Society of the Cincinnati

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
09 February 2009 23:05
 

Joseph McMillan;66455 wrote:

It would be based on the words "in their own right."  If the act applied to all veterans of these wars, what purpose would those words serve?  It would end after "...who are members of said organizations."


Got it. Thanks.


Quote:

Yes; the military uniform regulations are actually written more broadly than the statute that originally authorized the wear of these badges. They also apply to a number of additional organizations, such as the Army and Navy Union, the Military Order of the Carabao, the Daedalians, and others.


Thanks, again.

 
David Pritchard
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pritchard
Total Posts:  2058
Joined  26-01-2007
 
 
 
10 February 2009 00:43
 

Joseph McMillan;66441 wrote:

"One of us" presumably being George Lucki, but I’m going to hazard a guess that this is the Order "Virtuti Militari," which Kosciuszko did hold.


The medal and the ribbon around his neck are consistent with the Virtuti Militari though it is not the best illustration of the badge as it is missing the round balls at the eight pointed ends of the cross.

 
James Dempster
 
Avatar
 
 
James Dempster
Total Posts:  602
Joined  20-05-2004
 
 
 
10 February 2009 02:44
 

To bring this back to heraldry rather than the status &c of the Society (sorry guys :D

James

 
Jay Bohn
 
Avatar
 
 
Jay Bohn
Total Posts:  283
Joined  04-03-2008
 
 
 
10 February 2009 09:32
 

James Dempster;66459 wrote:

From my perspective the bookplate is a private depiction, and in a private depiction a person can have whatever bells and whistles they like. We might not like it and can point to 2.2.3.7 as an distillation of good practice.


What makes a bookplate "private"? As I understand the practical use of a bookplate, it identifies the owner of the book and it is most useful if the particular volume to which it is attached is lent. It is no more private than say a luggage tag.


Quote:

My next point comes from Joseph’s use of the word "achievement". I’m not sure that this is a helpful way of thinking of the bookplate. As far as I can see, pendant badges are not part of an achievement. My reasoning is that they are personal rather than heritable parts of arms. They come in the black ink of the preamble rather than the red ink of the blazon.

I don’t agree that the addition of a non-hereditary element means that a depiction of arms is not an "achievement." What about the coronet and supporters of a life peer, or the insignia (and possibly supporters) of a knight (using British examples? Or the cross and galero in Catholic clerical arms?

 
Dohrman Byers
 
Avatar
 
 
Dohrman Byers
Total Posts:  760
Joined  02-08-2007
 
 
 
10 February 2009 10:28
 

James Dempster;66459 wrote:

My next point comes from Joseph’s use of the word "achievement". I’m not sure that this is a helpful way of thinking of the bookplate. As far as I can see, pendant badges are not part of an achievement. My reasoning is that they are personal rather than heritable parts of arms. They come in the black ink of the preamble rather than the red ink of the blazon.


This seems to me the most helpful observation on this point. The English heralds do seem to distinguish between the achievement of arms described in the blazon and the acknowledgement of honors received by the armiger. The depiction of the insignia of the latter together with the achievement of arms seems to be optional, like the display of a motto (in English usage). In some places or circumstances, there may be customs or rules that govern this usage, such as the custom/rule that the only orders displayed with the arms of Catholic clerics are Malta and the Holy Sepulcher. A member of these orders may, but is not required, to display their insignia with his arms.

 

Perhaps here the distinction between an emblazonment and an achievement is useful. Unless specified in the blazon, such honors do not form part of the achievement of arms. They may or may not, according to custom, taste, and option, be included in a particular emblazonment of the arms.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
10 February 2009 12:15
 

For what it’s worth, it appears that Delafield was a hereditary, and not an honorary, Cincinnatus. There are two Delafields in the current directory. Their surname is quite uncommon, so I’m pretty sure one of them is a son of the general, and the other that son’s successor.* This suggests that the general saw a hereditary gong as equal in importance to those he earned through his own service.

*Strictly speaking, the rule is one representative per propositus, but the individual state Societies have a lot of autonomy, and I think most have clauses permitting the rising generation to join while their fathers are still alive. Some, like Delaware and South Carolina, have basically thrown the one rep rule out the window, such that all the sons of a hereditary member can belong, at least for their lifetimes.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
10 February 2009 12:30
 

Fred White;66467 wrote:

For what it’s worth, it appears that Delafield was a hereditary, and not an honorary, Cincinnatus. There are two Delafields in the current directory. Their surname is quite uncommon, so I’m pretty sure one of them is a son of the general, and the other that son’s successor.* This suggests that the general saw a hereditary gong as equal in importance to those he earned through his own service.


I’m sure he did, and that many other members of the society would as well. We’ve sort of gotten diverted, partly through my fault and as interesting as the discussion is, from the question I intended to raise, which is whether or not it can now be said to be customary for Cincinnati members to display the badge with their arms, and whether we should revise the statement in the guidelines that such display is not customary in the US.  I’m inclined to think that it still isn’t customary (something that’s intended to be a statement of fact even if one that is difficult to prove or disprove) any more than, say, the use of a doctoral cap in lieu of a helmet is customary, even though someone may have done it.  But the issue is worth examining.

 

On the question of whether or not orders and decorations are part of an achievement, they clearly aren’t an essential part, but then one can display a shield without supporters or coronet or crest, too. Hereditary or not seems neither here nor there—the supporters of a life peer or a knight grand cross aren’t hereditary—nor, as far as I can see, how they are treated in a grant of arms necessarily dispositive. Is the Garter an integral part of the royal arms of the UK? Of course the arms can be shown without it, but….

 

(I’m also skeptical of the validity of James’s distinction between public and private use of arms when transplanted to the US context. All use of arms in the US is private—we don’t have situations in which there’s an official or quasi-official display of personal bearings, as is the case, for example, in the chapels of the British orders of knighthood, or similar settings in the UK.)

 

It would be interesting to have Mr. Beckwith’s view on this matter.  As I already have another query before him concerning AHS use of NEHGS-generated material, perhaps the question would be better coming from a fellow SoC member.

 
Jay Bohn
 
Avatar
 
 
Jay Bohn
Total Posts:  283
Joined  04-03-2008
 
 
 
10 February 2009 13:15
 

Perhaps the distinction between an achievement and an emblazonment suggested by Fr. Byers might be useful, although I would not precisely adopt his definition. A person’s "achievement" includes all heraldic elements, both hereditary and not. A particular "emblazonment" may depict some or all of the achievement and may also include other decorative elements, for example the branches depicted around the AHS coat of arms or the rank insignia at the top of General Delafield’s bookplate.

 
James Dempster
 
Avatar
 
 
James Dempster
Total Posts:  602
Joined  20-05-2004
 
 
 
10 February 2009 14:40
 

Fr Byers expressed the bulk of what I wanted to say more succinctly than my early morning & too little caffeine head managed. The distinction between achievement and emblazon is part of what I wanted to get across but not quite all. Joseph also got most of my meaning of "private" arms and I can see his point about the lack of "official" use of arms in the USA.

If you look at Scottish grants and matriculations it might more clearly show what I was on about. There are several at the HSS website that are quite informative.

 

For an example of an ordinary armiger (sorry John wink ) see those of John Duncan of Sketraw. Someone with right to a recognised honour that is normally suspended below the shield is Roger Lindsay of Craighall. He also happens to be a feudal baron. Three examples of chiefs with supporters are also available. The late Robert Nesbitt of that Ilk, Iain MacNeacail of MacNeacail & Scorrybreac and Sir Iain Bosville MacDonald of Sleat Bt

 

What can be noticed as consistent across all five of these is that the parts in red are

 

The shield of arms

The crest

 

Decorations, when mentioned, Sleat’s baronet’s badge is not, chapeaux, helms, mantling (even when not of the livery colours) and wreath are not in red. Neither are the mottoes.

 

In the case of Robert Nesbitt of that Ilk the supporters, the compartment and the badge are also described in red. This however does not seem to be as consistent as neither of the compartments of the other two chiefs are described in red and Sleat’s badge is never described as such.

 

My point is that the items described in red are the essentials of what has been described as the "achievement" and they are the most permanent and "heritable" parts of the arms. I say "heritable" because, though unlikely, even an 80 year old Cardinal might renounce the priesthood, marry and sire an heir. Except for the motto (an interesting exception) they are the parts that Lyon would definitely require a rematriculation to alter.

 

Personal rank, as denoted by helms chapeaux, robes and decorations can be gained and, on occasion, lost during life. No one is born a knight, or a priest or a member of the Society of the Cincinnati, though many are born eligible and/or with the potential. Similarly, though less perfectly, few are born Scottish chiefs or peers.

 

I would say that a person running a registry might find rules similar to the red ink in a Lyon Court matriculation a useful rule of thumb as to what can be registered. All else is ornament, traditional or non-traditional, in good taste or not.

 

Returning to the question: should the guidelines be changed? I would suggest that they might but that the change should recognise that pendant orders and decorations are not part of the *arms*. They are "exterior ornaments" to use Nisbet’s phrase. US traditions can then be described, including the fact that it appears the the Cincinnati has been used as a pendant badge.

 

James

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
10 February 2009 16:52
 

James Dempster;66470 wrote:

I would say that a person running a registry might find rules similar to the red ink in a Lyon Court matriculation a useful rule of thumb as to what can be registered. All else is ornament, traditional or non-traditional, in good taste or not.

Returning to the question: should the guidelines be changed? I would suggest that they might but that the change should recognise that pendant orders and decorations are not part of the *arms*. They are "exterior ornaments" to use Nisbet’s phrase. US traditions can then be described, including the fact that it appears the the Cincinnati has been used as a pendant badge.

 

James


Does anyone really disagree with the foregoing? In terms of what is and is not part of the arms, what is and is not heritable, I gather we’re all on the same sheet of music. In any case, the section I have emphasized above could be used virtually as-is in any rewrite of the Guidelines., I would think.

 

Of course, at this point, we’ve only seen two examples of the eagle being used in full achievements. Perhaps Henry Beckwith can supply an opinion we will defer to.

 
Charles E. Drake
 
Avatar
 
 
Charles E. Drake
Total Posts:  553
Joined  27-05-2006
 
 
 
10 February 2009 17:05
 

Although it isn’t a pendant badge, here is another example of the Cincinnati insignia in a bookplate, that of the late David L. Garrison.  For the longest time this seemed to be missing from the web, so when I found it, I archived it.

http://www.wyverngules.com/Webmasters/garrison.jpg

 

Insignia (Clockwise from top left):

Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem,

Order of St. Gregory the Great,

Badge of the Society of the Cincinnati,

Venerable Order of St. John.

 

The badge of the Order of Malta is suspended below the shield.

The cross of the Constantinian Order of St. George is behind the shield.

 

/Charles

 
Jay Bohn
 
Avatar
 
 
Jay Bohn
Total Posts:  283
Joined  04-03-2008
 
 
 
10 February 2009 17:46
 

Fred White;66478 wrote:

Does anyone really disagree with the foregoing?


It seems to me that this thread now has three separate questions:

 

1. Is there sufficient evidence from which it can be concluded that display of the "eagle" of the SoC pendant from a shield of arms is customary?

 

2. What elements constitute an "achievement" of arms?

 

3. What armorial elements should be registerable?

 

I would not distinguish "heritable" from not based upon the likelihood that the armiger will actually have an heir to inherit. I would characterize as non-heritable those items which are related to personal status or "for life". Thus, the 80 year old cardinal’s shield is heritable, even if there is no one who will actually inherit it, but his galero, cross and maltese cross are not. In my view, the cardinal’s "achievement" includes all of these items.  I would expect that only heritable elements would be registerable but other elements could be illustrated, which is how I would interpret the Scottish grant examples. (I believe on another thread some time ago there was discussion of Scottish grants including within the granting language some order or decoration.)

 

What can be registered might not be identical to what could be granted by a British king of arms. A life peer or knight grand cross can be granted supporters for life. I cannot think of a registerable armorial element in the American context that would be assumed for life, but perhaps my reasoning is getting circular.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
10 February 2009 22:57
 

Jay Bohn;66480 wrote:

It seems to me that this thread now has three separate questions:

1. Is there sufficient evidence from which it can be concluded that display of the "eagle" of the SoC pendant from a shield of arms is customary?


Well, there’s an ancillary question here, which is whether or not it’s customary for SoC members to use coats of arms. I’m sure plenty are entitled to hereditary arms, and that still others (like Charles Drake) have assumed arms, received grants of arms, or what have you. Maybe Charles has some insight into this, and Henry Beckwith might actually have access to some helpful literature on the subject, but my guess is that the percentage of Cincinnati who USE coats of arms reflects trends in the U.S. at large. In other words, not too many, so we should factor that in when trying to assess whether or not it’s customary for SoC armigers to display the eagle pendant from their shields—in other words, look for a sample of proportionate size.


Quote:

3. What armorial elements should be registerable?


Especially since the supporters camp has cried uncle, I imagine the AHS Guidelines are sticking to crest, shield, motto, and maybe badge. An "achievement," I gather, would include the former three and anything supplemental that might be in a particular emblazonment—gongs, backgrounds like a Maltese cross (for Knights of Malta and other St. John orders), etc.


Quote:

I would not distinguish "heritable" from not based upon the likelihood that the armiger will actually have an heir to inherit. I would characterize as non-heritable those items which are related to personal status or "for life". Thus, the 80 year old cardinal’s shield is heritable, even if there is no one who will actually inherit it, but his galero, cross and maltese cross are not. In my view, the cardinal’s "achievement" includes all of these items.  I would expect that only heritable elements would be registerable but other elements could be illustrated . . .


Exactly. That’s my impression, too. But just to clarify, I don’t think anyone is suggesting the SoC eagle or any other gong should be part of a registration. However, one question germane to the wording of the Guidelines issue is whether the AHS would consider it sufficiently characteristic of historic American heraldry to allow, say, emblazonments of SoC members’ arms that include the eagle pendant to be displayed in the AHS armorial. That’s something we’ve discussed energetically in the past.

 

On another note, something occurred me today that might bear illuminating, in connection with the question of whether or not SoC membership can be considered an honor.

 

It seems the understanding here is that inheritance of SoC membership (or acceptance as a representative of an eligible propositus not previously represented) is automatic. That isn’t quite the case. The SoC isn’t egalitarian, and there are certainly SoC members who would unabashedly characterize it as "aristocratic," the irony of that notwithstanding. The prospective inheritor does have to file an application with letters of reference "from gentlemen of prominence," a short bio., an essay, and photographs, and get elected on his own merits. Where the line is drawn probably varies between the state Societies, but they all have definite social, etc. requirements. Basically, they want members to be genteel in a very conventional sense. I imagine they’ve loosened up some in the last couple of decades, but that expectation is still very clear. The South Carolina Society explicitly reserves the right to expel members and transfer membership to another line of descent from the propositus for any reason it deems valid—could just be a race thing, and I have no idea if that has ever actually happened, but there it is. I don’t remember the Virginia Society being quite so blunt, but their by-laws certainly give them the same flexibility (or rigidity, depending on how you look at it). In short, election to the SoC is an honor of at least a modest sort; the Society does have to deem you an appropriate representative of your propositus. Moreover, they certainly don’t recruit (which they easily might, insofar as there are always quite a few eligible propositi who aren’t represented and Anderson House always has exhibits to fund) and the general tone they seem to take with prospective members who seek them out is merely cordial—"Thanks for your interest, we’ll contact you if we wish to continue the discussion," or something like that. Assuming they do want to continue the discussion, the application process can take up to two years. They do nothing in haste.

 

Anyway, I may have succeeded only in making the SoC sound like a snooty country club. However, I do think it needs to be understood that heredity, while the point of departure for eligibility for hereditary SoC membership, is definitely not sufficient, and that probably has a good deal to do with why someone like Gen. Delafield or this Mr. Garrison would deem the eagle a significant enough award to hang alongside the Legion of Honor or the Order of St. John. What it might be understood to signify is that the Society has confidence that the member is someone who would be capable of filling his ancestor’s shoes if he were subjected to his ancestor’s trials.

 
Jay Bohn
 
Avatar
 
 
Jay Bohn
Total Posts:  283
Joined  04-03-2008
 
 
 
11 February 2009 07:02
 

Fred White;66483 wrote:

Well, there’s an ancillary question here, which is whether or not it’s customary for SoC members to use coats of arms. ... [M]y guess is that the percentage of Cincinnati who USE coats of arms reflects trends in the U.S. at large. In other words, not too many, so we should factor that in when trying to assess whether or not it’s customary for SoC armigers to display the eagle pendant from their shields—in other words, look for a sample of proportionate size.


This observation led me to re-think the "main" question. Does it matter what one particular society customarily does if societies in general do not display insignia as part of armorial achievements? The better view may be that custom is judged on a society by society basis, but the language of the Guideline could be interpreted either way.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
11 February 2009 08:32
 

I think the possibly key phrase in the guidelines is the one having to do with "... only in the context of society activities" or however it’s phrased.

I’m thinking (not as exact language, but as the gist):

 

"The heraldic display of badges, awards (...etc…) given by private societies is a matter of individual judgment.  Decisions on whether or not to display a particular badge should take into account the context of the display, the rules and practices of the organization concerned, and the relative significance of the badge concerned."

 

Reactions?