Signification of Supporters

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
04 June 2011 00:36
 

eploy;84040 wrote:

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


Edward, I present evidence country by country in the thread linked in one of the messages above, cited to reliable sources.  Every couple of years we go through this issue, and you and others reject my conclusions but no one has yet shown the data on which they are based to be in error.  Until that happens, I will maintain that, even in countries where there were no legal restrictions, the use of supporters nevertheless strongly correlates de facto strongly with titled nobility.


Quote:

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. I don’t think naturalization requires one to renounce untitled noble/gentleman status as such status is not legally recognized in the US.


We’ve been through this many times as well.  Ever since 1795, U.S. naturalization law has explicitly required that an applicant for citizenship who "shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility" in the country he came from must expressly renounce not only the title but the membership in the order of nobility.  And before someone says, "ignorant Congress, orders are about knighthood, not nobility!", check the definitions of "order" in a comprehensive dictionary like the OED or Webster’s Unabridged.  Or, for a sense of how the 1795 statute would have understood the term, look at Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary, in which the definitions of "order" include "a rank or class."  Applicants for U.S. citizenship must renounce their membership in any noble rank or class to which they belong.

 

Clearly the law doesn’t require someone to give up his heraldic supporters or any other heraldic additaments along with his nobility.  But what does it mean to renounce the substance of one’s noble status and yet cling to the outward signs of that status?  Either that the sign is empty, or that the renunciation was insincere.  If the sign is empty, why cling to it?

 

This is, of course, my own opinion.  I’m not trying to dictate but to persuade.

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
04 June 2011 00:43
 

Joseph McMillan;84035 wrote:

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.

 


I am not sure why an American of say Spanish, German or other descent should be bound by the heraldic norms of earlier American heraldists most who were working from the British model of heraldry.  The excuse that Americans and British share a common langugae and some cultural traditions is not enough of an excuse for me to slavishly follow what are British best practices.  IMHO following the British model only brings heraldry more ridicule in the American context given the elitist nature of heraldry in the UK vis-a-vis elsewhere in Europe.  By doing so the majority of the AHS is actually re-enforcing the hegemony/primacy of the British model.

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
04 June 2011 01:29
 

Joseph McMillan;84041 wrote:

Edward, I present evidence country by country in the thread linked in one of the messages above, cited to reliable sources. . . .  I will maintain that, even in countries where there were no legal restrictions, the use of supporters nevertheless strongly correlates de facto strongly with titled nobility.

.

Joseph, actually I do not recall this particular thread.  Please send me the link and I will read it on my own.

 

Just because the use of supporters correlates strongly with titled nobility as you say does not in my mind preclude an modern American from assuming them in his modern coat.  There is enough evidence to suggest that normal citizens and basic gentleman used supporters in some countries and this is enough of a precedence for me to allow the tradition in the US.  We will have to agree to disagree on this point my friend.

 


Joseph McMillan;84041 wrote:

We’ve been through this many times as well.  Ever since 1795, U.S. naturalization law has explicitly required that an applicant for citizenship who "shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility" in the country he came from must expressly renounce not only the title but the membership in the order of nobility.  And before someone says, "ignorant Congress, orders are about knighthood, not nobility!", check the definitions of "order" in a comprehensive dictionary . . .  would have understood the term, . . . "order" include "a rank or class."  Applicants for U.S. citizenship must renounce their membership in any noble rank or class to which they belong.

Clearly the law doesn’t require someone to give up his heraldic supporters or any other heraldic additaments along with his nobility.  But what does it mean to renounce the substance of one’s noble status and yet cling to the outward signs of that status?  Either that the sign is empty, or that the renunciation was insincere.  If the sign is empty, why cling to it?

 

This is, of course, my own opinion.  I’m not trying to dictate but to persuade.


With all due respect to Congress they may have been partially ignorant.  Just as a king cannot create a gentleman (I.e., untitled nobility), a gentleman cannot renounce his gentle status save for engaging in ungentlemanly pursuits and even then the renunciation is temporary for so long as the un-gentlemanly work is undertaken.  Gentleman status is kinda like DNA in that you can’t really renounce it.

 

With regard to supporters I see them as part of one’s ancestral heritage that one need not surrender upon becoming an American.  I don’t think keeping this part of one’s heritage makes one less of an American or one’s oath of allegiance less sincere.  Again we will have to agree to disagree Joseph.

 

I acknowledge my viewepoint is in the minority and a very unpopular one on this forum but I feel the need to combat group think here by raising another perspective other than what I see to be overdeference by American heraldists to British norms.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
04 June 2011 01:30
 

Joseph McMillan;84041 wrote:

Every couple of years we go through this issue, and you and others reject my conclusions but no one has yet shown the data on which they are based to be in error.  Until that happens, I will maintain that, even in countries where there were no legal restrictions, the use of supporters nevertheless strongly correlates de facto strongly with titled nobility.


I don’t think anyone questions the data you adduce, but rather the conclusions you reach based on them. For that matter, I don’t think anyone is denying that there is a reasonably strong correlation between use of supporters and noble status (the definition of which is variable) across heraldic traditions. But the correlation is far from perfect and definitely not the same thing as an inerrant correlation of the sort that we have with coronets that correspond to specific noble and royal ranks. If supporters were only used by peers of the realm in places where only holders of peerages have nobility, I think you’d have an airtight case, but I look at the data you adduce and see a leaky case.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
04 June 2011 01:35
 

Brad Smith;84030 wrote:

I can understand the position of accepting supporters in personal American arms, but I don’t agree with it. To each his own.


A temperate stance, I think.

 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  10-03-2009
 
 
 
04 June 2011 01:56
 

eploy;84042 wrote:

I am not sure why an American of say Spanish, German or other descent should be bound by the heraldic norms of earlier American heraldists most who were working from the British model of heraldry.


Our heraldic culture has not "gelled" yet.  In my opinion, ideally the U.S. heraldic tradition for supporters should "emerge" based on common practice. This could take a while given that 1) the foreign source customs are so numerous and contention is strong 2) there is a pervading lack of heraldic awareness state side.

 

I believe that in order for valuable practices to emerge, the field needs to be open for people to try different things (so long as thoughtful consideration is applied).  Since there is precedent for supporters to be treated as insignificant artistic embellishment (at least in Netherlands), as well as precedent for strictly noble connotation (as in the UK), U.S. citz ought to be encouraged to model their use (or non-use) of supporters as they see fit… the only caveat being that usage be consistent and defined by and for individuals and groups who adopt them.  If one is going to use supporters, one should define the criteria for himself and others, even if that use is simply to say "it looks cool."  My main grievance is the use of supporters without any reasoning at all or some vague notion of noble relation.

 

My own personal preference (w/o attempting to dictate) on supporters in the U.S. is that they should be strictly related to state, office and corporate entities, however, I believe an owner or chief representative of such a corporate (or state) entity should have the option to display arms with supporters while representing that entity in say, marshalled arms or personal arms with other augmentations of office or corporation.  I don’t believe supporters should be inherited unless the office or corporate entity is also.  To me, supporters signify a non-human vehicle of power and/or wealth and their purpose should be to illustrate these influential statuses (just as a judge is given due deference by addresssing him/her as "your honor").

 

I do think it’s useful to pin someone down who uses supporters and interrogate them a bit (respectfully of course) as to why they use them as this will help the queried user to refine his/her own reasons if this hasn’t been done already.  If someone assumes a coat of arms, he/she should already be prepared for the questions anyhow; explaining use of supporters shouldn’t be that much of an extra inconvenience.

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

Jeffrey Boyd Garrison;84047 wrote:

Our heraldic culture has not "gelled" yet.  In my opinion, ideally the U.S. heraldic tradition for supporters should "emerge" based on common practice. This could take a while given that 1) the foreign source customs are so numerous and contention is strong 2) there is a pervading lack of heraldic awareness state side.

I believe that in order for valuable practices to emerge, the field needs to be open for people to try different things (so long as thoughtful consideration is applied).  Since there is precedent for supporters to be treated as insignificant artistic embellishment (at least in Netherlands), as well as precedent for strictly noble connotation (as in the UK), U.S. citz ought to be encouraged to model their use (or non-use) of supporters as they see fit… the only caveat being that usage be consistent and defined by and for individuals and groups who adopt them.  If one is going to use supporters, one should define the criteria for himself and others, even if that use is simply to say "it looks cool."  My main grievance is the use of supporters without any reasoning at all or some vague notion of noble relation.


That all sounds about right to me.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
04 June 2011 03:14
 

Joseph McMillan;84034 wrote:

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.


I agree with you about coronets tied to specific noble and royal ranks, not about supporters.


Quote:

. . . 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?


I think this illustrates your logic well, but another approach—no less logical—leads to a different stance.

 

Americans have always picked and chosen among disparate cultural traditions, in many spheres of activity, so it would be indexical of the American ethos to say, "Yes, it may be that the minority of national heraldic traditions make no necessary connection between supporters and a legal status that has never existed here, but that minority is getting it right."


Quote:

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.


I agree with you completely about this principle, just not on the question of whether assuming supporters constitutes bad behavior.


Quote:

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


Of course, but the opinions of the well informed are susceptible of error and change.


Quote:

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


I get the drift, and I don’t expect to convert you personally, but I think American armigers generally could afford to have a more nuanced attitude towards the use of supporters by individuals than the AHS seems willing to endorse.

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

Fred White;84049 wrote:

That all sounds about right to me.


I tend to agree.

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
04 June 2011 03:40
 

Fred White;84051 wrote:

I agree with you about coronets tied to specific noble and royal ranks, not about supporters.


I am also not against the descendants of nobles (I especially untitled ones) bearing their crest coronets on their arms.  There is no titled nobility in the US and the use of such coronets to symbolize ancestry are not likely to be mistaken for an American peerage.

 


Fred White;84051 wrote:

I think American armigers generally could afford to have a more nuanced attitude towards the use of supporters by individuals than the AHS seems willing to endorse.


Agreed!

 
Michael Y. Medvedev
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Y. Medvedev
Total Posts:  844
Joined  18-01-2008
 
 
 
04 June 2011 04:20
 

If you permit, dear friends,

Even smile in the Netherlands, the supporters are still considered as "not common" and not "purely decorative" in public heraldry; and that the everyone’s right to supporters claimed now by the Dutch gradually emerged from the fusion of different social strata within the general context which always had its nobiliary dimension. That is, the Dutch supporters may be compared to basic noble attributes in Spain which may be now claimed by anyone armigerous but still constitute a nobiliary element, borne now by right and now by courtesy or "extension".

If is different with the USAmerican situation in which the common claim to supporters does not logically emerge from anything and is IMHO hardly accessible but through breaking and ignoring the general historical context; and where is no reason to tolerate nobiliary elements as a part of the mainstream practice.

 

Heraldic supporters, being of the same ilk as livery badges, were introduced as marks of public authority or of ranks normally implying authority. It seems that to consider this as a part of inheritable possession would be not so American (as far as I can consider that at all, looking from that side of the Ocean).

 

As to purely decorative elements of achievement in general: is it really so inspiring to turn parts of armorial structure which historically were, and for many still are, significant, into lovely but purely decorative - that is, meaningless - stuff?

 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  10-03-2009
 
 
 
04 June 2011 04:39
 

Michael Y. Medvedev;84055 wrote:

If you permit, dear friends,

Even smile in the Netherlands, the supporters are still considered as "not common" and not "purely decorative" in public heraldry; and that the everyone’s right to supporters claimed now by the Dutch gradually emerged from the fusion of different social strata within the general context which always had its nobiliary dimension. That is, the Dutch supporters may be compared to basic noble attributes in Spain which may be now claimed by anyone armigerous but still constitute a nobiliary element, borne now by right and now by courtesy or "extension".


According to how I interpret Mr. De Witte’s statements about the region, supporters have never been associated with nobiliary status and have been purely decorative since the beginning of their use in Netherlands.

 

I am a bit confused. :confused:

 
Michael Y. Medvedev
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Y. Medvedev
Total Posts:  844
Joined  18-01-2008
 
 
 
04 June 2011 05:42
 

In my personal opinion, this is partly a matter of distinguishing decorative non-heraldic supporting images from armorial supporters, and partly a matter of being careful and inquisitive regarding the social background of heraldic practices (including nobiliary and quasi-nobiliary claims of prominent burgess families, princely retainers etc).

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
04 June 2011 06:05
 

I’ve been following the thread as well as possible…  Each point is relatively well made.  Thus far I have to come down on Joseph’s side of things for the most part.  If nothing else, this country has been very clear about our desires reguarding acknowledgement of nobility as citizens, why wuold we endorse a custom of citizens using adornments which implied nobility to anyone on earth by citizens of this country.  If someone wants to "give a nod" to hereditary nobility on their arms, there are many ways to do this without using trappings which indicate nobility to other parts of the world.

If you want to make pretty pictures around your arms - by all means, comission the artist to do so.  But supporters and other stuff - I’ve read nothing here that indicates we should endorse this practice (sorry Fred).  Even though some locations in the world do not view supporters as signs of nobility, this country has consistently rejected nobility as a part of it’s ethos.

 
Dohrman Byers
 
Avatar
 
 
Dohrman Byers
Total Posts:  760
Joined  02-08-2007
 
 
 
04 June 2011 09:09
 

The debate about the use of supporters in American heraldry reminds me of a story told me by a rabbi friend.

The young rabbi comes to a congregation and finds chaos at the liturgy. When it comes time to recite the Shema, half the congregation stands while the other half remains seated. Soon those standing are shouting at those seated to stand, and those seated are shouting at those standing to sit. In an attempt to bring peace, the rabbi decides to use the ancient practice of consulting the oldest members of the congregation to see what was the original custom. He takes one representative of each party with him to see old Abraham in the Jewish Retirement Home. As soon as they enter the patriarch’s room, one of the partisans cries out: “Abraham, tell them. Is it not the custom in our schul to stand during the recitation of the Shema?” Abraham shakes his head and says, “No, that is not the custom.” The other partisan then cries triumphantly, “So it is the custom in our schul to sit during the recitation of the Shema!” Again, Abraham shakes his head: “No, that is not the custom.” Desperate, the rabbi cries out: “Abraham, I don’t care which way you tell us to go, but you must decide. Do you not understand what is happening? Whenever it comes time to recite the Shema, half the congregation stands while the other half remains seated. Those standing start shouting at those seated to stand, and those seated start shouting at those standing to sit.” Old Abraham nods: “Yes, that is the custom.”