mike_mal wrote:

I can’t go into much detail ... but akin to crusaders adding symbols of their holy war to their arms.

For example?  I don’t know of any crusaders that did this.

Joseph McMillan wrote:

In my view, it is not appropriate, and it certainly isn’t customary, to display insignia of private organizations—including insignia of position or rank in such societies—as part of a personal achievement of arms.  As part of a bigger composition like a bookplate, yes.  As an element of the achievement itself, no.  For a further explanation, members can see the thread on orders and decorations in the Code of Conduct section in the members area.

Of course, in this country no one can stop anyone from doing as they like, but as I observed in an earlier iteration of this discussion, no one can stop you from wearing black dress socks with sandals and shorts or eating your peas off a knife, either.

Even privately? I’m in the process of getting my achievement worked up, as you know. I’m going to register it without any honors or decorations, as I agree strongly with the guidelines: if I had a presidential honor, it would be appropriate to register my arms like that. But somewhere recently I read something about displaying private honors privately-temporarily adding them to the achievement while working within the confines of that group. I thought I’d read that here, but perhaps not. I’ve been doing so much research lately, that the places where I read stuff are all blurring together. I wouldn’t publicly display my arms with private honors, because I feel that inappropriate. But is there a propriety that differs for private display?

Joseph McMillan wrote:

For example?  I don’t know of any crusaders that did this.

The bezants were added to ours but that isn’t too "Holy" is it….

Patrick you did read that here. Fr. Guy has mentioned, alongside Joe, many times – especially on the old MB.

Basically they say an achievement is what it is no more, no less. The additaments that are appropriate for this group or that group are OK when with this group or that group, but not as a part of an achievement as such – Joe and Fr. Guy correct me where I am wrong there.

If the organization involved has established rules or customs governing heraldic usages, then I would say it’s OK to display the insignia of that organization in accordance with those rules—in the context of the organization’s activities.

But as far as I’m concerned, the burden’s on the person who wants to do this to show that it’s an accepted practice within the organization.

Now that sounds reasonable.

Donnchadh wrote:

Patrick you did read that here. Fr. Guy has mentioned, alongside Joe, many times – especially on the old MB.

Basically they say an achievement is what it is no more, no less. The additaments that are appropriate for this group or that group are OK when with this group or that group, but not as a part of an achievement as such – Joe and Fr. Guy correct me where I am wrong there.

so, Honors would be used when among the group, but since here there are no honors from govt. level, you would not use them otherwise? Is that the consensus?

mike_mal wrote:

so, Honors would be used when among the group, but since here there are no honors from govt. level, you would not use them otherwise? Is that the consensus?

Yep. Use private honors privately.

Mike there are honors from the government. It has been said by several here on the old MB that those and including things like the Purple Heart could be used and those come from the government.

Believe me this is one of those issues I had many questions/problems with and it was debated ad nauseum over there. Sometimes the debates got very, very heated on all sides. Some went so far as to say that we should include scouting and 2nd grade spelling awards with them etc. Which is of course idiotic and not what I was saying at all.

I personally hold that on an achievement in your home you should be able to have whatever "additaments" with it you dang well please. For public purposes, however, I generally side with the less is more crowd. So, my own arms I made for myself and have hanging on my wall include ribbons to the side of my achievement of the highest office I’ve held with the Knights of Columbus and the Ancient Order of Hibernians in America. I also have my two badges I created and a standard etc.

Now the arms I used here in the member’s page are very simple and basic - well they do have my two badges, but that is it. That is because I do not wish to "offend" anyone here with more stuff and so keep it as minimal as possible.

If you want to have these additaments with your arms - go ahead. I’d just recommend that they be used in the proper place and time if for no other reason than to spare you the "scorn" and "snickering" of others, which by the way is the main reason others here gave me for not displaying them either. They called it the "snicker test" amongst other things. LOL.

Anyway use less is more when in mixed, or questionable company, and use the rest of it all when in the right situation and company.

mike_mal wrote:

... here there are no honors from govt. level, you would not use them otherwise? Is that the consensus?

Clarification please.  By "here" do you mean in the US there are no government-level honors; or, do you mean in the AHS (as a private organization) there are no government-level honors?

If you mean the former, I think there is a misunderstanding; honors are awarded by the US government (Dept. of Defense and other Agencies).  They would include military and other Agency decorations with the exception of service medals (e.g., National Defense Service Medal; Good Conduct Medal; etc.)

If you mean the latter, I think that is also a misunderstanding.  If you were awarded—for example—the Defense Meritorious Medal, then you could display it here.  (If I correctly understood Joe).

Regards,

Guy

We have two different issues: what is permissible for display in the members’ arms section of the AHS website, and what is recommended for display in general.

I’m more concerned with the second issue. For five centuries or so, the insignia of honors and appointments conferred under the authority of a sovereign have been displayed with coats of arms. In my view, displaying the insignia of a private organization in the manner traditionally used for such sovereign honors implies that they have status equivalent to sovereign honors. I don’t like it, period.

I recognize that some private organizations prescribe certain heraldic accoutrements for their members. I believe that is the case with some of the groups affiliated with the Augustan Society, and someone brought up the case of the Westphalian Heraldry Society in Germany, which appoints heralds and pursuivants and such and prescribes various coronets and batons and mantles and what not for these officers of the society. Let me be clear: I don’t like this, either. But just as a private society can prescribe the wearing of special hats, clothing, and badges at its meetings, I will admit that it can prescribe the use of special heraldic accoutrements in a similar, within-the-club setting. (And I grudgingly must acknowledge that even the US armed forces permit the wearing of the medal-like badges of certain military-oriented societies on the uniform—at functions conducted by the society concerned.)

As a practical matter, however, how many societies in the United States have such heraldic rules? I don’t mean how many have chains and badges and medals; I mean how many have rules providing for the use of these as heraldic insignia? Not many. And how many people are going to go to the considerable expense of commissioning multiple renderings of their arms so they can have one letterhead as Grand Poobah of the Loyal Order of Water Buffalo (shield topped by a tall fur hat with horns) and a different one as Mr. Fred Flintstone? It just seems to me to be preferable from the perspectives of both taste and economy to eschew such trappings altogether.

However, as always, I acknowledge that in the United States there’s no law prohibiting people from displaying their arms however they damn well please, other than whatever rules particular private organizations (like the AHS) may adopt for their own purposes. But here’s what I think is a fair analogy. In some restaurants, the maitre d’ will ask men wearing baseball caps at the table to take them off; in others, nothing will be said. Nevertheless, allowing license to bad manners doesn’t make them good manners. This is where the snicker test that Dennis hates so much comes in. People in a civilized society ought to be interested in what other people think about their behavior. Yes, if something is a question of high principle, then you do the right thing and public opinion be damned. But most things—like how to display armorial bearings or whether to take off the baseball cap—aren’t matters of high principle, they’re matters of social convention. Those who intentionally defy social convention are going to provoke snickers at best, outrage at worst.

That’s fine if they’re prepared to deal with the consequences and choose to flout convention on purpose. The idea of a set of sound heraldic practices is to help those who don’t know any better from provoking snickers or outrage by accident.

By the way, for the religiously minded, I have divine sanction on my side in all this. To quote St. Paul, "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient." (I Cor. 6:12) Verbum domini; Deo gratia.

Joseph, I define the 2 issues slightly differently:

1) What is appropriate for public display of arms?

2) What is appropriate for private display?

Both, of course, are very similar to your issues but come at those same questions from another perspective.

For newbies like mike_mal and oldbies like myself the rules really aren’t enough: we don’t know the etiquette that underlies the rules. Y’all have that etiquette etched in your bones and probably don’t much think about it until we pry it out of you. As an example: I’m now reading Neubecker and in a section I just completed he talks about helms & crests. He says that the lack of a helm & crest announces to the knowledgeable that your arms are so old that they were first recorded before helms & crests were popular. So, from the point of view of etiquette, one of the reasons that helms & crests are adopted is to avoid claiming that your arms are steeped in antiquity if they are not. I never even knew enough to think about that. Your explanations in the reply above makes some of that etiquette much more clear.

You probably are tired of answering these questions again and again, and who knows?, perhaps after the guidelines are published it may abate somewhat. Something to think about, perhaps, is a guide to the etiquette underlying the rules. But let’s get the guidelines finished before we think about that too much.

Patrick Williams wrote:

...Neubecker ... says that the lack of a helm & crest announces to the knowledgeable that your arms are so old that they were first recorded before helms & crests were popular.

I believe he’s specifically discussing Germanic arms, not "international" Arms.

Quote:

Y’all have that etiquette etched in your bones

Hmmmm ..... that explains the results of my last x-ray

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/2441/homerxrayqt0.jpg

—Guy

Guy: I never realized I had a lost twin brother!

Patrick Williams wrote:

As an example: I’m now reading Neubecker and in a section I just completed he talks about helms & crests. He says that the lack of a helm & crest announces to the knowledgeable that your arms are so old that they were first recorded before helms & crests were popular.

This may hold true for personal arms (I seem to recall that Fox-Davies says something similar), but not for institutional ones- most College of Arms or Lyon grants to universities (Canadian ones, at least) are without helm or crest.  So were the provincial arms, as originally granted by the College (Newfoundland and Nova Scotia (a Lyon grant) had crests and supporters from the start, but these were colonies at the time, not provinces of Canada).

Also, as someone else pointed out, this varies from country to country, of course.