Sanctioned Heraldry

 
Greg
 
Avatar
 
 
Greg
Total Posts:  77
Joined  07-08-2008
 
 
 
22 August 2009 16:24
 

Why do we suppose it is that the US government never sanctioned personal and corporate heraldry? and for that matter, if heraldry was going to bused in the military, as a practice, I wonder why the US waited so long to assign an office to it.  I’m not sure if anybody has addressed that as a subject of study.

 
Alexander Liptak
 
Avatar
 
 
Alexander Liptak
Total Posts:  846
Joined  06-06-2008
 
 
 
22 August 2009 18:41
 

There is no legal requirement to own arms and have an heraldic office in ones nation.  Even in England, where there is such a governmental institution, arms have predated it, and the office was more to keep arms traditional and controlled than actually being governmental approval of such a system.

Military has a long tradition of using identifying symbols, though they do not always need be a coat of arms, and badges have been employed as well.

 

America has this back and forth between arms, seals, badges and other emblems like logos and such.  The US Army has only a seal, as does the US Navy, yet the US Airforce, while having a seal, does also have a coat of arms.  Different secretariats and other high offices have seals and logos and arms as well.

 
Nick B II
 
Avatar
 
 
Nick B II
Total Posts:  203
Joined  26-11-2007
 
 
 
22 August 2009 21:32
 

Greg;71071 wrote:

Why do we suppose it is that the US government never sanctioned personal and corporate heraldry? and for that matter, if heraldry was going to bused in the military, as a practice, I wonder why the US waited so long to assign an office to it.  I’m not sure if anybody has addressed that as a subject of study.


Why would we formally sanction heraldry? The Dutch don’t. Nor do the Swedes. Or the French, and the French Republic still regulates French Noble titles.

 

Until the end of World War II the standing US military was tiny. A couple regiments. Some frigates in the Navy. Early on we used militia regiments to fight our wars, later we engaged in crash-building programs when military spending was absolutely necessary. And then sent everybody home as soon as feasible.

 

They didn’t really need an office to design new symbols all the time because the army was small, and the formations in it didn’t change much.

 

Nick

EDIT, I should say that after the Mexican war the army was larger than a few regiments, and that by the late 19th century we did have a real Navy rather than a handful of frigates, but the military was still small compared to the ones fielded by everyone else.

 
Greg
 
Avatar
 
 
Greg
Total Posts:  77
Joined  07-08-2008
 
 
 
23 August 2009 12:35
 

By sanctioning heraldry and giving national acceptance of it, in that we broke away from a country that sanctioned it, the US might then have shown an interest in continuing and old tradition of genealogy and European roots.

It seems obvious, to me anyway, correct me if I’m wrong, that heraldry did not take teh same place on the new American stage.  There were those who framers who assumed arms on the ancesters, but many others seemed uninterested in the whole idea.

My question is, why is that?

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
23 August 2009 13:16
 

The idea of federal regulation of personal heraldry was suggested to and rejected by George Washington during the period between the ratifiction of the Constitution and his election as first President.

See George Washington to William Barton, September 7, 1788.

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=qy2nqT6FnLMC&pg=PA297&dq=Papers+of+George+Washington+heraldry+barton&as_brr=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

 

As this is one of the most famous and important documents in the history of American heraldry, it is hard to believe that anyone with a serious interest in the subject is not already familiar with it.

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
23 August 2009 13:19
 

xanderliptak;71073 wrote:

There is no legal requirement to own arms and have an heraldic office in ones nation.  Even in England, where there is such a governmental institution, arms have predated it, and the office was more to keep arms traditional and controlled than actually being governmental approval of such a system.


I agree with you but I would, respectfully, propose one slight change to what you are saying that does change the matter slightly. In England the College of Arms is a private office attached to the State (i.e. the Crown) not a government office. The College of Arms receives no money from the government to operate and its grants do not emanate from the government. The officers of arms are Her Majesty’s officers of arms not the government of the UK officers of arms. Indeed, while the UK has one government there are two separate groups of heraldic officers for England/Wales and Scotland.

 
Greg
 
Avatar
 
 
Greg
Total Posts:  77
Joined  07-08-2008
 
 
 
23 August 2009 14:43
 

xanderliptak;71073 wrote:

There is no legal requirement to own arms and have an heraldic office in ones nation.  Even in England, where there is such a governmental institution, arms have predated it, and the office was more to keep arms traditional and controlled than actually being governmental approval of such a system.


embloden mine

 

That’s the subject of my question right there.  Why do we suppose that the US, for all intents and purposes, ignored heraldy with a continuation of a comon Euorpean practice under some type continuous control. The Collge of Arms and Lord Lyon are exapmles of the sanction I’m talking about.  The US came directly from that type of sanction.  it’s safe to say that everyone in that time period was familiar with the practice, sanctioned or not.

 

Secondly: are you saying that arms in england predated the crown practice?  I realize that arms probobly predate the College. Arms predated the US as well.

 
Greg
 
Avatar
 
 
Greg
Total Posts:  77
Joined  07-08-2008
 
 
 
23 August 2009 15:23
 

Joseph McMillan;71077 wrote:

The idea of federal regulation of personal heraldry was suggested to and rejected by George Washington during the period between the ratifiction of the Constitution and his election as first President.

See George Washington to William Barton, September 7, 1788.

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=qy2nqT6FnLMC&pg=PA297&dq=Papers+of+George+Washington+heraldry+barton&as_brr=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

 

As this is one of the most famous and important documents in the history of American heraldry, it is hard to believe that anyone with a serious interest in the subject is not already familiar with it.

 


I was not until now, familiar with the volume from which the letter is derived, however being a serious student of the medium of heraldy, I find it most gratifying that this validates not only my studies of heraldry as a prcatice, but it also validates my study of American history and the nation’s thinking at the time of the founding documents.  There is nothing in that letter that does not verify my long held views on the matter that have been posted here and elsewhere.  Thank you Joseph for you assistance in validating my position.

 

I posed the question wth the hope of perhaps uncovering something different juxtaposed to my own views. As for the imporatnce of the document itself, I find it curious tht such a highly valued opinion is not in reprint or actual link on the American Heraldry website. Perhaps I should write a paper….

 

Again Joseph, thank you very much; I appreciate your help.  I’m very glad to know that George Washington and myself thought alike on the subject.

 

If there is any other opinion in the matter, I would still be grateful to hear it.

 
Claus K Berntsen
 
Avatar
 
 
Claus K Berntsen
Total Posts:  308
Joined  25-05-2005
 
 
 
23 August 2009 15:56
 

Greg;71081 wrote:

embloden mine

That’s the subject of my question right there. Why do we suppose that the US, for all intents and purposes, ignored heraldy with a continuation of a comon Euorpean practice under some type continuous control. The Collge of Arms and Lord Lyon are exapmles of the sanction I’m talking about.  The US came directly from that type of sanction.  it’s safe to say that everyone in that time period was familiar with the practice, sanctioned or not.

 

Secondly: are you saying that arms in england predated the crown practice?  I realize that arms probobly predate the College. Arms predated the US as well.

[My bold]

What common European practice???

Heraldry is largely, and always have been, unregulated. The Scandinavian countries have never forbidden the assumption of arms, or proscribed granting of arms. In fact the only arms granted by the Sovereign are those granted to newly ennobled men, and that was only done during a short period of time.

 

I must admit I don’t understand the American fixation with regulated heraldry…

 
Greg
 
Avatar
 
 
Greg
Total Posts:  77
Joined  07-08-2008
 
 
 
23 August 2009 16:33
 

Claus K Berntsen;71084 wrote:

[My bold]

What common European practice???

Heraldry is largely, and always have been, unregulated. The Scandinavian countries have never forbidden the assumption of arms, or proscribed granting of arms. In fact the only arms granted by the Sovereign are those granted to newly ennobled men, and that was only done during a short period of time.

 

I must admit I don’t understand the American fixation with regulated heraldry…


The practice of heraldry was very common in Europe with a 700 or so year history as opposed to the new country of the USA.  This country was also founded by a majority of people from the UK wheren the practice of heraldry was sactioned.  And as pointed out in George Washington’s letter noted above,  the new American psychie seemed adverse to the idea. Therefore I’m asking for any other historical or modern opinons about why the US did not pursue heraldry as a national practice of personal and corporate identification.

 

Do you know why?

 
John Mck
 
Avatar
 
 
John Mck
Total Posts:  151
Joined  12-07-2009
 
 
 
23 August 2009 17:20
 

Greg;71087 wrote:

The practice of heraldry was very common in Europe with a 700 or so year history as opposed to the new country of the USA.  This country was also founded by a majority of people from the UK wheren the practice of heraldry was sactioned.  And as pointed out in George Washington’s letter noted above,  the new American psychie seemed adverse to the idea. Therefore I’m asking for any other historical or modern opinons about why the US did not pursue heraldry as a national practice of personal and corporate identification.

Do you know why?


I would speculate that heraldry, despite its legal status in many European countries (assumable w/o government sanction) was in the British-influenced culture of the colonies, associated with a highly stratified class society that was antithetical to the democratic spirit.

 

Which is not to say that heraldry need conflict with American values. Which is why we are all here. Or at least many of us.

 
Greg
 
Avatar
 
 
Greg
Total Posts:  77
Joined  07-08-2008
 
 
 
23 August 2009 17:34
 

John Mck;71089 wrote:

I would speculate that heraldry, despite its legal status in many European countries (assumable w/o government sanction) was in the British-influenced culture of the colonies, associated with a highly stratified class society that was antithetical to the democratic spirit.

Which is not to say that heraldry need conflict with American values. Which is why we are all here. Or at least many of us.


Yes, I believe the same thing and have said as much many times: to the new American, heraldry represented an aristcoracy and this of couse is what Washington intimated in his famous letter posted by Joe McMillan.

 

Do you know of any other documents or perhaps stories that expand on the reasons?

 
Nick B II
 
Avatar
 
 
Nick B II
Total Posts:  203
Joined  26-11-2007
 
 
 
23 August 2009 17:41
 

Claus K Berntsen;71084 wrote:

What common European practice???

Forgive Greg, he means common British practice.

He knows that in the rest of Europe no country made a serious attempt to regulate armory, as Joseph and I told him several times.

 

At least I believe he does. This Greg sounds an awful lot like a regular on rec.heraldry named Greg. If I am mixing up my Gregs I apologize.
Claus K Berntsen;71084 wrote:

I must admit I don’t understand the American fixation with regulated heraldry…

Greg’s fixation on the regulation of heraldry is particularly stubborn.

He believes that, as a former British colony, the default when we became independent was government regulation. Therefore by deciding not to regulate heraldry the founders were banning it. What we do at AHS is only "psuedo-heraldry."

 

I have no idea what his position on the arms of Roosevelt are. Those were adopted using procedures recognized as perfectly valid by the British crown before the Revolution. His position on the Brzezinski arms is also interesting. Did they become psuedo-heraldry when the Brzezinskis accepted US Citizenship?

 

After several debates I concluded that the difference between "psuedo-heraldry," as defined by Greg, and "heraldry," as practiced throughout most of the world and by the AHS is semantic.

 

Now I just answer his questions.

 

Nick

 
David E. Cohen
 
Avatar
 
 
David E. Cohen
Total Posts:  359
Joined  08-02-2008
 
 
 
23 August 2009 20:29
 

Yes, he is that Greg.  For those who do not want to subject themselves to the rec.heraldry newsgroup, or to feed the you know what, a representative discussion of Mr. McGiboney’s views may be found in this thread.

 
John Mck
 
Avatar
 
 
John Mck
Total Posts:  151
Joined  12-07-2009
 
 
 
23 August 2009 20:55
 

John Mck;71089 wrote:

I would speculate that heraldry, despite its legal status in many European countries (assumable w/o government sanction) was in the British-influenced culture of the colonies, associated with a highly stratified class society that was antithetical to the democratic spirit.

Which is not to say that heraldry need conflict with American values. Which is why we are all here. Or at least many of us.

 


I just wanted to re-emphasize my most important point.

 
Alexander Liptak
 
Avatar
 
 
Alexander Liptak
Total Posts:  846
Joined  06-06-2008
 
 
 
23 August 2009 22:47
 

Americans were from the UK, yes, but they were not fond of the rules and laws from London, as the independence thing illustrates.  Without an heraldry office, they were ending a strictly English custom.  After all, it was the whole purpose of the Independence to end English ways, not make American offices of English custom.

Also, it ended the whole notion of arms being only for the wealthy, as was the appearance of arms in England.  The middle merchant class was small in the 18th century, and the masses had trouble affording the fees for a grant in England.  By discontinuing the office, any American was free to adopt, which I am sure the English upper classes were disgusted with.  This may be why you hear English writers mock and ridicule American heraldry, even though our system is the original and most common way people came and come to arms still.  The English are so embedded with the notion that arms are not a right but a gift, that anyone adopting arms must be some disillusioned misfit attempting to mimic and steal from their system.