Official US Arms Granting Authority

 
steven harris
 
Avatar
 
 
steven harris
Total Posts:  696
Joined  30-07-2008
 
 
 
12 January 2012 13:52
 

Fred White;91697 wrote:

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.


I understand additaments to have specific meanings (cornets of rank, for example).

 

If a hypothetical US heraldic authority did exist, then I would surmise that it would disallow the use of those additaments that indicate a rank-class structure that is not present in this country.

 

According to that criterion, the use of heraldic supports by corporations would be allowable.  Also, non-hereditary supporters might be seen as allowable for certain office holders and those who have received certain very high honors (such as the President, the Chief Justice, Medal of Honor and Medal of Freedom recipients, etcetera).

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
12 January 2012 14:13
 

I’ll add my two bits to this discussion by heartily seconding all the points Joseph and Edward have made.  There is nothing wrong with the granting of arms as an honor to an individual or a state or corporate entity (a good use of heraldry in my opinion) - however, this can only be in addition to heraldry’s first and foremost use which is distinction between familys, individuals, and state or private corporate entities.  Outside of the U.K., arms are not noble (or "burgher’) arms, but rather the arms of the bearer, who may be a nobleman or not.  The U.K. is very much the exception when it comes to this wonderful tesserae gentilitiae.

 
David Hovey
 
Avatar
 
 
David Hovey
Total Posts:  12
Joined  02-01-2012
 
 
 
12 January 2012 22:19
 

eploy;91685 wrote:

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.


Well Edward, you’ve touched on something I’ve given quite a fair bit of thought to myself.  Not really so much around the concept that anyone can apply for arms in Canada, rather the implications of inheritance of those arms.

 

Someone with a greater knowledge than I may feel free to correct me if I am in error in my thinking here, but the difficulty I have with the process is this:

 

I have been granted arms.  These arms pass to my two daughters. They are currently 8 and 6 years old.  They have cadet shields differenced according to the Canadian cadency system.  I’ll kick off someday and my eldest will inherit the undifferenced version.  My youngest will continue on with her shield marked by an ermine spot befitting second daughters.  On and on it goes down through the years.  Seems straight forward enough…but…

 

How is it that my daughters can inherit arms without first having to "earn" them by qualifying as having committed meritorious acts themselves?  Will several generations of my descendants inherit "unearned" arms while mine, the originals, remain the only arms in the family line that were achieved for good works within society?  How can arms be acquired solely by bloodright and remain an earned honour in the Canadian system? This seems to defeat the premise that the Canadian armorial honour is not available to the undeserving and is strictly a meritorious accomplishment.

 

Do my original arms then become elevated to some special status that might be viewed by some as being superior to the lesser, inherited versions?  Hmm.  Perhaps.  I may also be entirely off-base in my thinking here.

 

I believe that when our heraldic authority was being established back in 1988, it was recognized that a country trying to shed its colonial image could not adopt a purely British system…this, despite wanting to retain a model based on the UK version for sake of maintaining an armorial tradition linked to the "mother country". In differentiating the process, Canada had to ensure its own system was set up in a way that removed all links to class division…particularly since the country comprised an increasingly multi-cultural populace espousing egalitarian ideals.

 

"The powers that be" of the day therefore took the official stance that Canadian armorial bearings were to be strictly viewed as awards for the achievement of good works in society. This was held to be more acceptable to the average Canadian. No link to precedence, no social class division, no gentility/nobility.

 

Well, how well has this really worked?

 

I’m not opposed to the Canadian system and I’m proud of the historical heraldic traditions we’ve adopted from the British systems.

 

What I’m trying to state, in a rather long-winded way, is that I don’t believe the "powers that be" succeeded in removing all status-related elements from the official Canadian armorial system. In fact, they may have unwittingly contributed to its proliferation as I noted above.  Certainly some of the comments I’ve seen on this site seem to confirm this sentiment.

 

Nevertheless, the CHA is young and still evolving.  I’m eager to see how it progresses over the years.  I’ll be particularly interested to see how it deals with the issue of loss of the original armorial surname through female transmission over time.

 

Fortunately, these are issues American armigers will never have to contend with.

 

The American treatment of heraldry, wherein arms provide neither personal honour or social status, may, dare I say it, perhaps be the most "noble" approach of all.  :D

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
13 January 2012 00:44
 

The Canadian experiment with heraldry (e.g., arms as hereditary honours granted by a government agency) has been a most interesting phenomenon and I personally hope that that basic model is eventually adopted by those other Commonwealth countries where HM the Queen is also head of state.  The system of course is not without its flaws as you allude to in your post:


David Hovey;91710 wrote:

How is it that my daughters can inherit arms without first having to "earn" them by qualifying as having committed meritorious acts themselves?  Will several generations of my descendants inherit "unearned" arms while mine, the originals, remain the only arms in the family line that were achieved for good works within society?  How can arms be acquired solely by bloodright and remain an earned honour in the Canadian system? This seems to defeat the premise that the Canadian armorial honour is not available to the undeserving and is strictly a meritorious accomplishment.

Do my original arms then become elevated to some special status that might be viewed by some as being superior to the lesser, inherited versions?  Hmm.  Perhaps.  I may also be entirely off-base in my thinking here.


David, I think this is the biggest conundrum in Canadian heraldry:  hereditary honours in an egalitarian society that largely abhors British-style class differences.  I see at least 3 possible solutions, but unfortunately it is probably too late to implement any of them at this stage.  Perhaps they could be implemented in subsequent jurisdictions:

 

1.  Completely renounce or very significantly downgrade the notion of granted arms as "honours":  This first approach, however, is unlikely to be popular with those Canadians who already have received their arms as honours.  Furthermore, if the change is not made retroactively, Canada will risk creating two tiers of arms and hence two-tiers of citizens, and this will likely cause resentment with later applicants not to mention be illegal.

 

2.  Recognize arms as honours only for the initial recipient:  This approach comes from your suggestion.  It reminds me of the dichotomy between the U.E.L. (Unity of Empire/United Empire Loyalists) vs U.E. (Descendants of Unity of Empire/United Empire Loyalists) postnominals in Canada.  AFAIK, only those proto-Canadians that left the American colonies for the Canadian colonies were entitled to be termed "Loyalists", hence the extra "L" in their post-nominal.  Descendants may only use the U.E. post-nominal, which more properly should not be regarded as a hereditary honour but rather a hereditary signifier of Loyalist ancestry.

 

With this approach, only the initial applicant will have been honoured and so it is not unlike the U.E.L. designation above.  All subsequent generations will essentially inherit just the arms and there would be no implication that they have also been honoured just like the U.E. designation.  Of course, this solution is not without its problems as it may often be hard to armorially distinguish between the original grantee and his/her descendants.  Furthermore, this solution contradicts what has been happening in practice for the past few decades:  that all Canadian arms whether granted or inherited are indeed hereditary honours.

 

3.  Require each subsequent generation to seek reconfirmation of their right to arms:  I think this is the best approach.  Children of the initial recipeint can bear differenced arms for the lifetime of the recipient parent.  Once that parent dies, the children will then have to seek reconfirmation of their right to arms.  This reconfirmation need not be complicated or even expensive.  It could simply cost say 10 - 20 Canadian dollars and would help generate an additional revenue stream for the Canadian Heraldic Authority.  The reconfirmation would, however, allow the CHA to verify that each child is also meritorious enough to justify continued use of their differenced arms.  Also at this stage, the child can choose to modify the arms ever so slightly to better reflect their own personal background or interests.  For example, your second daughter may grow-up hating ermine spots for whatever reason and may not like being stuck with such ‘silly childhood spots’ on a permanent basis (her words not mine).  In that case, she could apply for a new grant of slightly differenced arms and hence her ‘worthiness’ could be tested at that time.  This reconfirmation process is reminiscent of the periodic matriculation of arms required by Lord Lyon.  Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your perspective), this approach also amounts to backtracking since at least 1 generation of Canadians has already inherited the honours implication along with their parental arms.  Furthermore, there is no way to really enforce this approach unless the CHA is given some teeth on par with the Lord Lyon.  This too is likely to be unpopular and impossible to implement.

 


David Hovey;91710 wrote:

What I’m trying to state, in a rather long-winded way, is that I don’t believe the "powers that be" succeeded in removing all status-related elements from the official Canadian armorial system. In fact, they may have unwittingly contributed to its proliferation as I noted above.  Certainly some of the comments I’ve seen on this site seem to confirm this sentiment.


Indeed!  The most direct way out would to be renounce the notion of arms as honours, but I suspect there would be alot of opposition to such change after 24 years.

 


David Hovey;91710 wrote:

Nevertheless, the CHA is young and still evolving.  I’m eager to see how it progresses over the years.  I’ll be particularly interested to see how it deals with the issue of loss of the original armorial surname through female transmission over time.


IMO, it is regrettable that the link between the arms and the original armorial surname is being severed.  I would have preferred the Portuguese/Scottish approach (as I understand it):  children may adopt either their father’s or mother’s surname, or even the surname of any ancestor in the case of Portgual (that is my understanding).  As part of that adoption, they could also adopt the relevant ancestral arms with suitable differences of course.  In that way the Canadians would not only be promoting gender equality, but at the same time the link between arms and surname can be kept intact.

 


David Hovey;91710 wrote:

Fortunately, these are issues American armigers will never have to contend with.

The American treatment of heraldry, wherein arms provide neither personal honour or social status, may, dare I say it, perhaps be the most "noble" approach of all.  :D

 
steven harris
 
Avatar
 
 
steven harris
Total Posts:  696
Joined  30-07-2008
 
 
 
13 January 2012 12:05
 

eploy;91711 wrote:

I agree, and this why I no longer push for a US heraldic authority.  I would rather see a US heraldic registry (just registering arms per the South African or Kenyan model) or just laws that recognize and protect personal arms per the French model (i.e., French Courts have been recognizing and protecting personal arms as part of the family surname and identity for many years now without the need for a heraldic authority).  Of the two models, I think the French one is more appropriate for the US as it does not require the formation of any new government agency which would be politically unpopular not to mention highly unlikely.  Further more the French model is more fitting given the close historical ties between the country and the shared values (e.g., premised on the notion of egalitarianism and liberty).  I am sure that Washington and Lafayette (both armigerous noblemen - one untitled and the other titled) would approve.  :D


I agree that the French model could serve as a sound basis for a US system.

 

Since a governmental heraldic authority is both unlikely and unnecessary, a “public register” would seem to be the best course of action.  To highlight American egalitarianism, the application process to register newly assumed, devised, or inherited arms into the “public register” would ideally be as uncomplicated as possible (perhaps involving a notary public, who then forwards the witnessed document off to the centralized public register), and it should also be as inexpensive as possible (only enough to cover the overhead costs incurred).

 

The only aspect of a systemized US “public register” that I would consider nonnegotiable is legal protection for the arms – without which there is simply no point in bothering to establish a system to replace the unregulated assumptions that we have now.

 

Other aspects that I would personally consider both useful and desirable include an online searchable database (as our neighbors in Canada enjoy), hard-copy publication of the registered arms (periodic volumes for sale to the general public to raise money for the register, and perhaps also sent to libraries around the country to increase visibility and researchability), and a formal document (like a letter patent, which would be available at an additional cost as a source of revenue for the register).

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
13 January 2012 18:08
 

steven harris;91698 wrote:

I understand additaments to have specific meanings (cornets of rank, for example).

If a hypothetical US heraldic authority did exist, then I would surmise that it would disallow the use of those additaments that indicate a rank-class structure that is not present in this country.

 

According to that criterion, the use of heraldic supports by corporations would be allowable.  Also, non-hereditary supporters might be seen as allowable for certain office holders and those who have received certain very high honors (such as the President, the Chief Justice, Medal of Honor and Medal of Freedom recipients, etcetera).


Well, I hear what you’re saying, but what I’m driving at is that I tend to think we kid ourselves if we argue that heraldry can be made void of status implications and still be heraldry, even in a society where there is no rank/class structure with a basis in law. The visual language of heraldry is medieval; it at least tacitly perpetuates the values of a feudal world that had a fairly rigid, discriminatory rank/class structure. If heraldic additaments like coronets of rank posit a claim to superior status, then the escutcheon alone must denote some kind of status beyond that of ordinary citizen. At a minimum, arms proclaim, "The bearer of this escutcheon and his descendents are distinctive, and therefore deserve to be recognized and remembered." One could be forgiven for taking the use of armorial devices to express a connection to an illustrious family line that stretches back to the Middle Ages (what with the shields and helmets, and charges like griffons and dragons, and so forth), or to express an affirmation by some higher authority that he is the peer of those who have such connections, and to feel that using them when one does not have such connections, literally or figuratively, is at best affected and at worst fraudulent. If this weren’t an appropriate, natural, even fairly well-informed point of view to take, no one would be at pains to outline a contrary position (cf., Barton). In any case, the care given to the design of the blazon alone, and to gaining the knowledge necessary to blazon correctly to begin with—forgetting any actual emblazonments—is prima facie evidence that a coat of arms makes a claim to special status for its bearer. So enough with this, "All my coat of arms expresses is kinship" stance, I say. The American armiger should just admit that he feels special and get on with it, and not expect the United States government to set up an agency to enshrine what we should frankly admit are displays of vanity. They aren’t going to do it. Legal protection from usurpation might be another story, but I’m not holding my breath.

 
Nick B II
 
Avatar
 
 
Nick B II
Total Posts:  203
Joined  26-11-2007
 
 
 
13 January 2012 22:18
 

David Hovey;91710 wrote:

How is it that my daughters can inherit arms without first having to "earn" them by qualifying as having committed meritorious acts themselves?  Will several generations of my descendants inherit "unearned" arms while mine, the originals, remain the only arms in the family line that were achieved for good works within society?  How can arms be acquired solely by bloodright and remain an earned honour in the Canadian system? This seems to defeat the premise that the Canadian armorial honour is not available to the undeserving and is strictly a meritorious accomplishment.


What’s the exact procedure for your daughters to use their Arms?

 

If there’s any CHA involvement in deciding the design of your younger girl’s arms, or confirming the elder’s right to her inheritance; the CHA will presumably confirm they are worthy of Arms before blessing their new Arms. Which means your daughters will have earned the same honor you have.

 

If they just use the Arms they want presumably their Arms would be analogous to a medal earned in the Canadian forces. While the medal itself is clearly an honor, and it’s clearly owned by the heirs of the person who earned it; those heirs have not been honored by the state.

 

Nick

 
David Hovey
 
Avatar
 
 
David Hovey
Total Posts:  12
Joined  02-01-2012
 
 
 
14 January 2012 15:36
 

Nick B II;91724 wrote:

If there’s any CHA involvement in deciding the design of your younger girl’s arms, or confirming the elder’s right to her inheritance; the CHA will presumably confirm they are worthy of Arms before blessing their new Arms. Which means your daughters will have earned the same honor you have.


Hi Nick,

 

When I petitioned for my arms, I had to request that I be considered for a grant of arms authorized by the Governor General (wielding powers stemming from Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada).

 

I was required to submit a thorough dissertation on my background, work achievements, education, credentials, hobbies, charitable activities and so forth.  The CHA reviewed and weighed this against their eligibility criteria (which they do not disclose) and ultimately made a decision to grant me arms.  Good and charitable works / contributions to society are supposedly the official consideration for the granting of all arms in Canada.

 

The only information I submitted concerning my daughters were their names and ages.  As part of my personal petition, and upon my request, my daughters then both received their own arms in the form of cadet shields, which were officially recognized and painted on my letters patent along with my own shield.

 

Its clear then, that their privilege to these official arms, which they are now quite free to use, is based upon their relationship to me, not upon any merit earned in their own right.

 

Even if it were considered that these cadet shields are really just versions of my own arms that my children are being permitted to "borrow", is it justifiable that my daughters should use them in any official capacity and also "borrow" the underlying honour?

 

Perhaps this "borrowing" itself excludes the original honour, but if so, do the cadet arms then become an inferior version of my own?...enter status.

 

Rather than gaining free access to official cadet shields, why would my children not be expected to wait until they may someday be in a position to apply for arms in their own right?

 

Then there is the issue of my heraldic badge.  What are the implications of this device when viewed in the context of being associated with an honour-based armorial grant?

 

It seems to me there is a bit of a glitch here with respect to the concept of ALL official Canadian arms being an honour from the Crown, achieved through personal acts that merit that honour.

 

I have no trouble personally accepting this system as I have neither a problem with viewing Canadian arms as an honour nor with my children accessing official arms via their blood connection to me.

 

However, if Canadian authorities had thought, as I suspect, to fully rid the Canadian heraldic system of transfer of status by blood or affiliation, they may not have succeeded.

 
Arthur Radburn
 
Avatar
 
 
Arthur Radburn
Total Posts:  229
Joined  15-06-2005
 
 
 
15 January 2012 07:57
 

I’ve been trying to get to grips with this.

The CHA states on its website that a grant of armorial bearings is an a honour from the Canadian Crown.

 

If Canada allows the free assumption and inheritance of arms, and the use and inheritance of arms of foreign origin (according to the rules of inheritance of the countries of origin), then the coat of arms in itself cannot be the honour.  It must therefore be the granting of the arms, i.e. the official executive act of issuing the Letters Patent, that constitutes the actual honour.

 

If the LPs grant the arms simultaneously to X and to his children (or, in some cases, to his siblings and other relatives), then evidently, X is being honoured in this way for his/her contribution to Canada and, as David says, the others are being honoured simply for being related to X.  To that extent, then, this is an hereditary honour which does not require the heirs to qualify on merit.

 

But what of the next generation (who may not necessarily all bear X’s surname)?

 

The arms are hereditary, but must the children’s children’s matriculate them and obtain some kind of official document, which could be regarded as a continuation of the honour based on descent rather than on personal merit?

 

Or are they free simply to inherit and use the arms without reference to the heraldic authority and without further differencing (which is the norm in most countries, except Scotland)?  In this case, the honorific element of the arms, i.e. the issue of an official document to a named individual, has ceased.

 

There are more questions than answers!  Perhaps this topic merits a thread of its own, rather than as a diversion from the original topic of a US heraldry authority

 
David Hovey
 
Avatar
 
 
David Hovey
Total Posts:  12
Joined  02-01-2012
 
 
 
15 January 2012 10:18
 

Arthur Radburn;91739 wrote:

If Canada allows the free assumption and inheritance of arms, and the use and inheritance of arms of foreign origin (according to the rules of inheritance of the countries of origin), then the coat of arms in itself cannot be the honour.


Arthur, I think perhaps you’ve hit the nail squarely on the head.  The arms themselves are really not an honour at all.  They should be more correctly viewed as a recognition of the pre-existing qualities of the recipient…this concept being borrowed from the British system.

 

In Scotland, for example, the conveyance of arms does not bestow gentility upon the recipient.  A grant of arms is a recognition of one’s pre-existing state of gentility (or nobility if one is of that class).

 

Scottish armorial letters patent used to carry what was considered a "nobility" clause, which referenced the new armiger as being admitted to the "noblesse" of Scotland.  People therefore clamoured to obtained Scottish arms wrongly believing this would somehow bestow a mark of nobility upon themselves.

 

The Lord Lyon has since removed that reference in order to attempt to clear up this misnomer.  Clearly, arms in Scotland do not bestow anything - they simply recognize one’s existing qualities.  This is still debated by some however.

 

I think Canada’s system should also be interpreted this way.  Canadian arms themselves do not bestow an honour.  They recognize the existing honourable qualities of the new armiger.  That quality can not be transferred by blood or association.

 

I suspect that when a Canadian armiger’s descendants matriculate their arms, they will be required to prove their right to those arms by demonstrating their merit.  However, it is the immediate children of the original armiger and their right to the use of cadet shields as official arms that I question.  I may be overthinking this and perhaps I will enquire with the CHA.

 

Arthur, I think you’re correct that we should end this line of discussion on this thread as it is deviating away from the original topic.  If anyone wants to continue this discussion, PM me and I’ll set up a new thread under the international arms category.

 

Thanks to all for your comments.  So very interesting!

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
15 January 2012 12:14
 

How can a grant of arms be an honor if you have to pay for it? Doesn’t the commercial dimension kind of reduce it to the status of a luxury good?

 
James Dempster
 
Avatar
 
 
James Dempster
Total Posts:  602
Joined  20-05-2004
 
 
 
15 January 2012 13:31
 

Fred White;91747 wrote:

How can a grant of arms be an honor if you have to pay for it? Doesn’t the commercial dimension kind of reduce it to the status of a luxury good?


Possibly to the 21st century mind it does, but there were fees associated (in the UK anyway) with the more obvious honours of knighthood and peerage. There are several cases in the Victorian period of the crown paying (note, they weren’t waived) the fees of people, often in the military, who couldn’t otherwise afford them. As far as I know there were also "fees" associated with honours in an earlier period, though often in kind and/or a form of largesse.

 

The difference is surely one involving who makes the first approach. An honour was a gift, even if it had strings attached. Arms are normally a grant (a consession) upon application.

 

James

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
15 January 2012 13:51
 

I finally have enough time to sit down and try to do justice to Fred’s thought-provoking post.


Fred White;91719 wrote:

Well, I hear what you’re saying, but what I’m driving at is that I tend to think we kid ourselves if we argue that heraldry can be made void of status implications and still be heraldry, even in a society where there is no rank/class structure with a basis in law.


It the context of this thread—the desirability/feasibility of an official arms-granting authority in the United States—I think it’s important to distinguish between using heraldry as a sign of official recognition of social status and the connotations of a coat of arms as perceived by the bearer and the mass of the general public. I think we can agree that the former would be unacceptable in the U.S.


Quote:

The visual language of heraldry is medieval; it at least tacitly perpetuates the values of a feudal world that had a fairly rigid, discriminatory rank/class structure.


I’m not sure that this is inevitably so. Consider these two coats of arms:

 

http://www.pyramidsystems.com/images/DOC_Logo.jpg

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3a/Harvard_Wreath_Logo_1.svg/220px-Harvard_Wreath_Logo_1.svg.png

 

Do people who see either of these automatically associate them with medieval/feudal values, even subliminally? Those who recognize the second as belonging to Harvard University may well perceive class connotations, but more because of how they perceive Harvard, not because the device is on a shield.

 

I also think that how arms are seen is largely culture-bound. Does a German looking at this house in Mittenwald, Bavaria, perceive the arms painted on the facade as having feudal/medieval connotations? Does he see them as an assertion of the family’s class superiority to others?

 

http://www.wappen.com/images/Lueftlmalerei.jpg

 

I can’t say for sure, but it’s hard for me to believe, given how widespread this sort of thing is in Upper Bavaria, Tyrol, etc., that there could possibly be much social cachet to bearing and displaying arms this way. Let me pick up on this again in a moment.


Quote:

If heraldic additaments like coronets of rank posit a claim to superior status, then the escutcheon alone must denote some kind of status beyond that of ordinary citizen.


This seems completely incorrect. Consider:

 

http://www.diyjerseyshop.com/bmz_cache/8/8f62199b2b5580057ffafbf4316e059a.image.280x280.jpg http://www.huliq.com/files/imagecache/article_main/news_article/images/200px-Royal_Monogram_of_Prince_William_of_Wales.svg_.png

 

If the coronet of rank with the script letter W posits a claim to superior status (it is the cyper of the Duke of Cambridge), then the script letter W alone must denote some kind of status beyond that of the ordinary…baseball team?


Quote:

At a minimum, arms proclaim, "The bearer of this escutcheon and his descendents are distinctive, and therefore deserve to be recognized and remembered."


I think this is correct. But I don’t think this necessarily implies what follows:


Quote:

One could be forgiven for taking the use of armorial devices to express a connection to an illustrious family line that stretches back to the Middle Ages (what with the shields and helmets, and charges like griffons and dragons, and so forth),


I don’t think this is actually how the use of armorial devices by non-nobles began. In a society in which everyone had a place, and everyone knew who occupied what rung on the ladder, for an artisan or peasant, however prosperous, to try to pass as a noble would have been absurd. Certainly one couldn’t imply nobility with a coat of arms on which the charges were a plowshare and a sheaf of rye, or three leather-tanning knives, or a housemark—all charges typical of non-noble/non-knightly heraldry in the early period.

 

Instead, my theory is that the adoption of heraldic arms by non-noble people as early as the 13th century were actually expressing something different, or rather three things, in which these people resembled the nobles without being nobles:

 

1. Freedom. It is noteworthy that peasant arms appear in the areas of Europe where peasants actually held their land by freehold tenure or the equivalent (rather than simply working it as serfs). Other than that, most of the early arms of non-nobles belonged to city-dwellers, precisely because "town air made one free." This, I think, was the first prerequisite for one to feel entitled to use heraldic devices—one had to "own" oneself. When the medieval heraldic theorists said that any man had the right to assume arms for himself, I think what they meant was any free man; a serf had no rights whatsoever.

 

2. Eligibility to participate in governance. I would posit hypothetically that the sense of a particular society as to who could bear heraldic arms tracked closely with the legalities of who could rule. I can’t prove this, but it might be testable through a series of case studies comparing the use of arms by burghers in various cities with the breadth of the franchise, or how high or low the bar was set for holding public office.

 

3. Continuity. By achieving a certain level of prosperity, a burgher or peasant was able to build up a legacy to be passed on to future generations. This created a consciousness of continuity, which is what marks of family identity signified. Education meant literacy; literacy meant written records, which in turn meant the consciousness of family history. And so on.


Quote:

...or to express an affirmation by some higher authority that he is the peer of those who have such connections, and to feel that using them when one does not have such connections, literally or figuratively, is at best affected and at worst fraudulent.


I’m not sure what Fred is saying here. Horace Round in the early 20th century took great glee in showing how the College of Arms itself helped people claim fraudulent connections to families with illustrious histories (Spencer to Le Despenser, most notoriously), but the affirmation by higher authority didn’t make the connection true, either literally or figuratively. And how would this apply to those using arms in societies where there was no higher authority involved? I’m just lost on this one.


Quote:

If this weren’t an appropriate, natural, even fairly well-informed point of view to take, no one would be at pains to outline a contrary position (cf., Barton).


Isn’t the same true of the heraldic theorists of the 16th-18th centuries who were at pains to outline the very position that Barton undertakes to contradict? I can’t remember his name, but I was reading one French heraldic theorist of the early 18th century who asserted in one part of his treatise that only nobles could bear arms, then later discussed the rules for the use of arms by non-nobles (no timbres, i.e., helms, coronets, crests, etc.), and finally tried to explain that non-nobles were permitted to bear devices that were indistinguishable from arms, but were in fact not arms because (wait for it) only nobles could bear arms.

 

Such theories—in England and Scotland read "gentility" for "nobility"—obviously gained a great deal of traction, and thanks to their being enforced in England obviously enjoyed tacit acceptance among many in the newly independent United States. But not among all. There are cases of some prominent men who destroyed their bookplates or melted down the family silver to express their rejection of the association. But many equally did not see their arms that way. Was the Quaker botanist John Bartram lying when he said that he considered his arms a mark of family identity, not a claim of social superiority?

 

We’ve talked a lot about attitudes of the Founding Fathers toward equality and hierarchy.  I think the point relevant to heraldry is that by the late 1700s, the distinction between "gentleman" and "burgess/burgher/bourgeois" had blurred to the point of ceasing to exist, as had the line between gentleman and yeoman.  For example, one of the principal rules of duelling was that a duel could be fought only between social equals.  Yet in the United States in the early 19th century we find duels between Congressmen and hotel keepers, between judges and editors.  This is a clear indication that consciousness of hard and fast class categories had disappeared.  I’m not arguing that this meant the U.S. had no class structure.  In fact, I think we have a class structure of enormous, enormous complexity.

 

I don’t believe that the English class structure was ever so clearly defined as the Fox-Davies formula equating armigerous with gentle would suggest, but certainly by the time Barton wrote (about 1815) the American class structure was too amorphous to permit that equation, at least if it meant restricting the ambit of the term "gentleman."  In fact, going back to my point about medieval adoption of arms reflecting in part an awareness of freedom and eligibility for governance, I think we could say that all these categories morphed into something best described by "bourgeoisie" in the old, pre-Marxist sense of the word.  Note that etymologically, "bourgeois" and "citizen" both have to do with status as a full member of a city.  We extended "citizen" to refer to the political system beyond the bounds of the city.  In other words, what I’m groping to articulate is this:  just as the burgher/burgess/freeman/bourgeois of a medieval city felt himself entitled to adopt a coat of arms as an expression of the independent, free, enduring identity of himself and his family, so the citizen of the United States (as Barton said) was legitimately entitled to do the same.  But it took someone to articulate this to offset the damage done by the "only the recognized gentry may have arms" theory, a theory that was always at odds with the facts.  The work of overcoming the older misconception is still in progress.


Quote:

In any case, the care given to the design of the blazon alone, and to gaining the knowledge necessary to blazon correctly to begin with—forgetting any actual emblazonments—is prima facie evidence that a coat of arms makes a claim to special status for its bearer. So enough with this, "All my coat of arms expresses is kinship" stance, I say.


So the display of a poorly designed coat of arms by someone ignorant of heraldry is less of a claim to specialness than a well-designed one? The display of a bucket-shop coat of arms, or of the arms of someone famous from centuries past with a shoddily researched pedigree to back it up is then presumably a statement of egalitarianism.

 

When I say that "all my coat of arms expresses is kinship," I consider that to include the idea that kinship exists across time. It is therefore an assertion, or at least an aspiration, for the durability of my family, or to be specific my great-grandfather’s descendants, over the centuries to come. And by extension, yes, an expression of the hope that McMillans 200 years from now will be conscious and proud of whatever those who founded the arms and bore them through the generations had accomplished and contributed—and even a consciousness and shame about whatever negative things any of us may do or have done.

 

This, I think, is the same intrinsic meaning that is inherent in the arms of a Radziwill, a Scrope, a Spinola, a Menendez. The coat of arms binds together Radziwills across geography and across time. The difference is that the family identity evoked by the arms of those future Radziwills won’t include descent from the early pioneer settlers of Alabama, unfortunately for them.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
15 January 2012 14:08
 

James Dempster;91753 wrote:

Possibly to the 21st century mind it does, but there were fees associated (in the UK anyway) with the more obvious honours of knighthood and peerage. There are several cases in the Victorian period of the crown paying (note, they weren’t waived) the fees of people, often in the military, who couldn’t otherwise afford them. As far as I know there were also "fees" associated with honours in an earlier period, though often in kind and/or a form of largesse.

The difference is surely one involving who makes the first approach. An honour was a gift, even if it had strings attached. Arms are normally a grant (a consession) upon application.

 

James


I agree with James that the key difference is the latter.  I would love to figure out who first suggested that an English or Scottish grant of arms was an honor from the Crown.  I do know that when Fox-Davies (writing as "X") put forward that formula circa 1900, it was roundly ridiculed precisely on the grounds that a coat of arms was something one bought from the kings of arms, not something offered by the Crown as either a matter of pure favor or merit.

 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  10-03-2009
 
 
 
15 January 2012 14:29
 

Patrilineal inheritance of arms seems to support two final class distinctions in addition to any higher perceived demarcation: male and female.