Sanctioned Heraldry

 
Greg
 
Avatar
 
 
Greg
Total Posts:  77
Joined  07-08-2008
 
 
 
24 August 2009 02:49
 

David E. Cohen;71099 wrote:

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.


All my views were proven true.  Thanks for plug.

 
Greg
 
Avatar
 
 
Greg
Total Posts:  77
Joined  07-08-2008
 
 
 
24 August 2009 03:01
 

Nick B II;71092 wrote:

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.

 

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


Uh, no Nick.  I mean Europe.  And, no, sorry, in the US it’s psuedo heraldry.


Quote:

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."


Uh, wrong again Nick.  As George Washington’s letter posted by Joseph clearly states; the American mind at the time, was anti-monarchy and thus, anti-heraldry.  So, in effect heraldry as a practice for personal and corporate identification was indeed banned by the American population.

 

Washington himself wrote that the only reason that the US government adopted an heraldic design is so that the seal would be taken as official by the rest of the world (who had fro centuries been practicing heraldry).

 

You don’t have to take my word for it.  Back up the thread to Joe’s posting of the letter, it’s all in there.

 
Michael Y. Medvedev
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Y. Medvedev
Total Posts:  844
Joined  18-01-2008
 
 
 
24 August 2009 04:39
 

Quote:

anti-monarchy and thus, anti-heraldry

Being both a convinced monarchist and a devoted fan of heraldry, I believe that it is totally wrong to mix these noble matters. It is like to tie a good swimmer to another good swimmer :(

 
Alexander Liptak
 
Avatar
 
 
Alexander Liptak
Total Posts:  846
Joined  06-06-2008
 
 
 
24 August 2009 04:50
 

Banned by the people is rather strong, given that Washington states his personal belief only, and then goes on to express waht he believes are only portions of the US that might be against it, as Washington also acknowledges sentiments will vary on the subject and some would be for it.

Washington also states that it is the image that the "well born" only have arms, as the nobles and wealthy could only afford arms in England as per the fees.

 

This was in no means a ban.  Simply conjecture.

 

Also, for England, the first time the coat of arms was used on the seal was the present seal adopted under HM Elizabeth II.  There used to be no arms of dominion.  The three lions were not the arms of England, but of the family that ruled England.  A seal with the lions would have been viewed as the King’s personal seal, not the seal of the State.

 

And I skimmed mostly, so perhaps I missed, but "pseudo heraldry"?, is this because there is no official office in America regulating arms?  If that is true, that arms are false unless there is an office, than most every monarch practices pseudo heraldry as their arms tend to predate any official office for heraldry.  King or not, heraldry is heraldry, and if a King declares poor heraldry, heraldry he did not make; or, if a King declares by edict that water is fire, it still is water, no matter what the King says.  There may be no official edict or law that grants our arms, but that has never been a necessity for heraldry.  Even in England, arms in use prior to the College were allowed to continue without grant, which then, in turn, means an official government office regulating heraldry approved of arms being assumed by their acceptance and unwillingness to halt displays of assumed arms.

 
John Mck
 
Avatar
 
 
John Mck
Total Posts:  151
Joined  12-07-2009
 
 
 
24 August 2009 07:03
 

One wonders whether, having heard all of these arguments before, there is anything new to add on this topic?

 
David E. Cohen
 
Avatar
 
 
David E. Cohen
Total Posts:  359
Joined  08-02-2008
 
 
 
24 August 2009 09:50
 

Greg;71105 wrote:

All my views were proven true.


Yes [backs away slowly, looking for an exit] that is exactly what happened in that thread.  LOL:rolleyes:

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
24 August 2009 10:05
 

It is true in science and it is true here in this art and science we refer to as heraldry…

Correlation does not imply causation.

 

It doesn’t really matter what George Washington’s personal thoughts were on heraldry, only his opinions on an office thereof.

 
 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
24 August 2009 10:33
 

blah, blah, blah. these pokes at us American heraldists in general and us here at AHS in particular get so tiring Greg. if u really don’t like us, or what we do here Greg, since it is after all only pseudo-heraldry…....then for the love of God why do you keep coming back????

neither "Americans," nor American heraldry, is the lone preserve, or child, of England or the English!!!! .... also apologies on the lack of normal english comp here but i’m here only briefly before i sign off to install my defensive game plan for this coming saturday….

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
24 August 2009 10:41
 

The point is that George Washington

(1) consciously addressed the question of regulation of personal heraldry in the United States and rejected it, despite recognizing that

 

(2) there is nothing inherently inconsistent between heraldry and republicanism.

 

Every time since 1788 that anyone has suggested government regulation of personal heraldry in the United States (a bill to that effect was actually introduced in Congress in the late 19th century), they have had this letter quoted back to them and support for the idea has collapsed.  This is not because of mere reverence for Washington as an authority, but because the position he lays out is so reasonable.

 

This is why, when the question comes up, "why doesn’t the United States have an authority to regulate personal heraldry?" the best answer is "see Washington to Barton, 7 September 1788."

 

Note, by the way, that Washington doesn’t say that the use of arms is a sign of being "well born," but that it could be so misrepresented to the "the less-informed part of the citizens" by "credulous, disappointed, or unreasonable men."

 
kimon
 
Avatar
 
 
kimon
Total Posts:  1035
Joined  28-03-2008
 
 
 
24 August 2009 10:48
 

Ok, there may be strenuous disagreements but there is no reason to attack people personally or adherents to particular position.

If you feel the need to do so, please go to PM or email

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
24 August 2009 11:03
 

kimon;71129 wrote:

Ok, there may be strenuous disagreements but there is no reason to attack people personally or adherents to particular position.


Hey!  I was just quoting George Washington!  wink

 
Greg
 
Avatar
 
 
Greg
Total Posts:  77
Joined  07-08-2008
 
 
 
24 August 2009 11:41
 

Michael Y. Medvedev;71110 wrote:

Being both a convinced monarchist and a devoted fan of heraldry, I believe that it is totally wrong to mix these noble matters. It is like to tie a good swimmer to another good swimmer :(


Michael,  You’re not thinking of it in the context of early American history.

 
Greg
 
Avatar
 
 
Greg
Total Posts:  77
Joined  07-08-2008
 
 
 
24 August 2009 12:00
 

xanderliptak;71102 wrote:

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.


However, the question is, why did the new Americans not actively adopt the custom?  The answer is made very clear in Washington’s letter.  Heraldry was connected to nobility.  The Revolution assured the secession of Nobilty to the point that there is a clause in the Constitution concerning it.


Quote:

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.


I will grant you that by not adopting the custom, heraldry was left to any and all, however in all of the early documents that I’ve reviewed, heraldry is conspicuously absent.  There were seals applied to significant documents, but even through to today, for a document to be admissable in court it must have the seal of a notary, which is miles from heraldic as it was when they appeared on county and state papers in the 18th century.

 

As to the English opinion, how can you blame them?  They got whipped pretty bad: twice.  Which only valididates mine and Washington’s opinion with respect to heraldry in the US.  And as far as expensive grants are concerned: I don’t think one buys a gift.  One pays for the ’ privilege ‘ of being considered noble.

 
Greg
 
Avatar
 
 
Greg
Total Posts:  77
Joined  07-08-2008
 
 
 
24 August 2009 12:36
 

xanderliptak;71111 wrote:

Banned by the people is rather strong, given that Washington states his personal belief only, and then goes on to express waht he believes are only portions of the US that might be against it, as Washington also acknowledges sentiments will vary on the subject and some would be for it.

Washington also states that it is the image that the "well born" only have arms, as the nobles and wealthy could only afford arms in England as per the fees.

 

This was in no means a ban.  Simply conjecture.


No, now your not being objective.  I submit that the word ‘banned’ is not to strong for the sentiment of that time.  The idea was to move as far away from England and a monarchy as we could get.  I would also submit that in those times, any practice of personal heraldry was done in private and restricted to genealogy.

 

The reason I keep referring to a "European custom", sanctioned or not, is because that is where heraldry origniated and was adopted by those countries participating in the crusades.  By the time the US came around, almost seven hundred years had passed.  The the US proper had no custom of it whatsoever.


Quote:

Also, for England, the first time the coat of arms was used on the seal was the present seal adopted under HM Elizabeth II.  There used to be no arms of dominion.  The three lions were not the arms of England, but of the family that ruled England.  A seal with the lions would have been viewed as the King’s personal seal, not the seal of the State.


I’m going to have to disagree with the enirety of that paragraph. The King -was the state. It has been argued here that in states where heraldry existed as a personal recognition, the seals were heraldic, so the idea that Elizabeth II was the first cannot be true.  I think you’re using false logic here.


Quote:

And I skimmed mostly, so perhaps I missed, but "pseudo heraldry"?, is this because there is no official office in America regulating arms?  If that is true, that arms are false unless there is an office, than most every monarch practices pseudo heraldry as their arms tend to predate any official office for heraldry.  King or not, heraldry is heraldry, and if a King declares poor heraldry, heraldry he did not make; or, if a King declares by edict that water is fire, it still is water, no matter what the King says.  There may be no official edict or law that grants our arms, but that has never been a necessity for heraldry.  Even in England, arms in use prior to the College were allowed to continue without grant, which then, in turn, means an official government office regulating heraldry approved of arms being assumed by their acceptance and unwillingness to halt displays of assumed arms.


No, I do not use the term because we have no sanction.  I use the term, because when we look at any heraldry that becomes a matter of public consumption, the designs leave quite a bit out.  Now in some state flags we see achievements, but those elements that made heraldry a reflection of nobility are always missing in this country: helm, mantling, genealogical notation and I suppose much more if I got down to it.

 

It’s…. copy catting.  I just call it "pseudo - heraldry", that encapsilates my view and if one studies the imagery and it’s presentaions one can see that.  The US skirts heraldry. The verification of that, is not many in this country even see it as heraldry and I submit that is by design.

 

I think that American Heraldry perse’ is a phrase used by enthusiasts of heraldry who want to see heraldry. I think that the American College of Heraldry comes much closer to an actual practice and is more in line with the whole notion of it in the US. Not because it is a centralized place, but because it treats heraldry more for what it is.  Anyone can assume arms, but I think that how they display and use it makes it heraldry. This other stuff that is seen in government etc, is not in line with the American psychie and has been intentionally supressed in my view.  This is why the history of it’s effective non-existance in this country is such an interesting topic for me.

 
John Mck
 
Avatar
 
 
John Mck
Total Posts:  151
Joined  12-07-2009
 
 
 
24 August 2009 12:37
 

It is quite a long leap to go from this:
Quote:

You’re not thinking of it in the context of early American history.

 


to this:
Quote:

And, no, sorry, in the US it’s psuedo heraldry.


Even assuming that heraldry was "banned" in the 1700s (which is a flawed argument) it does not follow that heraldry as practiced in the United States since then is "illegitimate," "invalid," or ‘psuedo heraldry’ [sic]. All cultural traditions start somewhere. One would think that heraldry enthusiasts would encourage the promotion of flourishing heraldic practices in any country. Why anyone would oppose, mock, or denigrate such efforts is beyond me.