Donnchadh wrote:
...So, I agree it may, nay has, a meaning today that is different than what it was when it was created. My point is that since that world is on its death bed so to speak and certainly dead in the American context we should have no problem in re-establishing the original meaning to every man jack one who wants to.
Denny ....
[devil’s advocate mode=ON]
Judging from what you write above, I would think you are in favor of the liturgical changes implemented since 1962. 
[/advocate]
You know: all those ancient traditions that had developed over 1,962 years—all thrown out because "the meaning today is different than what it was when it was created", and a "return to origin" was pushed. High Altars .... mostly gone, along with the altar rails; Communion in the hand instituted; liturgical dancing; etc.
In other words .... the question about Supporters is not merely about the written "word", but "tradition". (Sound familiar?)
I would like to posit that Supporters are a form of "Sacred Tradition" within the "liturgy" of heraldry, with very specific rubrics—and such tradition should not be toyed with, even if the original meaning/usage has changed to what it is today. The meaning of Supporters changed incrementally and naturally—which is the best way for change to come about: organically.
Some of you guys are very funny! I like the Frankenstein quote.
Unfortunately, the dead horse graphic does not work in my browser?
Guy, I also like the church analogy. The older I get the more difficulty I have distinguishing between truth received in a propositional fashion and truth which has evolved through tradition. In my youth, my spirituality was all mental, but it is now much more right-brained, and _how_ something is said has become as important as _what_ is said. But as Denny says, that is very OT.
Regarding Cornwallis, I don’t think it was so much the end of the British nobiliary system as it was the difficulty there is in conquering (what had by then become) someone else’s country. This is a lesson repeatedly forgotten throughout history.
Kind regards,
/Charles
Guy Power wrote:
In other words .... the question about Supporters is not merely about the written "word", but "tradition". (Sound familiar?)
I would like to posit that Supporters are a form of "Sacred Tradition" within the "liturgy" of heraldry, with very specific rubrics—and such tradition should not be toyed with, even if the original meaning/usage has changed to what it is today. The meaning of Supporters changed incrementally and naturally—which is the best way for change to come about: organically.
Tradition in this sense differs from country to country in my country supporters mean nothing at all. In fact some of the oldest most noble families do not use them in their arms and some non noble families do, but we are all happy with this heraldry.
Andrew, thank you for the compliment. And at times it can feel like everyone. But it isn’t. Certainly it is the majority, but not as much as one might think. And, as for me at least, you must be willing to stand up and try at least to defend your positions or what are you? That is why I like people who say what they believe and stand by it even when I, or the whole world, totally disagree with them – at least they don’t care what people think by wetting their finger and pointing it in the air to see which way the wind blows instead they live by the standard of this is who I am and this is why. I respect those people and try to live as one of those people. But, that’s me and sometimes it makes me loyal to a fault … sigh.
Guy, playing devil’s advocate is a good thing. That is a very good analogy. However, while I am a Latin Mass man myself and can’t wait for and keep praying for a universal return to the Latin Mass, I also accept that there are “t”raditions (small “t” emphasis) that can and have always changed over time including the format of the liturgy. It is only the “T”raditions (large “T” emphasis) that can not – like the dogma dealing with the Holy Trinity. So, while I like the old ways and prefer the old ways and pray for a return to the old ways I also begrudgingly recognize that on those things the Church can change even when that change is ugly, which a significant part of the Novus Ordo Misae is IMHO (especially the altering of the canonical prayer!). So, I’m not exactly sure on which side of this argument supporters come down on. Are they “t”raditions, or, “T”raditions. I think they are “t”raditions and are therefore eligible for change, whereas I see a royal crown as a “T”radition.
Charles, good doc, I think my point about Cornwallis still holds water. His vision, as was that of the nobiliary/monarchy of Britain was that America – the land, people, institutions, etc – were the same as in Britain, which includes that sort of caste system that was so much a part of the British way of life. When our forefathers defeated them the world was truly turned upside down because no longer did the British system hold sway. Instead what emerged was IMHO (ugly American or not) the greatest man-made institution the world has ever seen: a democratic republic where men are free of the shackles of the past. So, for me his choosing of that tune was very poignant indeed for the world was turned upside down.
As a side note on this I do not want to say that a system like what the Brits have is a bad thing – if you are a Brit or if that is the sort of system you wish to live in. In fact I said if I were born and raised in such a system I might well prefer that one even though no one as unsophisticated as myself could ever be a member of that upper part of that society. Further, I argue that those people should fight to maintain some form of that system and not loose it all together, but it appears to be on the way out slowly but surely. It’s just that that system is not for me, as I’ve been blessed to have been born in a nation that does not think that because of the accident of birth you are entitled to certain privileges that others are not – like supporters in this case. SO, I hope no one thinks I am a hate monger of nobles … I just don’t see them as my social or real superior because of the accident of their birth.
Ton, this is a good point. It is not as universal as some say. And your point reminds me of crests. I read somewhere – I don’t recall if it was here or elsewhere – that many of the older sets of arms did not have crests at all. So, I can see how the older nobiliary of your country may not have them.
Disclaimer: Again I personally don’t use them for the two reasons I’ve already laid out. However, I can’t go the full distance with the others of you in asserting that they are not available carte blanche (sp?) for Americans.
Personally, I like supporters. I would love to have supporters in my CoA. But at the same time, I understand that a granting authority must set themselves apart from registering agencies. Supporters serve this role. Assumed arms, IMHO, are just that—arms which the armiger simply "picked up" along the way. Registering agencies are private organizations which "fills in" in the absence of a granting authority, but is not sanctioned by the State. Granted arms are, of course, arms granted (given?) by a granting authority which is indeed sanctioned by the State. With that sanctioning comes the right to grant, not only supporters, but elements of nobility, knighthood, and even royalty. There is no granting authority in the United States at this time, which means that there is no sanctioned authority to grant supporters or anything else beyond what can be assumed. Which means that anyone in the U.S. may assume arms, but with a price—those arms should not have elements of nobility, knighthood, or especially royalty. Those that do add such trappings to their assumed arms should do so in a private display only. Any armiger who renders a public display of such trappings isn’t just asking for the "snicker test" (or "forum test", as I prefer to call it)—He/she is asking for ridicule. IMHO.
Then again, coporate and academic CoA’s almost always seem to have supporters…
Quote:
Personally, I like supporters. I would love to have supporters in my CoA. But at the same time, I understand that a granting authority must set themselves apart from registering agencies. Supporters serve this role.
What?
Quote:
Assumed arms, IMHO, are just that—arms which the armiger simply "picked up" along the way.
All arms were assumed in the beginning. “Granting” authorities came about later. There is no difference between a COA that was granted and one that was assumed frankly. Assumed arms are as valid as and are on equal footing with granted arms.
Quote:
Registering agencies are private organizations which "fills in" in the absence of a granting authority, but is not sanctioned by the State.
I believe registering agencies do a little more than simply “fill in” when there is no granting authority.
Quote:
Granted arms are, of course, arms granted (given?) by a granting authority which is indeed sanctioned by the State. With that sanctioning comes the right to grant, not only supporters, but elements of nobility, knighthood, and even royalty.
Not exactly true. Switzerland, a republic, does not grant “elements of nobility, knighthood, and royalty” at all and neither does, the Chief Herald of Ireland, or the South African Heraldic Authority and both of those nations are republics as well. Not all “granting” authorities function in the same manner and have the same ‘powers’ at all. It is wrong to assert so.
Quote:
There is no granting authority in the United States at this time, which means that there is no sanctioned authority to grant supporters or anything else beyond what can be assumed.
There is nothing that can’t be assumed and that is the problem! Because there is no “granting” authority here we are free to assume whatever the heck we want and that is the problem. There is no ‘right’ or whatever to assume the basics of an achievement where there is a lack of such an authority anymore than there is the additaments and vice versa. And that is the problem in nations like ours.
Quote:
Which means that anyone in the U.S. may assume arms, but with a price—those arms should not have elements of nobility, knighthood, or especially royalty.
Given and conceded. But, what exactly is nobility? As we’ve seen from Ton de Witte who lives in a kingdom the use of supporters amongst the nobility only is not universal. So by definition it is not strictly a noble trapping. It is predominantly one, but not solely one. There is a difference there and not so subtle either.
Quote:
Those that do add such trappings to their assumed arms should do so in a private display only. Any armiger who renders a public display of such trappings isn’t just asking for the "snicker test" (or "forum test", as I prefer to call it)—He/she is asking for ridicule. IMHO.
And at one time women who wore pants were asking for ridicule, or men who had their ears pierced, or women who wore their hair short, or men who wore their hair long, or men who wore jeans with a jacket, or women who wore a neck tie, or women who wore skirts tot heir knees, or people who are fat, or people who have a physical deformity, or people whose skin color was different than our own, or whose religion was different than ours etc ad nauseum! – these people were, and still are, “open” for ridicule. Hell even perverts used that lame excuse of “asking for it” when they seen women wearing something like a skirt and they sexually harassed them. The “snicker test” or your more preferred “sanitized” version “forum test” is nothing more than a reason to be an condescending ass pure and simple even if we do not know it - not that you are bieng an ass I’m just saying in general.
Besides if you care what people think so much you will never be able to fully express yourself and that aint livin’ my friend. Life is short – live it to the fullest as it will be gone in a New York minute and the heck with what others “think” of you – as long as you are not breaking the law mind you.
P.S. I’m not attacking you … just your statement … please don’t take it wrong …
A real life “Snicker Test†example I experienced recently …
As many of you know, I am a Catholic. I take my faith very seriously and live it to the letter of the law as best I can as a sinner. So I always say grace before a meal and I always sign myself with the cross before I pray.
At a meal recently in a cool little restaurant with my family we all began our meals by praying together and making the sign of the cross. We did not yell it aloud mind you, but we say our prayers aloud. It was not loud enough to interfere with the other patron’s conversations.
Anyway the maitre de (sp?) came over and actually asked us to leave the premises because they do not want anyone in their restaurant “evangelizing†other patrons. So, we got up got our stuff and began to leave.
But, before we did three other tables got up and left as well and each of them made a big public stink about it including demanding the manager be present. And here’s the kicker not one of those people at those tables was a Catholic and one of the couples was, as they told us outside when talking about it all, atheists.
The point being that what you think you have a “right†to snicker about isn’t so. You have no “right†to snicker. And when you do “snicker†you show yourself to be nothing more than an un-tolerant bigot of one stripe or another. No one made you judge and jury of your fellow man. Worry about the beam in your own eye before you try and remove the splinter in your fellow mans.
Snicker Tests indeed … good grief Charlie Brown …
Denny,
The so-called heraldic snicker test means this: according to people knowledgeable about heraldry, the use of some heraldic device X is deemed not appropriate in the context, but without a regulatory authority, all they can do is snicker.
Denny, please follow this analogy.
None were Catholic (or knowledgeable on the topic). If they had been Catholic (or knowledgeable), then they probably would have understood the self-cross symbolic ritual as appropriate. But, IF they had been Catholic (or knowledgeable), then they would have been taken back IF your party had been wearing priestly garb without being priests.
None were Heraldists (or knowledgeable on the topic). If they had been Heraldists (or knowledgeable), then they probably would have understood that the shield and crest is an appropriate part of your achievement. IF they had been Heraldists (or knowledgeable), then they would have been taken back IF your achievement had supporters without you possessing the appropriate social status.
Anyone can snicker at anything. They can snicker at someone else passing gas. That stupid people snicker at all sorts of things does not undermine the argument that several have made about supporters.
The basic idea is that we should attend only to the snickers of subject matter experts.
Michael F. McCartney wrote:
As noted, this horse has been rode hard & put away wet more than once. It would be worthwhile (& save a lot of repetitive bandwidth) to search the forum for earlier debates. Various readers have posted differing positions based on a variety of considerations. For me, its simply a matter of avoiding misleading visual statements about who & what I am. <snip> I hope to be more civil in the new year. Honest!
Please don’t, if it means pulling punches on issues such as this. As you know, I agree with you (and the other Mike) 100%. However, to save the new folks having to search on this matter, let me simply re-post my thoughts as crystallized in the draft best practices code:
Quote:
The use of supporters with personal arms is not customary in the United States. In most (although not all) countries where supporters are part of the heraldic tradition, they are generally associated with the arms of the titled nobility, even where there are no formal regulations on the matter. Supporters should therefore not be included in personal arms adopted in the United States. Some American citizens have a hereditary right to arms that have traditionally been displayed with supporters in their ancestors’ country of origin, or even in their own right as the recipient of a foreign grant of arms. Such armigers are encouraged (although not obliged) to omit the supporters when displaying such arms as their own in the United States. This is both a matter of honoring the prevailing U.S. custom as well as of avoiding the impression of a claim to noble status inconsistent with American social and legal norms. Such supporters should definitely not be used if the current owner does not meet the legal criteria for possession of supporters in the country in which they were granted (e.g., the descendant of a British knight grand cross who was entitled to supporters only during his own lifetime). At the same time, there is no objection to the private display of the full achievement with supporters if it is clearly presented as the arms of the ancestor who was entitled to them.
As I’ve thought about this (and mantles, and coronets, and chapeaux), I think I personally would actually express it a bit more sharply. I would say that supporters are not part of the American heraldic tradition and therefore have no place in American arms. Full stop. But I wouldn’t propose to wedge that hard a position into what is supposed to be a society-agreed code.
Mike S., this is a good analogy as to why one shouldn’t use them, but not in avoiding the snicker. I wouldn’t care if others snickered even if I was wearing that garb - just who I am. Of course I wouldn’t wear such garb personally for obvious reasons, which is why I don’t use supporters as well even though I can not go as far as some of you fellas in saying they are definitively out of the question. But, even then I wouldn’t ‘snicker’ at those people. I might think internally that they are ridiculous, but I most certainly would never express that publicly towards them which is the natural outcome of the "snicker test" – group governance of individual actions based on social pressure. I can’t go there personally even if I think those people are ridiculous. For me it’s matter of good manners.
Now, if they asked me in general conversation I’d inform them I didn’t like it and why but I wouldn’t do so in a "snickering" manner. Now do you know where I come from on this snicker test?
P.S. ***OT*** I am working on another rendition of your arms Mike. I so do not like the version I gave you. I am also trying to make it more ‘Nordic’ in appearance. I am using the Master Heraldic Artist, Mr. Ronny Andersen, as my inspiration. Of course I’m not lifting anything from him, but I love his work as it is so simple and clean and I am just trying to gain insight into Nordic arms from his work. When it is done I will send the pic to you, but I’m also going to use it to illustrate a ‘Nordic’ style for any clients I have of that ancestry who’d like to have a ‘Nordic’ touch to their arms. I hope that is OK.
Joe, I agree about the need to discuss these things when newbies ask them - bandwidth waste or not. As I said, much of what we talk about here is a repetition in one form or another of previous conversations only with newer people and with different particulars.
I also agree that there is no American tradition to use them and that is one of the two reasons I don’t. But, I can’t go all the way and say because there is no American tradition to use them that no American can because just as there is no American tradition to yes, there is no clear cut American authority/tradition to say no. Again I don’t for two good reasons… I just don’t see it as absolute as others.
The other condition, and one I see a clear cut case against the thinking opposing supporters is those Americans who have not assumed arms, but inherited arms that came with those. In those cases I can’t see why the armiger can not use them, as there is a familial tradition of use of such things and since we have no nobility here it does not make me quake in my boots that someone whose family comes from that tradition uses these artistic decorations. One should not have to give up such things because one is an American unless there were clear-cut legal reasons against the use of them, as there is in titles of nobility and the social/political power that would come with that.
Donnchadh wrote:
I might think internally that they are ridiculous, but I most certainly would never express that publicly towards them which is the natural outcome of the "snicker test" – group governance of individual actions based on social pressure. I can’t go there personally even if I think those people are ridiculous. For me it’s matter of good manners.
Now, if they asked me in general conversation I’d inform them I didn’t like it and why but I wouldn’t do so in a "snickering" manner. Now do you know where I come from on this snicker test?
I think the heraldic "snicker" is meant metaphorically, referring to a thought of disapproval or amusement.
Donnchadh wrote:
P.S. ***OT*** I am working on another rendition of your arms Mike. I so do not like the version I gave you. I am also trying to make it more ‘Nordic’ in appearance.
Thank you very much!
Donnchadh wrote:
P.S. I’m not attacking you … just your statement … please don’t take it wrong …
No problem, Donnchadh, but it’s obvious that your opinions on this topic are quite strong. (I get that way on topics that I’m passionate about too!) Just remember that I’m still leaning about heraldry, so everything that I say may not be entirely accurate yet. :D
dude, no worries, i’m still learning too. i just wanted to make sure that you knew i was attacking the argument not the person. sometimes people cross the two here and i wanted to avoid that. feel free to shred my arguments as well. 
i think this is the only way we all learn and i think it is beneficial for newbies to jump in with both feet! i know i did some time ago when i got going in this wonderful little world of heraldry.
Donnchadh wrote:
dude, no worries, i’m still learning too. i just wanted to make sure that you knew i was attacking the argument not the person. sometimes people cross the two here and i wanted to avoid that. feel free to shred my arguments as well.
i think this is the only way we all learn and i think it is beneficial for newbies to jump in with both feet! i know i did some time ago when i got going in this wonderful little world of heraldry.
I still think that American armigers should avoid the use of supporters in the public display of their arms, not because of any "test", but because it is customary to do so—just as it is customary to avoid the use of high-brow verbage in everyday conversation. For example, if I were to say, "The pigmentation is currently in the proccess of oxidation to the point of dissassociation.", then most people would respond by saying, "Huh?". However, if I were to say, "The paint is flaking off.’, then everyone with a 1st grade level of the English language would be able to understand what I’m saying, and I wouldn’t be coming off as an ultra-educated arrogant jerk who thinks himself too good for plain, simple words. The same is true of supporters. Those who would use them in the public display of their arms invariably come off as someone who fancies himself a noble. If the armiger is indeed entitled to them, then that is fine; but if not, then he is definitely being a snob—and will certainly be treated as such by those aound him.
Denny & the rest of us (most of us anyway) seem to have arrived at the same "best practice"—Americans generally shouldn’t use supporters in most situatuins involving public dislay of arms—even if some of our respective reasoning & "mood music" aren’t the same. For that matter, there are more than two schools of thought as to why use of supporters is generally undesirable, but so long as all of these roads lead to more or less the same Rome that’s OK. While I would love to provide the conversion light on the road to Damascus (or in Denny’s case, Denver) on this topic, I can live with his mood music if he can live with mine—but as with my 17-year-old grandson’s "taste" (or lack thereof) in music, that’s easier if its not played too loud!.
I do have a couple of clarifying comments on my own arguments. First, when I coined the term "snicker factor" many moons ago, it was merely an attempt to put a more humorous face on the concept of peer pressure, which is the only real "enforcer" in the world of American heraldry. Whichever term is used, its not just—or even primarily—the disapproval of others that counts. As with self-employment, we can be our own hardest boss to please. The real "hook" in the snicker factor is when we look at ourselves and realize that our own better self—the one we see in the mirror each morning—is the one doing the snickering. The snickers (or puzzeled looks—of others mainly serve to stir our own subconscious to take a look at what we’re doing. (Obviously this isn’t only, or even primarily, a heraldic concept; its just one of life’s painful lessons applied to yet one more facet of life.)
The second comment is probably another facet of the first—when we participate in some activity or passion that we would like to see take root and grow in our society, its not just about us alone & what we might like to do with our personal freedoms. In the words of Paul, we must be all things to all people (or some such thought). We may be free in a higher sense to do certain things, in spite of the prejudicesof others; but if we want to attract them or "sell" them on our passion, we have to understand that their perceptions of the wonderfulness of our pet passion will be seen & judged through the filter of those prejudices; and sometimes choose to do less than we might otherwise feel free to do. Its probably a bit of a leap to compare supporters to meat sacrificed to idols, but hopefully you can see my point.
Thus endeth the sermon; the ushers will now collect the offering…