While trolling for this and that on Google Books, I discovered on line a few weeks ago the report of the Committee on Heraldry of the New England Historic Genealogical Society for 1914. I had seen quotations from it before and knew that it was the document that repudiated the same Committee’s report from 1898, which had opened with the astonishing statement, "As there is no person and no institution in the United States with authority to regulate the use of the coat of arms, your Committee discourages their display in any way or form." But I had never seen the entire analysis laid out.

It was this earlier report (adopted as NEHGS policy in 1899) to which William Armstrong Crozier alluded in the introduction to his General Armory, when he referred to "the quibble raised by a well known historical society that the usage of Coats of Arms in any manner, shape or form should be discountenanced, for the reason, so alleged, that so few families trace their ancestry to the parent stock across the water."

Well, the 1914 report was not only a stunning reversal of the 1898 position but also laid the logical groundwork (although it didn’t quite take the final step) for recognizing the legitimacy of the assumption of original personal arms in the United States. In a way, one could say that we owe whatever life there is in personal heraldry in the United States today to this report. (It also, not coincidentally, addresses many of the issues about the nature of arms that we still argue about on the forum today.) So I’ve uploaded a copy to my personal webspace and urge all members to read it carefully: http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeohzt4/design/COH-1914.pdf.

We might think about approaching the COH for permission to post it on our own website, perhaps as part of a collection of key documents on American heraldry. (I imagine it’s in the public domain by now, but we probably should ask for the sake of comity among heraldic societies.)

I think that is an excellent idea.  The more that is available, the better the spread.

Joseph McMillan;62592 wrote:

We might think about approaching the COH for permission to post it on our own website, perhaps as part of a collection of key documents on American heraldry. (I imagine it’s in the public domain by now, but we probably should ask for the sake of comity among heraldic societies.)

A very good idea, I think.

P.S.—I love the statement, "The subject possesses for multitudes of perfectly sane and normal people a curiously strong degree of sentimental interest." I prefer to think the relative sanity and normality of heraldry enthusiasts is not in question, but appreciate the validation regardless!

Joseph McMillan;62592 wrote:

Well, the 1914 report was not only a stunning reversal of the 1898 position but also laid the logical groundwork (although it didn’t quite take the final step) for recognizing the legitimacy of the assumption of original personal arms in the United States.

I detect a fairly unambiguous recognition of the legitimacy of assuming original arms here: "Having this situation in mind, your Committee would rather find some way in which the use of arms could be made more general—some way in which they could be assumed and borne without any false claim to strictly armigerous descent—than endeavor to suppress the display of arms by those who can produce reasonable evidence in support of their hereditary right."

Passages towards the end of the essay seem to underscore the desirability of free assumption, too. Or perhaps I should say the Committee seems to be inviting the evolution of indigenous heraldry.

Fred White;62609 wrote:

I detect a fairly unambiguous recognition of the legitimacy of assuming original arms here:

Yes, indeed. But not quite:

"It will be observed that we would at present reject not only coats of arms which involve a claim to descent either patently false or unsupported by good evidence, but also coats which were first assumed and borne in this country although their assumption did not infringe the rights of others or involve any false claims of descent from older armigerous families." While the rest of the paragraph proceeds to explain how illogical this position is, the recommendations to the Society did not go so far as recording such assumed arms, even though the committee says that doing so would be a good thing. Clearly the product of a divided committee. It’s pretty clear that Weston was in favor, and based on his introduction to his American Armory, Bolton obviously would have been as well. I’m guessing Appleton couldn’t quite bring himself to such a radical step. No idea how the other two would have gone, but presumably at least one must have supported assumption (or the language couldn’t have made it into the report) but there must have been some sense of the desirability of acting by consensus on the recommendations.

Quote:

Or perhaps I should say the Committee seems to be inviting the evolution of indigenous heraldry.

That puts it very well, I think.

Of all the :USA:history-making American documents:USA:, this is my favourite. I am even ready to write "favorite", for this particular occasion

Re. the commitee’s decision to decline ("at present") from the registration of correctly assumed arms: this decision could be, after all, a matter of mere practical prudence, because these arms’ registration would require a considerable database and effective expertise, which was not so easy to organise at once.