Signification of Supporters

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
02 June 2011 17:21
 

Joseph McMillan;83933 wrote:

. . . in France supporters were simply assumed, not granted.


Right. It was the crest and the various coronets that signified nobility, and France does seem to have been kind of anomalous in this regard, but potentially, if one wanted to underscore his French heritage, there’s an argument for his using supporters in the American context. An allied argument might come from recalling how essential French help was to our throwing off the British yoke. Perhaps their norms deserve something more like pride of place. This might militate in favor of eschewing crests, but reading Francois Velde’s materials suggests that the French ultimately did pretty much what they pleased with heraldry—no self-respecting armiger awarding himself less than the coronet of a marquis, and so forth. Now, I would never advocate for Americans using any old coronet that suited their fancy, but it still seems to me that supporters are a slightly more nebulous matter.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
02 June 2011 18:03
 

emrys;83880 wrote:

In the Netherlands supporters do not mean a thing, you have nobles and non nobles with them in their arms and you have nobles and non nobles who do not use supporters. I myself used to have supporters but after some time I discarded them because I tought my arms looked better without them but I could have kept them if I wanted to.

That being said it all depends on the heraldic realm where you are living if you should have them or not. In the USA anyone could have supporters but the problem arises in the fact that anglo centric heraldry is the most used heraldry there and that means if you have supporters it is thought of as a sign of rank. So on to the AHS guidelines I say.


Another fly in the ointment of reasoning from the British model(s). Is the Dutch model not ultimately more appropriate for a republic?

 

But then we go back to the hypothetical American armorial where you’ve got George Washington’s arms alongside everyone else’s. And the majority of historical American arms that also have no supporters. The ones of recent assumption with supporters might look a bit gaudy, but it depends on your assumptions.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
02 June 2011 18:26
 

But the point is that the Dutch seem to be the outliers in an otherwise fairly consistent correlation between the use of supporters and high noble status, at least in those countries where supporters are a significant part of the heraldic landscape in the first place.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
02 June 2011 18:28
 

Fred White;83934 wrote:

Right. It was the crest and the various coronets that signified nobility, and France does seem to have been kind of anomalous in this regard, but potentially, if one wanted to underscore his French heritage, there’s an argument for his using supporters in the American context.


But they were in practice assumed mainly by the nobility, not by commoners.  Von Volborth:  "Supporters are common in the armorial bearings of the French aristocracy, but unusual for commoners."

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
02 June 2011 22:59
 

Joseph McMillan;83940 wrote:

But the point is that the Dutch seem to be the outliers in an otherwise fairly consistent correlation between the use of supporters and high noble status, at least in those countries where supporters are a significant part of the heraldic landscape in the first place.


I wonder, though, who we really ought to be taking as our role model. Perhaps it should be the outlier(s), especially since our break with our parent culture was so radical. I think of the Dutch precedent in throwing off Spanish rule, of Dutch tolerance, of the Dutch as pioneers of bourgeois capitalism . . . and of speculative financial bubbles! Not to oversimplify, but they seem to have anticipated much about us.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
02 June 2011 23:04
 

Joseph McMillan;83941 wrote:

But they were in practice assumed mainly by the nobility, not by commoners.  Von Volborth:  "Supporters are common in the armorial bearings of the French aristocracy, but unusual for commoners."


Okay, but unusual is not the same as illicit. No heraldry enthusiast in the U.S. is well-situated to profess an aversion to the unusual, is he? Or an aversion to running the risk of being perceived as pretentious, right?

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
02 June 2011 23:22
 

I see no reason, anyway, to think that condemning the assumption of coronets associated with noble and royal ranks is arbitrary. There is no legal status in the U.S. higher than that of citizen. We have never had noble and royal ranks. To assume a coronet associated with any of them would be arrant dishonesty. Enough said.

Condemning the assumption of supporters, on the other hand, does strike me as a bit arbitrary. There is room for disagreement between reasonable people about what they signify and whether or not they can fit into an organic relationship between American heraldry and its pastiche host culture.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
02 June 2011 23:55
 

Fred White;83957 wrote:

Okay, but unusual is not the same as illicit. No heraldry enthusiast in the U.S. is well-situated to profess an aversion to the unusual, is he? Or an aversion to running the risk of being perceived as pretentious, right?


My point is merely that the use of supporters in most places was not random; it was intended and taken as signifying a claim of nobility.  Their use in the US is apt to be taken as implying exactly the same thing.  I don’t think it’s as innocuous as pretentiousness.  Wearing a cutaway and top hat when everyone else is in a business suit is pretentious.  This is more like wearing a red velvet robe lined with ermine and a gold coronet.  It may not have any legal meaning in the US, and everyone is free to do it, but doesn’t it imply that one is something one really isn’t?

 
Brad Smith
 
Avatar
 
 
Brad Smith
Total Posts:  182
Joined  12-02-2009
 
 
 
03 June 2011 00:17
 

I agree with Joseph.  Though the cases are not precisely identical, it reminds me of some friends who felt that since an ancestor had been in a knightly order, that the symbol of the order was rightfully part of their coat of arms…

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
03 June 2011 01:55
 

Brad Smith;83963 wrote:

I agree with Joseph.  Though the cases are not precisely identical, it reminds me of some friends who felt that since an ancestor had been in a knightly order, that the symbol of the order was rightfully part of their coat of arms…


Can you be more specific? If you mean this individual displayed the knightly order pendant from his shield, encircling his shield, or what have you, then he was, of course, telling a lie. But is that really analogous to assuming supporters?

 
Andemicael
 
Avatar
 
 
Andemicael
Total Posts:  257
Joined  02-04-2006
 
 
 
03 June 2011 01:57
 

Fred White;83931 wrote:

Let’s just take the case of shield and crest alone: I wouldn’t get into it with the skeptics to begin with. If I were wearing a signet ring and someone ridiculed it, I would just grant them that it’s an expression of my congenital pomposity and carry on. I certainly wouldn’t pull out a lectern and start trying to educate them.


In my opinion, if they know me, they’ll listen. If they’re strangers and have the gall to voice such an unsolicited presumptuous opinion, they’ve earned the privilege of hearing my thoughts in response.


Quote:

Anyway, the "down to peasants" piece is misleading


Fair enough — It may bear mentioning that peasant arms were pretty rare compared to burghers, but the fact remains they existed and bring up the "bottom." Heraldry wasn’t just a high-falutin’ noble thing, which is what the stigma against armigers that you mention is based on.


Quote:

and invites another uncomfortable question: When did peasants start doing that and why? It was after the higher classes started doing it and has to have been motivated at least in part by status anxiety.


Status may have played a role… but why are burgher arms so varied in their charges compared to noble arms, often making no effort to hide the kind of "lowly" profession the bearer was involved in? Many almost smack of "middle class" pride.


Quote:

How does acknowledging that help the American armiger’s case?


Simple — it shows a CoA isn’t just about noble pretensions or elitism, which is one of the bigger stigmas against heraldry here.


Quote:

As to supporters, if you’re asking me to play devil’s advocate, I would justify the assumption of supporters a few ways: 1) by asserting that coopting the prestige signifiers of feudalism to any degree (shield alone, badge alone, shield and crest, etc.) is a rather bold move, socially, and that making a distinction between use and non-use of supporters is therefore trivial; and 2) by asserting that the role of British heritage here needn’t be decisive.


Because there IS a difference between shields and supporters, even if other people don’t know it. Why operate based on other people’s ignorance when you have the power to at least try to dispel it?

 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
03 June 2011 02:59
 

Joseph McMillan;83960 wrote:

My point is merely that the use of supporters in most places was not random; it was intended and taken as signifying a claim of nobility.  Their use in the US is apt to be taken as implying exactly the same thing.  I don’t think it’s as innocuous as pretentiousness.  Wearing a cutaway and top hat when everyone else is in a business suit is pretentious.  This is more like wearing a red velvet robe lined with ermine and a gold coronet.  It may not have any legal meaning in the US, and everyone is free to do it, but doesn’t it imply that one is something one really isn’t?


Well, maybe "most places" is a key consideration, but reasoning that way is not obligatory, I don’t think. One might note, in this connection, that the United States is a pretty miraculous innovation and that the status of citizen here is a pretty spectacular status. In other words, this isn’t most places. There might be heraldic implications for that. One might also approach the question by observing that armigers from heterogeneous traditions seem capable of tolerating their differences and that variety enlivens the aggregate. Just how much shared vocabulary do national schools of heraldry have to have? So the majority restrict the use of supporters to nobles and royals. Fine, but not all do, and "noble" is not defined uniformly across national traditions, anyway, right?

 

Who is one’s audience for the use of heraldic devices? Is it all and sundry or just other armigers? I’m assuming it’s all and sundry, so, as to how Americans are apt to take things, I think the superordinate reality is that they’re apt to take any use of personal heraldry whatsoever as implying a claim of superiority—of superior pedigree, especially. And most Americans are apt to think that any such claim is at least faintly ridiculous. The difference between a coat of arms with supporters and one without is almost certainly lost on them. Only a heraldry enthusiast would be in a position to make a distinction. Not so with a blingy coronet, I don’t think. Even the layman is likely to spot that little supplement and find it not just ridiculous but insulting.

 

Anyway, I think assuming supporters is pretentious, at worst.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
03 June 2011 04:01
 

Andemicael;83970 wrote:

In my opinion, if they know me, they’ll listen. If they’re strangers and have the gall to voice such an unsolicited presumptuous opinion, they’ve earned the privilege of hearing my thoughts in response.


Maybe we just have different temperaments, but this sounds like a very self-conscious and defensive posture to me—one guaranteed to turn skeptics into critics.

 


Quote:

Fair enough — It may bear mentioning that peasant arms were pretty rare compared to burghers, but the fact remains they existed and bring up the "bottom." Heraldry wasn’t just a high-falutin’ noble thing, which is what the stigma against armigers that you mention is based on.


The whole idea of armigers as a stigmatized group strikes me as a bizarre inversion. Anyway, your wording here has a way of conceding that heraldry is inextricably linked to a system of distinctions based on social class, that you want to be situated somewhere in that system of distinctions, and that you therefore support it.


Quote:

Status may have played a role… but why are burgher arms so varied in their charges compared to noble arms, often making no effort to hide the kind of "lowly" profession the bearer was involved in? Many almost smack of "middle class" pride.


Well, I would say concern with status played and plays a quite central role. I’ve certainly seen arms that are in one way or another canting, but as to the assertion that some significant percentage across all traditions celebrates middle or lower class identity, I’m not seeing it. All arms celebrate pride in self and presumably go on to celebrate pride in family, and create an explicit contrast with other selves and other families that are presumably less worthy of pride. The visual language that arms speak is predominantly martial.


Quote:

Simple — it shows a CoA isn’t just about noble pretensions or elitism, which is one of the bigger stigmas against heraldry here.


But it doesn’t do that at all, because peasants’ assumption of arms was plainly aspirational.


Quote:

Because there IS a difference between shields and supporters, even if other people don’t know it. Why operate based on other people’s ignorance when you have the power to at least try to dispel it?


There is a meaningful difference between shields without supporters and shields with supporters if you proceed from a certain set of assumptions, but for reasons I’ve outlined, I don’t think those assumptions are quite as airtight as you do. And who’s ignoring what? If one ignores the reality that serious heraldry is a tiny minority interest in the U.S. and purports to have an important message for the majority who do not share that interest, isn’t he the one being "ignorant"? By what right does he profess to be enlightening them?

 

Sorry if anything is lost in this turn in the conversation. If someone can explain to me how to use the multiquote function, I can reply more elegantly.

 
Andemicael
 
Avatar
 
 
Andemicael
Total Posts:  257
Joined  02-04-2006
 
 
 
03 June 2011 05:35
 

Fred White;83975 wrote:

Maybe we just have different temperaments, but this sounds like a very self-conscious and defensive posture to me—one guaranteed to turn skeptics into critics.


To put it even more succinctly: if you don’t know me and imply that I’m a snob/wannabe royalty because I have a coat of arms, I have no qualms about explaining to you why that isn’t the case.

I certainly won’t keep quiet and say to myself "what’s the point? they’ll never learn. I might as well use supporters, crowns, etc. since they already think I’m snooty."

 

 


Quote:

The whole idea of armigers as a stigmatized group strikes me as a bizarre inversion. Anyway, your wording here has a way of conceding that heraldry is inextricably linked to a system of distinctions based on social class, that you want to be situated somewhere in that system of distinctions, and that you therefore support it.

Isn’t the whole point of your post that the majority of people judge armigers unfairly as elitists because they use heraldry? Sounds like a stigma to me.

And please don’t misunderstand my words: Stating that in history, everyone from nobles on top of the feudal hierarchy to peasants on the bottom used arms, as a way to argue that arms had wider use than just a tiny noble elite, isn’t being elitist. It’s actually an argument that heraldry is for anyone.


Quote:

Well, I would say concern with status played and plays a quite central role. I’ve certainly seen arms that are in one way or another canting, but as to the assertion that some significant percentage across all traditions celebrates middle or lower class identity, I’m not seeing it. All arms celebrate pride in self and presumably go on to celebrate pride in family, and create an explicit contrast with other selves and other families that are presumably less worthy of pride. The visual language that arms speak is predominantly martial.


Pride isn’t necessarily snobbery (or even status-seeking behavior), and it certainly need not be a claim to noblesse or superior status, which is what the whole debate about supporters is about. And I’m not the first to mention the variety of tools and everyday items related to farming, artisanal and craftsman trades on burgher arms that don’t appear as frequently, or at all, on royal or noble arms.


Quote:

There is a meaningful difference between shields without supporters and shields with supporters if you proceed from a certain set of assumptions, but for reasons I’ve outlined, I don’t think those assumptions are quite as airtight as you do.

I think we fundamentally disagree, as I’ve read your arguments for supporters on other threads and remain unconvinced by your reasoning.


Quote:

And who’s ignoring what? If one ignores the reality that serious heraldry is a tiny minority interest in the U.S. and purports to have an important message for the majority who do not share that interest, isn’t he the one being "ignorant"? By what right does he profess to be enlightening them?


Like the first point, I think we may simply have different temperaments. If someone comes up to me and states something I firmly feel is incorrect, especially about me or something I have an interest in, I have no problem politely correcting them. They can take it, leave it, or rebut. Forgive me if I’m misunderstanding your position, but it really sounds like your attitude is, "There’s more of them than me, why bother trying to tell them they’re wrong, after all, what right do I have?"

 

If so, why even have an AHS that attempts to educate the public about American armorial history and practice?


Quote:

Sorry if anything is lost in this turn in the conversation. If someone can explain to me how to use the multiquote function, I can reply more elegantly.

Ditto. I don’t know how to multiquote either smile

 
 
Brad Smith
 
Avatar
 
 
Brad Smith
Total Posts:  182
Joined  12-02-2009
 
 
 
03 June 2011 08:44
 

Fred White;83969 wrote:

Can you be more specific? If you mean this individual displayed the knightly order pendant from his shield, encircling his shield, or what have you, then he was, of course, telling a lie. But is that really analogous to assuming supporters?


That’s why I said they weren’t precisely identical, because they aren’t…:)

 

My friends came across an emblazonment of their ancestors’ coat of arms which had two knightly order pendants displayed as being suspended from the shield.  It was difficult to make them understand that these orders were awarded to the person, and as such, it would be inappropriate for them to display the medals on their own personal coats of arms which they could legitimately claim from said ancestor.

 

Now, I will say again that I realize that the questions of nobility and using supporters in your arms are different from the case above.  But if supporters are used to indicate either an institution or nobility, and if the country in which you reside (the USA) does not recognize nobility (and you aren’t an institution), then what is the point of displaying supporters?

 

I suppose I’m fighting a losing battle by attempting to invoke a non-similar cases.  But in my mind, it just seems that an attempt to use supporters as a US citizen can’t be justified.  My friends were not awarded the knightly orders, and so shouldn’t display them on their personal arms.  Likewise, if one is not nobility, then why display supporters, when supporters are so commonly associated with nobility?