Signification of Supporters

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
22 July 2011 23:44
 

j.carrasco;86260 wrote:

Either way, I think they look fantastic.


I agree, and they certainly don’t leave me with the impression that the armiger is putting on airs, etc.—not any more than the rest of us, anyway.

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
23 July 2011 01:58
 

Michael F. McCartney;86263 wrote:

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


Of COURSE you can paint graffitti on the ceiling… As long as we own the ceiling or the owner of the ceiling doesn’t object… :o

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
23 July 2011 19:42
 

They clearly are supporters and whatever the motivation for showing them, they are inconsistent with the rules governing the AHS online armorial and the emblazonment should therefore be removed.

I didn’t support this rule when it was adopted, but as long as it is the rule it ought to be enforced.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
23 July 2011 20:08
 

Joseph McMillan;86270 wrote:

They clearly are supporters and whatever the motivation for showing them, they are inconsistent with the rules governing the AHS online armorial and the emblazonment should therefore be removed.

I didn’t support this rule when it was adopted, but as long as it is the rule it ought to be enforced.


Could we not just change the rule?

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
23 July 2011 23:25
 

Fred White;86272 wrote:

Could we not just change the rule?


If you can persuade a majority of the board that it ought to be changed, or, failing that, elect a new slate of governors.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
24 July 2011 04:29
 

I’m sorry to see that the emblazonment of Mr. Swanstrom’s arms has been struck from the members’ armorial so peremptorily. It was a helpful reference point in this discussion and was among the most attractive images on display here.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
24 July 2011 04:33
 

Joseph McMillan;86270 wrote:

I didn’t support this rule when it was adopted . . .


Would you care to elaborate?

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
24 July 2011 09:09
 

Fred White;86283 wrote:

Would you care to elaborate?


I thought a firm rule against the display of supporters, etc., in the armorial was a little at odds with the voluntary, advisory spirit of the guidelines.  I should let those who favored the rule speak for themselves, but I think there was a feeling that on an AHS-operated website displaying the arms of AHS members we should collectively practice what we collectively preach.  The ability to link from the armorial to images showing supporters, etc., that are hosted on other websites seemed like a fair compromise.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
25 July 2011 12:01
 

My recollection squares with Joe’s as to the reason for the rule—practice what we preach, at least on the organizational roll.

Fred wrote,

"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."

 

In some parts of the heraldic world, perhaps this is so; but here, given our history, I don’t agree—on two levels.  First, I believe supporters generally are seen as expressing the same idea as coronets, though without the precision as to varying ranks or grades within the nobility that various types of coronets signify —but to me this is a distinction without a difference, since the American value is against any nobility, without regard to which country or which noble grade.  Second, even granting some level of ambiguity as to the nobiliary significance of supporters, I don’t believe an absolute meaning is required for us to say "no"—rather, if the general understanding is that supporters mean "noble" then quoting exceptions is IMO merely playing word games to excuse what should not be excused.

 
Aquilo
 
Avatar
 
 
Aquilo
Total Posts:  278
Joined  02-10-2010
 
 
 
08 October 2011 15:51
 

Joseph McMillan;83886 wrote:

See my post from several years ago running down the situation regarding suppoters in every European country I could find information on.

http://www.americanheraldry.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1091&postcount=22

 

Since then I looked at the German situation more closely and found that neither of the two old-line German heraldic societies will register supporters with assumed arms.  The most prestigious of the societies, Der Herold of Berlin, says in its heraldic handbook, "In Germany the custom of bearing supporters with family arms has remained limited to the titled nobility."

 

An English peer is not a quasi-CEO of an enterprise comprising lands, properties, etc.  He is a peer purely in his own person, not by virtue of owning or doing anything.  There is no Duchy of Norfolk of which the Duke of Norfolk is the proprietor.  The supporters in the arms of a peer (or a Knight of the Garter, or a GCB, GCMG, GCVO, or GBE) are purely and simply a sign of his or her elevated social status.


Joseph, I was curious what you wrote about the tradition of the use of supporters in European countries ...including Poland ?? but I can’t enter this page .

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
10 October 2011 13:45
 

There’s no reason the link shouldn’t work, but here is the post:
Joseph McMillan;1091 wrote:

To inform this issue, let me share (partly trying to recreate what I posted in the old forum) what I was able to find on use of supporters country by country. I’ll skip the UK, as I think we probably all understand that supporters there definitely signify social rank.

First a general comment by Ottfried Neubecker: "In most countries the higher ranking nobility have the right, but not the obligation, to choose particular supporters and have these granted to them where such a procedure is possible…. The regulations concerning the rank of those who may bear permanent supporters in their arms are fairly variable."

 

And one from C. A. von Volborth: "Today [supporters] are restricted to certain ranks of the noblesse in some countries, while in other countries anybody can assume them."

 

Belgium: "For barons and higher ranks supporters are de rigueur." (Volborth)

 

Denmark: "When a member of the untitled nobility was raised to a higher degree…his arms were not always ‘improved’ by augmentations, supporters, additional crests, etc." (Volborth) Comment: This suggests that supporters are not typical of those below the titled nobility.

 

France: "Supporters are used freely." (Volborth, in his discussion of the untitled nobility, but, in another place he says "Supporters are common in the armorial bearings of the French aristocracy, but unusual for commoners; there are however no hard and fast rules for their use."

 

Germany (including Austria and Bohemia): "Many titled families have supporters for their achievements, but this does not apply to all of them…. [They] are not looked upon as a standard appurtenance of a titled nobleman’s coat of arms." And "Some titled noble families…have supporters, others do not, and there exist no definite regulations regarding this." (Both Volborth. Our colleague Reinhard Greis-Maibach said in the old forum that the more traditional German heraldic socieities will not register assumed supporters, as I recall.)

 

Hungary: Supporters are not customary for any rank.

 

Ireland: The CHI grants supporters only to high elected officials—in practice I believe only to the President. There was a period in which supporters were granted to "those claiming to have purchased feudal baronies or lordships" (Sean Murphy on rec.heraldry quoting an OCHI official, 10/23/02), but this was terminated in 1998. The draft heraldry bill now before parliament effectively bans the granting of supporters to individuals.

 

Italy: "Supporters are rare. When they occur it is usually in the arms of the higher aristocracy, but there seem to be no rules for their use, and in fact it is a case of do-as-you-please." (Volborth)

 

Netherlands: "Originally [supporters] were undoubtedly the privilege of higher ranks than the untitled nobility…but today they can be assumed by anybody." And "Some bourgeois families have supporters, while many noble families do not." (Both from Volborth)

 

Poland: Supporters are not customary, and there is little history of non-noble heraldry anyway.

 

Portugal: Commoners were forbidden to bear arms at all between about 1500 and 1910. (Volborth)

 

Spain: "Nowadays [supporters] are rarely found despite the fact that everybody may use them." (Volborth) The Castilian kings prohibited the use of arms except by the nobility (Slater—I believe this is incorrect, however.) Leon Cronista quoted as saying supporters have no nobiliary significance in Spain and have been granted as augmentations by special request, (Guy Stair Sainty, rec.heraldry, 7/6/01), but in a discussion of this issue on rec.heraldry in 2000, Barry Gabriel challenged those arguing that supporters are available to all to provide any examples of a non-noble Spanish family using supporters, and no one was able to do so. Larry Slight reported that "two members of the office of the Spanish King of Arms [sic]" told him they consider granting supporters in extremely rare cases and that such grants ennoble the recipient. However, it is clear that cronistas of arms have no power to ennoble, so what they meant by this is anyone’s guess.

 

Sweden: "In Sweden, commoners are not entitled to supporters." (Elias Granqvist, rec.heraldry, 10/3/99). "Only titled nobility (with some few exceptions) are entitled to supporters." (Jan Bohme, rec.heraldry, 11/15/05). Use of supporters by the titled nobility is not obligatory. "Not every baron uses supporters," but for counts "the shield is generally held by supporters" but not in all cases. (Volborth)

 

It seems to me that this all leads to the tentative conclusion that, by and large, supporters are what sociologists would call a "status marker." Even where they aren’t regulated, having them is like belonging to a gentlemen’s social club or giving one’s daughter a formal debut. Anyone can do it in theory, but only those of an elevated social status (in the case of supporters, usually titled nobility) actually do.

 

 
 
Iain Boyd
 
Avatar
 
 
Iain Boyd
Total Posts:  309
Joined  15-10-2005
 
 
 
10 October 2011 17:10
 

I have the same problem as Anna -

"Iain Boyd, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

 

Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else’s post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?

 

If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation."

 

yet, I remember reading the original posting.

 

Regards,

 

Iain Boyd

 

 

 

PS

 

Thank you Kimon. I thought I had read the posting, but, obviously not.

 
kimon
 
Avatar
 
 
kimon
Total Posts:  1035
Joined  28-03-2008
 
 
 
10 October 2011 21:16
 

The post linked to by Joe and copied here by Kenneth is in the Members Only section of the board, accessible only to Society Members.

 
Aquilo
 
Avatar
 
 
Aquilo
Total Posts:  278
Joined  02-10-2010
 
 
 
12 October 2011 18:00
 

Thank you Kimon and Kenneth for posting the text.

It was my believe that in Polish heraldry the supporters although didn’t have nobiliary significance were regarded as augmentations ‘ennobling’ coats of arms of titled nobility. In armorials most of arms with supporters are those of princely, ducal and baronial families, and many of them were granted by foreign monarchs during the Partition of Poland.The ‘fashion’ was not followed by many, maybe because the majority of Polish nobility believed in an egalitarian character of this part of the society they belonged to. There was no need to use or specifically display this element of higher rank , unless it was really necessary or expected .

The interesting thing is, that in the very old iconographic documents coats of arms are often held or supported by armigers themselves .This way of display in my opinion is very modest and could be even nowadays exploited without suspicion of extremely elevated ambition to mark a social status .