Signification of Supporters

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
15 June 2011 04:15
 

David Pope;84825 wrote:

As a start, I think life-time supporters would be appropriate for state governors, POTUS, VPOTUS, Flag/General Officers/their equivalent in the Foreign Service, perhaps US Senators after sufficient tenure, etc.


What of members of the Lower House and State Senators and Reps?  What about mayors of major cities like NYC, Chicago, etc?

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
15 June 2011 04:22
 

Fred White;84830 wrote:

My sense is that you have to observe that our ideal is equality before the law, and liberty to rise or fall in all other spheres of life, so that you can acknowledge that elitism fits quite comfortably here. Is there some other way of resolving it?


Well stated Fred.  America is very much a class-based (not a caste-based) society though some Americans would argue against even this statement.

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
15 June 2011 04:51
 

Fred White;84830 wrote:

But Denny, how do you resolve the paradox that heraldry is intrinsically elitist yet at the same time appropriate for citizens of a republic?


<oh, oh, OH!>  I know this one!  Joe has answered it in many threads!  It’s in the Primer…

 

Look it up!

 

hahahahahahahaha

 

:rofl:

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
15 June 2011 05:49
 

Kathy McClurg;84833 wrote:

<oh, oh, OH!>  I know this one!  Joe has answered it in many threads!  It’s in the Primer…

Look it up!

 

hahahahahahahaha

 

:rofl:


There’s something very folksy about the ROLF emoticon.

 

In any case, I read
Quote:

. . . American heraldry is for anyone who has a certain respect for themselves and their heritage.

as a way of trying to finesse what I’m saying.

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
15 June 2011 08:00
 

David Pope;84825 wrote:

As a start, I think life-time supporters would be appropriate for state governors, POTUS, VPOTUS, Flag/General Officers/their equivalent in the Foreign Service, perhaps US Senators after sufficient tenure, etc.


I neglected to put Justices of the Supreme Court on the list.  I suppose they are as close as we get to Life Peers…


Fred White;84827 wrote:

That’s about how I’d conceive of it, too, though if—for instance—an ex-POTUS were to assume arms with supporters, I’d have a hard time seeing why his male-line descendants wouldn’t be justified in inheriting the whole kit.


My analysis is that these supporters should use rules similar to those for Life Peers and high government officials in the Commonwealth countries.  I guess the logic goes like this:  "Supporters in the US denote high public service, rather than membership in a hereditary upper nobility.  Therefore the use of supporters is limited to the armiger who was honored for that high public service."


Donnchadh;84828 wrote:

i believe the idea of supporters to any person simply because of the public office they held is anathema (sp?) to the basic ideals of the republic we live in. supporters for the politically powerful and not those who made them so? no, sorry, but may God spare us from such elitism. either it’s good for all based on them being an American or not at all especially when faced with the notion that somehow those people are better than the rest of us, which reserving it for such persons screams out imo.


I don’t believe that democracy = a classless society.  The founders of our democracy, who are often cited as having established the tradition of US heraldry, certainly didn’t.  Remember, these are the guys who both assumed arms and thought it was okay to own other human beings.  An after-the-fact varnish of egalitarianism has been applied over the actual history.


Donnchadh;84828 wrote:

besides…who would make that call?...no heraldic agency…so who decides what is sufficient "service"?


This is an excellent and compelling point that argues against the use of supporters in American heraldry.  It’s also an excellent and compelling point for why there will likely continue to be lots of bad heraldry in the US.


Kathy McClurg;84833 wrote:

<oh, oh, OH!>  I know this one!  Joe has answered it in many threads!  It’s in the Primer…

 


Here’s what I found in the Primer that seems to be related to the topic(emphasis mine):


Quote:

Heraldry can be used for many purposes. It can be used as a focus of unity within a family or group, but it can also be used to divide those who are &#8220;entitled&#8221; to arms from those who are not. In the United States, no one is excluded from the possibility of designing and adopting arms of his own, but centuries of misunderstanding based on the belief that arms must be inherited has led many to assume they are entitled to bear the arms of another simply because they have the same last name. This fallacy has been propagated by so-called heraldry &#8220;bucket shops&#8221;.


In the US it is clear that anyone may design and assume arms since there is no authoritative proscription to the contrary.  "It can be done", though, is not the same as "it should be done."

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
15 June 2011 08:20
 

I must note that the primer is not my work.

 
Dohrman Byers
 
Avatar
 
 
Dohrman Byers
Total Posts:  760
Joined  02-08-2007
 
 
 
15 June 2011 09:17
 

When it comes to public officials and servants, it seems that the precedent of earlier armigerous persons who held such offices applies with special force. I would be appalled if some President of the United States were to "dignify" his/her arms with embellishments Washington eschewed. And if not the President, then who?

 
Jay Bohn
 
Avatar
 
 
Jay Bohn
Total Posts:  283
Joined  04-03-2008
 
 
 
15 June 2011 09:53
 

David Pope;84835 wrote:

In the US it is clear that anyone may design and assume arms since there is no authoritative proscription to the contrary. "It can be done", though, is not the same as "it should be done."


"Should" implies something more or less obligatory. My phrasing, with which you may or may not agree, is that there is no reason why any U.S. citizen should not assume an original coat of arms. [a double negative but at least to me it reads somewhat differently].

 

I see nothing in the Primer which suggests that it intends in any way to limit who is an appropriate armiger in the American context.

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
15 June 2011 10:01
 

Dohrman Byers;84838 wrote:

When it comes to public officials and servants, it seems that the precedent of earlier armigerous persons who held such offices applies with special force. I would be appalled if some President of the United States were to "dignify" his/her arms with embellishments Washington eschewed. And if not the President, then who?


This seems to be a compelling line of reasoning, but if we are to accept Washington’s precedent concerning supporters as definitive guidance for American heraldry, shouldn’t we also accept his reasoning for using such restraint?  My belief is that Washington eschewed supporters because they clearly symbolized upper nobility to him.  He was not "a nobleman" and, when given the chance, refused the offer to "become so".

 

I think that he did view himself, though, as a gentleman and viewed the bearing of arms as part of that identity.

 

If any American can assume and bear arms regardless of social status, then we’ve likely laid aside Washington’s sensibilities concerning who should be an armiger.  If that’s the case, then why should we use his views on supporters as the yardstick?

 
Jay Bohn
 
Avatar
 
 
Jay Bohn
Total Posts:  283
Joined  04-03-2008
 
 
 
15 June 2011 10:02
 

Dohrman Byers;84838 wrote:

When it comes to public officials and servants, it seems that the precedent of earlier armigerous persons who held such offices applies with special force. I would be appalled if some President of the United States were to "dignify" his/her arms with embellishments Washington eschewed. And if not the President, then who?


Do we know, other than lack of evidence of use of supporters, that Washington actively eschewed them? Is there any evidence that assumption of arms was accepted in colonial or early post-independence America?

 

It is my recollection that although Washington may not have used the grandiose title suggested by John Adams ("His Majesty the President of the United States and Protector of their Liberties"), his wife was addressed as "Lady Washington."

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
15 June 2011 10:09
 

David Pope;84835 wrote:

In the US it is clear that anyone may design and assume arms since there is no authoritative proscription to the contrary.  "It can be done", though, is not the same as "it should be done."

Jay Bohn;84839 wrote:

"Should" implies something more or less obligatory. My phrasing, with which you may or may not agree, is that there is no reason why any U.S. citizen should not assume an original coat of arms. [a double negative but at least to me it reads somewhat differently].


Imprecise word choice on my part.  Sorry.  What I intended to convey was:

Just because a thing can be done by anyone does not make it appropriate to be done by anyone.

 


Jay Bohn;84839 wrote:

I see nothing in the Primer which suggests that it intends in any way to limit who is an appropriate armiger in the American context.

 


Nor do I!:)

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
15 June 2011 10:18
 

Jay Bohn;84841 wrote:

Do we know, other than lack of evidence of use of supporters, that Washington actively eschewed them? Is there any evidence that assumption of arms was accepted in colonial or early post-independence America?

It is my recollection that although Washington may not have used the grandiose title suggested by John Adams ("His Majesty the President of the United States and Protector of their Liberties"), his wife was addressed as "Lady Washington."

 


Very good points and areas that I need to read/research.  In the case of my only "armigerous" ancestor(and whether he actually was armigerous is now debatable, given Joe’s info regarding the Bigham tombstones), I can find no record with the COA/LL.

 

I wonder if Joe knows which of the arms contained on the slide, linked below, were assumed, versus granted?

http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeohzt4/h…ationSlide.pdf

 
Jay Bohn
 
Avatar
 
 
Jay Bohn
Total Posts:  283
Joined  04-03-2008
 
 
 
15 June 2011 10:24
 

David Pope;84842 wrote:

Imprecise word choice on my part. Sorry. What I intended to convey was:

Just because a thing can be done by anyone does not make it appropriate to be done by anyone. smile


"Appropriate" is a much clearer word.

 

I think the recent discussion has revealed that there may be two distinct bases of the pro-supporter position, one asserting no social significance to supporters in the American context and therefore advocating free assumption by anyone and the other admitting a distinction between the bearers of supported and unsupported arms but believing the distinction acceptable, the remaining question being who would be entitled to assume supporters.

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
15 June 2011 10:33
 

Jay Bohn;84846 wrote:

I think the recent discussion has revealed that there may be two distinct bases of the pro-supporter position, one asserting no social significance to supporters in the American context and therefore advocating free assumption by anyone and the other admitting a distinction between the bearers of supported and unsupported arms but believing the distinction acceptable, the remaining question being who would be entitled to assume supporters.


Jay, you’ve nailed the two positions as I see them.

 

Either a) supporters do signify a particular social status or b) they are just "cool-looking" and fair game for anyone to assume.

 

If a), then one has to determine: 1) what that particular social status is, and 2) who qualifies.

 

If one believes, though, that the particular social status that qualifies is titled nobility, and the United States does not have any titled nobility, then the answer to 2), above, is "no one"...

 

 

Of course, I think that the following applies, as well:

 

Either a) arms do signify a particular social status or b) they are just "cool-looking" and fair game for anyone to assume.

 

If a), then one has to determine: 1) what that particular social status is, and 2) who qualifies.

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
15 June 2011 10:51
 

David Pope;84840 wrote:

I think that he did view himself, though, as a gentleman and viewed the bearing of arms as part of that identity.


My take from Chernow’s Washington: A Life is that Washington wanted desperately to be a gentleman, but didn’t see that as a birthright (i.e. it was something he needed to attain for himself). His arms on the other hand, he inherited outright. I wonder then if he saw the two as wedded to one another.