I came across this story of John Hawkins and his arms. Shocking to the senses.
http://www.blacknetworkinggroup.co.uk/Hawkins_biography.htm
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/blackhistory/early_times/adventurers.htm
That first link was written and illustrated by someone with no clue about heraldry.
There was no legal, ethical nor moral objection to the trading of slaves at the time. Not for a couple hundred more years actually. There would be no reason to be ashamed, as the article implies he should have been.
Conquering of people was a prideful boast, something to show accomplishment.
The arms of Hernán Cortés as example such.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3274/2573321715_1a2dfa17cd.jpg
xanderliptak;64191 wrote:
There was no legal, ethical nor moral objection to the trading of slaves at the time. Not for a couple hundred more years actually. There would be no reason to be ashamed, as the article implies he should have been.
As I said, the symbols would not play well today. However, to slightly tweak your point, the slaves in the colonies were against slavery, and that is enough to establish its immorality, regardless of the Colonial/Christian view at the time. Obviously, Hawkins felt no shame. But I made the post not to imply Hawkins did feel shame, but merely to point out that some designs don’t age well like fine wine.
Your point does raise an interesting issue. There may be charges we use today in heraldry that in 100 years reveal our lack of moral insight and sophistication.
Well there is the "problem" with historical arms that they can show charges that today may seem inappropriate. I see it as a historical relic, and one that we have to live with.
A little context: A direct descendant of John Hawkins asked me to research his arms so that he could register them. I gave him the good and the bad news. Moral: what we can live with depends on whose arms the symbols are in!
Is there, perhaps, something else in the family history that the descendant could use to explain away the crest in a less embarrassing way for him? A man bound could be made symbolic fairly easily, and not necessarily be viewed as the more literal slave trader.
xanderliptak;64197 wrote:
Is there, perhaps, something else in the family history that the descendant could use to explain away the crest in a less embarrassing way for him? A man bound could be made symbolic fairly easily, and not necessarily be viewed as the more literal slave trader.
As John McPhee once wrote (in The Crofter and the Laird), we associate with our ancestors at our own risk. I think it would be intellectually dishonest for the descendant to use the crest and pretend that it doesn’t mean what it means. Either he should use it and acknowledge frankly where it comes from, or if he’s too squeamish for that, change to an entirely different crest, perhaps something taken from a charge in a matrilineal coat of arms.
Joseph McMillan;64200 wrote:
As John McPhee once wrote (in The Crofter and the Laird), we associate with our ancestors at our own risk. I think it would be intellectually dishonest for the descendant to use the crest and pretend that it doesn’t mean what it means. Either he should use it and acknowledge frankly where it comes from, or if he’s too squeamish for that, change to an entirely different crest, perhaps something taken from a charge in a matrilineal coat of arms.
I agree completely.
I descend from a 18th century English pirate and not from one of the "cool" Hollywood type ones. Though it’s not the greatest thing in the world to know that my ggg-grandfather was a wanted criminal, he is nevertheless my ancestor and denying that would definitely be dishonest.
I am quite sure that many of the people who first were granted arms (and a lot of the ones that assumed them, too) were granted them by reason of acts which their descendants would not have approved of. In Mr. Hawkins’ case it is just actually showing in the achievement in a rather obvious way.
If his descendant doesn’t mind, please keep us abreast of his decision on whether to take up the old arms, or assume new arms which are less distasteful.
A thought for the descendent of John Hawkins: For a crest, what about a demi-Blackamoor affronty, arms raised above his head, wrists shackled, but the chain between them broken? —not denying the history, but evolving from it.
Rather than looking at this situation as a problem, instead the Hawkins descendant could use this opportunity to use the historic arms, yet choose a crest with which he better identifies.
If the ancestor is entitled to have the arms matriculated for his generation, he can do so with a clear conscience. He is not obliged in any way to adopt the crest that Sir John used. He could develop a crest that would define him rather than his ancestor. The arms themselves seemed quite non-scandalous to me.
Like others, I received advice relating to ancestors. My father once told me that, during a specific period of time in the Scottish Border country, "half of our ancestors were dominies and half were reivers and sheep stealers, but they only stole from the Sassenachs awa’ doon south’!" Perhaps instead of the Lamp, my arms should show a sheep slung across the back of a "sneaking Scot". Wonder what that blazon would be? :confused:
As the symbols of arms are not always known, adopting a personal and new reason for the crest would not be dishonest intellectually so much as historically. Meanings change all the time, even when the symbol does not.
xanderliptak;64191 wrote:
There was no legal, ethical nor moral objection to the trading of slaves at the time.
Well, there were a very few ethical and moral objections made by a very, very few people. But it was a distinctly minority view.
I have a question about the bezants. Are there supposed to be three in chief and, if so, shouldn’t one of them be absconded?