Sanctioned Heraldry

 
Greg
 
Avatar
 
 
Greg
Total Posts:  77
Joined  07-08-2008
 
 
 
24 August 2009 12:40
 

David E. Cohen;71119 wrote:

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


No, what happened in the other thread, is that the posters went ad-homenum.

 
Greg
 
Avatar
 
 
Greg
Total Posts:  77
Joined  07-08-2008
 
 
 
24 August 2009 12:45
 

Donnchadh;71125 wrote:

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….


That just is not true.  I’m very interested in in pulling apart the history of heraldry in this country.  I opened the thread with a very valid question.  I have not, and do not see this as a me against you thing.  But some of you obvioulsy do and that is not fair histroical debate.

 

You guys are fixated on something that is purely personal and that is wrong and displays a weakness of an argument.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
24 August 2009 12:52
 

Greg;71135 wrote:

... however in all of the early documents that I’ve reviewed, heraldry is conspicuously absent…


Once again demonstrating a remarkably narrow research base for someone with the temerity to set up a blog to comment on the subject.

 

Have you, for example, taken a look at any of the currency issued by the newly independent American states?  Like this Delaware note of 1777?

 

http://americanheraldry.org/pages/uploads/State/DE3d1777.jpg

 

Or at the volumes of statutes enacted by many of those states’ legislatures?  Like this engraving at the head of the title page of the Maryland statutes of 1777?

 

http://americanheraldry.org/pages/uploads/State/MdLaws1777.gif

 

How about gubernatorial proclamations?  Here’s one from New York in 1792.

 

http://americanheraldry.org/pages/uploads/State/NY1792.jpg

 

Or seals on commissions and other public documents?  This one from Pennsylvania is on a document of 1785.

 

http://pages.infinit.net/cerame/heraldicamerica/etudes/pennsylvania.jpg

 

Of course documents aren’t the only source.  One might also examine coins with heraldry on them, paintings of arms placed in public buildings (go visit the old Pennsylvania supreme court chamber in Independence Hall and tell us what that painting is above the judges’ bench), or military flags, drums, badges, plates, and buttons.

 

And that’s all just governmental heraldry.  It doesn’t include the use of personal arms by people of every level of society, from George Washington himself, through Philadelphia and Boston merchant families whose daughters embroidered the family arms as part of their needlework studies, down to the stonecutting family of Bigham in Mecklenburg County, NC, who carved heraldry on dozens of tombstones for yeoman farmers buried at the Steele Creek Presbyterian churchyard and other cemeteries in the 1780s and 1790s.  As Greg has had pointed out to him on multiple occasions, a number of men in our larger cities earned a living during this period engraving arms for bookplates and on silverware.  Art museums are full of examples of their work, as well as of heraldic porcelain commissioned in China bearing the arms of American ship captains and tea traders.

 

Fanciful or usurped heraldry some of this may have been, as in the case of the Steele Creek tombstones, but its ubiquity is hardly consistent with a theory that heraldry was rejected by Americans in the wake of the Revolution.

 

Does this mean that every person or even most people in America bore arms?  No.  But neither did most people in England or any other European country. 

 

But then all of this is well known to anyone who has bothered to take the time and effort to study the subject.  The only way to explain an obstinate refusal to accept this still-surviving physical evidence of the use of heraldry in the United States in the late 18th century is as evidence of a person’s membership in one of the categories of people listed in Washington’s letter to Barton:  less-informed, credulous, disappointed, or unreasonable.

 
Greg
 
Avatar
 
 
Greg
Total Posts:  77
Joined  07-08-2008
 
 
 
24 August 2009 13:11
 

Joseph McMillan;71126 wrote:

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."


As to the last line of your post, I take umbrage at your back-handed comment.  It is completely out of context.

 

Now, Washington’s point in the letter is two fold: he respects the institution heraldry for what it is, however, heraldry as an instituion in this country will be seen as socially discriminatory, reflective of nobility etc and is not politically intelligent.  Washington also points out that heraldry in this country will be viewd as socially predudicial: which in many many instances it most assuredly was: heraldry represented something that, at the time had been defeated as a social concept.

 

That is and has been exactly my point.  The letter is very very clear and thus Joseph your argument falls flat on it’s face.

 

However, that is not the issue.  The issue is the history it’s developement as is, and what other publications or hearings or letters contributed to heraldry’s non-status in this country.  That is a subject of interest to me.

 
Greg
 
Avatar
 
 
Greg
Total Posts:  77
Joined  07-08-2008
 
 
 
24 August 2009 13:24
 

Joseph McMillan;71142 wrote:

Once again demonstrating a remarkably narrow research base for someone with the temerity to set up a blog to comment on the subject.

Have you, for example, taken a look at any of the currency issued by the newly independent American states?  Like this Delaware note of 1777?

 

http://americanheraldry.org/pages/uploads/State/DE3d1777.jpg

 

Or at the volumes of statutes enacted by many of those states’ legislatures?  Like this engraving at the head of the title page of the Maryland statutes of 1777?

 

http://americanheraldry.org/pages/uploads/State/MdLaws1777.gif

 

How about gubernatorial proclamations?  Here’s one from New York in 1792.

 

http://americanheraldry.org/pages/uploads/State/NY1792.jpg

 

Or seals on commissions and other public documents?  This one from Pennsylvania is on a document of 1785.

 

http://pages.infinit.net/cerame/heraldicamerica/etudes/pennsylvania.jpg

 

Of course documents aren’t the only source.  One might also examine coins with heraldry on them, paintings of arms placed in public buildings (go visit the old Pennsylvania supreme court chamber in Independence Hall and tell us what that painting is above the judges’ bench), or military flags, drums, badges, plates, and buttons.

 

And that’s all just governmental heraldry.  It doesn’t include the use of personal arms by people of every level of society, from George Washington himself, through Philadelphia and Boston merchant families whose daughters embroidered the family arms as part of their needlework studies, down to the stonecutting family of Bigham in Mecklenburg County, NC, who carved heraldry on dozens of tombstones for yeoman farmers buried at the Steele Creek Presbyterian churchyard and other cemeteries in the 1780s and 1790s.  As Greg has had pointed out to him on multiple occasions, a number of men in our larger cities earned a living during this period engraving arms for bookplates and on silverware.  Art museums are full of examples of their work, as well as of heraldic porcelain commissioned in China bearing the arms of American ship captains and tea traders.

 

Fanciful or usurped heraldry some of this may have been, as in the case of the Steele Creek tombstones, but its ubiquity is hardly consistent with a theory that heraldry was rejected by Americans in the wake of the Revolution.

 

Does this mean that every person or even most people in America bore arms?  No.  But neither did most people in England or any other European country. 

 

But then all of this is well known to anyone who has bothered to take the time and effort to study the subject.  The only way to explain an obstinate refusal to accept this still-surviving physical evidence of the use of heraldry in the United States in the late 18th century is as evidence of a person’s membership in one of the categories of people listed in Washington’s letter to Barton:  less-informed, credulous, disappointed, or unreasonable.

 


Your ad-homenum only showws your weakness Joseph.  I’ve written nothing on American Heraldry and I what I have written on the subject of heraldry thus far is verifiably factual.  Now, if you cannot have a discussion without personalizing it, then we cannot discuss anything and as such anything you say is meaningless.  If you want to "edit" you post than I’ll be happy to consider it for a reply, but until then it’s only grafitti.

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
24 August 2009 13:28
 

Greg;71138 wrote:

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.


http://www.explore-parliament.net/nssMovies/08/0889/0889_01.jpg

 

Elizabeth II doesn’t use a heraldic seal as you can see above. In addition, equating heraldry and seals is nonsensical. Some seals have heraldry on them. The use of seals without heraldry does not in any way, shape or form betoken a rejection of heraldry as the current queen of England’s seal (above) proves beyond any shadow of a doubt.

 

In the argument for the U.S. rejecting heraldry any contention that a lack of heraldry on a seal proves the argument doesn’t hold water. Full stop.

 
Greg
 
Avatar
 
 
Greg
Total Posts:  77
Joined  07-08-2008
 
 
 
24 August 2009 13:52
 

John Mck;71139 wrote:

It is quite a long leap to go from this:

 

 

to this:

 

 

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.


I never used the term "illegitimate".  I do not mock or oppose.  I seak to understand it for what it truly is in this country and have have been trying to discuss how it got that way.  I can see no better place for that discussion than within an American community of enthusiasts.

 

I think that there is too much emotionalizing and a lack of objectivity on the subject and that hurts the discussion intellectually.  Washington wrote his letter for a reason, the question and subject of this discussion is, ‘what was that reason’?

 

That question is as important to the copncept of heraldry in the US as it is important to the history of htis country.

 

I will add something here only once: What I think is happening is the result of my sometimes taking a view that is unpopoular.  There is nothing wrong with that.  That is how positions are either proved or disproved.  My position with respect to the subject of baronies was very unpopular.  I am attacked regulalry to this day because of it.  I was not however alone, and in the end, I was proved to be exactly right.  These people were extremely rude and abusive, yet I held my ground and proved them wrong, and they really don’t like that.  I can see some of the very same thing happening right here: "never mind the facts, its’ him, go get him".

 

The subject of heraldry is one of interest to me.  In the context of this country is of particular interest because of my interest in American history. That is what motivates me.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
24 August 2009 14:08
 

Greg,

Ad hominem?

 

As Inigo Montoya says in The Princess Bride, "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
24 August 2009 14:29
 

To put George Washington’s letter in a bit more perspective, here is the letter by William Barton, though quite unfortunately, there seems to be no record of his treatise.


Quote:

Philadelphia, Augt 28th 1788.

Sir,

 

Your Excellency may probably recollect that I had the honor of waiting on You, at the Winter-quarters of the Army, early in the year 1779, with letters from Mr Laurens and the late Genl Reed. Altho’ barely known, however, to You, I take the liberty of inclosing, for your own perusal, a short treatise on a subject little understood, or attended to, in this Country—namely, Heraldry or Blazon. This Essay, (the manuscript copy of which, subscribed with my name; I beg your acceptance of,) I have presumed to inscribe to Your Excellency.

 

When very young, I made myself acquainted with this science; and, notwithstanding it may be considered by some as a matter of amusement, rather than utility; I will venture to assert, that it is a study both pleasing & instructive, as well as innocent in its tendency. I am likewise persuaded, Sir, that Blazonry not only merits the notice of an inquisitive Mind, viewed merely as a speculative science; but, that Coat-Armour, the Object of it, may be rendered conducive to both public and private cases, of considerable importance, in this infant nation, now rising into greatness: and I trust that your Excellency, to whom every true American looks up, as the guardian of your Country and Patron of its increasing glory, will concur with me in the sentiment, that every institution which may assist in promoting the great ends of Government, is worthy of public Attention.

 

I should not have been so sanguine, perhaps, in my ideas of the usefulness that may be derived from certain regulations, respecting Coat-armour, which might be established in this country, were it not for the flattering circumstance of Mr Secretary Thomson agreeing with me in opinion, on that head—When Congress were about to form an armorial Device for a Great Seal for the United States, that gentleman, with Dr A: Lee and Mr Boudinot, then delegates in Congress, did me the honor of consulting me on the occasion: and Mr Thomson, in a letter to me, dated in June 1782, compliments me on the “skill in Heraldic science,” that he is pleased to say, I displayed in the device for the Great Seal; which (he adds) “meets with general approbation.” In the same Letter he says, he had dipped so far into the elements of Heraldry, as to be satisfied, “that it may be applied by a State to useful purposes.”

 

I have endeavoured, in my little tract, to obviate the prejudice which might arise in some minds, against Heraldry, as it may be supposed to favor the introduction of an improper distinction of ranks. The plan has, I am sure, no such tendency; but is founded on principles consonant to the purest spirit of Republicanism and our newly proposed Fœderal Constitution. I am conscious of no intention to facilitate the setting up of any thing like an order of Nobility, in this my native Land: far from my mind, is such a design.

 

If your Excellency should think proper to favor me with the sanction of your name, in approbation of the Essay, I shall not only rest assured, that the principles therein advanced are perfectly consistent with those which an American Citizen ought to maintain; but shall deem it a great honor done to me, personally.I am, with the highest sentiments of Respect, Sir, Your Excellency’s most Obedt And most humble Servt

 

W. Barton

 

 
 
Greg
 
Avatar
 
 
Greg
Total Posts:  77
Joined  07-08-2008
 
 
 
24 August 2009 14:30
 

gselvester;71146 wrote:

http://www.explore-parliament.net/nssMovies/08/0889/0889_01.jpg

Elizabeth II doesn’t use a heraldic seal as you can see above. In addition, equating heraldry and seals is nonsensical. Some seals have heraldry on them. The use of seals without heraldry does not in any way, shape or form betoken a rejection of heraldry as the current queen of England’s seal (above) proves beyond any shadow of a doubt.

 

In the argument for the U.S. rejecting heraldry any contention that a lack of heraldry on a seal proves the argument doesn’t hold water. Full stop.


With respect to Elizabeth II, I was only responding to xanderliptic who said she did:
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.


I never suggested that non heraldic seals were a rejection of heraldry perse’.  The subject of non-heraldic seals came up recently.  My question was, what makes a seal in this sense non-heraldic?  I was told by Joseph McMillan, that if it isn’t a crest or a shield, it’s non-heraldic.  Okay, then doesn’t any picture appear to be a crest?  That subject seems to me to be as open ended as the concept of American Heraldry.

 

I never implied that a simple lack of heraldry on a seal of American interest proved anything other than the concentrated non-developement of heraldry in this country.  You see these are only examples used to verify a position.

 

I don’t see how equating seals with heraldry is nonsensical at all.  A seal, by someone who possesses arms and is acting in his capacity and seals a document with his like identification, seems to me to be another use of heraldy.  If that representative uses a design un-attached to him or herself adn is acting in the capacity of government and the seal reflects an office of no particular heralidc imagery, then yes, that is non-heraldic by definition.  The question was however, in old documents that are difficult to trace what then differenciated between heraldic and non-herladic shields?  and how could one tell the difference?

 

Since the US did not fassion heraldry as an institution, but basically forgot about it, save for some government imagery that only demonstrated a common political strength, most of the seals then used were by design, non-heraldic.  There were of course heraldic stamps and imagery used, but they carried not the slightest meaing in this country form which they originally derived.

 

I submit that heraldry in this country is only really popular for two reasons: genealogy, and the love of the fabulous designs rendered particularly with respect to a finished painting.  It was after all the artwork that really drew me into it, and I will further submit that the majority of Americans today associate with that aspect alone.  In the old days however, as Washington points out, heraldry meant entirely different things to most people and I argue that that is why herladry as an institution of reality or display was indeed supressed and for all intents and purposes laid by the wayside.

 

I am attempting to discuss that last part, and I’m look for evidence one way or the other.  So far, all I find is that my theory on the subject - as stated herein, does in fact hold water very well.  I have yet to see a submission that contradicts the strength of my argument.

 

I’m not here to try and prove anything.  I’m here to discuss the history of heraldry and or lack of it in this country.

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
24 August 2009 14:35
 

And then here is Barton’s response to Washington’s letter:


Quote:

Philadelphia, Septr 18th 1788.

Sir,

 

I cannot forbear intruding upon your Excelly again, to return You my most sincere and thankful acknowledgments for the Candor and Politeness, with which You have been pleased to communicate to me Your sentiments on the subject of my Essay: And I should be wanting in that respect which is due to Your Character, as well as committing a Violation of my own feelings, were I now to publish it, had I before designed to do so; but my intention was to reserve it, for some future day. The force and justness of your Observations must, of themselves, have impressed Conviction on my mind: But, Sir, the truth is, that I am myself sensible of the political prejudices, which obtain among many People in this Country; and I well know how extremely jealous they are, at this time, of every thing that bears the most distant appearance of favoring a distinction of ranks. I am entirely of your Excellency’s Opinion, that, at the present truly important crisis, it is highly expedient to make some sacrifices to that Jealousy wch is entertained by many honest, well-meaning men. Every person in the least degree acquainted with human Nature must have observed, that the most unreasonable prejudices may be overcome, by prudence and moderation: and, in some stages of political ferment, a temporary suspension of public measures founded even in the most virtuous principles, may undoubtedly become advisable; lest, in their investigation, the views of the promoters of them may be purposely misrepresented, by ill-disposed intriguing Characters, to answer their own ends; by means whereof, upright tho’ weak men might be influenced to a wrong bias. Prejudices being, however, the result either of defective or erroneous information, it is evident that the most effective means of eradicating them, are Discussion and free Enquiry; provided that the public mind be not assailed, in matters of general and political concern, at an improper season: If this caution be observed, truth must, eventually, ever prevail over Error.

 

It has been under the impression of prejudices without doubt, that so much has been said and written, both against the Institution of the Cincinnati and our Fœderal Constitution; yet, Sir, I am persuaded that this very circumstance, instead of producing the effects intended by the violent and persevering opposers of both, has been a great mean of quieting the fears of many good Citizens, by giving others an opportunity of shewing how little foundation for jealousy really existed. With regard to the Cincinnati, though I have not the honor of being a member of that Society, I have always viewed it as an innocent, well-meant institution, formed on principles of humanity and benevolence: And, as to the new plan of our National Government, I frankly acknowlege that it is not, in my humble Opinion, wholly unexceptionable; but, notwithstanding this confession, my uniform sentiment has been, that it was the duty of every good citizen not only chearfully to acquiesce in, but to promote, its being carried into operation. Had I ever lent even my feeble support to such as opposed the attainment of this great and desirable Object, by writing or otherwise, the reflection would give me pain—For, I have long been convinced that a more efficient Government than the old Confederation, was necessary to our existence, as an independent people, a position which I have endeavoured to establish in two publications, in Carey’s Museum (for Jany 1787, page 13—and May 1788, page 442):And I had no doubt that the goodness of the American people would, in due time, introduce such alterations in the new Constitution, as experience and sound reason might suggest the propriety of, and in such mode as is directed by the Constitution itself. These, Sir, are my undisguised sentiments on this subject, and I have always avowed them. I anticipate, with pleasure, the happiness this Country will enjoy, under a virtuous administration of a good Government; and, tho’ an humble Citizen, I am as anxious as any man to see it carried into effect. It is, therefore, with the most heart-felt satisfaction that I congratulate you, Sir, who have been so eminently instrumental in raising up this great Empire; on the peaceable declension of that spirit of jealousy, which threatened to mar our national prosperity—We have been witnesses, in this Country, to an almost total extinction of the violent prejudices, which were formerly entertained against an American Episcopate; and it is highly probable, that a similar moderation and liberality to that, which has since taken place on that subject, supported by patriotism, will soon supersede the unreasonable discontents which have been harboured in the minds of many, against the Fœderal Constitution.

 

You will, I hope, Sir, pardon my presumption, in thus trespassing on your patience—I am gratified by the honor You have done me, by your excellent letter; and I have, undesignedly, been drawn into this lengthy acknowledgment of it, by the train of reflexions which have crouded upon my Mind, on the Occasion. I have the honor to be; With the most respectful Attachmt Sir, Your Excellency’s most obedt And most humble Servt

 

W. Barton


I, for one, do not walk away with the same impression that Greg seems to have gleaned from this bit of correspondence. I get the sense that Washington is cautious about the perception, not against the practice of heraldry in the new United States. Barton, though he seems to concede Washington’s points on this perception, seems still to believe in the idea of heraldry.

 
 
Greg
 
Avatar
 
 
Greg
Total Posts:  77
Joined  07-08-2008
 
 
 
24 August 2009 14:38
 

Joseph McMillan;71151 wrote:

Greg,

Ad hominem?

 

As Inigo Montoya says in The Princess Bride, "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."


Joseph McMillan, please don’t insult my intelligence by playing these little games.

 
Greg
 
Avatar
 
 
Greg
Total Posts:  77
Joined  07-08-2008
 
 
 
24 August 2009 14:44
 

Kenneth Mansfield;71154 wrote:

And then here is Barton’s response to Washington’s letter:

 

 

I, for one, do not walk away with the same impression that Greg seems to have gleaned from this bit of correspondence. I get the sense that Washington is cautious about the perception, not against the practice of heraldry in the new United States. Barton, though he seems to concede Washington’s points on this perception, seems still to believe in the idea of heraldry.


I never implied that it was heraldry as a form of expression perse’ that caused hesitancy on the part of Washington.  It was however what that expression represented to a whole people now that had just fought and died to defeat the instiution that created it.

 

And it’s nothing that I’ve "gleaned" from that letter, but rather a concentrated study of American history, the history of heraldry and how the two institutions clashed fundementally.  I argue that that clash is the back drop by which heraldry in this country operates today.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
24 August 2009 14:51
 

Greg;71153 wrote:

I never suggested that non heraldic seals were a rejection of heraldry perse’. The subject of non-heraldic seals came up recently. My question was, what makes a seal in this sense non-heraldic? I was told by Joseph McMillan, that if it isn’t a crest or a shield, it’s non-heraldic. Okay, then doesn’t any picture appear to be a crest?


This is about as circular as it can get.

 

Yes, one can put just about any object on top of a helmet and call it a crest.  But if there’s no coat of arms in which said object actually is used atop a helm, then it’s just an object, not a crest.

 

Someone may well use a daisy as a crest.  If such a person orders a seal with a daisy on it, then it’s heraldic.  If, however, I order a seal with a daisy on it, then it’s not heraldic.  Telling one from the other is usually easier since seals that just show crests usually show them issuing from a torse or coronet.

 

But one can also have a seal that is totally, unmistakably non-heraldic, the design of which would not plausibly be used as a crest:

 

For example, the typical American notary’s seal:

http://www.dos.beta.state.pa.us/bcel/LIB/bcel/20/9/notary_embosser.jpg

(But note that some states, such as Massachusetts, do require that the state arms appear on the seal of a notary.)

 

Or the seal of Alabama:

http://www.asbvme.us/images/al_seal_bw_300x297.png

 

The use of a non-heraldic seal doesn’t imply that the user lacks a coat of arms, witness not only the State of Alabama and Queen Elizabeth II but also this seal of Pope Martin V, who reigned in the heyday of heraldry and bore as his arms Gules a column Argent ensigned by a crown Or:

http://asv.vatican.va/immagini/dipl/Arch.BeniI,25r.jpg

 

Nor does the absence of heraldry from official seals signify a lack of heraldry in the broader society, as in the case of republican France:

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Grand_sceau_de_la_République_Française_image001.gif

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
24 August 2009 15:02
 

Greg;71141 wrote:

That just is not true.  I’m very interested in in pulling apart the history of heraldry in this country.  I opened the thread with a very valid question.  I have not, and do not see this as a me against you thing.  But some of you obvioulsy do and that is not fair histroical debate.

You guys are fixated on something that is purely personal and that is wrong and displays a weakness of an argument.

greg, if u wish to continue any sort of dialogue/debate/whatever w/me personally or even if u only ref me, u will have to pm me. i am not capable of doing so in this thread at this time for various reasons most of all time here on this website.

i have to say, though, that if u give shots to people, explicit or implicit, it is (insert word so i don’t get into trouble) to complain when others do it to.

 

now…side bar…

Hallo. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.—great movie and best line of that movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3W5GDkgf2w