A horse is a horse, of course, of course…Hey, Michael, are those Trigger and Silver?

I think it would be a good idea for the site to set up a section that is devoted to current and past debates in the field of heraldry.

I don’t mean a place for members to argue or that compiles old threads on fractious issues.  I mean a place that identifies the historical and comtemporary debates in the field, lists the arguments from both the pro and con sides, covers their history, and provides references from books on and experts in the field.  The entries should be like encyclopedia entries.

To begin with, there should be entries on technical, aesthetic, cultural, national, class, and ethnic issues, and they should reference each other where appropriate.

Having a dedicated space that has accurate, balanced, and exhaustive information will spare the dead horses repeated beatings in the public forums.

Newbies, like me, and lurkers can just be referred to the page.  They won’t have to search threads and sift through the personal issues older members have with each other, issues that sometimes cloud the information and guidance newbies are looking for.

Having such a page may also help to keep passions from getting inflamed among the old members. They won’t be drawn into the conversations if the newbies can just go to the page, read all of the referenced pros and cons of a issue, and make up their minds in private without feeling compelled to take sides just as they are being introduced to a topic.

That’s a good idea Trent. However, our Director of Education, Joe, is working on the “best practices” guidelines and in them this society rejects outright the use of supporters. Which is OK if that is what the society wants to do. However, in so doing there will be no pros on the issue only the cons. Again that is OK if that is the direction the society wants to go. Of course it was never up to a vote of the membership; probably because the side that is against them would win anyway so why waste everyone’s time with it. And perhaps most importantly one of the most knowledgeable men here, Joe, has worked too dang hard on all of them (the best practices) and his cons are reasonable, intelligent and support his argument well – and I personally reject that side of this argument, so that tells ya something.

From a basic educational standpoint your idea is logical and fair. However, from the educational standpoint of those who oppose their use it is a waste of time to list pros on the issue when the society is against them.

However, I love that you are so interested in helping the society to offer balanced viewpoints on issues for the education of newbies and lurkers and regulars. It is good to be that and I commend you on your suggestion. It is rather nice to see newbies getting so involved. Far too many people come here to get advice on creating their arms and run away never to contribute one iota to this great society and MB. So, I say kudos to you.

I am one of the newbies and I think it could be instructive. IMHO the use of supporters or not is a theme beyond the nationality of the armiger. U.S. citizen or not supporters have to be restricted. I don’t think we can use the argument that since some people is not under the rule of some official heraldic authority then it’s allowed to use whatever charges and ornaments they like. If we accept that reasoning, why not to use a nice royal crown?

Supporter have no universal meaning (?) but in the vast majority of traditions they where granted to noblemen.

My second point is about tradition. Heraldry is all about it. Nobody is going to be fined or put in jail for using color over color or metal over metal but everybody agrees that using those combinations is a major fault. Why… Tradition. In the same way nobody is going to be incarcerated for use supporters (in the U.S.) without having the right to display them but that vast majority of heraldry “aficionados” will agree that’s a major fault. The constant and rational use of those traditional rules has made heraldry a “visual” language that makes CoA heraldic devices and not just logos or marks.

From the practical point of view you’ll have many nodding heads in disapproval once people find out you adopted the supporters on your achievement. If you want to make an statement backing up the theory of total freedom of choice of the ornaments in American heraldry that will be one heck of a statement.

Note: My great grand father had depicted his CoA in a “supportant” eagle (Sable) –never knew why, probably artistic license- and under the Spanish law I could claim “ancestral use” to add such devise to may CoA something I won’t do since it’s origin is certainly unclear.

Aurelio… what to say… first I appreciate a foreigner’s perspective, so thank you my good man. However, here’s my thoughts on some of your specific points…

Quote:

I don’t think we can use the argument that since some people is not under the rule of some official heraldic authority then it’s allowed to use whatever charges and ornaments they like. If we accept that reasoning, why not to use a nice royal crown?

Apparently you did not read where I said there is a difference between the crowns and supporters. The difference being that crowns (whether of leaves in Roman times or metal in later times) have ALWAYS been associated with power the power that was held by an elite, if not privileged, segment of society. Whereas the supporter was first and foremost the domain of artistic expression by craftsmen and only latter appropriated by that narrow minority of power hungry nobles and monarchs. That is a HUGE difference my good man. And the difference is so striking that it can not be “logical” as in “line of reasoning” to associate the two. It is like comparing apples and oranges they are not the same at all.

Quote:

Supporter have no universal meaning (?) but in the vast majority of traditions they where granted to noblemen.

Only after they were stolen, as in appropriated for this minority, from the craftsmen who used them to decorate the arms they rendered. And if we are to use a “line of reasoning” argument voting, holding land, women’s rights, etc. all fall into this category. Since they were the privileges of the very few – the nobility and to that the male population – we should forsake them now because we are not worthy to use them as we are all not noble. That, my good friend, is highly illogical reasoning.

Quote:

My second point is about tradition. Heraldry is all about it. Nobody is going to be fined or put in jail for using color over color or metal over metal but everybody agrees that using those combinations is a major fault.

While I agree with this in principle it is not universal. There are several notable arms that are either metal on metal or color on color and they are valid COAs. Maybe not the best versions, but valid and certainly not visually ugly. However, tradition is one of the stronger reasons not to use supporters and it is the second reason I do not use them personally.

Quote:

The constant and rational use of those traditional rules has made heraldry a “visual” language that makes CoA heraldic devices and not just logos or marks.

Agreed. And again tradition is one of the two very good reasons not to use them, unlike “it is the domain of the nobility” argument which holds no water for citizens of republics which do not recognize such archaic institutions or the idiotic/elitist/snobbish “snicker test”.

Quote:

From the practical point of view you’ll have many nodding heads in disapproval once people find out you adopted the supporters on your achievement.

And here is the ugly head of the “snicker test” again. With all due respect, who the Hades cares what others think? So if you wear a brown belt with black shoes are you subject to the same snicker test? What is fashionable and ‘trend chic’ today is subject to the “snicker test” tomorrow. What if you are a woman who wears her style of clothing and then gets sexually harassed – I mean this argument of ‘well others thought you were inviting comment’ is the same there as it is here, as that is the argument people tried to make for a long time thus putting the blame on the person and not the snob, or in this case sexual perv. This is absolutely the most ridiculous argument of all against the use of supporters and it is elitist and snobbish… something that is definitely a leftover of the nobiliary’s feeling of superiority over the rest of use common folk and one I will be glad to see go the way of the dinosaur.

Quote:

If you want to make an statement backing up the theory of total freedom of choice of the ornaments in American heraldry that will be one heck of a statement.

Agreed. But, again, statements or what others think is not the issue. Others think heraldry is wrong, so if we are worried about what others think and what kind of statement we are making why even be involved in heraldry? In truth it is it’s history both pro and con, which includes traditional use within a nation state like the USA, and whether it is suitable in a federal republic like America given our republican sentiments that is the very best reason(s) not to use supporters. Not what others might think when shaking their heads in disdainful disapproval or what some elite minority of yesteryear thinks is kosher for people they have nothing to do with or those who care what those people think.

Again, while I support the right of use for individual Americans, I personally do not use them because 1, they are seen as an affront to republican sensibilities and 2, the American heraldic tradition does not support its use very well. Still, those two things are important to me, but not strong enough to eliminate their use by others who choose to. Of course they are strong enough for me to not only not use them but to support this society’s “best practices” guidelines that suggests not to use them – just not for the snobbish ‘snicker test’ crowd or the ‘only nobles use them’ crowd reasons. But, again it is only a "nest prectice" situation and we can not say much more than that.

I love this debate dead horse or not… it gives newbies much to think about… heck it gives me much to think about and I spend way too much time here posting anyway! I can’t wait for Joe or the good Fr. Guy to post, for while I disagree with their notion that is is not right to use them at all, they offer much information and knowledge as to why not to use them and they helped form my mind into why not to use them even if I can’t go all the way and say that no one really should use them.

Donnchadh wrote:

the supporter was first and foremost the domain of artistic expression by craftsmen and only latter appropriated by that narrow minority of power hungry nobles and monarchs. That is a HUGE difference my good man.

Here are some English words and their original meanings:

Word  - Original Meaning

awful - deserving of awe

brave - cowardice (as in bravado)

counterfeit - legitimate copy

girl - young person of either sex

guess - take aim

luxury - sinful self indulgence

neck - parcel of land (as in neck of the woods)

notorious - famous

nuisance - injury, harm

quick - alive (as in quicksilver)

sophisticated - corrupted

tell - to count (as in bank teller)

truant - beggar

Here is a sentence: Denny, who is an unsophisticated, awful girl, is not brave and likes to tell his counterfeit bills.

It is a good thing the educated reader is wise enough to interpret the sentence using original meanings.  Or, unless the sentence is placed in the historical context, does it not mean what it says?

lemme see if I get what you are saying..

What Denny is saying would have been true if we were in the time period when supporters were not an armorial monopoly of the nobility, but since we live in a time when heraldic supporters ARE in fact a symbol of nobility, we should go with out current time since that is how people will interpret them???

Hope I understood ya!

MohamedHossam wrote:

lemme see if I get what you are saying..

What Denny is saying would have been true if we were in the time period when supporters were not an armorial monopoly of the nobility, but since we live in a time when heraldic supporters ARE in fact a symbol of nobility, we should go with out current time since that is how people will interpret them???

 

Hope I understood ya!

Yes, that is it.  If an American wants to create and display arms today with supporters and wants them to mean that they are decorative only, then I think he would need to display them in the proper historical context, e.g., he would display them in a history book about the appropriate period.  Otherwise, the modern meaning is what is communicated.

OMG. Denny I didn’t know it was such a sensitive subject. I mean, what is our position about supporters and other ornaments.

I am sorry if I hurt somebody’s sensibility or values, it was not my intention.

Well I’d like to clarify some points (not to increase the intensity of the debate)

1. Crowns not ALWAYS had been (are) associated with power, even in heraldry it depends in the context they are used and there’s a bunch of references of crowns being used as recognition of sportive achievements and hats to be used as symbol of authority and rank. But this is not a forum about headwear’s history.

http://www.wealden.gov.uk/Images/crown.gif

http://www.dancewithshadows.com/society/images/crown.jpg

http://www.tudorartisans.com/images\picture_079.jpg

No one of the crowns above could be interpreted as sign of authority or nobility.

2. I am huge fan of heraldry but compare the right to bear arms (specifically the right to display supporters) with the right of suffrage, property, due process of law, etc is a little bit over the top. If the U.N. add the right to bear arms to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights I’ll be willing to change my mind.

3. I agree that we can do whatever we want as long is not against the law. Nevertheless we live in a world surrounded by other norms beyond the legal ones. That’s why you use a dinner jacket when required by your hostess or wear something else than a top tank and short in church. The uncommon use of codes will bring some kind of uncommon reaction from the rest of the community.

4.
Quote:

I personally do not use them because 1, they are seen as an affront to republican sensibilities

Denny,
Quote:

With all due respect, who the Hades cares what others think?

Most important I am NOT defending any feudal right here but the possibility of impersonation. The use of supporter in a specific context could misled the interpretation of those arms…

"But soon," he cried, with sad and solemn enthusiasm, "I shall die, and what I now feel be no longer felt. Soon these burning miseries will be extinct. I shall ascend my funeral pile triumphantly, and exult in the agony of the torturing flames. The light of that conflagration will fade away; my ashes will be swept into the sea by the winds. My spirit will sleep in peace; or if it thinks, it will not surely think thus. Farewell."

He sprung from the cabin-window, as he said this, upon the ice-raft which lay close to the vessel. He was soon borne away by the waves and lost in darkness and distance.

—Frankenstein by Mary Shelley

*** and thus, the very very dead horse floated off into the night.

The End

DRShorey wrote:

He sprung from the cabin-window, as he said this, upon the ice-raft which lay close to the vessel. He was soon borne away by the waves and lost in darkness and distance.

Everyone, jump on the ice raft…..!

Denny,

An infomational section devoted to debates in heraldry—something with referenced encyclopeida-like entries—does not have to be an "either/or" proposition. It can easily co-exist along with a "Best Practices" section.

Surely the people here who are best able to do it wouldn’t object.

Mike, I readily agree that at one time they do not mean what they mean today. I simply qualify that by saying that it should not mean that today because these nobles and their privileges are in fact going the way of the dinosaur the world over. And we are not a part of that culture, or as Mike M says soil, as we cut ourselves off form that some time ago when our forefathers founded this great nation by turning the then “known” (as in how Lord Cornwallis felt when a bunch of rag-tag upstart commoners destroyed the might and power if not the will of the British nobiliary system) world upside down … now what was that song that was played at his surrender … ???

very intersting thread, well debated and thought out.

Denny- Even tho I disagree with you, I have to give you full credit for standing your ground and defending your position against, well, just about everyone!;)

Donnchadh wrote:

And we are not a part of that culture, or as Mike M says soil, as we cut ourselves off form that some time ago when our forefathers founded this great nation ...

George Washington rejected the title of King even though most people wanted to call him that.  Certainly, the founding fathers could have defined "King" as we do "President."  But they did not.  That is because "king" implied something in their English tradition that they rejected.  "In your face, Britain!"

In the tradition of our founding fathers, if we want to stick it to the British (nothing personal, my British friends), then we should reject supporters.  And symbolically, we can "stand" without the support of nobility and its trappings.