St. George’s Day

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
30 April 2010 09:39
 

Actually, Charles, I don’t think John was very involved with this one.

 
Charles E. Drake
 
Avatar
 
 
Charles E. Drake
Total Posts:  553
Joined  27-05-2006
 
 
 
30 April 2010 21:31
 

Interesting. You would know better than I.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
30 April 2010 22:42
 

gselvester;76241 wrote:

So why did they merit supporters? Because the King of Arms said so.

That was easy. When there is a heraldic authority involved "because I said so" is an answer.


Perhaps.  But at least two English kings of arms (Brooke-Little and Woodcock) and any number of other heraldic scholars tell us that a key characteristic of heraldry is that it is systematic, subject to conventions, principles, and rules.  English heraldry in particular claims to be "regulated"—that is, governed by rules—not merely controlled by some capricious authority.

 

It may be that any corporate body may receive supporters for the asking (and paying).  But if the answer is that some may have them and other similar bodies may not, on the mere say-so of the king of arms, then that’s not regulation, it’s caprice.

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
01 May 2010 07:47
 

Joseph McMillan;76272 wrote:

Perhaps.  But at least two English kings of arms (Brooke-Little and Woodcock) and any number of other heraldic scholars tell us that a key characteristic of heraldry is that it is systematic, subject to conventions, principles, and rules.  English heraldry in particular claims to be "regulated"—that is, governed by rules—not merely controlled by some capricious authority.

It may be that any corporate body may receive supporters for the asking (and paying).  But if the answer is that some may have them and other similar bodies may not, on the mere say-so of the king of arms, then that’s not regulation, it’s caprice.


agreed.

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
01 May 2010 10:20
 

Joseph McMillan;76272 wrote:

It may be that any corporate body may receive supporters for the asking (and paying).  But if the answer is that some may have them and other similar bodies may not, on the mere say-so of the king of arms, then that’s not regulation, it’s caprice.


Every king-of-arms has to make decisions bound by the decisions of his predecessors and apply them equally to everyone or it’s not regulation but caprice?

 

Sorry, I don’t buy that. It’s still regulation even if one king-of-arms decides to do something different from a predecessor because the king-of-arms, not just precedent, is the regulator. He is still regulating as opposed to allowing any and everyone to do as he/she pleases.

 

It is easy to look at this just from a "legal" point of view where judges make rulings but according to precedent and law that is laid down by someone else (like a legislature). A king-of-arms isn’t necessarily bound by such things and can change the rules himself. That doesn’t make it caprice.

 

The rules aren’t supreme with the kings-of-arms merely being incumbent mouthpieces. They make the rules and can change them. So, whereas at one time there may have been strict criteria for "entitlement" to supporters there may now be a rule that if one applies for them and can pay for them one may have them. That doesn’t mean that the king-of-arms who decided on the latter was being capricious. It may have been after long deliberation and with good reason (like an increase in income for the College). Change and changeability doesn’t equal caprice.

 

You asked why a mere parish vestry rated supporters. Maybe it is the custom of the English heralds to grant supporters to those who request them as long as they are church bodies in the Anglican Communion. Because they may (and I say may because this example is a hypothetical) grant them to Anglican Communion churches and not to other churches (or corporate bodies for that matter) doesn’t make the decision capricious.

 
Hugh Brady
 
Avatar
 
 
Hugh Brady
Total Posts:  989
Joined  16-08-2005
 
 
 
01 May 2010 21:40
 

And I just won’t/can’t buy that. I’m not sure if the Kings of Arms are regulators—they certainly aren’t mere ministerial officers, but I don’t think they have the authority to regulate, i.e., modify the law of arms. The Court of Chivalry is the primary regulator of arms, so to speak, since they are the only body with either real or theoretical enforcement authority.

The Kings of Arms only have so much authority as is given to them—and the authority to grant arms is not absolute. I don’t have access to the text of a modern letters patent appointing a King of Arms (or won’t until I can get to the library on Monday) but a relatively "modern" patent from Queen Victoria explictly provides:


<div class=“bbcode_indent” >

<div class=“bbcode_indent” >
We do give and by virtue of these presents grant unto the said William Henry Weldon Norroy authority power and licence with the consent of the Earl Marshal of England or his Deputy for the time being in writing under their hands and seals from time to time first given or signified of granting and appointing to eminent Men Letters Patent of Arms and Crests jointly and together with Garter and Clarenceux Kings of Arms or one of them or by himself alone without them at the will and pleasure of the Earl Marshal or his Deputy for the time being according to their Ordinances or Statutes from time to time issued or to be issued respectively in that behalf and not otherwise nor in other manner so as that if the said William Henry Weldon Norroy shall act any of the premises to the contrary this Our present grant and all things herein contained shall cease and be utterly and altogether void and of none effect or force whatsoever[.]
</div>

</div>


Thus, the letters patent provide that if a King of Arms acts contrary to law, their acts are void. He certainly cannot act without the written consent of a superior. Neither of which supports the proposition that a King of Arms can change the rules himself or otherwise act contrary to the law of arms.

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
02 May 2010 00:33
 

That only has to do with his authority to grant arms. (i.e. the legal act) It says nothing about limiting or not limiting his authority to determine what goes into the design.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
02 May 2010 08:59
 

The kings of arms do not have complete authority over what goes into the design.  For one thing, the law of arms, if it exists at all, precludes him from granting arms that rightfully belong to someone else, or from granting such arms with only a minor difference if the two are strangers in blood.  This, and not the jurisdiction of the heralds to regulate heraldry, is what was established in Scrope v. Grosvenor.

Moreover, since the right to supporters and coronets on the part of individuals is defined by royal warrant, they also do not have the freedom to grant such supporters or coronets to those who don’t qualify.

 

Finally, when it comes to things like how arms are marshalled, tinctures of mantling, styles of helmets, etc., each king of arms is bound by the rules established by the chapter of the College, until such time as the chapter decides to change them.

 
James Dempster
 
Avatar
 
 
James Dempster
Total Posts:  602
Joined  20-05-2004
 
 
 
02 May 2010 11:27
 

I think that its worth remembering that in this case the CoA may consider that it is not granting arms but rather designing [wind-up mode]a picture of a logo that looks like arms for a body in a country with no law of arms and no tradition of arms[/wind-up mode].

Therefore it may be that freed from the restrictions of the English Law of Arms the heralds of the College take the view that they can include whatever they like and money talks. :10bux: :10bux: :10bux:

 

:shootout::marine:

 

James

 
Hugh Brady
 
Avatar
 
 
Hugh Brady
Total Posts:  989
Joined  16-08-2005
 
 
 
02 May 2010 12:48
 

Joseph McMillan;76302 wrote:

For one thing, the law of arms, if it exists at all, precludes him from granting arms that rightfully belong to someone else… [Emphasis added]


That really is the question, isn’t it? One I’ve been working on for a while, but clear as mud.

 
Doug Welsh
 
Avatar
 
 
Doug Welsh
Total Posts:  445
Joined  20-06-2008
 
 
 
04 May 2010 13:11
 

xanderliptak;76235 wrote:

...could not dare encroach upon something as sacred as the badge of the Garter.  perhaps, though, I am being overly cynical, but I can not shake the notion it has to do with us being not-British.


Perhaps it has more to do with them being ultra-English.

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
05 May 2010 11:01
 

xanderliptak;76235 wrote:

but I can not shake the notion it has to do with us being not-British.


However, the Society was founded by an Englishmen before the Revolution and for Englishmen. While it is now a de facto American organization with many American members a large number of its members, and in particular beneficiaries of its charity, today are expatriate British citizens (mostly English) living in the NY metro area, as well as expatriate citizens of other Commonwealth countries.

 

Point being that it isn’t really a "not-British" organization…which is why they applied to the CoA for arms in the first place.

 

As mentioned earlier, anyone who really cares about finding out more about this instead of speculating and who is in or near the NY area can attend a talk on the arms of the St. George and St. Andrew Societies being given at the NY Genealogical & Biographical Society headquarters (36 West 44th Street, NY, NY, 7th floor) next Wednesday, May 12, 2010 at 6:00 PM. The cost is $20.00 per person and you have to register in advance to be admitted to the building. I can provide any interested person with the email address with which to register. Just PM me.

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
05 May 2010 11:39
 

well, i care Fr., as i find it fascinating. but, i’m not going to fly to NY to ask questions/learn. being far removed geographically doesn’t mean i don’t care. i do care—not as though my life depended on it, but i do care none-the-less. sorry if i misunderstand your point.

 
Peter Harling
 
Avatar
 
 
Peter Harling
Total Posts:  87
Joined  19-11-2009
 
 
 
05 May 2010 14:37
 

"Cry God for Harry, England and St George"

Once of a day those words would stirr any Englishman! But sadly not in these modern times….... "Cry God for Rooney (well known injured footballer), let’s win the cup." would more likely be the cry.

 

Times have changed dramatically. You Americans are probably more English "thinking" than we English!

 

Regards ...............  Peter

 
Barrie Burr
 
Avatar
 
 
Barrie Burr
Total Posts:  169
Joined  23-05-2009
 
 
 
06 May 2010 03:23
 

Peter Harling;76352 wrote:

"Cry God for Harry, England and St George"

Once of a day those words would stir any Englishman! But sadly not in these modern times….... "Cry God for Rooney (well known injured MANCHESTER UNITED footballer), let’s win the cup." would more likely be the cry.

 

Times have changed dramatically. You Americans are probably more English "thinking" than we English!

 

Regards ...............  Peter


You could be right there Mr Harling…........