I may have missed such a discussion on another thread, but I am curious to know if American armigers have any interest in seeing the establishment of an official US arms granting authority?
If so, is this something the AHS would see itself championing and pursuing?
If not, I assume its because the freedom to assume arms and avoid regulation is the preference of the vast majority?
I’m new to the board (and US heraldry), so thanks for indulging me on this. I’d like to understand the general consensus here and I appreciate your comments.
This has been discussed a lot here. The general sentiment seems to be in favor of there being more legal protection for personal arms and perhaps a more centralized, government-sanctioned registry of these arms, but there is little or no sentiment in favor of any regulation of who may bear arms, the key issue being that we, in the U.S., have only two legal statuses under the law—citizen and non-citizen, vs. royal, noble, gentle, freeman, peasant, etc. In any case, regardless of what anyone among the tiny community of serious heraldry enthusiasts in the U.S. may want, the federal government’s allocating funds for the establishment and maintenance of an heraldic authority for non-military purposes is very unlikely.
I believe that sums it up, but others will no doubt wish to venture their own recapitulations.
This thread http://www.americanheraldry.org/forums/showthread.php?t=176 covers most of the issues one way or another.
Fred White;91588 wrote:
the key issue being that we, in the U.S., have only two legal statuses under the law—citizen and non-citizen, vs. royal, noble, gentle, freeman, peasant, etc.
Fred, thanks for your comment and I have read the link that Joseph provided.
I would hope that the issue of nobility itself would not ultimately be viewed as a hindrance to the development of an official and uniquely American arms granting body if one were desired.
Canadian society, for example, no longer functions under the old colonial nobiliary system. Although nobility was never legally abolished here, the Nickle Resolution of 1919 established a policy preventing the creation of peers and guarding against the awarding of titled knighthoods and other honours that create social class division. Egalitarianism and meritocracy are very much in force within Canada.
Arms granted by the Canadian Heraldic Authority are therefore not provided in recognition of gentility/nobility of the armiger. They are linked to the national honours system and are awarded in recognition of charitable accomplishments and other good works done for the benefit of society. They are strictly merit-based. This is a critical difference from European arms granting bodies (ie: those within the UK, with which Canada shares the same fount of honour).
So, since 1988, North Americans have been acquiring official arms that do not link in any way to concepts of nobility and social class division.
I suspect a similar official merit-based model could be easily adopted by the US or any other republic if so desired by both armigers and state.
At any rate, all very interesting!
The Canadian system is wonderfully appropriate for Canadians - while not strictly speaking "noble" it still treats arms (or at least those granted by the CHA) as honors of a sort, flowing from a fairly egalitarian fons honorum. Works if there is a lefgally & socially accepted fons.
South of the border, those basic assumptions don’t hold true. We don’t consider arms themselves as honors, nor are we comfortable with the notion of a fons honorum—which would likely end up (he said cynically) being more of a fonz honorarium i.e. honors for donors.
(taking the risk of speaking for others - but I think consistent with our Guidelines…) we see arms as primarily identification, hopefully artistically pleasing, but indicative or personal, familial, or communal identity rather than as indicators of merit vis-a-vis our fellow citizens who haven’t adopted arms.
IMO the only valid distinctions a government registry could make would be free citizens with the franchise vs. convicted felons stripped of the franchise—which I suspect is a somewhat lower bar than our brethren to the north!
Maybe a registry with some sort of legal protections—but even that seems unlikely in our lifetimes. I might personally wish it were otherwise (I do) but see it as a pipe dream.
The Canadian system is wonderfully appropriate for Canadians - while not strictly speaking "noble" it still treats arms (or at least those granted by the CHA) as honors of a sort, flowing from a fairly egalitarian fons honorum. Works if there is a legally & socially accepted fons.
South of the border, those basic assumptions don’t hold true. We don’t consider arms themselves as honors, nor are we comfortable with the notion of a fons honorum—which would likely end up (he said cynically) being more of a fonz honorarium i.e. honors for donors.
(taking the risk of speaking for others - but I think consistent with our Guidelines…) we see arms as primarily identification, hopefully artistically pleasing, but indicative or personal, familial, or communal identity rather than as indicators of merit vis-a-vis our fellow citizens who haven’t adopted arms.
IMO the only valid distinctions a government registry could make would be free citizens with the franchise vs. convicted felons stripped of the franchise—which I suspect is a somewhat lower bar than our brethren to the north!
Maybe a registry with some sort of legal protections—but even that seems unlikely in our lifetimes. I might personally wish it were otherwise (I do) but see it as a pipe dream.
Michael F. McCartney;91600 wrote:
IMO the only valid distinctions a government registry could make would be free citizens with the franchise vs. convicted felons stripped of the franchise—which I suspect is a somewhat lower bar than our brethren to the north!
I would add to Michael’s comments that not all of us south of the border hold the federal franchise in such high regard as compared to our individual state citizenship. Were any authority to be endorsed by myself, it would be to my home state I that I would look for armorial protection (within it’s jurisdiction and any voluntary protection from other cooperating states). Thus, I would set the bar even lower.
I am somewhat representative of those who would never willingly allow federal U.S. authority to usurp state sovereignty (not to get off topic or anything).
Personally, I would like to see some form of legal protection for heraldic bearings in the United States - the more comprehensive the better. I feel that having a domestic “authority of arms” is not the only way to achieve this. The creation of a new intellectual property category (alongside copyrights, patents, and trademarks) that allowed for the accepted particulars of heraldry would work just as well.
Michael F. McCartney;91601 wrote:
.
IMO the only valid distinctions a government registry could make would be free citizens with the franchise vs. convicted felons stripped of the franchise—which I suspect is a somewhat lower bar than our brethren to the north!
But of course it’s not as if history isn’t littered with armigerous felons…
A fascinating conversation. Thanks to all.
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison;91602 wrote:
Were any authority to be endorsed by myself, it would be to my home state I that I would look for armorial protection (within it’s jurisdiction and any voluntary protection from other cooperating states).
That’s a view held by many. Notwithstanding your provision for voluntary protection from cooperating states I think it would complicate things. Since not all would voluntarily provide such protection (and "full faith and credit" wouldn’t necessarily require them to do so) you’d have to be prepared for the idea of 49 other people being granted the exact same coat of arms that you bear. That in itself is not a deterrent. It would just be the possible outcome of heraldic authorities for each state.
I had not considered the option of a state-by-state approach. Very interesting…
gselvester;91657 wrote:
That’s a view held by many. Notwithstanding your provision for voluntary protection from cooperating states I think it would complicate things. Since not all would voluntarily provide such protection (and "full faith and credit" wouldn’t necessarily require them to do so) you’d have to be prepared for the idea of 49 other people being granted the exact same coat of arms that you bear. That in itself is not a deterrent. It would just be the possible outcome of heraldic authorities for each state.
If one state were to establish “The Public Register of all Armorial Bearings and Heraldic Devices in the State of Whichever”, then I would think that the full faith and credit clause would be applicable by default.
The Constitution of the United States, Article IV, Section 1 wrote:
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
Such a ‘public register’ would certainly count as either a “public act” or a “record” – unless I’m missing something, which has been known to happen 
Wow! Having just read a number of other threads I’ve learned that the subject of official granting bodies and heraldic validity is indeed well debated on this site.
I had assumed the American aversion toward granted arms stemmed specifically from concerns of a perceived association with nobility. I was surprised to find that this reluctance also extends to the concept of arms being honorific awards based on meritorious acts of the recipient.
I was also surprised some time ago to discover that like Americans, British armigers (with perhaps some exceptions) generally don’t accept the notion of granted arms as being honours. They appear to view arms as primarily a recognition of their gentility or status.
So very fascinating!
Nevertheless, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again….whether assumed or granted, heraldry is heraldry is heraldry. I admire Americans for pursuing a system that is commensurate with their own ideals, customs and beliefs. This is as it should be. Same thing with our friends in the UK.
I have an English pal who received his arms from the College of Heraldry. He is quite proud of the fact that his sovereign recognizes him as an "Esquire". Well, good for him if that’s what provides him personal satisfaction. I respect his customs and outlook even though I don’t echo that sentiment personally. If my arms somehow recognize me as a gentleman, Her Majesty has made a very grave mistake in that decree 
My pride in my arms and interest in heraldry stems from my lifelong fascination with medieval history and chivalry…that my grant, to me, is associated with an ancient tradition and process that I find historically fascinating. People I discuss this with tend to ask me why I didn’t assume arms (which I’m free to do here in Canada) and avoid paying a lot of money for an official grant. When I try to explain the link to the tradition that I find so captivating, most don’t get it and either think I’m pompous or simply a nutcase. I don’t care, and I don’t expect others to understand. My wife doesn’t get it either, despite my numerous attempts to elucidate. It has meaning to me personally and that’s all that really matters.
However, allow me to state my opinion that when all is said and done, one person’s arms are no more or less valid than any other’s - regardless of the system under which they were acquired.
It is unfortunate that some can not respect the heraldic customs of others. The ultimate value of arms (and hopefully all armigers can agree) is the enjoyment they bring to the armiger and the celebration of a symbolic representation of one’s identity and heritage.
...but on I ramble….
Cheers all.
David,
I won’t claim to speak for most of us, but at least for some of the Americans in the AHS, arms aren’t particularly a sign of gentility, merely a sign of family identity. Those who know Latin tell me that the old description of coats of arms as tesserae gentilitiae, which English writers habitually translate as "tokens of gentility," actually means "tokens of kinship." Given the use of arms by people of all social classes in many countries—arguably even in England prior to the heralds’ visitations—this seems to some of us to be a better way to think of arms, not just in the US but in general.
Of course, arms can be used as a mark of officially recognized social status, and are used that way in some countries, but they needn’t necessarily be that, and even where they do have status connotations they still primarily serve the purpose of identifying kinship. William Barton, who was both the first to propose an official U.S. heraldic institution (in 1788 ) and the first to realize the virtues of private registry instead (in 1815),* ultimately saw that this was the only acceptable basis for the survival of heraldry in the new republic:
Quote:
Heraldic ensigns confer neither privileges nor titles and are, in themselves, as perfectly inoffensive to the community as the surnames which denote different families….
[Assumed arms], when they are once appropriated to a particular family and do not belong to any other, will serve to distinguish that family, together with their descendants, from others.
No person of reputable character would wish to use any armorial insignia which might evidently appear to be the right of another.
Barton recognized that "Arms recently assumed by a family will not, indeed, enable the original bearers of them to trace back their ancestors; nor will they be generally esteemed equally honourable with the arms of inheritance not being retrospective," but pointed out that this was not an issue as long as the assumption was frank and honest. He pointed people toward thinking about heraldry as extending into the future and not merely into the past as most of the antiquarian-focused heraldists have done.
It took the rest of the American heraldic community the better part of a century to come to the same conclusion. Some people remain stuck in the English-influenced view—that all real arms are honors signifying gentility, and if they aren’t then what’s the point?—but the main U.S. heraldic organizations such as the AHS, the American College of Heraldry, and the New England Historic Genealogical Society all would subscribe to Barton’s formula as the theoretical basis for heraldry in our country.
__________
*Barton was also responsible for the final design of the shield of the U.S. national arms, which would give him a special position in American heraldic history even without his contributions to heraldic theory.
Joseph McMillan;91673 wrote:
I won’t claim to speak for most of us, but at least for some of the Americans in the AHS, arms aren’t particularly a sign of gentility, merely a sign of family identity.
Actually, Joseph’s statement holds true for me as well, and perhaps even a few other Americans on this forum who, like me, are less adverse to the notion of nobility on a purely private level and less adverse to including heraldic trappings to reflect such status in our arms.
For me at least, heraldry and nobility (i.e., the condition of untitled nobility/gentry status) are really two different things and while the two are often closely intertwined, it is only in a minority of jurisidictions (e.g., England, Wales, Scotland, the Greater Commonwealth, at least in theory, and perhaps Ireland) where the possession of granted arms signifies gentry or (untitled) noble status. Unfortunately while these jursidictions are really the exception and not the general rule, most people wrongly assume the British stance is universal throughout the world. Only the English language is universal, not their notion of arms!
About the American system of freely assuming unique arms, I think the system works well in the US. Legal recognition and protection for personal arms whether it comes in the form of sizable body of prior court judgments or recognizing arms as a unique form of intellectual property would be my ultimate goal for the US, and the former goal in particular is not that farfetched. As more people adopt personal arms, the likelihood of future court cases slowly increases. It may take decades or even centuries to build up a number of cases acknowledging and protecting personal arms. An official government office (preferrably at the Federal level - sorry my "states’ rights" friends) to register arms might be nice, but it will never happen and in fact is really unnecessary if all you are looking for is the legal protection of personal arms.
I think the Canadian notion of arms as a hereditary honour, which almost any good citizen (e.g., one who has contributed in some positive way to his/her community) can simply apply for is at odds with how our society thinks and is organized.
We might be running the risk of derailing the thread, but this line of discussion raises a variety of questions about what additaments are and are not appropriate in American heraldry if we define a coat of arms as primarily a signifier of kinship.