Official US Arms Granting Authority

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
03 February 2012 15:12
 

Fred White;92183 wrote:

I don’t think anyone here is arguing that arms confer status. What I have been arguing is that they are generally understood to reflect status. However hard it is to define the social distinction they make, they do make it. Whether that ought to be the case is another question, but there it is, and my feeling is that that’s the basic reason why the federal government is unlikely to ever sponsor an arms registering authority. On some inescapable level, it would just smack too much of the world our founders rejected.


Fred’s argument is also a large part of the reasoning behind the purposeful neglect by successive Spanish governments in appointing one or more new Cronistas de Armas to replace Vicente de Cadenas.

 

Arms are, like surnames, a way to identify an individual and a family.  But for better or worse, both here in the USA and everywhere else that arms are used, arms are also seen by many as a sign of social distinction.  The AHS should attempt to educate any who show interest in the subject, but most people (who even know that personal heraldry even exists) will continue with the misguided general perception of arms as some sort of display of social rank.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
03 February 2012 15:52
 

Common misconceptions are—well—common.  That doesn’t IMO change the initial premise re: what arms "ought NOT" to be; and IMarsrrO (admittedly rabid small-r republican) those of us who know better, should focus on emphasizing what we believe should be rather than condoning what we know should not be.

 
Michael Y. Medvedev
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Y. Medvedev
Total Posts:  844
Joined  18-01-2008
 
 
 
03 February 2012 15:58
 

Fred White;92183 wrote:

[...]What I have been arguing is that they are generally understood to reflect status [...]

... of a "mere human", I presume. His As-Good-As-Anyship the Armiger smile

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
03 February 2012 17:34
 

Luis Cid;92196 wrote:

The AHS should attempt to educate any who show interest in the subject, but most people (who even know that personal heraldry even exists) will continue with the misguided general perception of arms as some sort of display of social rank.


But why is that general perception misguided? It seems to me that it’s simply accurate. The AHS is right to take the position that any American is within his legal rights to bear arms, but as Joe has been wont to point out in quoting 1Corinthians in connection with the supporters discussion, not everything that is permissible is advisable.

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
03 February 2012 18:20
 

Fred White;92207 wrote:

But why is that general perception misguided? It seems to me that it’s simply accurate. The AHS is right to take the position that any American is within his legal rights to bear arms, but as Joe has been wont to point out in quoting 1Corinthians in connection with the supporters discussion, not everything that is permissible is advisable.


It is misguided because there are many individuals who have inherited arms from ancestors who are not of the upper classes and who are themselves not upper class.  In France and Switzerland the better part of all those who bear inherited arms are the decendents of middle class commoners.  The great majority of existing Spanish arms originated with noble families, but in Spain the great majority of noble (hidalgo) families were, and continue to be, middle class - not upper-class,  rich, or famous.  In the USA most of the first armigers in New England were very far from being rich, famous, or noble.  The association of using arms with proclaming a higher social position is in the case of many armigers correct, but it is an overbroad and exaggerated view that it is the case in all, or even most cases.

 

Having said the above, I do not entirely disagree with Joe’s 1Corinthians that not everything that is permissible is advisable. wink

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
03 February 2012 18:51
 

Luis Cid;92209 wrote:

The association of using arms with proclaming a higher social position is in the case of many armigers correct, but it is an overbroad and exaggerated view that it is the case in all, or even most cases.


That’s precisely it, though. The use of arms is generally understood to connote a) descent from a family of distinction, or b) the attainment of distinction in one’s own right, and for good reason. That there always have been some armigers (I’m skeptical that a sample representing all national heraldic traditions at any given time would ever support the contention of "most") who fit neither bill doesn’t undermine the validity of the general perception. That perception has a lot of continuity with the perception of ages past.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
03 February 2012 18:57
 

Michael F. McCartney;92198 wrote:

Common misconceptions are—well—common.  That doesn’t IMO change the initial premise re: what arms "ought NOT" to be; and IMarsrrO (admittedly rabid small-r republican) those of us who know better, should focus on emphasizing what we believe should be rather than condoning what we know should not be.


What would it mean to "know better" in this matter?

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
03 February 2012 19:07
 

Michael F. McCartney;92198 wrote:

Common misconceptions are—well—common.  That doesn’t IMO change the initial premise re: what arms "ought NOT" to be; and IMarsrrO (admittedly rabid small-r republican) those of us who know better, should focus on emphasizing what we believe should be rather than condoning what we know should not be.


With all due respect, I think this is condescension masquerading as populism. Or perhaps it’s a kind of reverse snobbery. Either way, people have perfectly good, historical reasons for holding on to the conception of heraldry you hope to overturn. It may be common, but it isn’t mistaken.

 

Of course, with the era of Cafe Press upon us, the day may not be too distant when heraldry is primarily experienced as decoration for coffee mugs and t-shirts—when it is primarily associated with cheap consumer goods, in other words. But even then, I doubt the federal government would form an agency to regulate it.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
05 February 2012 20:06
 

Fred:

"With all due respect, I think this is condescension masquerading as populism. Or perhaps it’s a kind of reverse snobbery. Either way, people have perfectly good, historical reasons for holding on to the conception of heraldry you hope to overturn. It may be common, but it isn’t mistaken."

 

No more a reverse snobbery than the popular American belief that there is no honor (and certainly no foreign honor) higher than the honor of being an American citizen.

 

Heraldry is merely a rather minor subset of the overall American social picture at any point in time.  Our Guidelines are largely based on compatibility with American laws and values; and a (the?) overriding theme in American laws and values have been to retain what we believe fits us, and reject what does not.

 

Thus our common law originated in English common law, retaining that which fits within our values and pruning what we see as incompatible.  Our Guidelines do the same with the English (and other foreign) heraldic practices—including notions of what heraldry is or should be here.

 

And just as notions of social caste are considered profoundly incompatible with American values generally, in the (relatively minor) sub-set of American heraldry, notions of arms as symbols of social standing are likewise profoundly out of place.

 

Do some people still yearn for or cling to beliefs in their social superiority to many of their fellow citizens?  Of course—but that is IMO a basically un-American view of what is appropriate in our society.  The same is IMO true as applied to heraldry in America.

 

Heraldry here has no special status outside of the broader context of American society and values—and any inconsistent form or view of heraldry is essentially as foreign a concept as the social stratification that may exist, and be reflected in the heraldic traditions and practices, of this or that foreign country.  To each it’s own; every nation has the right to its own traditions and cultural values, in heraldry as in the rest of life.  We can respect those differences, cultural and heraldic, while rejecting—and when necessary opposing—their relevance here.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
05 February 2012 23:53
 

Michael F. McCartney;92246 wrote:

No more a reverse snobbery than the popular American belief that there is no honor (and certainly no foreign honor) higher than the honor of being an American citizen.


I doubt any American would acknowledge the existence of a legal status higher than that of being American citizen, but I bet a majority would say that being a baptized Christian—for instance—is a higher honor. But let’s suppose that, in any case, Americans view citizenship as an honor. I guess we would then have to say that they believe in hereditary honors, wouldn’t we?


Quote:

And just as notions of social caste are considered profoundly incompatible with American values generally, in the (relatively minor) sub-set of American heraldry, notions of arms as symbols of social standing are likewise profoundly out of place.


"Caste" is a pretty loaded term, and "caste" and "class" are not one and the same. I’m talking about the latter, and I don’t see how anyone can deny that symbols of it are widely embraced here.


Quote:

Do some people still yearn for or cling to beliefs in their social superiority to many of their fellow citizens?  Of course—but that is IMO a basically un-American view of what is appropriate in our society.  The same is IMO true as applied to heraldry in America.


Believing oneself to be legally superior to his fellow citizens is profoundly un-American. Believing oneself to be more distinguished than some portion of his fellow citizens is not necessarily attractive, but it isn’t un-American at all. We’ve always believed social mobility should be possible, but I challenge you to identify a moment when more than a relatively tiny minority of Americans have wanted to have a truly classless society.

 

My argument is that, owing to the history of heraldry (which antedates the history of the U.S. by about 600 years, but has been perpetuated here as well), bearing coat armor is a social distinction—a somewhat ambiguous one, and not a terribly grand one, but a social distinction all the same. Anyone here is within his legal rights to claim that distinction in roughly the same way that anyone is within his legal rights to wear apparel suggesting that he belongs to a particular club, whether he does or not. One might protest that a coat of arms in the American context claims only that one belongs to a certain family, but I just don’t think that quite captures it. A coat of arms says not only that you belong to a certain family, but that you belong to a certain kind of family (or that you are starting such a family), a family that is just a bit better than some other families. Even the 1914 report of the COHNEHGS, which is pointed to as justification for the view that there can be nothing phony or otherwise inappropriate about a coat of arms as long as it "tells no genealogical lie," effectively acknowledges that a coat of arms is not merely a visual counterpart to a surname, but "a distinctive and hereditary mark . . . needed for other purposes."

 

Bottom line: our government tends not to get involved with adjudicating matters of social status. Personal heraldry is basically in the social sphere, not the legal sphere, so the likelihood of our ever having a U.S. Arms Granting/Registering/Authenticating/Whatever Authority is nil.

 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  10-03-2009
 
 
 
06 February 2012 02:50
 

Somebody Influential;92258 wrote:

I doubt any American would acknowledge the existence of a legal status higher than that of being American citizen,


I hold my status as being born a native Californian in highest honor… United States citizenship is far far below this in importance. Just sayin’. smile

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
06 February 2012 13:49
 

Fred, I agree with pretty much everything you stated in your excellent replay to Mike; I would only add that most people who display personal/family arms in the USA today do not do so to proclaim any sort of higher social standing in the community. Of course many people who display arms in the USA do do so with the intent, at least in part, to proclaim as special standing for themselves and their lineage - but such intended use is neither good nor bad, and certainly not un-American.

We in the AHS should certainly be honest about all of the above, but at the same time always seek to educate our members and all those who have at least a passing interest in heraldry that it’s first and most important purpose is identity.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
06 February 2012 16:05
 

Luis Cid;92273 wrote:

I would only add that most people who display personal/family arms in the USA today do not do so to proclaim any sort of higher social standing in the community.


I just can’t agree with this. The statement of higher social standing may be very modest (i.e., "I’m just a bit better than the non-armiger because I ascribe to a set of values that is somewhat superior to his, have ancestors of some small historical note, etc."), it may be naive and comically ineffective ("I’m really looking forward to using those armorial paper plates I got from Cafe Press at my son’s first birthday party!!!"), but assuming the armiger has any grasp at all of the history of heraldry elsewhere and in the U.S., he should perceive that the public use of arms asserts social status somewhere above the mean.

 

Matters might be different if the NEHGS had aggressively acted on the following observation by the 1914 COH: "[The use of a coat of arms], as matters stand to-day, involves a false pretense only in this one respect, that it now seems to say that the arms originated in England or some other European country, and that he who uses them claims that his family was armigerous before the emigration. But the use of such arms would be purged of all falsehood if the practice of using them were recognized and if the facts were made a matter of quasi-public record in the archives of a Society like this." If they had established something approaching a quasi-public record of all arms in use, old and new, in the U.S. a century ago, the notion that arms are simply visual surnames might have taken root by now. But curiously, the NEHGS never did any such thing. Yes, it has kept records, but has published only selections of them and only very occasionally, clinging to a kind of armorial apartheid whereby it designates arms granted overseas as "registered" while those assumed here are merely "recorded". The upshot is that, on a certain level, the NEGHS would seem to have assented to the idea that the use of a coat of arms says that the armiger’s family was armigerous long ago and far away and/or that the armiger is worthy of being considered the peer of ancient worthies (if you will). Perhaps the ACH (or, if it is ever revived, the USHR) will, in the fulness of time, change the paradigm, but I think it is far from having done so.


Quote:

Of course many people who display arms in the USA do do so with the intent, at least in part, to proclaim as special standing for themselves and their lineage - but such intended use is neither good nor bad, and certainly not un-American.


"At least in part" is all I’m saying.


Quote:

We in the AHS should certainly be honest about all of the above, but at the same time always seek to educate our members and all those who have at least a passing interest in heraldry that it’s first and most important purpose is identity.


I agree, and I don’t think our educational materials need to include any official utterance on heraldry’s other purpose at all. As matters stand, the situation speaks for itself, and if the paradigm really changes, the situation will still speak for itself.

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
06 February 2012 17:49
 

Fred, I must admit that I have never seen a study of why people display family arms in our country.  I’ve only known personaly maybe a dozen or so people here in the U.S. that display arms (this dosen’t include anyone I know only online).  Therefore it is possible that I am giving my fellow U.S. armigers the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their motives for using inherited or newly granted/adopted arms. You could possibly be right Fred - I suppose I would simply prefer that you weren’t.wink

 
Benjamin Thornton
 
Avatar
 
 
Benjamin Thornton
Total Posts:  449
Joined  04-09-2009
 
 
 
06 February 2012 21:15
 

I’ve made a point of disagreeing with Fred in another thread, so I suppose it’s fair to admit I agree generally with his interpretations here.  Rightly or wrongly, I agree many people perceive the use of armory -or in fact use it themselves - as a social claim of sorts.  The reach and grasp of that claim may vary depending on geographical, historical, or social circumstances, but in many cases it is there.