Signification of Supporters

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
03 June 2011 11:23
 

Brad Smith;83979 wrote:

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

 
 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
03 June 2011 12:29
 

Brad Smith;83979 wrote:

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?


With all due respect to Brad and others on this forum with a like mind, some people display supporters simply because they like them.  Many of them are not trying to make any statement about nobility, but instead add supporters to further differentiate their achievement or include other important symbols that they could not squeeze onto their shields or crests.

 

Supporters originated as a way to decorate empty spaces left in heraldic bookplates and other heraldic artwork.  They add a bit of color to the overall achievement.  So they started out as merely decorative devices.  The use of supporters by some Americans could be seen as a return to an original practice just like the assumption of arms, a notion which presumably nobody on this forum rejects (at least for the American context).

 

Actually the US Federal Government does not recognize private heraldry whatsoever so if we extend Brad’s argument further we should ask:  Why stop at just attacking supporters?  Why not attack the private use of arms in general?

 

I guess my point is that those who are against the use of supporters by private Americans, but who still favor the use of private heraldry are essentially throwing bricks in glass houses.  Why allow one but not the other when all are seen as pretentious by the rest of America?  I would even go further to say:  Who cares what the rest of America thinks or says about heraldry?  Some will like it, others will hate it.  Suum Cique/To each his own!

 


Brad Smith;83979 wrote:

Likewise, if one is not nobility, then why display supporters, when supporters are so commonly associated with nobility?


Even if an American armiger is descended from the titled nobility, I am sure that most Americans (not just certain members of the AHS) would frown on their use of supporters with their arms.  Heck, they would frown on the use of arms in general.  I know, I have been attacked many times just for being interested in heraldry and having my own coat of arms has only put me over the top according to my more "liberal" friends.  The very subject is pretentious even without talking about supporters.

 

I really enjoy British heraldry, especially the orderly and systematic Scottish system and do plan to obtain a British honorary grant in the future simply because I love the artwork, admire the record keeping, and working with heralds to produce a long lasting symbol for my descendants.  However, I am not sure why some American heraldist slavishly try to import the British system with its "best practices" (e.g., no supporters unless you are a peer or an institution) into the US.  If they were to import the entire system, then either none of us would be worthy of arms (our early American predecessors having rebelled against the Crown thereby severing our ties with the British heralds), or we would all be deemed as having inferior arms since most are assumed.  So it still puzzles me why some on the forum are so adamant about following what are mostly British practices and sensibilities.  We Americans are free to develop our own system, and we have other heraldic models that are also applicable given our diverse population:  Dutch, French, German, Italian, Polish, Russian, Scandanavian, Spanish, Swiss, etc.  All of these other traditions allowed assumed arms, and most could care less whether a burgher or citizen also assumed supporters.  For these other societies, there were other ways to prove and show nobility without even considering arms and supporters.

 

I’m rubbing my two cents together here, and hope nobody took offense to this post as none is intended.  Let the rebuttals continue.

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
03 June 2011 12:41
 

eploy;84003 wrote:

Supporters originated as a way to decorate empty spaces left in heraldic bookplates and other heraldic artwork.  They add a bit of color to the overall achievement.  So they started out as merely decorative devices.  The use of supporters by some Americans could be seen as a return to an original practice just like the assumption of arms, a notion which presumably nobody on this forum rejects (at least for the American context).

It is interesting that you use the word "context" in this paragraph because you are taking the practice of using supporters as merely decorative artwork completely out of it. wink

I, too, am a firm believer that supporters originated as a means of filling in space on seals and the like, but to suggest that Americans assuming supporters is just a return to this original practice without acknowledging the fact that at the time of that practice it was only the uppermost of the social elite who bore arms at all seems to me to bit a bit like wanting to have your cake and eat it too. If you are going to go back that time as your logic for having supporters, then you would necessarily (unless you are a noble - not just of noble descent) preclude yourself from arms in the first place.

 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
03 June 2011 12:50
 

I believe that Edward and I are making identical arguments, though he’s introduced a point that I omitted—the origin of supporters as an expression of horror vacui.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
03 June 2011 13:27
 

Andemicael;83976 wrote:

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."


I wouldn’t keep quiet, either, but I wouldn’t permit a debate, because I have nothing to explain. Do you?


Quote:

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.


I guess we have different perspectives on the same phenomenon. I think the diffusion of heraldry over time from what we’re calling top to bottom—with a continued concentration at the top—affirms that heraldry signifies membership in some kind of elite. An elite of character, an elite of wealth—there are various ways you could define it—but an elite, all the same. If heraldry is really for everyone, then it can’t say much about anyone, can it? Note, I take it as axiomatic that anyone in the U.S. is free to assume arms and that assumed arms are as valid as granted arms, but I would extend Joseph’s argument from St. Paul (not everything that is permitted is advisable) to the assumption of arms generally, not just supporters.


Quote:

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.


I don’t see any way to avoid the conclusion that assuming arms is status-claiming behavior (a more charitable and perhaps accurate way to put it than "status-seeking").

 

And of course, you are not the first person to mention the charges on some peasant and burgher arms that distinguish them from other arms, but it’s a question of scale. In any case, we see supporters on some peasant and burgher arms. Does that mean that supporters are for everyone?


Quote:

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


No problem.


Quote:

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?


Apples and oranges. Searching the AHS website expresses a sincere interest in the subject. Abruptly confronting the wearer of a signet ring with the demand that he justify his jewelry to a stranger is loutish.


Quote:

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


Alas!

 
Andemicael
 
Avatar
 
 
Andemicael
Total Posts:  257
Joined  02-04-2006
 
 
 
03 June 2011 15:05
 

Fred White;84009 wrote:

If heraldry is really for everyone, then it can’t say much about anyone, can it? Note, I take it as axiomatic that anyone in the U.S. is free to assume arms and that assumed arms are as valid as granted arms, but I would extend Joseph’s argument from St. Paul (not everything that is permitted is advisable) to the assumption of arms generally, not just supporters.


Therein lies the rub. I firmly, firmly disagree.

For me, it isn’t about status at all, or what other people think of the fact that I have fancy-looking arms or a shiny signet ring. It’s about what those arms mean to me and mine, and what they can communicate to generations to come.

Like a nation flying a flag, I’m not doing so seeking the approval or envy of others for the fact that I have a flag or what’s on it. It’s much deeper and more personal than that. And like national flags, the fact that others have flags too doesn’t cheapen mine or make it mean any less to me.

 

I would be quite happy to see many, many more people assume arms in this country. The idea of the countless different "walks of life" in America given a deeply personal, inspiring visual form is very appealing to me.

 

I see heraldry in the modern age as a wonderful visual system to codify family identity. At its best, an achievement is a distillation of past and future, of the character, history, and mission an individual sets out for himself, and his family.

 

In an era of high divorce, growing "live-in-the-now" self-centeredness, and shrinking importance of the family unit when it is needed most, anything that can strengthen that unity is worth considering. And heraldry is a beautifully old-world solution to a growing problem.

 

Call me a proselytizer, but if someone asks me about my arms — and gets my little spiel about heraldic history, maybe even an overview of minimalism, metaphor, tastefulness, tincture rules — I am MOST happy if they walk away excited about assuming arms for themselves and their offspring.

 

That’s why entities like the AHS are so important — they provide the necessary ‘best practice’ advice so the arms of a hopefully growing population of armigers may be as tasteful and correct as possible.

 

This is why I (and perhaps others here) are so outspoken about the need for clear, strong guidelines that encourage restraint (such as avoiding supporters, unearned gongs, crowns, fuzzy hats, etc.) A growing tradition without clear boundaries, even if just suggestions, can quickly spin out of control into chaos.

 
 
Michael Y. Medvedev
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Y. Medvedev
Total Posts:  844
Joined  18-01-2008
 
 
 
03 June 2011 18:07
 

Kenneth Mansfield;83999 wrote:

A life peer in Great Britain is entitled to supporters, but the peerage is non-hereditary. His or her supporters are therefore not inheritable.

Well well well… hereditary or not, supporters of the peers constitute: [a] nobiliary insignia; a formally established honour.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
03 June 2011 18:17
 

Andemicael;84014 wrote:

Therein lies the rub. I firmly, firmly disagree.

For me, it isn’t about status at all, or what other people think of the fact that I have fancy-looking arms or a shiny signet ring. It’s about what those arms mean to me and mine, and what they can communicate to generations to come.


But believing that one’s identity is important enough to represent with an eye-catching symbol rooted in feudalism and chivalry is asserting a claim to a status that is not shared by everyone. Sure, everyone has the right to believe that his identity is that important, but unless one is a relativist, I don’t see how he can countenance the idea that everyone’s identity is in fact that important. At the risk of oversimplifying, I would say that using a coat of arms is an assertion that one is particularly honorable. Doing so is a lofty sort of promise that one should be prepared to back up.


Quote:

Like a nation flying a flag, I’m not doing so seeking the approval or envy of others for the fact that I have a flag or what’s on it. It’s much deeper and more personal than that. And like national flags, the fact that others have flags too doesn’t cheapen mine or make it mean any less to me.


I don’t think going down the vexillological road aids your argument. Clearly, flags play an important role in competition between nations. For one thing, they’re used to stake claims to territory that is in dispute. Having a flag, in any case, is no longer elective; it’s a pretty essential requirement of being accorded the minimum respect of a nation among other nations. Having a coat of arms is not at all essential to being accorded the respect of a person or a family among other persons or families. Using a coat of arms is actually a bolder form of competition than using a flag, I think. I assume, of course, that "using" arms involves revealing them to others once in a while and that the use of arms inevitably stakes a claim to territory—not geographical territory, but territory all the same.


Quote:

I would be quite happy to see many, many more people assume arms in this country. The idea of the countless different "walks of life" in America given a deeply personal, inspiring visual form is very appealing to me.


I notice you’re saying "many" and not "all." Would you like to see many more people in all countries assume arms, or do you think there are at least some people for whom it is not suitable?


Quote:

I see heraldry in the modern age as a wonderful visual system to codify family identity. At its best, an achievement is a distillation of past and future, of the character, history, and mission an individual sets out for himself, and his family.

In an era of high divorce, growing "live-in-the-now" self-centeredness, and shrinking importance of the family unit when it is needed most, anything that can strengthen that unity is worth considering. And heraldry is a beautifully old-world solution to a growing problem.


To say that heraldry is for everyone—or for most—while professing opposition to "live-in-the-now" self-centeredness seems inconsistent to me, and I can’t say I’m optimistic that the assumption of arms is much of a prescription for failing marriages.


Quote:

Call me a proselytizer, but if someone asks me about my arms — and gets my little spiel about heraldic history, maybe even an overview of minimalism, metaphor, tastefulness, tincture rules — I am MOST happy if they walk away excited about assuming arms for themselves and their offspring.


I’m on board with that, but a good-natured inquiry isn’t the kind of approach we’ve been talking about.


Quote:

That’s why entities like the AHS are so important — they provide the necessary ‘best practice’ advice so the arms of a hopefully growing population of armigers may be as tasteful and correct as possible.

This is why I (and perhaps others here) are so outspoken about the need for clear, strong guidelines that encourage restraint (such as avoiding supporters, unearned gongs, crowns, fuzzy hats, etc.) A growing tradition without clear boundaries, even if just suggestions, can quickly spin out of control into chaos.


Let’s try to bring it back to supporters now. Encouraging restraint is a good thing. It sounds like I want much more restraint than you do, actually, but I maintain that there is room for reasonable disagreement about the very specific question of what supporters necessarily signify in the American

context.

 

To the extent that we’re debating contents of the AHS Guidelines, I should say that I think they are, for the most part, spot on. I agree that the AHS performs a valuable service, and I probably ought to show my appreciation by resuming membership and not just being a registered user, but I’m frugal and the times when I can devote any energy to this interest are pretty rare these days. I appreciate the Society’s generosity in allowing me to participate when I can.

 
Andemicael
 
Avatar
 
 
Andemicael
Total Posts:  257
Joined  02-04-2006
 
 
 
03 June 2011 18:44
 

With all due respect, I feel this is getting a little bit semantic and I think I’ve stated my position pretty clearly. But I truly do enjoy the diversity of views here and think the ongoing discussion about things like supporters is very healthy. I’m glad you are here to present a different perspective, even if we do not agree.


Quote:

I notice you’re saying "many" and not "all." Would you like to see many more people in all countries assume arms, or do you think there are at least some people for whom it is not suitable?


I was really just acknowledging that there will always be a core group of people who will have no interest in heraldry. And I won’t speak for other countries (such as the UK) that have a different perspective and traditions on arms (that they are special recognitions of prominence that must be granted by an authority). Different strokes for different folks.

 

But for the USA and other nations that have similarly republican ideals, I think heraldry is suitable for anyone and everyone who cares at all about family, and about maintaining or establishing a unique familial identity.

 
 
Brad Smith
 
Avatar
 
 
Brad Smith
Total Posts:  182
Joined  12-02-2009
 
 
 
03 June 2011 19:02
 

Edward,

You raise some good points, but I can’t quite concede them.


eploy;84003 wrote:

Actually the US Federal Government does not recognize private heraldry whatsoever so if we extend Brad’s argument further we should ask:  Why stop at just attacking supporters?  Why not attack the private use of arms in general?


Since the US Government doesn’t regulate private heraldry, who is left to do the job?  No one.  However, as a heraldry enthusiast, I like being in a position to help others who are genuinely interested in assuming a coat of arms.  Any attack I may make on the personal use of supporters by US citizens has more to do with what I consider to be "the style of the thing" rather than any personal sense of outrage.  (@Fred, I would never demand to see someone’s family tree so that I could be at peace with a signet ring they happen to be wearing.  You are right - that is loutish.  We should be above that)


eploy;84003 wrote:

I guess my point is that those who are against the use of supporters by private Americans, but who still favor the use of private heraldry are essentially throwing bricks in glass houses.  Why allow one but not the other when all are seen as pretentious by the rest of America?  I would even go further to say:  Who cares what the rest of America thinks or says about heraldry?  Some will like it, others will hate it.  Suum Cique/To each his own!


For some reason, heraldry carries a stigma of pretentiousness and elitism, even here on our boards where we should know better.  I’m as common as dirt.  But I enjoy history, military heraldry, graphic arts and genealogy.  Does being an enthusiast make me an elitist?  I don’t think so, but I can understand how others would feel that way.


eploy;84003 wrote:

However, I am not sure why some American heraldist slavishly try to import the British system with its "best practices" (e.g., no supporters unless you are a peer or an institution) into the US.  If they were to import the entire system, then either none of us would be worthy of arms (our early American predecessors having rebelled against the Crown thereby severing our ties with the British heralds), or we would all be deemed as having inferior arms since most are assumed….We Americans are free to develop our own system, and we have other heraldic models that are also applicable given our diverse population:  Dutch, French, German, Italian, Polish, Russian, Scandanavian, Spanish, Swiss, etc.  All of these other traditions allowed assumed arms, and most could care less whether a burgher or citizen also assumed supporters.  For these other societies, there were other ways to prove and show nobility without even considering arms and supporters.


Besides British heraldry, I am only familiar with German and Swiss burgher arms, slighty with French, and not at all with any of the others.  However, in German and Swiss heraldic traditions, inclusion of supporters in burgher heraldry is an exception, rather than a norm.

 

I think that the most simple explanation for most Americans tendency towards the British system is that we have the language in common.  It is much more difficult for the average American heraldry enthusiast to blazon in French or German than in English.  And in this case, we are truly "two peoples separated by a common language".  As you pointed out earlier, there is no official governing authority in the US.  Heraldry is by definition a highly codified activity.  If there is no one to codify US rules of personal heraldry, the only people likely to perpetuate any sort of rules are people like us.

 

By no means am I suggesting that we should ignore other nations heraldic traditions.  I think we should absolutely figure out some way of translating other heraldry practices into English, so that our heraldic knowledge can be more complete.

 

However, most of us have encountered bad heraldry that has been produced recently.  Sometimes, you just can’t talk a person out of even the most basic things such as violating the rules of tincture.  As you said, "to each his own".  However, since we have more knowledge of heraldry than the average person, we should at least be able to help them understand what is and was allowable in different national traditions;  in essence, "Know the rules in order to break them".

 

I can tell that everyone here enjoys heraldry, but it is becoming apparent to me that we have different reasons for our interest.  If someone accused me of being elitist and pretentious because I have assumed arms, I would do my best to explain modern American heraldry to them.  I dislike being accused of being an elite when I feel that my tastes are simply more esoteric than the mainstream, so I would defend myself.

 

I think I am arguing in circles at this point.  Pardon the rant.  I can understand the position of accepting supporters in personal American arms, but I don’t agree with it.  To each his own.

 
Andemicael
 
Avatar
 
 
Andemicael
Total Posts:  257
Joined  02-04-2006
 
 
 
03 June 2011 19:25
 

Well said, Brad. I couldn’t agree more.

For whatever it’s worth, I also don’t feel a sense of "outrage," even scorn, when I see supporters, barred helms, coronets, etc. in other people’s arms. Rather, I am simply curious why they feel they need them.

 

My reaction is, "interesting, I wonder why they chose to include those? Is it ignorance, or do they have a deeply felt reason for including them? I wonder what it is?"

 

That being said, I’m certainly glad that such ‘rule breaking’ is the exception and not the norm.

 
 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
03 June 2011 21:54
 

Fred White;83971 wrote:

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.


Yes indeed.  I’d contend that one of them is that we should logically have no place in our heraldic practice for things such as supporters and coronets that differentiate the status of one coat of arms—or its bearer—vis-a-vis another.


Quote:

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?


The use of the term "vocabulary" is very apt.  Let us think of heraldry as a multinational language with different national dialects, some of which are more closely related than others.  Without some degree of shared vocabulary, it’s not one language but several.  But the issue of vocabulary overlap between the different dialects is not normative (how much do they "have to have"?) but rather empirical (how much do they actually have?).

 

Now let’s suppose this language of heraldry has 20 different identifiable national dialects.  In 15 of them the term "brox" means "high and mighty."  In four, "brox" isn’t used at all.  In the 20th, "brox" means "agreeable."

 

Now part of one of the countries in which "brox" means "high and mighty" declares independence, but continues to speak the same dialect for 200+ years.  The citizens of this new country renounce the idea that anyone is brox.  People from countries that speak other dialects move to this newly independent country; almost all of them come from places where "brox" either means "high and mighty" or it means nothing, but as a condition of living in the new country, they too have to renounce the idea of broxness.  Then suddenly one fine day, John Doe wakes up and decides he thinks the word "brox" has a nice ring to it, and that he will thenceforth describe himself as brox.  His neighbors are all offended by this.  His defense?  "Hey, what’s your problem?  In the Netherlands, ‘brox’ just means ‘agreeable.’  I’m not claiming anything more than that."

 

Would we take this seriously?  Then why would we allow someone who’s not a native speaker of the Dutch heraldic dialect and doesn’t live in the Netherlands to adopt heraldic additaments that scream "brox" to everyone in 75% of the heraldry speaking world on the grounds that in the Netherlands they are just something agreeable?


Quote:

Who is one’s audience for the use of heraldic devices? Is it all and sundry or just other armigers?


Isn’t it both?


Quote:

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.


I’m not sure this is true, given the evident popularity of the bucket shops we regularly decry on this forum.  If anything, the modal attitude seems to be that everyone has a coat of arms—it’s just a matter of looking in the online database to find out what it is.  That hardly offers much room for preening about one’s ancestry.

 

But even if they do see things that way, I don’t accept that the ignorance of the masses excuses bad behavior on the part of those who know better.  "If everyone were jumping off a cliff…" my mother used to tell me.


Quote:

The difference between a coat of arms with supporters and one without is almost certainly lost on them.


So is the difference between wearing or not wearing decorations on formal morning dress, or between wearing them on the right (left) or wrong side of your chest (see David Beckham at the recent royal wedding).  The fact that the unwashed don’t know the difference doesn’t make the wrong way acceptable.


Quote:

Only a heraldry enthusiast would be in a position to make a distinction.


Shouldn’t we care more about the opinions of the well informed than those of the ignorant?


Quote:

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


I’d say that sometimes it’s merely pretentious, sometimes it’s ignorant, and sometimes it’s intentionally deceptive, or even self-deceptive.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
03 June 2011 22:18
 

eploy;84003 wrote:

Why stop at just attacking supporters? Why not attack the private use of arms in general?

I guess my point is that those who are against the use of supporters by private Americans, but who still favor the use of private heraldry are essentially throwing bricks in glass houses. Why allow one but not the other when all are seen as pretentious by the rest of America?


Because perceptions are not everything.  The norm across the heraldic world is Bartolo Sassoferrato’s position stated in the early 1300s and repeated by early heraldic legists across Europe that anyone—not just nobles—may assume a coat of arms.  It is the restrictive view (that bearing arms requires a license from the state, or is limited to a particular class) that is the deviation from the norm.  Even in places where heraldry was restricted in this way (England, Scotland, Portugal, a few others), the use of arms was originally available to all.  To paraphrase Marx, man is born heraldically free, and only in a few places is he in chains.  So it is not at all unreasonable to conclude that with its political independence in 1776, the U.S. also gained its heraldic independence and returned to a pre-regulated state of nature.

 

This is not the case with supporters.  One could argue that the use of supporters was also once free to all, but they fairly soon acquired the connotation of high social rank not just in a few countries but in most of the countries were they formed part of the heraldic vocabulary.

 

In other words, the empirical norm is that, across the heraldic universe, arms themselves are not a reliable indicator of noble or even gentry status, but supporters are.  (Note that I’m not talking about mass perceptions here; most Frenchmen in 1789-1790 thought of arms as the province of the nobility, even though the vast majority of arms in the Armorial General de France belonged to non-nobles.)


Quote:

Even if an American armiger is descended from the titled nobility, I am sure that most Americans (not just certain members of the AHS) would frown on their use of supporters with their arms.


I know I would.  That American armiger’s grandfather renounced his noble status when he became an American citizen, so what is it that the grandson thinks he’s symbolizing with those ostentatious beasts on either side of his shield?


Quote:

We Americans are free to develop our own system, and we have other heraldic models that are also applicable given our diverse population: Dutch, French, German, Italian, Polish, Russian, Scandanavian, Spanish, Swiss, etc.


This always sounds good in the abstract, but it’s utopian.  We can’t actually start from scratch.  We’ve been using personal heraldry in the present day United States since the 1500s.  We have a system, or at least a set of customs.


Quote:

All of these other traditions allowed assumed arms, and most could care less whether a burgher or citizen also assumed supporters.


The first is true; the second is not, as I’ve documented before.

 
Iain Boyd
 
Avatar
 
 
Iain Boyd
Total Posts:  309
Joined  15-10-2005
 
 
 
03 June 2011 23:30
 

Andemichael wrote -

"For whatever it’s worth, I also don’t feel a sense of "outrage", even scorn, when I see supporters, barred helms, coronets, etc. in other people’s arms. Rather, I am simply curious why they feel they need them."

 

My arms were certified by the late Vicente de Cadenas y Vicent, Cronista Rey de Armas and include a barred helmet.

 

I did not ask for such a helmet. In fact, the original emblazonment I supplied Vicente de Cadenas included a traditional ‘English’ style gentleman’s helmet.

 

However, when the certifying document arrived back I found that the emblazonment included a barred helmet.

 

Also, the description of the helmet specifically states that it is barred. The English translation is - "On a helmet of burnished steel with gold border and bars and red lining, .....".

 

Regards,

 

Iain Boyd

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
03 June 2011 23:43
 

Joseph McMillan;84035 wrote:

This is not the case with supporters.  One could argue that the use of supporters was also once free to all, but they fairly soon acquired the connotation of high social rank not just in a few countries but in most of the countries were they formed part of the heraldic vocabulary.

In other words, the empirical norm is that, across the heraldic universe, arms themselves are not a reliable indicator of noble or even gentry status, but supporters are.

 


This has not been my experience asking other heraldists from other countries (other than the UK).

 


Joseph McMillan;84035 wrote:

I know I would.  That American armiger’s grandfather renounced his noble status when he became an American citizen, so what is it that the grandson thinks he’s symbolizing with those ostentatious beasts on either side of his shield?


AFAIK, what was renounced was the title and nothing else; certainly not supporters on one’s private arms which the US doesn’t even recognize let alone regulate unlike say Canada or Scotland.  I don’t think naturalization requires one to renounce untitled noble/gentleman status as such status is not legally recognized in the US anyway.  Furthermore, such status lies in the blood and you can’t really renounce your blood.