratic republic may be the answer for other countries where it is not so enculturated, and/or which have a mixed cultural background (Switzerland and the USA, respectively?)


In my opinion it’s not only reasonable to favor different forms of government for different societies, but unreasonable verging on insane to do anything else.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
20 April 2008 12:31
 

We may be floundering (or drowning) in unspoken assumptions about our own personal views and those of others, but IMO—and only FWIW—there appears to be a difference between our tolerance or even sympathetic enthusiasm for a particular form of government or society elsewhere, but limited strictly to spectators cheering or cat-calling from the bleachers; VS. expressions which imply (or seem to imply) an enthusiasm, or even pining for, for the introduction or encouragement of similar systems here—which seems somehow disloyal.  Admiring someone else’s spouse - discreetly!—is not the same as wishing our own spouse were more like the other one…

So being any sort of foreign "ist" or touting any sort of foreign "ism" is by nature discomforting for those who define our own "ism" in part by contrast with the "isms" we see elsewhere.

 
Deer Sniper
 
Avatar
 
 
Deer Sniper
Total Posts:  222
Joined  13-06-2008
 
 
 
30 June 2008 02:27
 

Well here are my two cents: First, The founding fathers of the United States of America were not, at least at first, seeking independent sovereignty, only representation in parliament. This having been said, I don’t think that the American people could approve the return of the U.S. to the British Empire, (or as the case today would be, the Commonwealth of Nations). Nor do I think that this is required for heraldic practices in the U.S. to be guided in the direction of tradition and proper good taste. However for the U.S. to have a group to guide those practices, the American people must first see a need for such oversight, and here in lies the real task I think. How to achieve that, I have no Idea.

As to what form this oversight should take, I also think that the South African model is ideal, however a non government agency given enforcement authority by the government and with the courts as a final arbiter might also be a possibility as there are some ( though very few ) presidents for this in the U.S.

 

I also do not believe that any one form of government can meet the needs of every country. And I think to believe that it could would be rather naive. The U.S. itself has over 50 different criminal codes and legislatures in different state and territorial jurisdictions . But this is only my opinion.

 
Deer Sniper
 
Avatar
 
 
Deer Sniper
Total Posts:  222
Joined  13-06-2008
 
 
 
30 June 2008 02:42
 

Joseph McMillan;57380 wrote:

Just as an aside, much as I participate in this whole business of figuring out ways to "protect our arms" in the US, I’ve been saying for quite some time that I really think of this as a solution in search of a problem. It may make sense for people who are de jure entitled to ancient arms (i.e., the kind that bucket shops are likely to appropriate as "arms of the name"), but that’s a tiny, tiny proportion of the people using heraldry in the United States. As a couple of other folks have suggested in this and other threads in the past few weeks, how much of a danger is it really that any of our (self designed and assumed) arms will be pirated, or that we would be damaged in any tangible way if they were?

So, in my opinion, let’s by all means keep discussing this, but I really do think that promoting good heraldic use in the US is a far, far higher priority than fretting about "protection."


I definitely think that there is a lot of validity to good practice being the most important current issue between the two.

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
30 June 2008 07:38
 

Deer Sniper;60001 wrote:

I also think that the South African model is ideal, however a non government agency given enforcement authority by the government and with the courts as a final arbiter might also be a possibility as there are some ( though very few ) presidents for this in the U.S.


While I prefer the South African model, your second suggestion is also attractive and marginally more viable in the US.  This second suggestion essentially follows the German model where you have private heraldry societies "licensed" by German courts.  Arms registered with recognized societies receive protection under German law.