Signification of Supporters

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
16 June 2011 14:30
 

Brad Smith;84895 wrote:

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?


I guess the bigger question for me, is whether American heraldry really is the result of "the synthesis of international historical norms" or whether it is an actual historical tradition that grew out of historical precedents right here in the US.

 

I think one can make a strong argument that American heraldry was well-established as a tradition in its own right by the mid-nineteenth century and it was a tradition that grew almost exclusively out of English and Scottish heraldic norms.

 

Perhaps I simply don’t understand the actual influence of the heraldic systems of other international countries on American heraldic practice prior to ~1960.  Can others help me by providing examples?

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
16 June 2011 20:55
 

Brad Smith;84895 wrote:

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?


The operative term is "norms." The international norm is for heraldry to be elitist, not egalitarian.

 
Brad Smith
 
Avatar
 
 
Brad Smith
Total Posts:  182
Joined  12-02-2009
 
 
 
16 June 2011 21:03
 

Fred White;84906 wrote:

The operative term is "norms." The international norm is for heraldry to be elitist, not egalitarian.


As you have said to others, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.  In light of the number of European countries with a tradition of burgher heraldry, I don’t see it that way.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
16 June 2011 22:51
 

We’re well over 300 postings—the poor horse isn’t just dead, he’s hamburger.

A few hopefully useful comments—or value statements if you prefer.

 

First, heraldry in any nation will reflect and operate within a context of that nation’s laws, customs and values about who & what that nation is or should be.  The national culture is the dog; heraldry is just the tail.

 

Secondly, our heraldry—as (or merely as) a small subset of everything else this nation was & is—flowed mostly from British (primarily English) roots.  Our Revolution originated in a love-hate relationship with those roots.  It began as a struggle to preserve what the colonists saw as their rights as Englishmen, against what they saw as a King and Parliament hostile to those rights.  We expressly retained what the Founders saw as good (the English principle of elected legislatures,  English common law except where modified by local laws, etc.) and rejected what they saw, or came to see, as not good (monarchy, nobility, primogeniture, etc.)

 

That reactive tension is a large part of what defined us as a people and a nation.  There were of course other ethnic elements that made significant contributions to early America, but their cultural contributions were subject to both the prevailing English-based laws and customs, and to our rejection of the unacceptable elements of that English background.

 

We had an heraldic tradition before Independence, which continued after we ceased to be English colonies.  American heraldry before Independence of course was essentially an outgrowth of English heraldry, with the occasional added seasoning of the other European folk who also lived among us.  After Independence, those aspects of English heraldry that were compatible with our long-held but newly-won freedoms and values could and did survive—primarily the function of identifying and symbolizing families and communities.  Witness the continued use of heraldry by many of the Founders and other Americans as a private, largely (well, almost entirely) unregulated customary practice.  Other aspects of English heraldry—most especially as a symbol of "nobility"—were incompatible with a society which rejected the English notions of nobility.  That was essentially the same thought process behind our AHS Guidelines—that whatever heraldry might have been in other times & places (e.g. Europe) those traditional customs must yield, in the American context, to the broader values in American society generally.

 

Now as to supporters—in the English system from which we came, they were the province of the nobility; were seen as such; and as far as I can determine, are still seen that way by most Americans who give it any thought.  Whether that was or wasn’t universally true in the Netherlands or Poland or Russia was essentially irrelevant, because we hadn’t fought a war to gain independence from those nations.

 

That is the basis for our American heraldic history, in which supporters have had almost no place.  If we were creating a brand new tradition on a clean slate, that might not matter—but we are not.  If we were attempting to recreate the social norms of medieval Europe, it certainly wouldn’t matter—but we are not.  The Guidelines were never a "clean slate" new start, and to my mind they couldn’t be.  They were conceived in an historical context—our historical context—because heraldry that is inconsistent with our history and national norms can only be an alien interloper with no real place here.

 

Historically, because what supporters symbolized in our English colonial history was part and parcel of the parts of the larger context of the English system which we rejected, they had and can IMO have no place here.

 

As to other national traditions—they are acceptable or not acceptable here, NOT because we are forcing them into an English mold—but because we are reconciling them with American history, customs and values.  If I were of, say, Dutch ancestry, that might seem a bit unfair—but I would need to remind myself that while my ancestors may have been Dutch, I’m not; and that I can claim to retain only those Dutch traditions that are compatible with the customs, history and values of this country.

 

Not to pick on the Dutch—most of their social customs and values, including most of their heraldic customs outside their nobility,  fit nicely here; but not all.  Those that, in an American context, imply a claim to a status (noblesse) that our history and values reject, merit a fond farewell.  If my ancestors happened to be Dutch nobles, I can fairly and honestly retain those aspects of their heraldry that are consistent with & do not offend American values—e.g. my inherited shield, crest, & motto, which are no more or less than Washington and other Founders retained (or, like Adams after awhile, adopted).  But once I (or my ancestors) became American, I must be prepared to prune back those features that offend those same American historical customs and values—e.g. coronets, which nearly everywhere say "noble" and supporters, which say "noble" here whether or not that was what they said it in this, that or the other "old country."

 

Thus endeth the overly-long sermon; the ushers will now awaken the sleepers & collect the offering.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
16 June 2011 23:59
 

Brad Smith;84908 wrote:

As you have said to others, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.  In light of the number of European countries with a tradition of burgher heraldry, I don’t see it that way.


We only have to agree to disagree (on the elitism point) if you deny that beneath the level of burghers lies the great mass of humanity, and that to be a burgher is to have attained a status worthy of comment—in the eyes of the burghers themselves, at least.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
17 June 2011 01:21
 

What you have to say here is very interesting:


liongam;84894 wrote:

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.


If you are correct, then American heraldry (as the AHS would have it, at least) simply cannot be said to be an extension or an adaptation of the the British model, according to which even a shield and crest connote—however modestly—noble status.


Quote:

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.


That’s a big "if." I think many on this forum are operating on the premise that the highest social rank in the United States is "gentleman," that said rank is not a form of nobility, and that the imprimatur of a sovereign is therefore unnecessary to claim said rank. The normative view of participants in this forum is that Washington’s inherited coat of arms and John Paul Jones’s assumed coat of arms are not intrinsically different—that they symbolize the same rank. To put it another way, the normative view of participants in this forum is that the rank signified by George Washington’s crest and shield is accessible to any American who decides he qualifies for it. But I guess that wouldn’t be the College of Arms’ view of the matter, would it? Come to think of it, it doesn’t sound like it would be George Washington’s view of the matter, either.

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
17 June 2011 01:39
 

Well said Michael, I couldn’t agree more!

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

Escudero;84914 wrote:

Well said Michael, I couldn’t agree more!


It is well said, but it is far from resolving anything, because it throws the lack of consensus here about fairly fundamental issues into still bolder relief.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
17 June 2011 05:53
 

David Pope;84897 wrote:

Perhaps I simply don’t understand the actual influence of the heraldic systems of other international countries on American heraldic practice prior to ~1960.  Can others help me by providing examples?


I don’t have a handy list of examples of non-Anglo heraldry around the country, but certainly, in the formerly Spanish areas, it can be found (I believe the AHS website depicts an example from St. Augustine, FL), and I would be surprised if there weren’t at least traces of French heraldry in the former Louisiana territory. However, whether any of that is relevant depends on what we’re willing to call "American heraldic practice." Then there’s the Catholic Church, which is ubiquitous, and has its own heraldic tradition for individuals and organizations, but because it is supra-national, it may not count for the purpose of illustrating what you’re asking about. And though I say the Church has a heraldic tradition for individuals, it seems to be exclusively for clergy, so for that reason, too, Church heraldry may not be relevant.

 
Jay Bohn
 
Avatar
 
 
Jay Bohn
Total Posts:  283
Joined  04-03-2008
 
 
 
17 June 2011 06:54
 

Fred White;84913 wrote:

To put it another way, the normative view of participants in this forum is that the rank signified by George Washington’s crest and shield is accessible to any American who decides he qualifies for it. But I guess that wouldn’t be the College of Arms’ view of the matter, would it? Come to think of it, it doesn’t sound like it would be George Washington’s view of the matter, either.


I of course speak for no one other than myself. Whatever may have been the view at the time of our founding, I simply reject the notion that today a crest and shield signify rank. I am not so naive to think that there are no social distinctions of class in America, whether it be one’s or one’s ancestors’ financial status or whatever other distinction, but such concepts have no place in our law and neither should they in our heraldry. It really doesn’t matter whether this view is or is not consistent with how heraldry is practiced elsewhere or at other times.

 

Unlike arms, supporters (having started as more exclusive) do continue to signify rank. This is not necessarily unchangeable. Perhaps if sufficent numbers of people assumed them anyway, their significance could change over time.

 

Were there a body with either legal or customary authority to decree armorial rules in this country, it would be appropriate for such a body to articulate specific achievements that would entitle those accomplishing them to assume, for themselves but not descendents, supporters. I take this view based upon developments in English (ok, in this case technically UK) law whereby whereby since 1964 peerage creations have (with about two non-royal esceptions) been for life. (As Mike’s recent post articulates, the basis for our culture and law is essentially English.)

 

Absent a consensus on the qualifying achievements, I am not convinced that it is appropriate for an American to assume supporters.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
17 June 2011 10:09
 

Jay Bohn;84920 wrote:

Whatever may have been the view at the time of our founding, I simply reject the notion that today a crest and shield signify rank. . . . It really doesn’t matter whether this view is or is not consistent with how heraldry is practiced elsewhere or at other times.


Why is that? If you simply dispense with how heraldry has been practiced elsewhere and at other times, how can you be sure that what you’re engaged in is heraldry at all?


Quote:

Unlike arms, supporters (having started as more exclusive) do continue to signify rank.


Supporters did not start as "more exclusive." They started as mere ornament. But why should it matter how they started—or what they ever came to symbolize subsequently—if one can simply dispense with how heraldry has been practiced elsewhere and at other times? If a crest and shield can mean whatever you want them to mean, why can’t supporters?

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
17 June 2011 10:44
 

Fred White;84921 wrote:

If a crest and shield can mean whatever you want them to mean [in the United States], why can’t supporters? [NTR: emphasized portion is mine.]


This is what I’ve been wondering…

 
Jay Bohn
 
Avatar
 
 
Jay Bohn
Total Posts:  283
Joined  04-03-2008
 
 
 
17 June 2011 10:59
 

Fred White;84921 wrote:

If you simply dispense with how heraldry has been practiced elsewhere and at other times, how can you be sure that what you’re engaged in is heraldry at all?


I guess if you believe that signification of rank is at the core of heraldry, you cannot. Has heraldry always and everywhere meant that?

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
17 June 2011 11:05
 

Jay Bohn;84923 wrote:

I guess if you believe that signification of rank is at the core of heraldry, you cannot. Has heraldry always and everywhere meant that?


I hesitate to say "always and everywhere," but "most of the time and most places" seems pretty airtight. I don’t see how it can be denied.

 
Jay Bohn
 
Avatar
 
 
Jay Bohn
Total Posts:  283
Joined  04-03-2008
 
 
 
17 June 2011 11:13
 

Fred White;84921 wrote:

Supporters did not start as "more exclusive." They started as mere ornament.


"Start" was not the best word to use; but by the time the US was settlend and independent, supporters were more exclusive.


Quote:

But why should it matter how they started—or what they ever came to symbolize subsequently—if one can simply dispense with how heraldry has been practiced elsewhere and at other times? If a crest and shield can mean whatever you want them to mean, why can’t supporters?


Because heraldry had to be adapted to the prevailing cultural and legal climate. It may be overstatement to say that use of arms was common but it was not as rare as the use of supporters as demonstrated by prior posts.