Signification of Supporters

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
15 June 2011 11:15
 

Kenneth Mansfield;84850 wrote:

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).


Interesting.  I agree with Washington.  Kenneth, are there other Washington books that you know of that address this aspect of his life?


Kenneth Mansfield;84850 wrote:

His arms on the other hand, he inherited outright. I wonder then if he saw the two as wedded to one another.


Good question.  I’m trying to think through a theoretical system where arms are the mark of a gentleman, but "gentleman status" is not hereditary.  I’m not sure how to square the fact that arms are usually inherited by progeny.  Perhaps the arms would have to be confirmed/reissued by the heraldic authority upon the death of the previous bearer…

 
Jay Bohn
 
Avatar
 
 
Jay Bohn
Total Posts:  283
Joined  04-03-2008
 
 
 
15 June 2011 13:30
 

David Pope;84852 wrote:

Perhaps the arms would have to be confirmed/reissued by the heraldic authority upon the death of the previous bearer…


But, especially without cadency, arms are "inherited" from birth/adoption—or at least so not wait for death.

 

This suggestion seems to have similarity with what I understand the Scots system to be: at least in the case of younger sons, no arms until matriculated with the Lord Lyon (I don’t know if the heir apparent needs formal approval to use a label, display undifferenced arms upon father’s death.)

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
15 June 2011 15:28
 

David Pope;84852 wrote:

Interesting.  I agree with Washington.  Kenneth, are there other Washington books that you know of that address this aspect of his life?

That is the only Washington biography I have read (except for maybe something when I was in elementary school). I suppose I should clarify that what Washington seemingly wanted, according to this author, was to be seen as wealthy and successful, and to that end he took great pains to succeed. He seemed to be very self conscious of his social standing (as tied to his financial situation) throughout his lifetime.

 
 
Dohrman Byers
 
Avatar
 
 
Dohrman Byers
Total Posts:  760
Joined  02-08-2007
 
 
 
15 June 2011 15:28
 

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? 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?


I do not accept the proposition that heraldry is “intrinsically elitist.” It may well be that the use of personal armorial bearings has everywhere and always been a minority practice; but where it is nonetheless available to the majority, it cannot be “intrinsically” elitist. The use of armorial devices need not be understood as a claim to membership in an elite. It does seem to claim a certain dignity, but to have a dignity does not necessarily make one part of an elite. (International law asserts that ever human being has dignity.) In a republic, the highest office may be that of President, but the highest dignity is that of Citizen.

 

There may indeed be some other way of resolving the dilemma of an egalitarian use of arms. I would argue that the justification for the use of armorial bearings by any ordinary American citizen is to be found in the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to bear arms. (I’m not being cute here!) The display of symbolic arms (heraldry), I suggest, is appropriate as an assertion of one’s dignity as a free citizen of the republic—and a far less dangerous assertion of one’s rights than the stockpiling of lethal weapons.

 
dschweitzer156
 
Avatar
 
 
dschweitzer156
Total Posts:  98
Joined  19-05-2008
 
 
 
15 June 2011 15:35
 

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.


Who would make the decision on who should, or should I say deserve, this honor? We have Nixon, Weiner, Rangel, Edwards, just to name a few.  I believe there was a general who had to resign because he was wearing a decoration he did not deserve.  Yes there are some that deserve to wear the supporters but others are not, nor they will ever, be gentlemen or for that matter, a lady.  Then you come to the women. Are they under heraldry permitted to have supporters?  Also would their husbands be quartered with the wife’s because she held a very high office and he did not. If she is quartered with the husbands would she loose the supporters.  Now if there would be supporters granted for POTUS and the Secretary of State, how would the Clintons be handled?

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
15 June 2011 15:55
 

dschweitzer156;84878 wrote:

Who would make the decision on who should, or should I say deserve, this honor? We have Nixon, Weiner, Rangel, Edwards, just to name a few.  I believe there was a general who had to resign because he was wearing a decoration he did not deserve.  Yes there are some that deserve to wear the supporters but others are not, nor they will ever, be gentlemen or for that matter, a lady.

I think you’ve simply highlighted the difference between "gentleman" in the historical meaning of social status and the current definition of "well-mannered". Crack any history book and you’ll find men of high social standing who did awful things. It’s not like there is no Nixon presidential library as a result of what he did.


dschweitzer156;84878 wrote:

Then you come to the women. Are they under heraldry permitted to have supporters?  Also would their husbands be quartered with the wife’s because she held a very high office and he did not. If she is quartered with the husbands would she loose the supporters.  Now if there would be supporters granted for POTUS and the Secretary of State, how would the Clintons be handled?

One need look no further than Margaret Thatcher for an example. As to the Clintons, I would suppose Secretary Clinton might have arms in her own right which would simply be impaled with the president’s - his supporter on the dexter side and hers to sinister.

Not that I’m in favor of any of this. smile

 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
15 June 2011 21:20
 

Dohrman Byers;84876 wrote:

I do not accept the proposition that heraldry is “intrinsically elitist.” It may well be that the use of personal armorial bearings has everywhere and always been a minority practice; but where it is nonetheless available to the majority, it cannot be “intrinsically” elitist. The use of armorial devices need not be understood as a claim to membership in an elite. It does seem to claim a certain dignity, but to have a dignity does not necessarily make one part of an elite. (International law asserts that ever human being has dignity.) In a republic, the highest office may be that of President, but the highest dignity is that of Citizen.


Perhaps I conceive of the elite in broader terms than you suppose, but either way, "to claim a certain dignity" is presumably to contrast oneself with some group of people who do not claim that dignity. It may be that the highest legal dignity in the United States is that of citizen, but that certainly isn’t the highest social, financial, etc. dignity, and since everyone born or naturalized here has citizenship, it doesn’t distinguish one of us from another at all.


Quote:

There may indeed be some other way of resolving the dilemma of an egalitarian use of arms. I would argue that the justification for the use of armorial bearings by any ordinary American citizen is to be found in the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to bear arms. (I’m not being cute here!) The display of symbolic arms (heraldry), I suggest, is appropriate as an assertion of one’s dignity as a free citizen of the republic—and a far less dangerous assertion of one’s rights than the stockpiling of lethal weapons.


An interesting, plausible approach, and certainly the one I would prefer if I were a heraldry enthusiast and felt I could claim no dignity beyond the legal one of being a citizen (which is not a trivial dignity, of course, but as I note, it’s not all that distinctive within the United States).

 
Jay Bohn
 
Avatar
 
 
Jay Bohn
Total Posts:  283
Joined  04-03-2008
 
 
 
15 June 2011 22:17
 

Fred White;84882 wrote:

<strike>ince everyone born or naturalized here has citizenship, it doesn’t distinguish one of us from another at all.

* * *

 

t’s not all that distinctive within the United States . . . .</strike>


Why does it have to be?

 
Dohrman Byers
 
Avatar
 
 
Dohrman Byers
Total Posts:  760
Joined  02-08-2007
 
 
 
16 June 2011 00:34
 

Fred White;84882 wrote:

...since everyone born or naturalized here has citizenship, it doesn’t distinguish one of us from another at all.


That is precisely the point. The purpose of heraldic arms in a republic is not (or need not be) to identify an elite or distinctive class. It may be (and ought to be) to represent the equal status of every citizen. In practice, many, perhaps even the majority, may choose not to exercise their right to bear armorial devices, just as many, sometimes even the majority, choose not to exercise their right to vote. This does not mean, however, that those who use arms constitute a special class any more than those who vote (unless it be the class of the eccentric). In a republic, citizenship is (or should be) regarded as a sufficient dignity to entitle one to "bear arms" figuratively, just as it does practically. In some countries, heraldry may serve to distinguish social classes; but, I maintain that heraldry is not intrinsically elitist. One can articulate a rational basis for egalitarian heraldry; and I think the dignity of citizenship in a republic provides just such a basis.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
16 June 2011 01:11
 

@ Fr. Byers and Jay: I’m working from a premise asserted by others on this forum, not one that I dreamed up on my own, namely that best practices in American heraldry should reflect international, historic norms. The international, historic norm is that heraldry is intrinsically elitist—that the bearing of a coat of arms denotes superior social status. In some cases, it has denoted superior legal status, too, but that strikes me as rather less consistent across heraldic traditions than the social denotation. Whither, then, the argument that it is appropriate for any American to assume arms on the basis of his legal status?

Anyway, I agree that a rational basis can be articulated for egalitarian heraldry (or something derived from heraldry), but I think that obliges you to reject the premise that best practices in American heraldry emanate from international, historic norms.

 
Jay Bohn
 
Avatar
 
 
Jay Bohn
Total Posts:  283
Joined  04-03-2008
 
 
 
16 June 2011 07:07
 

Fred White;84886 wrote:

I’m working from a premise asserted by others on this forum, not one that I dreamed up on my own, namely that best practices in American heraldry should reflect international, historic norms.

Anyway, I agree that a rational basis can be articulated for egalitarian heraldry (or something derived from heraldry), but I think that obliges you to reject the premise that best practices in American heraldry emanate from international, historic norms.


The arguments re best practices have proceeded from those practices as articulatd in the Society’s Guidelines (which, as pointed out elsewhere, have mandatory force only within the Members’ Armorial, and there only because the society, as owner of that space, decrees it so). These arguments are not based upon some uncodified international common law of heraldry.

 

The Guidelines themselves may have been based partly upon an understanding of international heraldic practice (their development precedes my participation in the forum) but that was not the sole criterion. The use of arms by women and inheritence by adopted children reflect American legal values.

 

Any best practices argument should begin with the text of the Guidelines rahter than arguing directly from one’s view of one of their sources. Is there anything in the text of the Guidelines that supports the view that American heraldry is limited by social status? I think the following parts of the introduction make it abundantly clear that the answer is "no":


Quote:

1.5.2. These guidelines reject the premise that possession of a coat of arms, regardless of the means by which it was acquired, indicates any type of superiority over those who do not possess arms. They also discourage the display by American citizens of any heraldic accoutrements indicative of titles of nobility or other hereditary social ranks that have no recognized place in American society.

1.5.3. The guidelines reflect an understanding of the ethnic and national diversity of the American people and seek wherever possible to avoid the universal application of practices that are peculiar to any particular foreign country.

 

1.5.4. The guidelines are derived from two main sources: (1) the shared body of norms that are common to the majority of areas in which heraldry has historically been used; and (2) the customary usages of American heraldry as inferred from actual historic practice. Practices that are specific to particular foreign countries are adopted only if they seem to fill an unanswered need within American heraldry, and if the underlying rationale for the practice is consistent with American conditions and values.

 

1.5.5. The guidelines take into account that certain traditional heraldic norms (such as exclusive inheritance in the male line, differencing for illegitimacy, and restrictions on the way women may use arms) are not consistent with modern American mores. In these cases, the traditional rules are modified to take account of contemporary laws and customs.

 

1.6. Four overarching principles bear emphasis above all the others.

 

1.6.1. It has always been perfectly legal and legitimate for any person in the United States to design, adopt, and use an original coat of arms of his or her choice. While some countries have laws or traditions limiting this right to bear arms without official approval, such laws have no force whatsoever in the United States.


For these reasons I reject the notion that use of arms by an American citizen is, or should or could be viewed as, a claim to any particular social or legal status or is intrinsically elitest.

 
Michael Y. Medvedev
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Y. Medvedev
Total Posts:  844
Joined  18-01-2008
 
 
 
16 June 2011 07:38
 

David Pope;84848 wrote:

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

Dear David, IMHO both is not fully correct as arms do signify an identity, a personality (real or conventional if applied to any collective armiger: a family, a corporation etc). In some societies identity is linked to a particular social status and in some it is not. The identity reflected in "real" arms must be real by itself; and thus arms still are more than a cool-looking stuff even if no rank issue is involved.

 
liongam
 
Avatar
 
 
liongam
Total Posts:  343
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
16 June 2011 13:41
 

It is not a question of Washington eschewing the use of supporters because that inferred superior social status.  We may consider Washington to be a gentleman for he stemmed from a long armigerous gentlemen - the Washingtons of Washington in the north east of England.  However well versed he was in heraldry or not, he would have undoubtedly known that as a gentleman of coat armour he would not have been entitled to supporters.  Further I beg to differ with the correspondent that there is no such thing as an hereditary gentlemen - all who have received a grant of arms or been confirmed in their arms under the jurisdiction of the College of Arms are deemed to to be gentlemen and so to are their male issue.  Here we are talking of the lowest rank of nobiles minores.  This is how it pertains over here.  Although, this is a ‘rank’ it is not one to get too heated over.

 

As this debate hinges on the question of whether or not American armigers should adopt supporters -the argument goes because there is no heraldic authority in the USA, an American armiger can do what he/she wishes.  Now if American arms which have been self assumed/registered with the various agencies in the USA have no pretence of being of ‘gentle’ arms, they must be, therefore, an America version of burgher arms.  Now if this is the case, why should such arms have the addition of supporters?

 

John

 
Brad Smith
 
Avatar
 
 
Brad Smith
Total Posts:  182
Joined  12-02-2009
 
 
 
16 June 2011 13:52
 

Fred, I think I finally understand where you are coming from.


Fred White;84886 wrote:

Anyway, I agree that a rational basis can be articulated for egalitarian heraldry (or something derived from heraldry), but I think that obliges you to reject the premise that best practices in American heraldry emanate from international, historic norms.


Why?

 

In my mind, it isn’t so hard to separate the how heraldry was practiced in Europe from how heraldry is connected to elitism.  If we can agree that heraldry didn’t necessarily imply elevated status in some (not all) European countries, then we have justification for continuing that practice in the US.  (I would argue that the private practice of heraldry didn’t imply elevated status in nearly all European countries, but because we share a common language with England, and declared our independence from her, we as Americans inherited many of the misconceptions about which prevent its widespread use).

 

This discussion has been around the block a few times on the European norms for supporters, so I won’t go there again.  But if we can practice egalitarian heraldry in the US based on international historic norms, why would we want to endorse (rather than merely tolerate) the use of supporters?

 

In other words, what is it about egalitarian heraldry that is at odds with the idea that American best practices are synthesized from international historical norms?

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
16 June 2011 13:59
 

Michael Y. Medvedev;84889 wrote:

Dear David, IMHO both is not fully correct as arms do signify an identity, a personality (real or conventional if applied to any collective armiger: a family, a corporation etc). In some societies identity is linked to a particular social status and in some it is not. The identity reflected in "real" arms must be real by itself; and thus arms still are more than a cool-looking stuff even if no rank issue is involved.


Michael,

 

Perhaps it’s clearer for me to say that bearing arms is either connected to a particular social status or it carries a meaning that is divorced from social status.