Joseph McMillan;66491 wrote:

"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."

This seems a judicious way to state the matte—cautious but open.

Joseph McMillan;66491 wrote:

"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."

Sometimes it’s wrong.  Sometimes it’s right.  You decide.  :confused:

As a condition, I think the society in question should have stated their heraldic practice in their bylaws or some document about the display of awards and medals.  I would think that is necessary.

Michael Swanson;66493 wrote:

As a condition, I think the society in question should have stated their heraldic practice in their bylaws or some document about the display of awards and medals.  I would think that is necessary.

Indeed, one might reasonably conclude that the absence of a definite policy on using a gong in heraldry is a de facto policy against it.

But one could just as reasonably conclude that a given society’s silence in response to the practice of displaying its gong pendant from a shield is a de facto endorsement of the practice.

Joseph McMillan;66491 wrote:

"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."

Commendably circumspect, but I think some language dealing with the SoC in particular might be helpful if that’s the only private society for which we are aware of a historical precedent. I’ll see if I can’t think of phrasing that doesn’t implicitly cast aspersions on other private societies and acknowledges a possible dichotomy between the SoC’s estimation of itself and its legal status, etc.

Of course, if we have any knowledge of historic precedents relating to other private societies, we should mention those, too.

Fred White;66497 wrote:

But one could just as reasonably conclude that a given society’s silence in response to the practice of displaying its gong pendant from a shield is a de facto endorsement of the practice.

Silence does not imply endorsement.  Silence might mean they haven’t given it thought.

Michael Swanson;66499 wrote:

Silence does not imply endorsement.

Are you sure you think that?

Coming from an educator’s perspective, I would say that if a behavior—like plagiarism—is objectionable, and I say nothing about it, I am tacitly approving of it. As a citizen, I tacitly approve of a sitting president’s policies if I don’t vote for someone else or don’t vote at all.

But lest we trigger an insistence on starting another thread . . .

Joe’s formulation is a good start.  There is (at least) one missing concept, which IIRC was a significant topic of discussion re: use & display of arms generally, and specifically in regard to additaments beyond shield-crest-motto: the avoidance, at least in most public use & display, of elements or practices that suggest or emphasize claims to status that are not compatible with general American political & social norms.  The Guidelines generally discourage as inappropriate in an American context, nobiliary stuff (coronets, supporters) & foreign gongs not authorized for wear or display by American military or civil service etc.

At least in an American context, we neither have nor need a fons honorum or the the sanction of any foreign authority.  Doesn’t mean you can’t get arms & other stuff abroad, just that public display here in a manner that emphasizes fons or foreign sanction both damages American heraldry by making it seem foreign & non-democratic, as well as subject to misuse by gong-mongers and social climbers.  (We’ve always recognized an exception for display & use in the limited context of e.g. Scottish or other ethnic gatherings which are not entirely "in an American context" but that’s not relevant to this discussion.)

How does this relate to the Cincinnati?  Its not foreign, so no objection on that count.  It doesn’t claim to be an "honor" in the sense of a bestowal of legal or social status by a sovereign entity—i,e, one may feel "honored" to be a member of thus-&-such a family or club etc., but not an "honor" in the sense of an order bestowed by a sovereign. (Though too much discussion of "is it an honor" may tend to taint the argument - using the word "taint" on purpose.) Our government, IIRC, does allow at least some limited use & display by uniformed military & other gov’t personnel.  So far, so good.

The only remaining argument would seem to be whether the SoC eagle is sufficiently "public" to warrant public display, or sufficiently private so as to suggest limiting use & display to SoC functions.  Similar analysis could, presumably,be made re: any number of private organizations, with likely different outcomes based on group-specific factors. We might (or might not) reach different conclusions, & may (or may not) ever reach consensus, re: the insignia or awards of, say, the Boy Scouts, Kiwanis, the Fraternal Order of Police, the Knights of Columbus, or even the American Heraldry Society.  To me, the specific outcome in any given instance is less important than the underlying reasons and pruposes for making the analysis in the first place.  In this case, I’m OK with "public" heraldic use & display of the SoC eagle given its historic sigificance; but could live with the opposing view, since I’m not AFAIK ever likely to be eligible.

How about something like this:

Quote:

Awards and insignia of membership ("badges"] conferred by private organizations, including lineage societies, professional associations of a military character, and Scouting or similar groups, are not customarily depicted as part of armorial achievements in the United States, unless the rules of the organization concerned expressly provide for such display. In that case, they are normally used only in the context of the organization’s activities. Where the practices of the organization concerned permit the actual wearing of a badge outside the context of the organization’s activities, such a badge may, as a matter of individual judgment, be displayed as part of a heraldic achievement, consistent with any rules or customs of the organization.

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 design and relative significance of the badge concerned.

 

In determining whether the rules and practices of the organization concerned permit the display, the armiger should not necessarily equate lack of explicit prohibition as permission and should consider (a) the organization’s interest in protecting any intellectual property rights in, or (b) other legal protections of, the particular badge.

 

A badge worn only in the form of a lapel pin or patch should not normally be displayed as part of an armorial achievement.

The more I think about this, the more I think that if the present guideline is factually accurate, it is probably the best rule. Although I would not want to encourage the creation of organizations for the primary purpose of awarding their members badges so as to "dandify" their armorial achievements, anyone likely to do that is probably not discouraged from doing so by the current formulation.

I point out that some states provide protection for the emblems of private organizations. For example, a New Jersey atatute provides that

Quote:

[a]ny person who willfully wears, exhibits, displays or uses, for any purpose, the badge, motto, button, decoration, membership card, charm, emblem, rosette, or other insignia of any association or organization . . . , duly registered . . ., or any imitation thereof, shall, unless he is entitled to use and wear the same under the constitution, by-laws, rules, or regulations of any such association or organization,

is guilty of a midemeanor and subject to fine (and jail if the fine is not paid).

Jay Bohn;66508 wrote:

. . . is guilty of a midemeanor and subject to fine (and jail if the fine is not paid).

I would think this statute has implications for the protection of armorial devices, too. Jail time, you say?:)

How about this, based on Joe’s version:

Quote:

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, any pertinent rules of the organization concerned, the relative significance of the badge concerned, and whether or not an historic precedent exists for displaying it heraldically.

How about this:  Anyone wishing ... should consult the society about the proper heraldic display of the badge or medal.

Most societies will reply "Huh!?"  Then a member-advocate for heraldic display can educate the powers that be.

I may be totally off base here, but ...

Much discussion has been recorded in these forums on how certain aspects of European Heraldry are held by some to conflict with American ideals and beliefs.  Similar discussion has been recorded on whether heraldry itself violates those same ideals and beliefs.

I think this most recent discussion is a case of you trying to both have your cakes and eat them, too.

The SoC is , to a certain degree, hereditary, as are many baronetcies in the UK, where, I understand, one may have to prove one’s right to the use of the title beyond "Well, ‘e were my Da’, ye see, an’ Oi be ‘is on’y son,Zur", at least, for some of the baronetcies, as the "right" to membership in the SoC may be limited by the current crop of members.  And some decorations in the US Armed Forces are clearly analogous to decorations in the UK which are often seen suspended from shields.

Frankly, if you are as true to your egalitarian beliefs as some of you claim to be (that’s "All Americans", not just members of this forum), I think you should either accept anything for which a "reasonable case" may be made, or deny them all.  If a "chief" is an additament of honour, then all should avoid them or all should use them.  If a DSO can be hung from a shield, so should a CMH, as both are EARNED but the SoC medallion should not because it is "inherited" like titles and Red Hands in cantons and supporters and helms of other styles than "Esquires" only for all.

I think, realistically, America should have, perhaps not a recognised fons honorum but a "recognised with force of law" Registry-cum-Granting Authority to whom a case may be presented on an individual basis.

Or you can go on as you have so far, with no real rules or enforcement but lots of indignation when some poor slob crosses some arbitrary and unofficial line in the sand of some Hawaiian beach.

If you allow hereditary additaments, allow them all.  If you allow honorary additaments, allow them all.

I like consistency, Gentles.  :alien:

Doug Welsh;66513 wrote:

I may be totally off base here, but ...

If you allow hereditary additaments, allow them all.  If you allow honorary additaments, allow them all.

 

I like consistency, Gentles.  :alien:

They are all allowed in the guidelines: supporters, badges, crowns and the lot.

There is a degree of heraldic indeterminacy in American because we lack the heraldic order imposed by top-down rules or bottom-up, time-honored practice.

I think the Anglo-centric view of heraldry reinterprets heraldic guidelines as rules.  The Continental/Nordic view interprets heraldic guidelines as historical patterns of goodness (e.g., the Finnish ten commandments).  That’s one reason American-Anglos get upset anytime guidelines are discussed.

The guidelines are really just a meditation that distills multiple traditions within American heraldic indeterminacy.

On gongs, I think any guideline with wiggle room will promote gong collecting.  So I fall on the "none" side.

Michael Swanson;66515 wrote:

On gongs, I think any guideline with wiggle room will promote gong collecting.  So I fall on the "none" side.

I think we all share that concern to varying degrees, but I don’t think the choice is quite so "all or nothing." We can write the Guidelines in such a way that we don’t forego the possibility of being taken seriously as a source for normative thinking on American heraldic practice.

The phrase "reasonable case" introduced by Doug might be something helpful to think about.

Doug Welsh;66513 wrote:

I think, realistically, America should have, perhaps not a recognised fons honorum but a "recognised with force of law" Registry-cum-Granting Authority to whom a case may be presented on an individual basis.

Ain’t gonna happen.

And I think we’re doing just fine approaching it as we do—having discussions, reaching agreements, and being good sports about it when we find ourselves in the minority. If we err on the side of restrictiveness, it might not be such a bad thing.