Are there different kinds of arms?

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
16 October 2011 07:34
 

Aquilo;88905 wrote:

In the past the ’ noble’ status was inevitably bound with individual achievements ,loyal service,bravery in battle and all knightly virtues many people seem to admire even today.


Romantic twaddle.  Some nobles displayed these qualities, no doubt, but in days of old when knights were bold, noble status was also bound up with venality, haughtiness, brawling, and placing the interests of the nobleman’s family above all else—a form of behavior characteristic of organized crime gangs and unruly tribes.  Shakespeare knew what he was writing about when he gave us the Montagues and Capulets.


Quote:

Our fast forward speeding world is in bad need of good qualities -honesty, reliability, solidity ,truthfulness etc.etc.


These are bourgeois, not noble values.  They were introduced into the noble class by the patriciate and the noblesse de la robe.  It was the combination of the bourgeois conception of honor (truthfulness, honesty, etc) with the old noble conception of honor (physical bravery, refusal to accept an insult, generosity) that eventually made the European nobility worth keeping around.

 
mquigley
 
Avatar
 
 
mquigley
Total Posts:  68
Joined  06-10-2011
 
 
 
16 October 2011 08:14
 

Because the United States has no heraldic authority that grants arms to individuals, nor do we have laws governing the use of heraldry by our citizens, it seems to me that we are entirely free to become armigers (or not) and we are free to choose the style and traditions of heraldry that suits our taste and heritage. If one choses to have arms granted by rightful authority based on his heritage and connections to that country, like the UK, Scotland, or Ireland, he would be well within his rights to do so. I have. Then that armiger can (and should) register those granted arms with the ACH, AHS, or other such registrar entity for recognition of those arms.

If someone else would rather assume arms based on his preferrence or due to restrictions on his elligibility for a foreign grant of arms (I cannot, for example, qualify for Canadian or Scottish arms); or if the costs associated with a grant are off-putting, then this person would still be free to assume arms… again, I would hope he would seek to register those arms and ensure that they are in good taste, respecting some establish rule of heraldry… Anglo-Irish, Scottish, German, Russioan, Polish, Italian, Spanish… the list goes on and on…

Its not about being noble or bugher or bourgeois… its about a freedom we enjoy as Americans. Personally, I am among those who would strongly advocate fore a Chief Herald of the United States, precisley to quell this argument, establish a tradition and norms, and act as a governing body for what an American may or may not be permitted to use in his/her achievement. That said, one intreptration of the United States Constitution might be… that the Second Amendment provides for all Americans to "bear arms"! Its a stretch, but nowhere is it specified that arms must be weapons!

 
Aquilo
 
Avatar
 
 
Aquilo
Total Posts:  278
Joined  02-10-2010
 
 
 
16 October 2011 16:46
 

Joseph McMillan;88908 wrote:

Romantic twaddle.  Some nobles displayed these qualities, no doubt, but in days of old when knights were bold, noble status was also bound up with venality, haughtiness, brawling, and placing the interests of the nobleman’s family above all else—a form of behavior characteristic of organized crime gangs and unruly tribes.  Shakespeare knew what he was writing about when he gave us the Montagues and Capulets.

 

 

These are bourgeois, not noble values.  They were introduced into the noble class by the patriciate and the noblesse de la robe.  It was the combination of the bourgeois conception of honor (truthfulness, honesty, etc) with the old noble conception of honor (physical bravery, refusal to accept an insult, generosity) that eventually made the European nobility worth keeping around.


Shakespeare was a master in exploiting this ‘romantic twaddle’ of the past using his light and dark imagery , but what he wrote created rather an archetype of tragic love ,which didn’t exactly reflect norms or common standards .

 

Certain values are just universal including this very old noble concept of honor I was referring to .As Michael wrote- it’s not about being noble or bourgeois ....it’s about freedom and right to make right choices all the time.

 
Caledonian
 
Avatar
 
 
Caledonian
Total Posts:  153
Joined  13-09-2011
 
 
 
16 October 2011 17:08
 

Joseph McMillan;88908 wrote:

Romantic twaddle.  Some nobles displayed these qualities, no doubt, but in days of old when knights were bold, noble status was also bound up with venality, haughtiness, brawling, and placing the interests of the nobleman’s family above all else—a form of behavior characteristic of organized crime gangs and unruly tribes.  Shakespeare knew what he was writing about when he gave us the Montagues and Capulets.

 

 

These are bourgeois, not noble values.  They were introduced into the noble class by the patriciate and the noblesse de la robe.  It was the combination of the bourgeois conception of honor (truthfulness, honesty, etc) with the old noble conception of honor (physical bravery, refusal to accept an insult, generosity) that eventually made the European nobility worth keeping around.


Things like venality, haughtiness, brawling, and placing the interests of one’s own family above all else are pretty much common themes of the human condition irrespective of one’s class or position in society’s hierarchy. Those of more humble position are no more resistant to such shortcomings; they simply don’t receive as much publicity when they succumb to them as do those of higher position.

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
16 October 2011 17:27
 

Aquilo;88905 wrote:

In my opinion it should and it could be a meaningful ,empowering and mobilizing action in life of the person assuming arms.In the past the ’ noble’ status was inevitably bound with individual achievements ,loyal service,bravery in battle and all knightly virtues many people seem to admire even today.Our fast forward speeding world is in bad need of good qualities -honesty, reliability, solidity ,truthfulness etc.etc. If all of this can be implemented in the quotidian life of armigers -all of them owning- be it granted or assumed arms ,life could be much much more enjoyable.

Joseph McMillan;88908 wrote:

These are bourgeois, not noble values.  They were introduced into the noble class by the patriciate and the noblesse de la robe.  It was the combination of the bourgeois conception of honor (truthfulness, honesty, etc) with the old noble conception of honor (physical bravery, refusal to accept an insult, generosity) that eventually made the European nobility worth keeping around.

Aquilo;88919 wrote:

Certain values are just universal including this very old noble concept of honor I was referring to .As Michael wrote- it’s not about being noble or bourgeois ....it’s about freedom and right to make right choices all the time.


I fail to see any connection between possessing coat armor and possessing admirable moral qualities.

 

I think that Charles Drake hit the nail on the head when he likened arms to a tuxedo.

 

When a man owns a tuxedo it tells me much about the social environment he mixes in.  It tells me nothing, however, about his moral virtues.

 
Caledonian
 
Avatar
 
 
Caledonian
Total Posts:  153
Joined  13-09-2011
 
 
 
16 October 2011 18:41
 

David Pope;88924 wrote:

I fail to see any connection between possessing coat armor and possessing admirable moral qualities.

I think that Charles Drake hit the nail on the head when he likened arms to a tuxedo.

 

When a man owns a tuxedo it tells me much about the social environment he mixes in.  It tells me nothing, however, about his moral virtues.


When waxing romantic over the ideals of chivalry it is often forgotten that coats of arms were invented as a means of displaying one’s identity in a society where armed conflicts were a common occurrance and service involving physical violence against opponents was often rewarded by an elevated social status which included the right to impose one’s will over others.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
17 October 2011 00:30
 

Caledonian;88925 wrote:

When waxing romantic over the ideals of chivalry it is often forgotten that coats of arms were invented as a means of displaying one’s identity in a society where armed conflicts were a common occurrance and service involving physical violence against opponents was often rewarded by an elevated social status which included the right to impose one’s will over others.


Chivalry was in some ways an improvement over the values of say, the Vikings, and the temptation to wax romantic over it is something I can empathize with, but there are many aspects of it that were susceptible of ridicule even in the age that supported it. Chaucer’s depiction of the Knight and his son the Squire, along with "The Knight’s Tale," constitute as subtly eviscerating a take on chivalry as anyone could devise—late middle ages, but still.

 
Richard G.
 
Avatar
 
 
Richard G.
Total Posts:  451
Joined  26-07-2011
 
 
 
17 October 2011 03:54
 

Fred White;88935 wrote:

Chivalry was in some ways an improvement over the values of say, the Vikings ......


Yes, they do have a lot to answer for. However our collections of Anglo/Irish illuminated manuscripts are to die for so you must admit, they had impeccable taste ...... :rolleyes:

 
Aquilo
 
Avatar
 
 
Aquilo
Total Posts:  278
Joined  02-10-2010
 
 
 
17 October 2011 05:23
 

David Pope;88924 wrote:

I fail to see any connection between possessing coat armor and possessing admirable moral qualities.

I think that Charles Drake hit the nail on the head when he likened arms to a tuxedo.

 

When a man owns a tuxedo it tells me much about the social environment he mixes in.  It tells me nothing, however, about his moral virtues.


Heraldry is medieval in origin and amazingly survived centuries of changes and adjustments to the reality.In the past there was a real ‘minimum standard’ below which the use of arms was simply impossible.All of this has changed but with gone away monarchy and titles we are experiencing a new trend .Some people are trying to turn this very noble in origin drive toward manifesting their individuality and status into some kind of social game creating an elusive and elite world of pseudo-aristocracy , fake nobility,cheap arms and titles.And there are many ready to pay lots of money to join these exclusive clubs ,so I say , if coats of arms and tuxedos are not ‘dressed’ up in moral values they are useless.

 
Andrew Stewart Jamieson
 
Avatar
 
 
Andrew Stewart Jamieson
Total Posts:  244
Joined  13-05-2011
 
 
 
17 October 2011 06:50
 

Some of the most unchivalrous B’s in the world were the medieval ‘nobility’. What exactly is nobility? A guy came along in 1100 or earlier and was a better fighter than his neighbour so he takes as much land as he can grab, then he gives out portions of it to his retainers and gives them a title so long as they support him and watch his back. A protection racket in otherwords.  Slowly they married into other thuggish families and so on. To imply that their descendants are in some way superior to anyone else is nonsense and down right snobbery. The ‘Nobility’ of England for example were only ever loyal to their land, they changed faiths, supported parliament in the Civil War,  changed allegiances to Kings and did everything and anything to hold onto what they had. Even in WWII some were in secret correspondance with the Third Reich just so that in the event that England was invaded they would be able to keep their stately piles. Don’t get me wrong I am not anti aristorcracy but to somehow still think that these people are superior in some way in the 21st century is absolute hogwash and is the stuff you read about only in romance novels. Chivalrous behaviour is not confined to ‘Nobility’...I have met some people with more nobility and chivalry in their little finger than some so called Aristo’s I could care to mention.

I think it is twaddle to imply that people with coat of arms are trying in someway to elevate their status. None that I know have this attitude. Mostly, they just love heraldry and want arms because it continues a fine colourful and artistic tradition. I have designed arms for hundreds of people, mostly Americans. They have served their country, fought in wars, are priests, doctors, professors and policemen. I have even designed arms for those ‘lower classes’ of merchants and craftsmen spoken of in a previous posting. I have yet to meet anyone who wants it on their underwear.  Basically these are good, honest and real people who live in the modern world. Some do belong to Orders of Chivalry and why not? The Order of Malta takes only ‘Nobles’ in Europe but in the USA I think the criteria is different?  Other Orders do much work for third world charities. The really funny thing is I find many of the old Aristocracy don’t worry about such things…I know several English, French and Spanish Aristocrats who feel they have better things to fill their days with.

 

As a Russian Princess I know says, ‘It is the Bourgeios or Noveau Aristrocracy that are the worst culprits for snobbery’.

 
Ce Howard
 
Avatar
 
 
Ce Howard
Total Posts:  63
Joined  29-09-2011
 
 
 
17 October 2011 08:15
 

Aquilo;88940 wrote:

Heraldry is medieval in origin and amazingly survived centuries of changes and adjustments to the reality.In the past there was a real ‘minimum standard’ below which the use of arms was simply impossible.All of this has changed but with gone away monarchy and titles we are experiencing a new trend .Some people are trying to turn this very noble in origin drive toward manifesting their individuality and status into some kind of social game creating an elusive and elite world of pseudo-aristocracy , fake nobility,cheap arms and titles.And there are many ready to pay lots of money to join these exclusive clubs ,so I say , if coats of arms and tuxedos are not ‘dressed’ up in moral values they are useless.


I know a few of the wanna be’s you speak of who join private clubs thinking it somehow makes them better than others and I can tell you nobody likes them not even members of their own family.  The true nobility I’ve met through Andy have very busy lives. You won’t find them on facebook daily.

 

Perhaps, I’ve got it wrong but I think a Coat of Arms is not something that in our modern world should be reserved only for kings, queens and nobility.  To tell you the truth if I were kin to a man like King Henry VIII that syphilitic monarch who destroyed the Catholic Church in England I wouldn’t go around bragging about it.

 

In my mind EVERY life matters.  Every man is special for one reason or another.  ALL men are created equal.  No man is better than another simply because he is kin to someone special or has lots of money in the bank. Everyone here matters and is worthy of a coat of arms if they want one to honor their achievements in life or celebrate their family…after all it is called an, ‘Achievement of Arms’.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
17 October 2011 10:46
 

Richard G.;88938 wrote:

Yes, they do have a lot to answer for. However our collections of Anglo/Irish illuminated manuscripts are to die for so you must admit, they had impeccable taste ...... :rolleyes:


The manuscripts you refer to postdate northerners’ conversion to Christianity, but even objects we could refer to as properly Viking—things from the Sutton Hoo ship burial, for instance—are to die for. Perhaps that’s beside the point, though.

 

Are we off topic yet?

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
17 October 2011 11:29
 

Fred White;88963 wrote:

Are we off topic yet?


Way off.

 
 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
17 October 2011 14:06
 

Wow, We pretty much wrapped this at post 15 in May..  I just read the whole thread again.  I suggest Everyone reads the first 15 entries and if you have further questions - ask.  For the most part it covers the subject well and didn’t really need to be openned again…

 
Ce Howard
 
Avatar
 
 
Ce Howard
Total Posts:  63
Joined  29-09-2011
 
 
 
17 October 2011 15:04
 

Kathy McClurg;89001 wrote:

Wow, We pretty much wrapped this at post 15 in May..  I just read the whole thread again.  I suggest Everyone reads the first 15 entries and if you have further questions - ask.  For the most part it covers the subject well and didn’t really need to be openned again…


I’m painting and I don’t have time to go back and read.  Any idea Kathy why it was reopened?