Signification of Supporters

 
Nick B II
 
Avatar
 
 
Nick B II
Total Posts:  203
Joined  26-11-2007
 
 
 
20 June 2011 15:25
 

Fred White;85056 wrote:

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.


So when the argument against it is nobody does it except the Dutch, you’re skeptical; but when the corollary (colonial Americans didn’t do it) is brought up you’re convinced?

 

As for the party line, I thought that was the party line. We have a tradition. It started in the 17th century and is based on the then-extant English tradition. Look at the guidelines carefully and you’ll find nothing that isn’t based on a) that tradition, b) subsequent laws, or c) social changes within the US.

 

Nick

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
21 June 2011 08:53
 

Nick B II;85093 wrote:

So when the argument against it is nobody does it except the Dutch, you’re skeptical; but when the corollary (colonial Americans didn’t do it) is brought up you’re convinced?


What do you mean, "corollary"? What are the postulates, what’s the theorem?

 

Anyway, no, I’m not convinced—not unless what colonial Anglo-Americans did can be safely said to limit everything that follows in American heraldry. They were coming from a very particular place on the heraldic spectrum. There are legitimate reasons to question whether or not they get to delineate all that follows. That said, I am amenable to the idea that they do get to do that.


Quote:

As for the party line, I thought that was the party line. We have a tradition. It started in the 17th century and is based on the then-extant English tradition. Look at the guidelines carefully and you’ll find nothing that isn’t based on a) that tradition, b) subsequent laws, or c) social changes within the US.


If that’s the party line, then the party whip needs to get his act together, because I see all kinds of disagreement right here on the forum about that. I agree that everything in the Guidelines reflects a and c, though I’m not sure what you’re talking about with b. Moreover, what is reflected of c is selective, and arguably, social changes have occurred in the U.S. that make the use of supporters supportable, as it were.

 
Benjamin Thornton
 
Avatar
 
 
Benjamin Thornton
Total Posts:  449
Joined  04-09-2009
 
 
 
06 July 2011 22:51
 

I’ve been reading Scott’s Ivanhoe and a passage describing the audience at a tournament reminded me of this forum thread:


Quote:

The lower and interior space was soon filled by substantial yeomen and burghers, and such of the lesser gentry as, from modesty, poverty, or dubious title, durst not assume any higher place.  It was of course amongst these that the most frequent disputes for precedence occurred.


And regarding supporters or tenants:


Quote:

Before each pavillion was suspended the shield of the knight by whom it was occupied, and beside it stood his squire, quaintly disguised as a salvage [sic] or silvan man, or in some other fantastic dress, according to the taste of his master and the character he was pleased to assume during the game.

 

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
06 July 2011 22:55
 

Fred White;85102 wrote:

... arguably, social changes have occurred in the U.S. that make the use of supporters supportable, as it were.


I wonder what these could be.  If anything, American social values have become more egalitarian in the 200+ years since Charles Pinckney and Alexis de Toqueville extolled the equality of the free white males of their day.  How does an even stronger objection to the concept of social rank support the idea of supporters?

 
Derek Howard
 
Avatar
 
 
Derek Howard
Total Posts:  116
Joined  08-05-2009
 
 
 
07 July 2011 08:15
 

Joseph McMillan;85777 wrote:

I wonder what these could be.  If anything, American social values have become more egalitarian in the 200+ years since Charles Pinckney and Alexis de Toqueville extolled the equality of the free white males of their day.  How does an even stronger objection to the concept of social rank support the idea of supporters?

Somewhere I have heard an apocryphal story of Lenin arriving by train in the Finland Station at St Peterburg in April 1917. The reception committee looked up and down the second class coaches but he alighted from the first class, exclaiming that in an egalitarian society we would all travel first class. Or something like that. Not that I favour the widespread use of supporters other than by those with a need for sculptural heraldry.

Derek Howard

 
James Dempster
 
Avatar
 
 
James Dempster
Total Posts:  602
Joined  20-05-2004
 
 
 
07 July 2011 08:23
 

Derek Howard;85782 wrote:

Somewhere I have heard an apocryphal story of Lenin arriving by train in the Finland Station at St Peterburg in April 1917. The reception committee looked up and down the second class coaches but he alighted from the first class, exclaiming that in an egalitarian society we would all travel first class. Or something like that. Not that I favour the widespread use of supporters other than by those with a need for sculptural heraldry.

Derek Howard


Akin to the equally apocryphal dialogue between the revolutionary demogugue and one of the proletariat:

 

Come the Revolution comrades, we’ll all have Rolls Royces.

 

What if we don’t want Rolls Royces?

 

Come the Revolution comrade, you’ll do as you’re told.

 

James

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
21 July 2011 13:00
 

Sorry I failed to notice the last couple of turns in this discussion.

A quick, and probably naive, question: In the Daniel de Bruin emblazonment of the arms of Mr. Swanstrom reproduced in our armorial, what are the swans flanking the shield if not supporters? My supposition is that they must be considered part of the mantling, or else they wouldn’t be in the armorial, but perhaps there’s another way of reading them.

 

Anyway, I never noticed this before, and oddly, I homed in on these arms for a completely unrelated reason—because they resemble so closely a number of coats of arms associated with the surname Leblanc. At a distance, one doesn’t make out the flanking swans, I don’t think, but there they are.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
21 July 2011 13:08
 

Joseph McMillan;85777 wrote:

I wonder what these could be.  If anything, American social values have become more egalitarian in the 200+ years since Charles Pinckney and Alexis de Toqueville extolled the equality of the free white males of their day.  How does an even stronger objection to the concept of social rank support the idea of supporters?


The main change I have in mind is the demographic shift and a trend away from uncritical assimilation—so many different ethnic and cultural groups and a broad consensus that all are worthy of respect and preservation. Moreover, the concept of social rank isn’t necessarily relevant.

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
21 July 2011 13:55
 

Fred White;86233 wrote:

Sorry I failed to notice the last couple of turns in this discussion.

A quick, and probably naive, question: In the Daniel de Bruin emblazonment of the arms of Mr. Swanstrom reproduced in our armorial, what are the swans flanking the shield if not supporters? My supposition is that they must be considered part of the mantling, or else they wouldn’t be in the armorial, but perhaps there’s another way of reading them.

 

Anyway, I never noticed this before, and oddly, I homed in on these arms for a completely unrelated reason—because they resemble so closely a number of coats of arms associated with the surname Leblanc. At a distance, one doesn’t make out the flanking swans, I don’t think, but there they are.

Those swans are supporters Fred, plain and simple.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
21 July 2011 14:03
 

Luis Cid;86237 wrote:

Those swans are supporters Fred, plain and simple.


You know, I kind of thought they looked like supporters, but what with the Guidelines and all . . . wink Anyway, they look great and don’t seem to have abraded anyone’s sensibilities in the least for however long they’ve been sitting there. Maybe that’s instructive.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
22 July 2011 16:40
 

I think we’re focusing too much on what American republican heraldry doesn’t (well, shouldn’t) allow or encourage, and forgetting how much is does allow and encourage.

This hit me in reading the recent comment re: assimilation—because its really the same thing—in line with my frequent rant that American heraldry should reflect broader American values and reject whatever is inconsistent with those values.

 

Forget about heraldry for the moment—what do we expect when an immigrant settles down here?  What level of conformity is required, and what level of diversity is acceptable?

 

At least in modern times (realizing that it has loosened up quite a bit over the years) I think we can fairly say that an immigrant is free to retain (or reject, his/her choice) as much of his cultural background as he/she chooses, except where a particular aspect of that culture is incompatible with the essentials of being an American.  Some of that is pretty clear-cut—one can retain a sentimental affection for the old country, but is required to sever any political or legal allegiance.

 

One can be Anglo-American or Spanish-American or German-American but one living here as an American, either by birth or naturalization, is expected and legally required to disclaim and abandon the old allegiance.  When we were at war with Britain in the 18th century, Spain in the 19th and Germany in the 20th—i.e. whenever there was a conflict between the parts of one’s hyphenated-Americanism—your American citizenship was expected to trump whatever residual affection you might have felt for the old country; nothing less was acceptable.

 

Beyond that level of basic allegiance, however, we generally accept , or at least usually tolerate, a high and wide level of cultural diversity.  Your name, your church, your favorite foods, the way you decorate your house, who you vote for, even what language you choose to speak and read are all pretty much up to you, so long as you don’t offend the basics that make you, first & foremost, an American.

 

Our heraldry IMO is pretty much the same.  Our admittedly British-influenced heraldic tradition doesn’t tell you what you must put on your shield or atop your (hypothetical) helmet—it just sets a context within which you can pretty much do your own thing.  In that regard, it tends to reflect the broader society.  However, there are some "old country" things you can’t do in the broader society—things that aren’t tolerable here, however popular or valued they may have been elsewhere.  We rejoice in a variety of cultural celebrations and values, but draw the line at cock-fighting or female circumcision or honor killings or religious or caste discrimination or restrictions on free speech or any number of other things that are acceptable some places but not here.  (I’m not arguing the pro’s or con’s of any of these—only saying that there are many things our society accepts or tolerates, whether or not I might agree; but some that we do not.

 

One of those unacceptable old-world values that we left at the dock is the concept of "nobility"—we require immigrants to explicitly disclaim it as a concept incompatible with being an American.  Our (well, mine & some others’) hang-up with supporters and coronets and such merely reflects that aspect of our broader beliefs as to what is & isn’t compatible with being an American.

 

You can be as simple or elaborate, as restrained or colorfully exuberant, and as stylized or naturalistic as you wish, and for whatever reason you wish; and any disagreement will be merely artistic or stylistic, de gustibus & all that; so long as the particular elements don’t make a visual claim or statement that is incompatible with least common denominators of what it means to be an American.  That’s a relatively small set of no-no’s in a pretty big armorial universe.

 
j.carrasco
 
Avatar
 
 
j.carrasco
Total Posts:  639
Joined  20-04-2011
 
 
 
22 July 2011 20:28
 

Fred White;86238 wrote:

You know, I kind of thought they looked like supporters, but what with the Guidelines and all . . . wink Anyway, they look great and don’t seem to have abraded anyone’s sensibilities in the least for however long they’ve been sitting there. Maybe that’s instructive.


Funny, I actually just noticed these last night as well.  I was going through the armorial and noticed that many people have added new emblazons to their profiles and when I saw this one I took more notice because it was Daniel de Bruin that was the artist.  After staring at it for a bit I realized that there were swans on the sides as well.  I too was wondering if these were actually supporters or just some kind of artistic license.  Either way, I think they look fantastic.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
22 July 2011 22:01
 

Michael F. McCartney;86257 wrote:

One of those unacceptable old-world values that we left at the dock is the concept of "nobility"—we require immigrants to explicitly disclaim it as a concept incompatible with being an American.  Our (well, mine & some others’) hang-up with supporters and coronets and such merely reflects that aspect of our broader beliefs as to what is & isn’t compatible with being an American.


With all due respect, if you are conflating the meaning of supporters with the meaning of coronets of rank, I’m kind of at a loss, because it simply could not be more plain that the meaning of the former is ambiguous while the meaning of the latter is not.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
22 July 2011 22:07
 

...and the less said about the crest-coronet, the better!

Daniel de Bruin’s artwork IMO set the bar far higher than most could jump.  Technically the rendition shown doesn’t appear to comply with the Guidelines, but DdB was after all Dutch, so I can’t fault him for following the practices he knew best.  I can readily forgive much to someone so good at his craft (as if he needs my blessing!)—but I wouldn’t point to this particular piece as a model for American usages.

 

Anyway, indulging in this case doesn’t justify similar excesses by the rest of us!—any more than we can claim that it’s OK to spray graffitti on the ceiling because, well golly, the Pope let Michaelangelo do it… smile

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
22 July 2011 23:30
 

Michael F. McCartney;86263 wrote:

Daniel de Bruin’s artwork IMO set the bar far higher than most could jump.  Technically the rendition shown doesn’t appear to comply with the Guidelines, but DdB was after all Dutch, so I can’t fault him for following the practices he knew best.  I can readily forgive much to someone so good at his craft (as if he needs my blessing!)—but I wouldn’t point to this particular piece as a model for American usages.

Anyway, indulging in this case doesn’t justify similar excesses by the rest of us!—any more than we can claim that it’s OK to spray graffitti on the ceiling because, well golly, the Pope let Michaelangelo do it… smile


Are you saying that you think Daniel de Bruin was naive? I can’t believe that, and I’m positive that the armiger isn’t naive, as his website contains a very clear disclaimer about his supporters, viz., "The supporters are not intended to be insignia of rank, as they would be in the British systems of heraldry." See here for the interesting story of the arms overall: http://www.swanstrom.org/my-arms.html

 

As to your second principal assertion, it is beyond dispute that de Bruin was a renowned heraldic artist, but that can only be considered irrelevant. Either supporters are okay in the American context (and consistent with the Guidelines) or they aren’t. The aesthetic merits of a particular emblazonment of a particular coat of arms have no bearing on that.

 

Michelangelo was commissioned to paint the ceiling and the altar wall of the Sistine Chapel, neither of which was in any way an "excess," so I’m not sure I get the analogy to graffiti. I’m not sure I get the analogy between the authority of the Pope and the authority of the AHS Guidelines, either.

 

For what it’s worth, I notice that the blazon given in our armorial for Mr. Swanstrom’s crest is inaccurate. It looks like it should read, "upon a helm mantled Azure doubled Argent, issuant from a crest-coronet Or a pair of wings conjoined in lure Argent each charged with a rose Gules," but perhaps we just posted what we were given and this was an oversight on Mr. Swanstrom’s part.