Signification of Supporters

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
18 June 2011 14:21
 

Kenneth Mansfield;84972 wrote:

I no more disagree with your assertion that arms primarily connote elitism than I disagree with the idea that supporters primarily connote nobility.


Then what’s the problem here? If you’re willing to transgress the primary connotation of a shield and a crest, why aren’t you willing to transgress the primary connotation of supporters?


Quote:

Do we know that burgher/peasant arms are more outliers than supporters? (really asking)


I think it’s clear that burgher and peasant arms are a minority across heraldic traditions. I think it’s clear that supporters used by non-nobles are the minority across heraldic traditions.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
18 June 2011 14:26
 

David Pope;84965 wrote:

Is there evidence that heraldic traditions which feature burgher arms (I’m guessing Dutch, German, Swiss???) had any real historical influence on American heraldry?


I’m guessing the answer is a big fat "No," but perhaps it depends on how recent a period "historical" can cover. Traditions that feature burgher and peasant arms are clearly essential reference points for some recent armorial assumptions.

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
18 June 2011 16:33
 

Fred White;84975 wrote:

Then what’s the problem here? If you’re willing to transgress the primary connotation of a shield and a crest, why aren’t you willing to transgress the primary connotation of supporters?

I’m wondering from where you’ve gleaned the notion that I am. Where I come down on who should assume a coat of arms is more or less in line with who the College of Arms will grant arms:
college-of-arms.gov.uk wrote:

There are no fixed criteria of eligibility for a grant of arms, but such things as awards or honours from the Crown, civil or military commissions, university degrees, professional qualifications, public and charitable services, and eminence or good standing in national or local life, are taken into account.

Are you suggesting that the College of Arms is transgressing the primary connotation of a shield and crest? Because if you are, then I suppose I am, too.

 
 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
18 June 2011 17:03
 

Burgher arms influence on American heraldry: well, a good chunk of the early use of personal arms in the colonies was by Dutch settlers in New Netherlands/New York, and few if any of them were from the nobility.

Fred writes:


Quote:

I think it’s clear that burgher and peasant arms are a minority across heraldic traditions.


I’ve cited several times the statistic calculated by Michel Pastoureau that the majority of arms in the Armorial General de France belonged to non-nobles, which is to say members of the bourgeoisie (= Burghers) and below.

 

It is important to clarify what "burgher arms" are. English heraldists use the term as synonymous with "arms not granted by authority." This is wrong. "Burgher arms" are arms belonging to the class of burghers, which is to say full citizens of towns, what in England would have been called freemen of a city, in France the bourgoisie, in Spain ciudadanos. Many English arms that were confirmed during the visitations and granted afterward would fall quite clearly into the category of burgher arms were it not for the fuzziness—unique to Britain and Ireland—of the line dividing the gentleman from those in lower categories. William Shakespeare’s father, who received a grant of arms, was by no reasonable definition a nobleman, either major (peer) or minor (gentleman in the strict sense). He was deemed to qualify by virtue of being an alderman of the mighty metropolis of Stratford-upon-Avon. In French, German, Spanish, or Italian terms, he would have been considered a burgher.

 

What kind of arms did the settlers of New England bear? In 1898, the NEHGS Committee on Heraldry, in despair that they were unable to find English authorities to prove the "validity" of the arms of many early New Englanders, recommended that Americans not use coats of arms at all. So, by the English definition, that means that most of the arms used in pre-independence New England were what? Either "burgher" or "bogus."

 

I would argue that, in fact, most American heraldry actually is derived from a tradition of burgher arms. Most of our early personal heraldry very likely consists of arms assumed by families at the very bottom end of the gentry and the middle to upper reaches of the franklin and free townsman class, and never vouched for by any official heraldic authority. The lack of official authorization is not surprising, since almost all immigration to New England before the Irish potato famine took place between 1620 and 1641, decades before the heraldic visitations were over. Had the Puritans stayed in East Anglia where most of them came from, maybe some of those arms would have been confirmed, but probably many of them would have been forced to disclaim. It was probably the very fact that they did come to New England and thereby avoided the visitations that accounts for the continued use of arms by any number of Yankee families.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
18 June 2011 18:25
 

Kenneth Mansfield;84978 wrote:

I’m wondering from where you’ve gleaned the notion that I am. Where I come down on who should assume a coat of arms is more or less in line with who the College of Arms will grant arms.

 


In the welter of opinions I have been responding to, I have obviously misplaced yours, and I apologize.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
18 June 2011 18:54
 

Joseph McMillan;84979 wrote:

Burgher arms influence on American heraldry: well, a good chunk of the early use of personal arms in the colonies was by Dutch settlers in New Netherlands/New York, and few if any of them were from the nobility.


So we use the Dutch when we want to agitate for burgher arms and free assumption but dismiss them when we want to object to supporters?


Quote:

I’ve cited several times the statistic calculated by Michel Pastoureau that the majority of arms in the Armorial General de France belonged to non-nobles, which is to say members of the bourgeoisie (= Burghers) and below.


So we also use the French when we want to agitate for burgher arms and free assumption but dismiss them when we want to object to supporters?

 

More anon, but preliminarily, I will say that we do need to be working with a shared definition of "burgher" and that I appreciate your trying to help us achieve one.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
18 June 2011 20:03
 

No, Fred.  I’m not using them (the Dutch or the French) for anything.  You asked questions, I gave answers.

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
18 June 2011 22:29
 

Kenneth Mansfield;84978 wrote:

Where I come down on who should assume a coat of arms is more or less in line with who the College of Arms will grant arms.


That seems to make sense to me, as well.

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
18 June 2011 22:36
 

Joseph McMillan;84979 wrote:

Burgher arms influence on American heraldry: well, a good chunk of the early use of personal arms in the colonies was by Dutch settlers in New Netherlands/New York, and few if any of them were from the nobility.

 

It is important to clarify what "burgher arms" are. English heraldists use the term as synonymous with "arms not granted by authority." This is wrong. "Burgher arms" are arms belonging to the class of burghers, which is to say full citizens of towns, what in England would have been called freemen of a city, in France the bourgoisie, in Spain ciudadanos. Many English arms that were confirmed during the visitations and granted afterward would fall quite clearly into the category of burgher arms were it not for the fuzziness—unique to Britain and Ireland—of the line dividing the gentleman from those in lower categories. William Shakespeare’s father, who received a grant of arms, was by no reasonable definition a nobleman, either major (peer) or minor (gentleman in the strict sense). He was deemed to qualify by virtue of being an alderman of the mighty metropolis of Stratford-upon-Avon. In French, German, Spanish, or Italian terms, he would have been considered a burgher.

 

What kind of arms did the settlers of New England bear? In 1898, the NEHGS Committee on Heraldry, in despair that they were unable to find English authorities to prove the "validity" of the arms of many early New Englanders, recommended that Americans not use coats of arms at all. So, by the English definition, that means that most of the arms used in pre-independence New England were what? Either "burgher" or "bogus."

 

I would argue that, in fact, most American heraldry actually is derived from a tradition of burgher arms. Most of our early personal heraldry very likely consists of arms assumed by families at the very bottom end of the gentry and the middle to upper reaches of the franklin and free townsman class, and never vouched for by any official heraldic authority. The lack of official authorization is not surprising, since almost all immigration to New England before the Irish potato famine took place between 1620 and 1641, decades before the heraldic visitations were over. Had the Puritans stayed in East Anglia where most of them came from, maybe some of those arms would have been confirmed, but probably many of them would have been forced to disclaim. It was probably the very fact that they did come to New England and thereby avoided the visitations that accounts for the continued use of arms by any number of Yankee families.

 


Joe,

 

Thanks.  This help me to better understand what folks mean by "burgher" (assumed arms by those who would not qualify as gentlemen in the English understanding of the word) in an American context.  I figured that there would be a strong Dutch influence in New Amsterdam, but was having a harder time seeing any non-English/non-Scottish heraldic influence on Virginia/Maryland/Carolina.

 

David

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
18 June 2011 23:06
 

We’ve gotten far, far afield from the significance of supporters.  May I suggest this be carried on in a new thread, and leave this one for supporters?

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
18 June 2011 23:11
 

Joseph McMillan;84988 wrote:

We’ve gotten far, far afield from the significance of supporters.  May I suggest this be carried on in a new thread, and leave this one for supporters?


Why don’t we use the one you previously created?

 

http://www.americanheraldry.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6013

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
18 June 2011 23:29
 

Joseph McMillan;84984 wrote:

No, Fred.  I’m not using them (the Dutch or the French) for anything.  You asked questions, I gave answers.


I think David Pope asked the question, actually, but in any case, I was apostrophising and regret giving any offense.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
19 June 2011 16:46
 

A few quick shots before leaving on vacation with no internet access for a week or so

the arguments made by Fred & others equating the pro’s & con’s of supporters to the pro’s & con’s of assuming simple arms (shield & crest) IMO don’t hold water, at least in the American context.  (Whether they might in some other contexts e.g. Dutch is IMO largely immaterial since, as admirable as the Netherlands may have been and still are—drum roll—we’re not Dutch!  Some of our ancestors may have been Dutch (well, not my own, but other Americans), BUT—they ceased to be Dutch when, for better or worse, the English took over New Amsterdam, well before our Independence.  They were thereafter no more nor less than English colonial subjects; & what they were able to legitimately continue from their Dutch roots was no more nor less than their English (or formerly-German or formerly-Swedish etc.) fellow colonial subjects.  In that English colonial context, supporters were clearly and overwhelmingly the attributes of nobility as the English saw it, and therefore of the nobility that the Founders rejected at Independence.

 

Secondly, re: the view that unless supporters were everywhere and always restricted to the nobility, they cannot be said to carry or imply that status here & are therefore unobjectionable—poppycock!  (That’s not the way I would like to express it, but there are moderators to be appeased…)

 

IMO the relevant consideration re: supporters (or any other additaments) is their implication in the post-Independence American context.  We were neither tabula rasa, in heraldry or legally and culturally; nor as former colonists had we been subject to any rules other than those of the English of the time.

 

As a nation, we began as English colonies (whatever the variety of colonial ancestral roots); we fought for independence from England; and we consciously kept those English institutions that the Founders viewed as consistent with our republican values, and rejected these viewed as inconsistent.  I’m speaking here of the broader legal and cultural context - but if American heraldry is to have any meaning within our context, that same selective retention or rejection of 18th-century English rules and values must apply.  (Any later English innovations may be of great academic or artistic interest, but are IMO no more or less relevant to American heraldry than if they were Polish or Italian or Greek etc. practices)

 

IMO assuming supporters, which in our history were the preserve of an English class which we rejected, is essentially (in our narrow heraldic context) a rejection of a goodly share of the essence of our republican (small-"r") national culture & values.

 

Rejection of supporters is IMO one of the ways in which we consciously demonstrate our broader (i.e. beyond mere heraldry) rejection of who & what supporters represented in the context of our Independence from England, and still largely signify to most observers today.  It’s not just "what did the Founder do?"—but also "what did the Founders NOT do?"  Comparing that approach to what may have been the case at other times & places may illuminate but does not excuse…

 

To me, its not "whee, who really cares?—if it’s pretty, or if it would have been OK in one or the other of our ‘old world’ national origins, I want it and no one can stop me, or even be so rude as to criticize my choice."  That approach would justify any number of excesses from crowns & coronets, to bucket-shop usurpation of the arms of others because, hey, I kinda like ‘em…

 

Rather, how we treat supporters reflects and expresses a view of society—this society, not some other—and our place in it.  Use of supporters in this time & place presents a face of "American"  heraldry at odds with with our broader national values—that is decidedly alien to those values.

 

(I would have said "un-American" but am far too polite…)

 

Not intended to offend any individuals, but I can’t walk away without stating how & why I find the use of supporters in the American context to be incompatible with & offensive to that context.

 

The Guidelines, as now written, seem just about right on this topic.

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
19 June 2011 17:10
 

Have a great vacation Micheal!

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
20 June 2011 02:18
 

Michael F. McCartney;85031 wrote:

. . . Some of our ancestors may have been Dutch (well, not my own, but other Americans), BUT—they ceased to be Dutch when, for better or worse, the English took over New Amsterdam, well before our Independence.  They were thereafter no more nor less than English colonial subjects; & what they were able to legitimately continue from their Dutch roots was no more nor less than their English (or formerly-German or formerly-Swedish etc.) fellow colonial subjects.  In that English colonial context, supporters were clearly and overwhelmingly the attributes of nobility as the English saw it, and therefore of the nobility that the Founders rejected at Independence.


This is a coherent, reasonable point of departure, and if this were the party line—that everything flows from colonial Anglo-American norms—I could abide it. It certainly has a way of keeping things simple. But extend the argument, and substitute Irish, Italians, French Creoles, Latinos, etc. for Dutch, and I wonder if one doesn’t start running into resistance at which he balks. Anyway, this has implications for the splinter discussion, so I hope you don’t mind my taking the liberty of posting this there as well.