FWIW, I think the eastern crowns in our own Mark Olivo’s shield work very well.

Jeremy Corbally-Hammond;86050 wrote:

Anyways, it might be irrelevant now, as the individual inquiring seems to have moved away from the use of a crown in the other thread. Perhaps we’ve sufficiently discouraged its use.

Not so fast Jeremy et all. :p

It seems to me that the use of a crown (or any other charge on the field) - especially in the American "do as you want" freedom inspired heraldry, is something that is "in the eye of the beholder" more than abiding by any "European heraldic rule".

I think that’s the anachronism of the "American way" as opposed to the European way. It seems to me that the European Way as we see it today is an evolution of the "Original way" of the first military Knights.

In other words, the original purpose of knightly arms was in fact strictly identificaion of the individual on the battlefield. The peerage systems and grants of arms came later as the practice was "legitimized" by states and ruling entities.

I think the problem we as Americans face with wanting to assume arms is that we don’t go back far enough to the root purpose of displaying arms - purely individual identification.

Since we have no civilian heraldic authority in the U.S. it would seem that we should all just stick to the "who cares what’s on the field of an American armiger, as the American way is Liberty to do what you want per se and not to try to squeeze our concept of arms into some other country’s heradic mold.

But I digress…..:twisted:

David Fofanoff;86058 wrote:

I think that’s the anachronism of the "American way" as opposed to the European way. It seems to me that the European Way as we see it today is an evolution of the "Original way" of the first military Knights.

Nonsense.  Modern American heraldry evolves in the same meandering line from medieval heraldry as modern European heraldry does.  More directly, in fact, than the heraldry of those countries where arms are regulated, since when heraldry originated there was no regulation.

Quote:

In other words, the original purpose of knightly arms was in fact strictly identificaion of the individual on the battlefield.

Possibly, but it only became heraldry in the true sense of the word when these arms became hereditary and began to symbolize lineages and not just individuals.

Quote:

I think the problem we as Americans face with wanting to assume arms is that we don’t go back far enough to the root purpose of displaying arms - purely individual identification.

Change that to "purely family identification" and you’re preaching to the choir.  See the AHS guidelines, which are permeated by the philosophy that arms in the United States should identify kinship, not social status.

Quote:

Since we have no civilian heraldic authority in the U.S. it would seem that we should all just stick to the "who cares what’s on the field of an American armiger, as the American way is Liberty to do what you want per se and not to try to squeeze our concept of arms into some other country’s heradic mold.

But if it’s totally rule-free, it’s not heraldry.  No matter how free our political system allows you to be, you’re still not free to write a 15 line sonnet or a haiku that doesn’t have three phrases expressing two juxtaposed ideas.  We don’t have to squeeze what we do into some other particular country’s heraldic mold, but if what we do doesn’t fit the "logical common denominator"* of heraldic practice in general, then it’s no more heraldry than a limerick is a sonnet.

As for the notion that the American way is that you have liberty to do what you want, I turn to Edmund Burke, who wrote that "The effect of Liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please:  We ought to see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations."  I contend that the absence of government control shouldn’t be treated as license to run about like heraldic hooligans.

________

* Charles Drake

Joseph McMillan;86061 wrote:

to run about like heraldic hooligans.

Haha! That should be the quote of the day. We Americans are the "heraldic hooligans" of the world! :rofl: That is classic Joe.

I envision this semi-retired rabid sixties hippie-type running around aimlessly through the airport holding up a sign that says "The sky is Red, the sky is Red!"

in general probably best to be avoided, however there are cases where it can be, maybe should be, used as a charge on shield or as aprt of the crest. if an American-Irish name O’Mahoney came to me and wanted arms based on the "sept" arms i would design them to include the viscount’s coronet in the crest as an element of linkage to the original clan crest so to speak (no, i don’t want to get into the nit-picking of what is/is not a clan badge or "sept" arms. just giving an example).

heck my own arms have an ancient irish crown in both the shield as part of a charge and as a crest coronet. clearly there’s no claim to anything there, but someone who is so puritainesque could come along and argue that at some point in history some petty king used a coronet like this and that’s why they found it in excavations and that’s why it’s used in the arms of Armagh and therefore i, Donnchadh, should not use them. and that would be poppycock imo.

I’ve always liked this example.  The city of Leduc, Alberta uses a ducal crown as a cant.  The goutte de poix symbolize the town’s participation in the oil industry.

http://archive.gg.ca/heraldry/pub-reg/ProjectPics/iv391_20030064_arms_le_sm.jpg

Good discussion.  FWIW:

Ken wrote, "Aren’t you honoring only that one ancestor, though, in so choosing. If the arms are to be adopted in honor of this immigrant ancestor, I agree with you completely, but by changing it does one not somehow dishonor all the "noble" ancestors before this one who did not choose to disavow said nobility?"

I couldn’t disagree more.  Remember that heraldry, in America, is merely a symbolic representation of our personal and/or family identity; and must be borne and judged as to how well it reflects that American identity.  You might as well say that taking the oath of citizenship "dishonors" any of our ancestors who might have been "noble" in some earlier time & place.

We can & IMO should honor our ancestors as persons, and our foreign cousins (if any) as kinfolk while still disclaiming, for ourselves and any progeny who choose to remain Americans, claims or stage-whisper subtle reminders of what those ancestors once were, or might have wished to be, while in the old country—i.e. "noble" or even French/British/German or whatever allegiance we or our families disclaimed to become Americans.

IMO this applies to everything in our lives.  Heraldry isn’t a stand-alone be-all; it’s just a reflection of who we are now & perhaps who we were (or think or wish we were) historically—but in the here & now, that doesn’t include and shouldn’t reflect a claim or even a desire to be what no American can or should pine to be—i.e. a "noble."

This was IIRC essentially our (or at least my!) thought process behind the relevant portions of our "best practice" Guidelines—though stated with greater grace and restraint there than here.  It’s fine to display the arms (if any) of one’s ancestors, clearly labeled as such, including whatever nobiliary bric-a-brac to which said ancestor may have properly been entitled "over there"—but one should eschew the noble bric-a-brac & stick to the simple arms themselves for personal use here, just as IMO one should not present oneself as "Count" this or "Sir" that in American society, even if entitled to do so under the rules of the country of origin.  And if assuming new arms (here at least), one should similarly avoid any "noble" allusions.

Sorry to be so preachy, but this IMO cuts to the very core of what American heraldry should be—because it cuts to the core of what is right and seemly for an American to do & be whether or not heraldry is involved.

(P.S.—I have no qualms with coronets that have no particular "noble" significance—e.g. Mark’s antique crowns as charges—since they don’t IMO carry any particularly "noble" connotation.  And I don’t have any "attitude" re: whatever our overseas or Canadian members may use consistent with their own nation’s values and practices—though asking them to present their arms, if posted in our Roll, in an American style seems quite reasonable for an American society’s context—if nothing else, it’s an educational exercise, and certainly doesn’t interfere with or criticize what they may quite properly do "back home" or in the on-line rolls of their own country’s heraldic community.)

David Fofanoff;86062 wrote:

Haha! That should be the quote of the day. We Americans are the "heraldic hooligans" of the world! :rofl: That is classic Joe.

I envision this semi-retired rabid sixties hippie-type running around aimlessly through the airport holding up a sign that says "The sky is Red, the sky is Red!"

With a tie-dyed designed shield.