Tenant vs. supporter

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
01 July 2008 13:15
 

Fred White;60056 wrote:

Contrariwise, on the Continent, "nobility" seems always to have been a much broader category corresponding more to the British notion of "gentry," and membership in it has been obtainable without acquisition of a title per se, if I understand correctly.


That’s true, but as far as I have been able to learn, in most of Europe the use of supporters was limited to titled nobles, by custom if not by law, and in some places only to upper ranks of the titled nobility.  As I quoted the last time we discussed this less than six months ago, the handbook of the leading German heraldic society ("Der Herold" of Berlin) states that "In Deutschland ist der Brauch, Schildhalter zum Familienwappen zu fuehren, auf den titulierten Adel beschraenkt geblieben—In Germany the custom of bearing supporters with family arms has remained limited to the titled nobility."

 

Here’s a survey of what I could find from various sources on use of supporters in a range of countries when we were developing the guidelines, posted almost two years ago:


Quote:

Belgium: "For barons and higher ranks supporters are de rigueur." (Volborth)

Denmark: "When a member of the untitled nobility was raised to a higher degree…his arms were not always ‘improved’ by augmentations, supporters, additional crests, etc." (Volborth) Comment: This suggests that supporters are not typical of those below the titled nobility.

 

France: "Supporters are used freely." (Volborth, in his discussion of the untitled nobility, but, in another place he says "Supporters are common in the armorial bearings of the French aristocracy, but unusual for commoners; there are however no hard and fast rules for their use."

 

Germany (including Austria and Bohemia): "Many titled families have supporters for their achievements, but this does not apply to all of them…. [They] are not looked upon as a standard appurtenance of a titled nobleman’s coat of arms." And "Some titled noble families…have supporters, others do not, and there exist no definite regulations regarding this." (Both Volborth. Our colleague Reinhard Greis-Maibach said in the old forum that the more traditional German heraldic socieities will not register assumed supporters, as I recall.) [and see above for the quotation from Der Herold’s handbook—JM, 7/1/08]

 

Hungary: Supporters are not customary for any rank.

 

Ireland: The CHI grants supporters only to high elected officials—in practice I believe only to the President. There was a period in which supporters were granted to "those claiming to have purchased feudal baronies or lordships" (Sean Murphy on rec.heraldry quoting an OCHI official, 10/23/02), but this was terminated in 1998. The draft heraldry bill now before parliament effectively bans the granting of supporters to individuals.

 

Italy: "Supporters are rare. When they occur it is usually in the arms of the higher aristocracy, but there seem to be no rules for their use, and in fact it is a case of do-as-you-please." (Volborth)

 

Netherlands: "Originally [supporters] were undoubtedly the privilege of higher ranks than the untitled nobility…but today they can be assumed by anybody." And "Some bourgeois families have supporters, while many noble families do not." (Both from Volborth)

 

Poland: Supporters are not customary, and there is little history of non-noble heraldry anyway.

 

Portugal: Commoners were forbidden to bear arms at all between about 1500 and 1910. (Volborth)

 

Spain: "Nowadays [supporters] are rarely found despite the fact that everybody may use them." (Volborth) The Castilian kings prohibited the use of arms except by the nobility (Slater—I believe this is incorrect, however.) Leon Cronista quoted as saying supporters have no nobiliary significance in Spain and have been granted as augmentations by special request, (Guy Stair Sainty, rec.heraldry, 7/6/01), but in a discussion of this issue on rec.heraldry in 2000, Barry Gabriel challenged those arguing that supporters are available to all to provide any examples of a non-noble Spanish family using supporters, and no one was able to do so. Larry Slight reported that "two members of the office of the Spanish King of Arms [sic]" told him they consider granting supporters in extremely rare cases and that such grants ennoble the recipient. However, it is clear that cronistas of arms have no power to ennoble, so what they meant by this is anyone’s guess.

 

Sweden: "In Sweden, commoners are not entitled to supporters." (Elias Granqvist, rec.heraldry, 10/3/99). "Only titled nobility (with some few exceptions) are entitled to supporters." (Jan Bohme, rec.heraldry, 11/15/05). Use of supporters by the titled nobility is not obligatory. "Not every baron uses supporters," but for counts "the shield is generally held by supporters" but not in all cases. (Volborth)


Finally, to save wear and tear on the joints, here’s my still unchanged position on the general issue raised by Fred, as to whether Americans’ refraining from using supporters (etc?) doesn’t somehow validate foreign nobles’ claims to specialness.  (Forgive my condensation and probably distortion of the point.)


Quote:

By this logic, we should all have the right to style ourselves dukes, princes, maharajahs and satraps and to insist that we be addressed as the right honourable, his grace, and her serenity if we so choose.

In fact, we do have that right. We also have the right to dress up in ermine robes and caps of maintenance, to found and award each other orders of chivalry with fancy collars and sashes, and to gussy up our arms with the corresponding mantles, coronets, and supporters.

 

But that’s not, in fact, the approach Americans in what I will dare to call polite society have taken. Except in certain quasi-theatrical settings (e.g., academic processions, Knights of Columbus participating in a Catholic Church ceremony), we don’t behave this way, unless we’re either charlatans or their victims.

 

Instead, Americans of all social classes have generally found the putting on of such lordly airs and graces pretentious if not ridiculous. The classically accepted "best practice" in American manners was "republican simplicity," not taking advantage of our liberty to ape the European aristocracy ... I see no need to prove to foreign aristos that we’re just as good as they are by emulating their behavior.

 

 
Jeremy Keith Hammond
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeremy Keith Hammond
Total Posts:  789
Joined  20-06-2008
 
 
 
01 July 2008 13:43
 

I think the issue originally addressed was the difference between having one supporter rather than two. Do these augmentations differ and if so how? Would it be acceptable, as an American following our guidelines, to use just ONE supporter for decorative purposes in an emblazonment?

I agree with Joseph that the use of two supporters ought not be used by us, but I’m still unsure where we stand on the use of a single supporter if its "value" (for lack of a better word) is different from the use of two.

 
werewolves
 
Avatar
 
 
werewolves
Total Posts:  477
Joined  14-08-2007
 
 
 
01 July 2008 15:50
 

To add a wrinkle to the discussion; what about displays like those seen below?  If the arms are displayed on a flag, is the creature holding it up considered a supporter?

[ATTACH]455[/ATTACH]

 
David Pritchard
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pritchard
Total Posts:  2058
Joined  26-01-2007
 
 
 
01 July 2008 16:16
 

The beasts holding the poles of the banners are probably blazoned supporters in a full achievement of their noble owner’s arms, yet in thier capacity of holding the banner poles the beasts are simply decorative elements.

Some months ago, Dennis MacGoff, illustrated an Irish style standard (and badge) for me using one of my Spanish supporters as a decorative element. While the Greyhound Or, collared Azure, semey of cockles Or is a blazoned supporter in my Spanish Certification of Arms, it is not a blazonable element when supporting the pole of my standard.

 

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/8243/davidpritchardstandardczr1.jpg

 
Michael Y. Medvedev
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Y. Medvedev
Total Posts:  844
Joined  18-01-2008
 
 
 
01 July 2008 16:22
 

The following was written before I discovered Joseph’s answer which tells the same in greater details.

——

Supporters may be, or be not, indicators of certain rank (peerage, high office or otherwise); but they always were, and are, honourable additaments. It is, IMHO, absolutely unheraldic to treat them as purely decorative elements.

[Today they are said to be commonly assumable in the Netherlands – which may be the case, taking in consideration the complicated history of the local privileged strata, although it is telling that even there this liberal principle is applied to the family arms only and not to the municipal ones.]

Within the convincedly egalitarist context hereditary supporters must be, I believe, either rejected, or tolerated if really old, but not commonly allowed, just as no egalitarist context may justify common assumption of a baronial title.

 
David Pritchard
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pritchard
Total Posts:  2058
Joined  26-01-2007
 
 
 
01 July 2008 16:57
 

Does anyone know the Latin translation for "From one question, many answers". I suggest this might be a good motto for our forum.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
01 July 2008 17:51
 

Joseph McMillan;60062 wrote:

That’s true, but as far as I have been able to learn, in most of Europe the use of supporters was limited to titled nobles, by custom if not by law . . .


Okay, but again, in most of Europe “titled nobility” refers to a much, much larger group of people than one might suppose if he’s operating with the British paradigm in mind. It seems generally agreed that most of the nobles of Europe corresponded status- and rank-wise to what the English historically called the gentry. In France, at least, titles were often tied to property or offices and could be bought and sold like other commodities—as different from the British situation as can be. My point is that even if one were to concede that use of supporters implies a claim of status at least analogous to (if not the same as) that of a Continental noble, the claim needn’t be construed or contemned as invariably boastful.


Joseph McMillan;60062 wrote:

Here’s a survey of what I could find . . .


In terms of precedents for use of supporters in the various national traditions, I reach very different conclusions based on the abundant evidence Joseph has patiently gathered and generously shared. My apologies for not analyzing it more fully until now. Please bear with me as I address it piecemeal.

 

Belgium: Saying supporters were de rigueur for barons and above implies that supporters were simply not obligatory for inferior ranks. It does not imply that inferior ranks were forbidden to use them. It may imply that it was not normal for non-nobles to use them. We should recall, though, that Belgium, as such, was only founded in 1830, so knowing the scope of Volborth’s notion of “Belgian heraldry” might make his characterization more informative.

 

Denmark: Volborth’s comment suggests to me the absence of a systematic approach to the use of supporters rather than the presence of a restriction on them, though the characterization of supporters as an “improvement” is duly noted.

 

The German-speaking lands: Contemporary German heralds’ refusal to register supporters not anciently assumed (I use this language because it isn’t clear that grants from a sovereign were ever required for their use) notwithstanding, I take “no definite regulations regarding [use of supporters]” to mean precisely that. Particularly if use of supporters is effectively optional for any German, I don’t see the German precedent as in any way discouraging the use of supporters by Americans.

 

Hungary: I take “not customary for any rank” to mean “not restricted to any rank”. Supporters are far from unknown in Hungarian heraldry, but in any case there is a good bit about Hungarian heraldry that is peculiar—tincture violations, preponderance of gory human charges, etc.

 

Ireland: The CHI does seem to make a connection between supporters and nobility in line with the British model, whether they are granting them at present or not, but on the whole, it sounds like they’re confused.

 

Netherlands: Some bourgeois families have supporters? Today they can be assumed by anybody? Enough said.

 

Poland: To say that supporters have not been customary [for any rank] means only that. It doesn’t mean that they are restricted. The noteworthy thing here is that there is little history of non-noble heraldry, period. So, from the Polish angle of vision, any use of heraldry at all implies a probable claim of noble status, right? If so, all Americans who assume arms—even those who broadcast their modesty and prudence by not using supporters—must look mighty foolish to the Poles.

 

Portugal: Ditto the situation in Poland, but with bona fide restrictions on the use of any heraldry by non-nobles. So all Americans who assume arms look like impostors to the Portuguese, too.

 

Spain: “Everybody may use [supporters]” means everybody may use them. Nothing more, nothing less. The conflicting testimony of Cronistas and aficionados yields no definitive generalization to the contrary.

 

Sweden: As I read it, Sweden offers the one unambiguous precedent in this list for the thesis that only titled nobles have any business using supporters.

 

Canada is not cited in this particular list, but my understanding is that the CHA does grant supporters to holders of high elected office (presumably viewing them as analogous to noblemen), which says to me that the CHA sees fit to adapt British tradition to a contemporary, North American context. Actually, the mere fact of their establishing their own heraldic authority says that.

 

I guess we could add in a discussion of heraldry in Russia, South Africa, and maybe a couple of other places, but it wouldn’t be necessary to assist me in making the case that one can validly read Joseph’s evidence as indicating that European and European-derived traditions are rather heterogeneous with regards to what is signified by the use of supporters. Do we see some kind of recurring association between nobility and the use of supporters? I think so, but I also think that what is missing is a clear norm we should feel obliged to adhere to.


Joseph McMillan;60062 wrote:

Finally, to save wear and tear on the joints, here’s my still unchanged position on the general issue raised by Fred, as to whether Americans’ refraining from using supporters (etc?) doesn’t somehow validate foreign nobles’ claims to specialness.  (Forgive my condensation and probably distortion of the point.)


No worries about condensation and possible distortion. I would simply counter that caps of maintenance and coronets of rank make much more definitive and universal statements about status than supporters seem to. So I don’t think it’s wise to insist that an American using supporters is invariably a buffoon and a braggart.

 

On a fresher note, one complication I don’t think we’ve discussed is the extent to which the Continental procedure for acquiring supporters might have typically differed from the British norm (which I take to be a grant from the sovereign via the College of Arms). Did Continentals simply choose supporters they liked and start using them at the appropriate time? Any observations on that, anyone?

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
01 July 2008 17:54
 

But let’s not forget to resolve the issue of whether or not a single supporter/bearer/tenant rates as an honorable additament.

 
Jeremy Keith Hammond
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeremy Keith Hammond
Total Posts:  789
Joined  20-06-2008
 
 
 
01 July 2008 19:44
 

Fred White;60074 wrote:

But let’s not forget to resolve the issue of whether or not a single supporter/bearer/tenant rates as an honorable additament.


Thanks :D

 

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
01 July 2008 21:20
 

David wrote, "From one question, many answers"—let’s put that in a motto scroll above the AHS arms; and on another ribbon below the shield, to complete the recurring cycle, "From one answer, many questions."  We may not have invented perpetual motion, but we’ve got perpetual contention pretty much down pat!

We haggled over the question of supporters and various other external additaments during the development and polishing of our Guidelines/Best Practices, which are linked to our home page.  And we’ve rehashed the question, usually with the same underlying themes, general conclusions, and individual reservations, periodically ever since.  he general consensus—i.e. a majority view of which I happen to approve smile—as to "best practice" in an American context, generally centered on two points:

* various expressions of what Joe has recently referred to as "republican simplicity"—essentially don’t go overboard with items not reflective of American values generally;

* and avoiding additaments that suggest, or may be seen by others as suggesting/implying/secretly hoping to convey etc., special social or legal status alien to American life.

 

Others can & have said it better than I have, but that’s the general thrust.  Some (hopefully most) will generally agree, some (probably a minority) will disagree to greater or lesser degrees; but then if 10 people in a room (even a chat room) always agree on everything, you don’t really need 10 people.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
01 July 2008 21:28
 

Michael F. McCartney;60079 wrote:

The general consensus—i.e. a majority view of which I happen to approve smile—as to "best practice" in an American context, generally centered on two points:

* various expressions of what Joe has recently referred to as "republican simplicity"—essentially don’t go overboard with items not reflective of American values generally;

* and avoiding additaments that suggest, or may be seen by others as suggesting/implying/secretly hoping to convey etc., special social or legal status alien to American life.


And I should emphasize that I think this is a perfectly valid analysis, though I do think the matter is susceptible of a very different, equally valid analysis and I know I’m far from alone in that in the AHS, regardless of what a majority of the membership might have agreed on at the time the Guidelines were promulgated.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
01 July 2008 23:17
 

Fred White;60073 wrote:

In terms of precedents for use of supporters in the various national traditions, I reach very different conclusions based on the abundant evidence Joseph has patiently gathered and generously shared.


Yes, it’s possible to pick all this apart in detail, but what’s clear in the aggregate is that everywhere that the use of supporters is customary, there is an empirical correlation between use of supporters and nobiliary rank. There are many countries where no rules exist or ever existed, yet (as Der Herold puts it with regard to Germany) the actual practice is that many members of the titled nobility used and use them, while their use by commoners is rare to non-existent. The point is this: how does an experienced, educated heraldist tend to interpret the presence of supporters with a coat of arms? I think they will make the rebuttable presumption that there is an implication of noble rank.

 

I’m not a member of the nobility of any country, titled or otherwise. I don’t want anyone thinking I am. Therefore I do not use supporters with my arms.

 

Those who are not nobles but want people to think they are may, of course, use supporters if they please.:p

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
01 July 2008 23:31
 

Joseph McMillan;60081 wrote:

Those who are not nobles but want people to think they are may, of course, use supporters if they please.:p


(The temptation is to reply, "And those who are not knights but want people to think they are may, of course, bear arms if they please" :p, but I think I’ll take the high road here.)

 

Indeed they may, but so may other armigers without necessarily indicating they want people to impute anything more to them than good or bad aesthetic sense.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
01 July 2008 23:36
 

Fred White;60073 wrote:

Okay, but again, in most of Europe “titled nobility” refers to a much, much larger group of people than one might suppose if he’s operating with the British paradigm in mind. It seems generally agreed that most of the nobles of Europe corresponded status- and rank-wise to what the English historically called the gentry.


This is asserted by some in the UK; it is far from generally agreed.  As Francois Velde cogently argues on heraldica.org, there was a fundamental difference between the British gentry and the Continential untitled nobility.  From http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/england1.htm#gentry:


Quote:

It must be strongly emphasized that the concept of gentry is peculiar to England. Continental Europe never knew anything like it. On the Continent, nobility is defined as a legal status in society which is either inherited or acquired through very specific procedures, like holding certain offices, or ennoblement by the sovereign. There was never any definition based on income, although the prohibition against manual labor meant that nobles who could not afford not to work might lose their nobility (in fact, in France, their nobility was not lost, but went into abeyance, and would return if they quit their trade or manual labor). And it was not possible for anyone to glide into the nobility simply by assuming the lifestyle of a noble. [Unlike the situation with the gentry in England.] Nobility carried important implications, especially fiscal exemptions, and exclusive access to certain functions, offices or privileges, and it was important to make sure that the concept of nobility maintain its legal content. In France, in the 17th century, massive inquiries were launched by the king to ferret out self-assumed nobility. So it would be a serious mistake to equate the English gentry with the Continental lesser nobility.


Returning to Fred’s points:


Quote:

In France, at least, titles were often tied to property or offices and could be bought and sold like other commodities—as different from the British situation as can be.


Very different from the British situation, but the system was not exactly as Fred suggests.  Titles could indeed convey with the transfer of feudal property, but the purchaser had already to be noble to assume the title that went with the land, and the title had to be confirmed by the king.  Untitled noble status could be acquired in other ways.  Again, I recommend Velde’s website, this time http://heraldica.org/topics/france/noblesse.htm#acquisition


Quote:

My point is that even if one were to concede that use of supporters implies a claim of status at least analogous to (if not the same as) that of a Continental noble, the claim needn’t be construed or contemned as invariably boastful.


No, not if one actually is a Continental noble.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
01 July 2008 23:42
 

Joseph McMillan;60084 wrote:

No, not if one actually is a Continental noble.


And not if one fits quite a few other Continental descriptions besides, from the looks of your evidence, much less a North American one.