Official US Arms Granting Authority

 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  10-03-2009
 
 
 
27 January 2012 22:35
 

Fred White;92056 wrote:

Everyone understands that the microcosm of familial armory occupies (or pretends to occupy) a higher rung on the social ladder than the macrocosm of professional sports livery.


Come now Fred, EVERYONE understands? That is completely false. MOST people are never exposed to heraldic displays of social status. Sports livery on the other hand is almost universally accepted as socially distinguishing in this country and many others. Unless you have lived in a gilded box and never visited any of the infinite small towns across America, over half of the successful males in this country own either a baseball hat or some other sports logo emblazoned on some item of clothing which he wears with pride as an established member of his affiliated pack (those who value the same logo). These sports logos serve as symbols of a greater "family" for such loyal adherents to a team affinity. If you doubt the power of this, search for "football (soccer) riot" and/or "soccer hooligans" on YouTube. How is this not an extended and more prevalent version of status iconography than heraldry? You are correct, my reality is definitely alternate from yours sir. wink

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
27 January 2012 22:43
 

The following passage is from James, Lord Bryce, The American Commonwealth (1889):


Quote:

For a man’s ancestors to have come over in the Mayflower is in America much what their having come over with William the Conqueror used to be in England.  The descendants of any of the Revolutionary heroes, such as John Adams, Edmund Randolph, Alexander Hamilton, and the descendants of any famous man of colonial times, such as the early governors of Massachusetts from William Endicott downwards, or of Jonathan Edwards, or of Eliot the apostle of the Indians, are regarded with a certain amount of interest, and their legitimate pride in such an ancestry excites no disapproval.  In the Eastern cities, and at watering-places like Newport, one begins to see carriages with armorial bearings on their panels, but most people appear to disapprove or ridicule this as a piece of Anglomania, more likely to be practised by a parvenu than by the scion of a really old family.


Emphasis added.

 

So in polite circles in the 1880s, according to one of the most perceptive observers ever of things American, the display of a coat of arms had exactly the opposite connotation of what Fred tells us such a display necessarily has.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
27 January 2012 22:55
 

Jeffrey Boyd Garrison;92065 wrote:

Come now Fred, EVERYONE understands? That is completely false. MOST people are never exposed to heraldic displays of social status. Sports livery on the other hand is almost universally accepted as socially distinguishing in this country and many others. Unless you have lived in a gilded box and never visited any of the infinite small towns across America, over half of the successful males in this country own either a baseball hat or some other sports logo emblazoned on some item of clothing which he wears with pride as an established member of his affiliated pack (those who value the same logo). These sports logos serve as symbols of a greater "family" for such loyal adherents to a team affinity. If you doubt the power of this, search for "football (soccer) riot" and/or "soccer hooligans" on YouTube. How is this not an extended and more prevalent version of status iconography than heraldry? You are correct, my reality is definitely alternate from yours sir. wink


Perhaps we’re miscommunicating, Jeff, but I think you’re supporting my contention. I am well acquainted with the entire spectrum of American society—Yale to jail, you might say—so the use of clothing and accessories advertising pro sports franchises to state affiliation, etc., is perfectly familiar to me. That it is more prevalent than heraldry goes without saying. That it makes an analogous status claim does not.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
27 January 2012 23:04
 

Jeffrey Boyd Garrison;92064 wrote:

That is perhaps YOUR intention in bearing arms Fred (and nothing wrong with that), though I believe not every armiger’s intention.

Personally, I don’t seek to use arms to establish claim to additional honor (or lack thereof). I do however, use arms to be easily identifiable symbolically on the field (either the social field of the internet or anywhere else I choose to display it). This is in the same way people use other symbols of identification; it is not restricted to european heraldry. If others choose to heap accolades or scorn on my arms, then my armory is there for them to do so easily. That is my purpose, to appear on the radar for allies and friends to rally to and for others to react as they will. Most people of higher "station" than myself I know find the idea of heraldry to be pointless and/or laughable. It serves me not even slightly to advertise to them my own arms and to do so would definitely not be some assertion or demand for honor from them; I find it baffling that you could possibly think so. :neutral:


As I said, I don’t think it’s a question of intention.

 

What do you mean when you say you "use arms to be easily identifiable symbolically on the field . . . to appear on the radar for allies and friends to rally to and for others to react as they will"? Where is the field? What is the radar? Can you give examples?

 

What would count as "advertising" your arms?

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
27 January 2012 23:20
 

Joseph McMillan;92066 wrote:

The following passage is from James, Lord Bryce, The American Commonwealth (1889):

 

 

Emphasis added.

 

So in polite circles in the 1880s, according to one of the most perceptive observers ever of things American, the display of a coat of arms had exactly the opposite connotation of what Fred tells us such a display necessarily has.


For a whole host of reasons that should be obvious, this citation from Bryce hardly undermines my argument. To begin with, while displaying arms in a comparatively ostentatious way may be a failed effort to assert status, the nature of the assertion is nonetheless clear. No one could be perceived as a parvenu for displaying a coat of arms if the use of personal heraldry were not generally associated with some degree of prestige. The question being raised by Bryce’s informants is whether or not a coat of arms succeeds in signifying gentility when it is displayed in a particular fashion. The implication is not that families that are genuinely old and genteel don’t use coats of arms.

 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  10-03-2009
 
 
 
28 January 2012 00:12
 

Fred White;92069 wrote:

As I said, I don’t think it’s a question of intention.

What do you mean when you say you "use arms to be easily identifiable symbolically on the field . . . to appear on the radar for allies and friends to rally to and for others to react as they will"? Where is the field? What is the radar? Can you give examples?

 

What would count as "advertising" your arms?


To be clear, what I mean when I say symbolically identifiable is that rather than typing my name out, "Jeff Garrison," or stating it aloud, or some other mode of communicating my identity, my arms serve to symbolically (that is, a visual arrangement of dynamically interpreted symbols) to identify me effectively and uniquely at a glance.

 

"The radar" is a metaphor I (and many others) use conversationally for being personally distinctive and easily identifiable amidst surrounding and competing messages. Someone who is "under the radar" is avoiding detection or notice, whereas someone who is a "blip on the radar" intentionally self identifies for the convenience of himself and others.

 

"The field" in this case is another metaphor, representing any context in which my arms would appear, whether a digital message board environment, a scottish games gathering, a game of monopoly where I choose to use a miniature banner of my arms instead of a pewter shoe for my playing piece, etc.

 

I use "advertising" here to describe the idea that if do anything in front of someone of higher station (in my case, usually an employer or wealthy client), it is with their acceptance and approval or rejection and denial constantly in focus. If I do something they are not accustomed to, I had better be prepared to "sell it" to them if I want to stay employed and/or retain the client.  Thus, I will not openly and obviously display my use or assumption of armory for their notice if it would conflict with their perception of what is acceptable.

 

I should add that I make no assumption about your experience or lack thereof and stating that you must understand my examples unless you are trapped in a gilded box was probably phrased a bit too defensively and even hostile and for that I apologize.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
28 January 2012 00:36
 

Jeffrey Boyd Garrison;92071 wrote:

To be clear, what I mean when I say symbolically identifiable is that rather than typing my name out, "Jeff Garrison," or stating it aloud, or some other mode of communicating my identity, my arms serve to symbolically (that is, a visual arrangement of dynamically interpreted symbols) to identify me effectively and uniquely at a glance.

"The radar" is a metaphor I (and many others) use conversationally for being personally distinctive and easily identifiable amidst surrounding and competing messages. Someone who is "under the radar" is avoiding detection or notice, whereas someone who is a "blip on the radar" intentionally self identifies for the convenience of himself and others.

 

"The field" in this case is another metaphor, representing any context in which my arms would appear, whether a digital message board environment, a scottish games gathering, a game of monopoly where I choose to use a miniature banner of my arms instead of a pewter shoe for my playing piece, etc.

 

I use "advertising" here to describe the idea that if do anything in front of someone of higher station (in my case, usually an employer or wealthy client), it is with their acceptance and approval or rejection and denial constantly in focus. If I do something they are not accustomed to, I had better be prepared to "sell it" to them if I want to stay employed and/or retain the client.  Thus, I will not openly and obviously display my use or assumption of armory for their notice if it would conflict with their perception of what is acceptable.

 

I should add that I make no assumption about your experience or lack thereof and stating that you must understand my examples unless you are trapped in a gilded box was probably phrased a bit too defensively and even hostile and for that I apologize.


Thanks, but no worries.

 

We speak the same dialect of English, so certainly, I employ expressions like "below the radar," etc. My questions had to with the contexts in which you display a coat of arms. I appreciate your clarifying that.

 

The further question I would ask is, why a coat of arms and not some other image? You could be personally distinctive and easily identifiable by using an image of Bugs Bunny, but you don’t. What associations do you have with heraldry that make it appealing?

 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  10-03-2009
 
 
 
28 January 2012 02:34
 

Fred White;92072 wrote:

Thanks, but no worries.

We speak the same dialect of English, so certainly, I employ expressions like "below the radar," etc. My questions had to with the contexts in which you display a coat of arms. I appreciate your clarifying that.

 

The further question I would ask is, why a coat of arms and not some other image? You could be personally distinctive and easily identifiable by using an image of Bugs Bunny, but you don’t. What associations do you have with heraldry that make it appealing?


I choose heraldry because it has an antiquarian aesthetic which I am attracted to artistically and stylistically. Engaging in it’s display is a way to connect with others who share similar aesthetic preferences. I have had this affinity for as long as I can remember and so far as I know, it is something I value subjectively without regard to greater contemporary communal value systems.

 

I don’t choose symbols of mass consumption (such as Seahawks or Raiders logos, or even golden arches) to represent myself because I shun identification with an image which is designed to generate profit for an entity which is not aligned with my own purpose.

 

Bugs Bunny would actually be an icon worthy of consideration, though I feel that here is a case where my assumption of his image would truly be a claim to honor that is above my station. Perhaps Wiley E. Coyote would be more reasonably within my reach.

 

I don’t generate symbology for open display which is completely original or unique because I am a social creature after all, and a certain amount of herd protection is required for my comfort. Heraldry has just such a nice sized herd to be branded no worse than eccentric by those apathetic to it. This is not to say I haven’t given thought to this prior to having taken a much deeper and more serious interest in heraldry.

 

I also have an enduring interest in military history, especially revolving about the medieval and napoleonic periods. Related heraldic and vexillological study coincides with these interests and it makes sense that what one studies with enough attention, one often becomes identified with.

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
28 January 2012 04:28
 

I think it’s just easier that signing my name everywhere online - good picture is worth much!  <yes, I am kidding>

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
28 January 2012 09:20
 

Let us suppose we are dealing with someone who is a pure Jeffersonian.  He takes to heart "all men are created equal" in a way Jefferson himself never did.  He sees the fellow over there of an old Virginia gentry family (which may well mean the descendant of a prosperous Bristol butcher who was astute enough to buy up a few thousand acres of Tidewater real estate when it was cheap) using a coat of arms that said Bristol butcher made up for himself shortly after arrival in America.

Now George Butcher I, in assuming a coat of arms circa 1670, may well have been saying both "I am as good a gentleman as my neighbors with inherited arms" and "I am also better than the small farmers around me."  And his descendant G. Randolph Butcher VI may well believe that his possession of an old coat of arms signifies that he is still better than the multi-millionaire descendants the small farmer who found major coal deposits on his non-riverfront property.

 

So our pure Jeffersonian looks at G. Randolph’s coat of arms, likes the esthetic, and decides to study up on this heraldry stuff.  When he concludes—

 

"I, as an American citizen, can also assume a coat of arms.  After all, I’m just as good as Randy Butcher."

 

—there is no implication whatsoever that he is ipso facto better than all the other people around him who do not choose to have or use coats of arms.

 

To do something to show you’re just as good as someone else is a very American impulse.  One of the things that historically—and to this day—irritates many traditional upper class Europeans about the United States is the lack of deference shown by Americans of what they see as the lower classes.

 

A=B is not the same thing as A>B.

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

Joseph McMillan;92075 wrote:

Let us suppose we are dealing with someone who is a pure Jeffersonian.  He takes to heart "all men are created equal" in a way Jefferson himself never did.  He sees the fellow over there of an old Virginia gentry family (which may well mean the descendant of a prosperous Bristol butcher who was astute enough to buy up a few thousand acres of Tidewater real estate when it was cheap) using a coat of arms that said Bristol butcher made up for himself shortly after arrival in America.

Now George Butcher I, in assuming a coat of arms circa 1670, may well have been saying both "I am as good a gentleman as my neighbors with inherited arms" and "I am also better than the small farmers around me."  And his descendant G. Randolph Butcher VI may well believe that his possession of an old coat of arms signifies that he is still better than the multi-millionaire descendants the small farmer who found major coal deposits on his non-riverfront property.

 

So our pure Jeffersonian looks at G. Randolph’s coat of arms, likes the esthetic, and decides to study up on this heraldry stuff.  When he concludes—

 

"I, as an American citizen, can also assume a coat of arms.  After all, I’m just as good as Randy Butcher."

 

—there is no implication whatsoever that he is ipso facto better than all the other people around him who do not choose to have or use coats of arms.

 

To do something to show you’re just as good as someone else is a very American impulse.  One of the things that historically—and to this day—irritates many traditional upper class Europeans about the United States is the lack of deference shown by Americans of what they see as the lower classes.

 

A=B is not the same thing as A>B.


Parenthetically, it might be noted that upper class Asians also display this irritation at Americans’ lack of deference to "social betters" of different sorts—the aged, the more educated, the wealthier, etc.

 

Anyway, while A (pure Jeffersonian)=B (R. Butcher) is most assuredly not the same thing as A>B, it does not follow that if A believes A=B, he also believes C (all those third parties out there who have not assumed arms or dusted off existing ones they are prescriptively entitled to)=B, if only because he is aware that none of C up ‘til now has had the cojones to assume arms. A is still trying to distinguish himself, not launching an armorial insurrection. A is not saying that B is no more of a gentleman than anyone, but that B is no more of a gentleman than himself. Americans do hold that everyone has the same legal standing, but they do not hold that everyone has the same social standing. On the contrary, they display an avidity for creating elites and take only limited action to offset the feeling of disenfranchisement by many.

 
Michael Y. Medvedev
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Y. Medvedev
Total Posts:  844
Joined  18-01-2008
 
 
 
28 January 2012 14:14
 

I’ll try to abstain discussing what’s to be American, although many USA-Russia parallels come to mind. But, well, if you mention them, they’re cojones. It is nearly refreshing that tey are mentioned not in relation to the Colleone arms.

No dammit, I’ll probably add my two or three words… Whatever is the social mass culture, there is also a matter of being informed or disinformed as to this or that matter. For example, as to nature of arms. Whatever may be the mass presumptions common (or allegedly common) in America, let them know better what is heraldry - which is essentially about being different, not being better.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
28 January 2012 14:32
 

Michael Y. Medvedev;92084 wrote:

But, well, if you mention them, they’re cojones.


Gracias.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
28 January 2012 14:33
 

Michael Y. Medvedev;92084 wrote:

Whatever may be the mass presumptions common (or allegedly common) in America, let them know better what is heraldry - which is essentially about being different, not being better.


It’s not just about being different, it’s about being distinctive, and to assert distinctiveness is to assert superiority to the indistinct.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
28 January 2012 15:12
 

Fred White;92086 wrote:

It’s not just about being different, it’s about being distinctive, and to assert distinctiveness is to assert superiority to the indistinct.


There is nothing to be "indistinct."  There are only distinct, discrete, identifiable individuals.

 

Perhaps it would have made sense to say that the desire for personal and family distinctiveness was an assertion of superiority in a time and place in which the ordinary people were viewed as an undifferentiated mass.  The United States was founded on a different premise.