Sanctioned Heraldry

 
Greg
 
Avatar
 
 
Greg
Total Posts:  77
Joined  07-08-2008
 
 
 
24 August 2009 15:16
 

Donnchadh;71158 wrote:

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, for while u are free to take shots at people in a spirited debate, as above, which does not break any rules i’m aware of, i am not capable doing so at this time for various reasons most of all time here on this website.

i will say publicly since u took shots at Joe and other in a like manner that u are now complaining about, however, that it is ... (insert your own word so i don’t get into trouble) ... to take shots at people, explicit or implicit, and then cry foul when others do the same. that is ... (insert your own word so i don’t get into trouble).

 

 

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

 


You don’t have to participate Denny if you don’t want to. I deny your accusations, and I do what I can most all of the time to keep personalities out of the discussion.  I believe what I said above was a simple observation and as we can now see, it’s rather true it appears.  I don’t mind banter at all and as you know, I’m very effective at it. However, in a moderated environment where decorum is observed, I do my best to stay within the lines and I expect others to do the same and that is a reasonable expectation.

 

If you are angry at me for what you believe to be a valid reason, please do PM or email me with your concerns.  I will be very gald to hear you and perhaps try and reach a resolution.  But the dicussion of the subject is here.

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
24 August 2009 15:51
 

Greg;71076 wrote:

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 [sic] same place on the new American stage.  There were those who [sic] framers who assumed arms on the [sic] ancesters, but many others seemed uninterested in the whole idea.

My question is, why is that?


I would hazard to guess that it is because, even in England, only a small percentage of people were armigerous. Many, if not most, people in the colonies had much more important things to worry about than coats of arms.

 

That is not to say, however, that no one in the colonies displayed or otherwise used coats of arms. There is ample evidence to show that they did.

 

The idea that our new government did not set up an authority to deal with heraldry does not suggest, regardless of what you assert, that there was no interest among the population in its continuation on this continent.

 
 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
24 August 2009 16:02
 

Kenneth Mansfield;71161 wrote:

Many, if not most, people in the colonies had much more important things to worry about than coats of arms.


What?!  You mean there are more important things than coats of arms?

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
24 August 2009 16:10
 

Joseph McMillan;71163 wrote:

What?!  You mean there are more important things than coats of arms?


You’ll note, Joe, that I didn’t say that was the case for everyone. wink

 
 
David E. Cohen
 
Avatar
 
 
David E. Cohen
Total Posts:  359
Joined  08-02-2008
 
 
 
24 August 2009 16:16
 

Greg;71135 wrote:

As to the English opinion, how can you blame them?  They got whipped pretty bad: twice.


They did?  When was the second time?  Heck, when was the first?

 

The American Revolution, with a couple of exceptions, was more a case of asymmetrical warfare where the guerilla forces outlasted the other side.  In the War of 1812, America was fortunate (the British were busy with Napoleon) to get a draw.

 
Greg
 
Avatar
 
 
Greg
Total Posts:  77
Joined  07-08-2008
 
 
 
24 August 2009 16:26
 

Kenneth Mansfield;71161 wrote:

I would hazard to guess that it is because, even in England, only a small percentage of people were armigerous. Many, if not most, people in the colonies had much more important things to worry about than coats of arms.

That is not to say, however, that no one in the colonies displayed or otherwise used coats of arms. There is ample evidence to show that they did.

 

The idea that our new government did not set up an authority to deal with heraldry does not suggest, regardless of what you assert, that there was no interest among the population in its continuation on this continent.


You just reversed yourself
Quote:

Many, if not most, people in the colonies had much more important things to worry about than coats of arms.


and then:
Quote:

The idea that our new government did not set up an authority to deal with heraldry does not suggest, regardless of what you assert, that there was no interest among the population in its continuation on this continent.


I have maintained throughout that any interest in this country was a definite minority.  That theri intersted was based more on esthetics than anyting else, that heraldry in this country was sapringly use by the government to keep with the style of sovereign identification of authority and that any other, assumed, peronal or corporate displays, were again purely for esthetic purposes.  In many respects, I see heraldry in the US as really no different in meaning than hisotric Revolution and Civil War reenactment.

 

Now, you say that most had no time for it.  I think that is true.  I also think, from what’s been learned is that, the dye was cast by the new Amercian sentiments at the time.

 

You see, there is a story in that and that’s what I’m interested in and why I broached the subject here.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
24 August 2009 16:30
 

Kenneth Mansfield;71154 wrote:

I get the sense that Washington is cautious about the perception, not against the practice of heraldry in the new United States.


I don’t think Washington was even concerned about perceptions of heraldry as such but about how a heraldic institution would be perceived. Keep in mind that one of the main roles of the English and Scottish heraldic institutions was to keep the rabble in their place—or, as the Lyon Act of 1592 phrased it, "to put inhibitioun to all the commoun sort of people nocht worthie be the law of armes to beir ony signes armoriallis." This is clearly not what Barton had in mind, but Washington realized that any official heraldic institution would be seen in that light.


Quote:

Barton, though he seems to concede Washington’s points on this perception, seems still to believe in the idea of heraldry.


He certainly did. He subsequently came up with the first proposal for a private organization for recording arms and genealogies. Our sometime colleague John DuLong published a transcription of the manuscript in the ACH’s Armiger’s News. It can be read at http://www.americancollegeofheraldry.org/TANJUL07.htm

 

Of course, Washington also continued to believe in the idea of heraldry, if his frequent use of it is any indication.  He was still buying articles with his arms and crest on them until shortly before his death.

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

David E. Cohen;71165 wrote:

They did?  When was the second time?  Heck, when was the first?

The American Revolution, with a couple of exceptions, was more a case of asymmetrical warfare where the guerilla forces outlasted the other side.  In the War of 1812, America was fortunate (the British were busy with Napoleon) to get a draw.

 


The American Revolution was head-on battle of secession, just like the American Civil War.  The English got beat up pretty badly.  The second time was in 1812: if they were occupied by Napolean, then that was their problem.  Theys houldn’t have bitten off more than they could chew.

 

Then there was Scotland (the Romans couldn’t beat them either).  Then Ireland.

 

Then came the Beatles, and everything was alright again.

 
Greg
 
Avatar
 
 
Greg
Total Posts:  77
Joined  07-08-2008
 
 
 
24 August 2009 16:35
 

Joseph McMillan;71168 wrote:

I don’t think Washington was even concerned about perceptions of heraldry as such but about how a heraldic institution would be perceived. Keep in mind that one of the main roles of the English and Scottish heraldic institutions was to keep the rabble in their place—or, as the Lyon Act of 1592 phrased it, "to put inhibitioun to all the commoun sort of people nocht worthie be the law of armes to beir ony signes armoriallis." This is clearly not what Barton had in mind, but Washington realized that any official heraldic institution would be seen in that light.

 

 

He certainly did. He subsequently came up with the first proposal for a private organization for recording arms and genealogies. Our sometime colleague John DuLong published a transcription of the manuscript in the ACH’s Armiger’s News. It can be read at http://www.americancollegeofheraldry.org/TANJUL07.htm

 

Of course, Washington also continued to believe in the idea of heraldry, if his frequent use of it is any indication.  He was still buying articles with his arms and crest on them until shortly before his death.


That is a very good post and expands the story.

 

Thank you.

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
24 August 2009 17:17
 

Greg;71167 wrote:

You just reversed yourself


Hardly.


Quote:

I have maintained throughout that any interest in this country was a definite minority….


And I maintain that those interested in heraldry in any country are in a minority.


Quote:

... That theri intersted was based more on esthetics than anyting else, that heraldry in this country was sapringly use by the government to keep with the style of sovereign identification of authority and that any other, assumed, peronal or corporate displays, were again purely for esthetic purposes.  In many respects, I see heraldry in the US as really no different in meaning than hisotric Revolution and Civil War reenactment.


One might reasonably argue that in today’s world of paper heraldry, ALL heraldry is for aesthetics, even in countries where there is an authority, like England and Scotland. But there, I think you would argue, there is a history - a social custom that doesn’t exist here. And I think it’s safe to say that the numbers of people there participating in those customs are still in the minority, thus invalidating your argument that heraldry doesn’t exist as a custom here because it is practiced by a small minority.


Quote:

Now, you say that most had no time for it.  I think that is true.  I also think, from what’s been learned is that, the dye was cast by the new Amercian sentiments at the time.


I think you’re reading too much into all of this.

 
 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
24 August 2009 18:16
 

Kenneth Mansfield;71173 wrote:

One might reasonably argue that in today’s world of paper heraldry, ALL heraldry is for aesthetics, even in countries where there is an authority, like England and Scotland. But there, I think you would argue, there is a history - a social custom that doesn’t exist here. And I think it’s safe to say that the numbers of people there participating in those customs are still in the minority, thus invalidating your argument that heraldry doesn’t exist as a custom here because it is practiced by a small minority.


And, moreover, that the same continuity exists here as there, because heraldry was brought to North America by people for whom it was an element of the social milieu in the old country (whether the old country was in the British Isles, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, Italy, Spain, etc.).  Heraldry has been in continual use in one form or another in this country from the time the first Europeans arrived, and for exactly the same purposes that it was used in the countries from which they came.  Eighteenth century English gentlemen and those who aspired to be thought such used arms on the silverware, horse furniture, seals, bookplates, china, and tombstones, and their counterparts in North America did exactly the same thing.  It was as much a part of life in one place as the other.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
24 August 2009 20:45
 

Despite some of the sniping, this has been a most i nteresting thread.  I had seen Barton’s first letter & GW’s reply, but not the second Barton letter—I’ve printed it to read at greater leisure.

A point hinted at (or perhaps baldly stated—I’m skimming the thread fairly quickly) is that GW’s overriding concern wasn’t with heraldry per se - either pro or con, though he personally was apparently sympathetic to it—but rather the effect that publicly embracing the regulation of heraldry might have on the outcome of the Constitutional ratification process.

 

Fairly or not, opponents would make an issue of it, as they had done (also fairly or unfairly) with the Cincinnatti.  In hindsight we tend to view what "was" as inevitable or pre-ordained; but at the time the issue was in grave doubt, and it wouldn’t have taken much to swing a few key votes in a few key States to scuttle the whole deal.  Compared to that—i.e. the shaping or even the continued existence of a meaningful Federal government—heraldry was a relatively trivial matter, even to affecionados like GW.  Stated otherwise, Barton was a victim of poor timing.

 
David E. Cohen
 
Avatar
 
 
David E. Cohen
Total Posts:  359
Joined  08-02-2008
 
 
 
24 August 2009 22:06
 

Greg;71169 wrote:

The American Revolution was head-on battle of secession, just like the American Civil War.  The English got beat up pretty badly.  The second time was in 1812: if they were occupied by Napolean, then that was their problem.  Theys houldn’t have bitten off more than they could chew.

Then there was Scotland (the Romans couldn’t beat them either).  Then Ireland.

 

Then came the Beatles, and everything was alright again.


The British were beaten on occasion, but mostly only when tactically surprised, or when the French were helping out.  The Continentals were beaten more often, especially when the fighting was head to head.  Fortunately for America, and in my opinion, the world, the British did not want to keep expending the blood and treasure it would have taken to continue.

 

The War of 1812 was, more or less a draw, which America was very fortunate to get—America did as well as it possibly could have, and things could easily have gone much worse.

 

As far As Scotland goes, first, it wasn’t taken by the Romans basically because it had nothing the Romans wanted.  They had better things to do with their legions.  The same was true of Ireland.  And unless all those maps are drawn incorrectly, Scotland and a chunk of Ireland are still part of the same country as England.

 
Nick B II
 
Avatar
 
 
Nick B II
Total Posts:  203
Joined  26-11-2007
 
 
 
25 August 2009 00:19
 

Greg;71107 wrote:

Uh, no Nick.  I mean Europe.

Then you have asserted that it is common in Europe, outside of the British isles, to have an official government office that formally regulates personal heraldry.

You got any examples of that?

 

Nick

 
Nick B II
 
Avatar
 
 
Nick B II
Total Posts:  203
Joined  26-11-2007
 
 
 
25 August 2009 00:52
 

David E. Cohen;71182 wrote:

The British were beaten on occasion, but mostly only when tactically surprised, or when the French were helping out.  The Continentals were beaten more often, especially when the fighting was head to head.  Fortunately for America, and in my opinion, the world, the British did not want to keep expending the blood and treasure it would have taken to continue.

We lost every set-piece battle. We won the war because the Brits realized it would take loads of cash to subdue us, and they’d never make the money back.

Which does, IMO, count as whipping their asses.
David E. Cohen;71182 wrote:

The War of 1812 was, more or less a draw, which America was very fortunate to get—America did as well as it possibly could have, and things could easily have gone much worse.

It should be noted that the Canadians currently celebrate 1812 as a victory for them, and at the time they were clearly within the British Imperial Camp.

The Canadian summary of the War of 1812 is this:

1) The Brits get high-handed at sea, pissing America off.

2) The US invades Canada, loses miserably, and watches DC burn. The Brits abandon our capital because they don’t want it.

3) America agree to a peace treaty that changes nothing because we have been driven from Canada. The Brits agree because (again) America has nothing they want.

 

As a patriotic American I’m abashed when I say I somewhat agree with this assessment of the war. Strategically, you can only call it a US victory if you think that the Brits wanted to conquer us in the first place. Which they didn’t.

 

We did have some tactical success. We won the Battle of New Orleans, and our Frigates almost always won in one-on-one fights with the Royal Navy. Which is something to be proud of. But when the other guy burns the White House down that stuff just doesn’t seem important.

 

Nick