Legal rights: was Order of Americans of Armigerous Ancestry

 
Michael Swanson
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Swanson
Total Posts:  2462
Joined  26-02-2005
 
 
 
30 June 2008 07:45
 

Deer Sniper;60001 wrote:

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 don’t have anything substantial to add to this long thread, except to note that I think the founders wanted to avoid the top-down, national management of "culture and expression."  (Since logos have a commercial value, they are in a different category.)  I think the founders broke hard from the Brits on this point—so hard that I can’t imagine American courts giving any power to private groups to manage heraldry.

 

An analogy.  The founders made us all religious libertarians.  In other words, we are all free to associate, create, or avoid private religious groups without government assistance and regulation.  I think we Americans are also heraldic libertarians, and if we want to see best practices spread, then we need to form a group, define those practices, and then win converts.  Heraldic evangelism, not government regulation, is our future.

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
30 June 2008 10:29
 

Michael Swanson;60005 wrote:

An analogy.  The founders made us all religious libertarians.  In other words, we are all free to associate, create, or avoid private religious groups without government assistance and regulation.  I think we Americans are also heraldic libertarians, and if we want to see best practices spread, then we need to form a group, define those practices, and then win converts.  Heraldic evangelism, not government regulation, is our future.


Hear, hear. And it only took 223 posts to get there! Good analogy, Michael.

 
 
kimon
 
Avatar
 
 
kimon
Total Posts:  1035
Joined  28-03-2008
 
 
 
30 June 2008 10:37
 

I agree in avoiding getting the government involved but, on the other hand, some government involvement is necessary if we want to achieve some kind of legal protection.

 
Michael Swanson
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Swanson
Total Posts:  2462
Joined  26-02-2005
 
 
 
30 June 2008 11:01
 

kimon;60007 wrote:

I agree in avoiding getting the government involved but, on the other hand, some government involvement is necessary if we want to achieve some kind of legal protection.


People don’t want to steal other peoples arms.  They buy bucket shop arms because they think they are buying their own arms.  It’s mainly an educational issue, and it is not a regulatory issue because there is no palpable harm or benefit involved.

 

I think many of us have had a hard time shaking the British mindset.  There are not a lot of people anywhere who gain anything by heraldic usurpation.

 

Adopting arms it is a personal choice about descendant-family identification.  Private institutions can help with this choice by providing basic education, registration, and advice.  In America, such expressions should be outside what we want our government to be concerned with.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
30 June 2008 13:11
 

Michael Swanson;60008 wrote:

People don’t want to steal other peoples arms.


Exactly.  At one time, to claim someone else’s arms was consciously to assert kinship, whether rightly, mistakenly, or falsely.  A long time ago in an island far, far away, kinship with someone of recognized gentry status could have very real practical advantages.  Under these circumstances, armigers had a tangible interest in making sure only their real relatives benefited from the status attached to armigerous status.

 

Eminent as our membership is, I can’t think of any of us who are so prominent that perfect strangers would usurp our arms for the purpose of masquerading as our relatives.

 
Dcgb7f
 
Avatar
 
 
Dcgb7f
Total Posts:  516
Joined  07-07-2007
 
 
 
30 June 2008 13:39
 

Joseph McMillan;60012 wrote:

Eminent as our membership is, I can’t think of any of us who are so prominent that perfect strangers would usurp our arms

Well, if it makes you feel any better, I’ll glady usurp the arms of anyone here. :p

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
30 June 2008 14:14
 

Michael Swanson;60008 wrote:

I think many of us have had a hard time shaking the British mindset.


Well, perhaps not everyone wants to shake it, but for me, it ultimately became a matter of heraldic literacy and intellectual honesty. The British mindset does appear to be exceptionally exclusive in armorial matters, and though the roots of our nation are most definitely British, the roots of our population are (obviously) quite heterogeneous. Moreover, it has to be conceded—I now believe—that pre- and non-British settlers of areas now included in the United States deserve esteem as something more than merely conquered or assimilated peoples, even if the British foundation of the country cannot be regarded as merely incidental. There is certainly a basis for at least leavening our assessment of the U.S.A.‘s heraldic tradition with consideration of the French, Dutch, Spanish, Swedish, German, and Russian heraldic traditions, along with any others that have been imported—Irish, Portuguese, Finnish, etc., ad infinitum—especially since we resolutely severed our ties with Great Britain so long ago.

 

Anyway, aside from thinking a national or state heraldic authority is probably a non-starter politically, I no longer think either is particularly desirable. Especially since there is indeed nothing tangible to gain by armorial usurpation in our time and place (except the contempt of cognoscenti), the private sphere would seem to be heraldry’s proper place.

 
Deer Sniper
 
Avatar
 
 
Deer Sniper
Total Posts:  222
Joined  13-06-2008
 
 
 
30 June 2008 17:55
 

If heraldry is to remain soley in the private sector, Then the groups that register arms in the U.S. should religiously guard there reputation, both in the U.S. and abroad, and insure that American heralds are regarded in the international realm as the equals of heralds from any other country, and leaders in heraldic study and research by example. There should be a organization ( private ) who sets standards for American heralds and registries, a accreditation I suppose. One thing that should lend prestige to heraldry and Heralds in the U.S. I think since reading previous posts is that obviously U.S. Heralds need to be versed in the heraldic traditions of many countries, not just the U.S. and if this is obtained then obviously American heraldry is unique in the world ,and well served by capable well rounded Heralds. I am new to this course of study, and all of this may be currently in place. P.S.: I think " the contempt of cognoscenti " must be used as a real check and balance of necessity. ( yea I had to google cognoscenti ) smile

 
Stephen R. Hickman
 
Avatar
 
 
Stephen R. Hickman
Total Posts:  700
Joined  01-12-2006
 
 
 
30 June 2008 20:11
 

A wonderful approach, indeed, but is there a plan to go about accomplishing this, or is this simply academic?  I, for one, would love to see this to fruition, as I naturally want my arms protected from usurpation.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
30 June 2008 21:10
 

Stephen R. Hickman;60032 wrote:

I naturally want my arms protected from usurpation.


Stephen:  Please refer to Michael Swanson’s posting above.  Who do you think is going to usurp them?

 
David Pritchard
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pritchard
Total Posts:  2058
Joined  26-01-2007
 
 
 
30 June 2008 22:35
 

Deer Sniper;60025 wrote:

...insure that American heralds are regarded in the international realm as the equals of heralds from any other country, and leaders in heraldic study and research by example.


When it comes to heraldry and related fields Americans are viewed by the Europeans much as we Americans might view a monkey on a tricycle wanting to enter an Olympic cycling race. The best we can do is not to embarrass ourselves by committing the expected heraldic errors and faux pas such as employing the dreaded Lucky Charms in new designs. I hope that when it comes to devising new achievements on this forum that we can all agree to leave the Lucky Charms in the cereal box where they belong rather than reaffirm the low expectations that so many Europeans hold about Americans and heraldry.

 
David Pritchard
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pritchard
Total Posts:  2058
Joined  26-01-2007
 
 
 
30 June 2008 22:39
 

Stephen R. Hickman;60032 wrote:

I naturally want my arms protected from usurpation.


Have you ever considered that if one of us usurped your arms that you could live out your desire to defend your arms through a civil lawsuit? Just think of the satisfaction that your could have even if you won only one dollar in a judgement and legally affirmed that your arms were yours and yours exclusively!

 
Deer Sniper
 
Avatar
 
 
Deer Sniper
Total Posts:  222
Joined  13-06-2008
 
 
 
30 June 2008 23:42
 

Hey, Daniel Gill already offered, and Ill put up the dollar! Is it possible to through collusion, orchestrate a precedent setting case? :wink:

We could fix those dirty usurpers once and for all!  :shootout:

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
03 September 2008 14:19
 

Fred White;57286 wrote:

I think it unlikely that we will all agree on an answer to this question, but for my own part, I would say "L’etat, c’est nous" sounds a little more left-wing than the normative American perception of where sovereignty lies. I think we have a clear sense that the government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people," but I don’t think we see the government as identical with the citizenry—though perhaps we once did and might benefit from restoring that vision.


I almost hate to revive this ancient thread, but an off-list exchange with Hassan Kamel made me think about it, and it struck me that perhaps the answer to the question raised by George and Fred (i.e., the extent to which the American public identifies itself with the government) is this:  that when the government does something of which we approve, the government is us, and when it does something of which we disapprove, the government is them.

 
Michael Swanson
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Swanson
Total Posts:  2462
Joined  26-02-2005
 
 
 
03 September 2008 16:27
 

Joseph McMillan;63046 wrote:

... the extent to which the American public identifies itself with the government) is this:  that when the government does something of which we approve, the government is us, and when it does something of which we disapprove, the government is them.


I think government identity is more ideology-based.  The government can mess up almost everything, even undermine the interests of its supporters, even violate the core precepts of its public ideology, even bring the world to the brink of nuclear war or environmental destruction; but as long as they continue to espouse the ideology of their constituents, then the "government is them."  It is almost too depressing to think about.  Thanks, Joe.  I am going to cry now.  :(