Including Society of the Cincinnati eagle

 
Michael Swanson
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Swanson
Total Posts:  2462
Joined  26-02-2005
 
 
 
12 September 2007 01:11
 

fwhite;49558 wrote:

... I have to express perplexity at this assertion that birth is in itself no basis for being impressed and that circumstances of birth are somehow inappropriate for honoring in a coat of arms. Why, then, the guidance that arms follow the name, that French male-line ancestry presupposes the logic of following French heraldic custom, etc.? Why all these references to the countries of ancestors’ origins in coats of arms?


How would you suggest that the policy be changed? And what consequences would result from this change?

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
12 September 2007 01:29
 

Well, I would start by suggesting that the policy be a little more nuanced. Perhaps just examining proposed additions to achievements of arms on a "pendant-by-pendant" basis would be a start. Then an authorized list of sorts could be periodically updated as cases are adjudicated. Furthermore, perhaps the policy could be that displays are limited, in any case, to x number of pendants of whatever description (I guess I can say "we" now, right?).

I think this is a start.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
12 September 2007 02:36
 

But—and I mean this sincerely—a perfectly fair policy would just be to say, "No pendants. Period." I wouldn’t have a problem with that. Such a policy would be consistent with the line Michael Swanson, et al, have been taking, and would fit with the policy of no symbols/trappings of nobility or royalty on American arms. The trouble is that if you pursue the logic of this further, as Fr. Selvester said, you might have to suggest stripping American arms of helm, torse, mantling, and crest, too. Still, it would be a basically coherent policy, I think.

 
Michael Swanson
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Swanson
Total Posts:  2462
Joined  26-02-2005
 
 
 
12 September 2007 07:59
 

fwhite;49566 wrote:

Well, I would start by suggesting that the policy be a little more nuanced. Perhaps just examining proposed additions to achievements of arms on a "pendant-by-pendant" basis would be a start. Then an authorized list of sorts could be periodically updated as cases are adjudicated.


If the policy is case by case, or if we started a list, then we’d still need some rough criteria for deciding, even if these criteria were not written down.  Since there are potentially an unlimited number of gongs out there—any club can create an heraldic gong—where would you draw the line?


Quote:

Furthermore, perhaps the policy could be that displays are limited, in any case, to x number of pendants of whatever description (I guess I can say "we" now, right?).


So let’s say I was a member of 6 clubs with heraldic gongs and the hang-limit was two.  So could I create three emblazonments, displaying 2 on each to cover my 6 gongs?


Quote:

But—and I mean this sincerely—a perfectly fair policy would just be to say, "No pendants. Period."


I guess you gave this "where to draw the line" more thought.  Yes, I think this would a good policy and it was considered.  The one the board adopted was a compromise that made some sense.  Your posts—the "case by case" post and the "no gongs" post—illustrate how hard it is to set a policy.  The current policy takes into account both these impulses/insights.


Quote:

The trouble is that if you pursue the logic of this further, as Fr. Selvester said, you might have to suggest stripping American arms of helm, torse, mantling, and crest, too.


I think that is a stretch, given that all countries with established heraldic traditions no longer view these items as denoting social class or special status.

 

I think you need to spell out the criteria and justifications for the proposed approved gong list and not ask for others to do so, since most of us have "been there and bought the t-shirt" on this issue.  See: http://americanheraldry.org/forums/showthread.php?t=135&highlight=guidelines

 

Your criteria and justification would need to satisfy whiners whose gongs were omitted.  I think your arguments so far aim at refuting the current policy, but are not constructive in the sense that they lead to any viable alternative.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
12 September 2007 15:46
 

fwhite;49377 wrote:

I notice that in the Society’s guidelines for American heraldic usage, the inclusion of lineage society medals in the full achievement of arms is discouraged. I understand and embrace what I take to be the reasoning behind this recommendation. I wonder, however, if at least one finer distinction shouldn’t be made. The Society of the Cincinnati has a bona fide chivalric and nobiliary character (cf. the argument of Guy Stair Sainty), is our only home-grown such order, and is arguably as worthy of inclusion in a full achievement of arms as an order of knighthood (e.g., Malta). Any thoughts on this?


I’ve been round and round on this with Guy Sainty (I wrote the section on US decorations in his 2-volume work, Burke’s World Orders of Knighthood and Merit) and ended up frustrated that I could not budge him from the position that the Cincinnati have a "chivalric and nobiliary character."  The founders of the Society of the Cincinnati explictly rejected that characterization, so it struck me as extremely presumptuous of GSS to insist that it really is one nevertheless.  (By the way, he groups the Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States—a society founded by officers of the Union Army in the Civil War—in the same category.)

 

My argument against displaying these insignia with arms is not based on what kind of body the Soc. of Cinc. is—I, unlike GSS, am happy to defer to the Society’s own self-description—but rather that, as far as I know:

 

(a) The Society of the Cincinnati has no rules authorizing the display of the badge as part of an armorial achievement (unlike most orders of chivalry), and

 

(b) There seems to be no tradition of members of the society so displaying the badge.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
12 September 2007 15:55
 

fwhite;49407 wrote:

Perhaps it is worth noting, though, that members of the U.S. military are authorized to wear the SoC eagle on their dress uniforms, and that members of the SoC have a federal rank analagous to a junior commissioned officer or something.


No, members of the SoC have no federal rank analogous to anything.  Yes, military personnel who are SoC members are authorized to wear the SoC eagle on their uniform, but only when participating in SoC functions.  Furthermore, the same privilege is extended to a number of other societies of military character (not just two others, as you say below).


Quote:

In the order of precedence for the U.S., the President of the SoC ranks alongside a lieutenant governor of a territory like Puerto Rico or Guam.


I’d love to know where this came from.  The Chief of Protocol at the Department of State maintains the U.S. Precedence List.  I’ve used it professionally many times—in some jobs on an almost daily basis—in my 29 years working for the Department of Defense.  I’ve never seen the president of the SoC listed on it.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
12 September 2007 17:48
 

Guy Power;49428 wrote:

If anyone has a source, I would appreciate a citation to any current US Army Regulation (or other military regulation) that permits wear of the SoC eagle either with or without condition.<snip>


Guy,

 

It’s buried in paragraph 29-13 of AR 670-1:

 


Quote:

29&#8211;13. Badges authorized for wear on Army uniforms

... The following badges are authorized for wear on the Army uniform.


<div class=“bbcode_left” >
***

 

d. Badges of civic and quasi-military societies of the United States, and international organizations of a military nature. These include badges of organizations originally composed of members who served in a U.S. force during the Revolutionary War; the War of 1812; the Mexican War; the Civil War; the Spanish-American War; the Philippine Insurrection; and the Chinese Relief Expedition of 1900. The badges are worn only while the wearer is actually attending meetings or functions of such organizations, or on occasions of ceremony. Personnel will not wear these badges to and from such meetings or events.

 


</div>

 

 

<div class=“bbcode_left” >
The Society of the Cincinnati is an organization originally composed of officers of the Continental Army, and thus qualifies. The SR, SAR, etc., were not originally composed of members of the forces in the wars which they commemorate, and thus do not qualify.
</div>

 

<div class=“bbcode_left” >
This regulatory provision and similar provisions in the uniform regs of the other services (NAVPERS 15665I, "United States Navy Uniform Regulations," art 5311; AFI 36-2903, "Dress and Appearance of Air Force Personnel," table 5.1; MCO P1020.34F, "Marine Corps Uniform Regulations," art 5103) originate in several acts of Congress passed in the late 19th-early 20th centuries that did authorize, by name, the badges of certain societies to be worn on the military uniform. The wearing of the SoC badge was authorized, as I recall, by a joint resolution passed in 1890.
</div>

 

<div class=“bbcode_left” >
(As a comment: Guy Stair Sainty’s advocacy of treating the SoC as the equivalent of a nobiliary or chivalric order is in large part in the context of his effort to provide an indigenous US basis for Americans to attain ranks in the Sovereign Military Order of Malta which require proof of noble ancestry.)

 

 


</div>

 

 
Guy Power
 
Avatar
 
 
Guy Power
Total Posts:  1576
Joined  05-01-2006
 
 
 
12 September 2007 20:56
 

Joseph McMillan;49600 wrote:

Guy, It’s buried in paragraph 29-13 of AR 670-1:

Thanks Joe—I knew I had read it somewhere.

—Guy

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
12 September 2007 22:38
 

Michael Swanson;49577 wrote:

Quote:

(FW White) The trouble is that if you pursue the logic of this further, as Fr. Selvester said, you might have to suggest stripping American arms of helm, torse, mantling, and crest, too.

I think that is a stretch, given that all countries with established heraldic traditions no longer view these items as denoting social class or special status.


I would put this a bit differently.  I would say that although some countries with established heraldic traditions (e.g., France) traditionally prohibit the use of the crest by non-nobles, most countries with heraldic traditions do not.  Furthermore, people have borne arms with helmets, mantlings and crests in what is now the US for 400 years without any special significance being attached to crests, etc.  Since the Guidelines are intended to reflect a combination of the most widespread transnational norms and customary American practice, there is no reason why American heraldic guidelines should frown on these items.

 

(Conversely, some heraldic traditions, most notably the German, do not consider a coat of arms complete without the crested helm and mantling, but most traditions recognize the possibility of bearing a shield alone without a crest.  Thus the guidelines say that, while using a crest with the shield has been the custom in the US, there is no reason why someone can’t elect to do without.)

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
13 September 2007 01:12
 

Michael Swanson;49577 wrote:

Your criteria and justification would need to satisfy whiners whose gongs were omitted.  I think your arguments so far aim at refuting the current policy, but are not constructive in the sense that they lead to any viable alternative.


The more I reflect on this discussion and digest the logic of the AHS guidelines, the more I think that, indeed, the policy most consistent with the normative AHS outlook would be "No pendants in our armorial." It seems like there is a general suspicion among us of any such devices (pejorative labels such as "gongs" and "deely bobs" say it all), and that classing them with supporters and other signifiers of caste conforms perfectly to the Society’s interpretation of essential American values. I can identify counter-trends in American history and the contemporary American scene, but finally, I too assent to the ideal of a nation of free persons of equal "moral value." Therefore, the stance, "No gongs whatsoever" is not only fine by me, but is the perfectly viable alternative to the current policy I advocate.

 

But if that policy is not going to be adopted, then I do advocate expanding the list of permissible "gongs" to include those authorized under the Army code quoted above, namely the insignia of the Cincinnati, the Military Society of the War of 1812, the Aztec Club, and MOLLUS. It just seems bizarre to me for the AHS to endorse the celebration of membership in European orders of chivalry but reject the celebration of membership in the premier American lineage societies—each of which relates to a military milestone in our national epic, and potentially honors the contemporary armiger’s connections to forebears who embodied the original armigers’ virtues.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
13 September 2007 06:57
 

fwhite;49615 wrote:

But if that policy is not going to be adopted, then I do advocate expanding the list of permissible "gongs" to include those authorized under the Army code quoted above, namely the insignia of the Cincinnati, the Military Society of the War of 1812, the Aztec Club, and MOLLUS. It just seems bizarre to me for the AHS to endorse the celebration of membership in European orders of chivalry but reject the celebration of membership in the premier American lineage societies—each of which relates to a military milestone in our national epic, and potentially honors the contemporary armiger’s connections to forebears who embodied the original armigers’ virtues.


If you look closely, we do not say that the badges of these societies cannot (or even should not) be displayed, but that (a) doing so is not customary, which is intended as a statement of fact and is open to correction given evidence to the contrary, and (b) we recommend that armigers consider carefully the appropriateness of the display of non-state decorations and orders outside the framework of the organization concerned.

 
Michael Swanson
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Swanson
Total Posts:  2462
Joined  26-02-2005
 
 
 
13 September 2007 09:56
 

fwhite;49615 wrote:

But if that policy is not going to be adopted, then I do advocate expanding the list of permissible "gongs" to include those authorized under the Army code quoted above, namely the insignia of the Cincinnati, the Military Society of the War of 1812, the Aztec Club, and MOLLUS. It just seems bizarre to me for the AHS to endorse the celebration of membership in European orders of chivalry but reject the celebration of membership in the premier American lineage societies—each of which relates to a military milestone in our national epic, and potentially honors the contemporary armiger’s connections to forebears who embodied the original armigers’ virtues.


In addition to Joe’s point about traditional use, I think if you reflect on the criterion you propose—that the group be "premiere"—you’ll see the additional problem.  Every lineage society will think they are premier.

 

I don’t think futher tweaking of "premiere" by adding "military" or "lineage society" will save the criterion.

 

I think you are right to point to "premiere" as a basic intuition—but we need to consider who decides what is premiere.  The meaning of "premier" will be stretched by vanity to include every private organization with a shiny object.

 

Thus, the choices are (1) governments, (2) governments and ALL private organizations, and (3) none.  Option 1 is better than 3.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
13 September 2007 11:23
 

Having (finally!) read thru most of this thread to date, two observations:

1) if the current US Government regs allow wearing of certain private group’s gongs e.g. SoC but only at functions of the group, then our current rule allowing links to begonged images but not direct display on our own website, seems quite appropriate as a sort of electronic analog of the gov’t policy.

 

2) There is a definite difference between a gong awarded by suitable authority to an individual for his/her own accomplishments or valor or whatever (e.g. US military decorations, or similar foreign ones that our gov’t allows its personnel to wear publicly)—OK by any reasonable standard—vs.a gong essentially inherited from an ancestor, or based on an ancestor’s deeds.  Our guidelines clearly draw a similar distinction re: nobiliary additaments such as supporters or coronets—its OK to display them if clearly identified as the ancestor’s foreign arms, but generally not OK to include them in our own American arms, outside of certain private or ethnic contexts such as Scottish Games or other ethnic excesses.  Not a bad parallel to generally follow re: gongs.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
13 September 2007 13:31
 

Michael Swanson;49628 wrote:

I think you are right to point to "premiere" as a basic intuition—but we need to consider who decides what is premiere.  The meaning of "premier" will be stretched by vanity to include every private organization with a shiny object.

Thus, the choices are (1) governments, (2) governments and ALL private organizations, and (3) none.  Option 1 is better than 3.


#1 is the option that has been handed to us by the armed forces guidelines on wear of the uniform and that joint resolution of Congress in 1890 mentioned earlier. We can define "premiere" as denoting a hereditary organization founded by the persons whose actions it honors. Doesn’t that work?

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
13 September 2007 13:41
 

Another argument, potentially, for allowing the hereditary gongs (this is an infectious usage!) I just specified is that people who are into belonging to the relevant organizations are quite apt to become a support base for this organization down the road. Premiere lineage society types are precisely the kind of people who will be willing to start new heraldic traditions, or register inherited arms with us and augment our credibility. Why not make a quasi-direct appeal to them rather than explicitly withhold the option of displaying their ancestral gongs beneath shields based on the traditions of their ancestors’ countries of origin?

But let me emphasize again that my vote is still on the side of no gongs at all. I think the Founders, the Signers, the Cincinnati, et all would ultimately (after spirited debate) agree to endorse that policy if it were left up to them.