Fred, I think that part of the resistance you’re seeing is that we don’t want to be the arbiters of which society is premiere or not. Can you imagine the headaches in compling the list, editing the list, amending the list and defending the list?

Again, to quote Joseph:

"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."

Can’t we just leave it at that?

Oh ... the term ‘gong’ has been used to describe full-sized medals for a very long time. At least since the 1850’s or thereabouts in England. The term is not perjorative, it merely describes the difference between the full-sized and miniature versions of medals.

Fred,

We do not register arms here, and we have no plans of becoming a registry. Should anyone choose to support us in our purpose, which is educational, then that’s great! But our credibility is built on the hard work our members do and the educational projects that we have implemented and hope to implement. That any of our members belongs to any organization, then, does nothing to augment that, for our reputation is built on what we do, not who we are.

fwhite;49639 wrote:

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.

Thanks for the etymology of "gongs," Patrick. You learn something new every day.

I don’t think we have to define or defend "premiere." Why don’t we just say the armed forces and congress have already done it for us.

Anyway, we certainly can "leave it at that," if everyone feels this bone has been picked clean, but I still feel like I’m getting an unclear official response to the very specific question of whether or not an achievement of arms with a hereditary gong affixed will be permitted for display in the AHS armorial, online or otherwise. What is the official answer?

I guess my attitude, fundamentally, is that if we’re going to allow the foreign gongs, I feel a moral responsibility to agitate for allowing the domestic ones, though I think the truly logical American stance would be to propose that Americans not use gongs in American heraldic contexts at all. As Fr. Guy, I think, pointed out, this doesn’t have to signify a more global intolerance of gongs, but simply nudges prospectives in the direction of showing off the gongs only in more appropriate milieux. "When in Rome," right?

fwhite;49646 wrote:

Thanks for the etymology of "gongs," Patrick. You learn something new every day.

I don’t think we have to define or defend "premiere." Why don’t we just say the armed forces and congress have already done it for us.

 

Anyway, we certainly can "leave it at that," if everyone feels this bone has been picked clean, but I still feel like I’m getting an unclear official response to the very specific question of whether or not an achievement of arms with a hereditary gong affixed will be permitted for display in the AHS armorial, online or otherwise. What is the official answer?

Here’s the unofficial official answer: the Board of governors meets Thursday the 20th. Until then, there will not be an official answer.

fwhite;49638 wrote:

We can define "premiere" as denoting a hereditary organization founded by the persons whose actions it honors. Doesn’t that work?

So if my grandfather was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, and he founded the Vegetarian Congressional Medal of Honor Hereditary Society, and they offered a gong….

Patrick Williams;49651 wrote:

Here’s the unofficial official answer: the Board of governors meets Thursday the 20th. Until then, there will not be an official answer.

I’ll be interested to hear what happens!

fwhite;49638 wrote:

#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?

Not really.

The reason for allowing the wear of these societies’ badges on military uniform (as implied in the army reg, for example) is that they are of a military or quasi-military character.  But on what basis do we judge that, heraldically, an organization commemorating an ancestor’s war service should be treated as superior to one that commemorates service in a civilian capacity, such as the Colonial Dames or the General Society of Colonial Wars?

For that matter, why is an organization that commemorates an ancestor’s service in any capacity more "premier" than one commemorating an ancestor who was among the earliest settlers of this country, such as the Mayflower Society or the Jamestowne Society?

Why wouldn’t an organization with more restrictive membership qualifications be more "premier" than one with less restrictive qualifications?  There are lineage organizations limited to the descendants of single individuals, ranging from the Monticello Association to the Pilgrim John Howland Society—much more selective than the Cincinnati, and, in the case of the Monticello Association, commemorating national service considerably more significant than that of most of the original Cincinnati.

Or why isn’t an organization more "premier" based on its founding date?  That would put the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company at the top of the heap of lineage societies, but it would also mean that a variety of ethnic societies, including the St. Andrew’s societies of Philadelphia, New York, and Washington, would all outrank the SoC.  (In fact, the rules of society precedence as posted on www.hereditary.us state "The rule of precedence for hereditary societies is based upon the chronological order of the date of founding of each society.")

Come to think of it, why should this be limited to lineage societies at all?  The European orders of chivalry being used as a precedent are not hereditary, so why would we Americans propose a heraldic rule favoring hereditary privilege over non-hereditary?  Why not allow the badges of organizations like the State in Schuylkill (Fish House) or the City Troop in Philadelphia, Harvard’s Porcellian Club, the St. Cecilia Society in Charleston, the Bachelors’ Cotillon in Baltimore, or the Mystic Krewe of Comus in New Orleans?  They are all, in their own way, far more "premier" than the SoC—more exclusive, certainly, and, in the case of the first four, considerably older than the SoC.

I think our present guideline is quite adequate:

- Decorations from the US government or a state government:  yes

- Orders and decorations from sovereign governments recognized by the US:  yes

- Others:  proceed with caution—look to practices followed by each group and consider whether use outside the context of the organization concerned is appropriate

Also, see the statement at the beginning of the guidelines:  these are not binding rules; some armigers will disagree with certain guidelines; how arms are borne is ultimately up to the judgment of the armiger.

Final word:  On the SoC in particular—General Washington never displayed his arms with the Cincinnati badge.  Why would any modern member feel the need to do other than follow his example?

fwhite;49638 wrote:

#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?

I just had a chance to look up the 1890 resolution. The wording is interesting.

Joint Resolution, 25 September 1890 (26 Stat. 681)

"That the distinctive badges adopted by military societies of men who served in the armies and navies of the United States in the war of the Revolution, the war of eighteen hundred and twelve, the Mexican war, and the war of the rebellion respectively, may be worn upon all occasions of ceremony by officers and enlisted men of the Army and Navy of the United States, who are members of said organizations in their own right."

An act of Congress of 2 February 1901 (26 Stat. 758 ) extended this privilege to those serving "during the Spanish-American war and the incident insurrection in the Philippines."

Hugh Brady is our expert on statutory construction, but I believe the basic rule is that all the words in a law must be construed as having significance. The only meaning I can see in the words emphasized above, "in their own right," is that the privilege conveyed in the two enactments applied only to those who were members by virtue of their own service, not in right of an ancestor. It may be objected that, by 1890, no one would have met this criterion for the Revolutionary War, but if Congress had meant for all members to be eligible to wear the badges, it would presumably have ended the resolution and the later public law with the words "said organizations."

I therefore think it could be argued that these enactments have effectively lapsed, all the people to whom they applied having died. The badges continue to be worn by members of the societies, but only by virtue of service regulations, not by force of law.

Also, note that the groups cited by Guy Stair Sainty as having special quasi-nobiliary standing on the basis of these laws were not, in fact, treated any differently than such groups as the Grand Army of the Republic, which at one point had over 400,000 members.

Joseph McMillan;49666 wrote:

But on what basis do we judge that, heraldically, an organization commemorating an ancestor’s war service should be treated as superior to one that commemorates service in a civilian capacity, such as the Colonial Dames or the General Society of Colonial Wars?

It seems to me that heraldry is an originally military or paramilitary tradition, so I don’t think limiting the gongs as already suggested has quite the arbitrary appearance you seem to discern.

Joseph McMillan;49666 wrote:

For that matter, why is an organization that commemorates an ancestor’s service in any capacity more "premier" than . . . ?

Fine. Why are the awards of any government whatsoever, no matter how reprehensible or obscure (e.g., North Korea, the Maldives), and the awards of our own, no matter how trivial the award (e.g., the Army Achievement Medal) more worthy of display than the gong of First Families of Virginia?

Joseph McMillan;49666 wrote:

Final word:  On the SoC in particular—General Washington never displayed his arms with the Cincinnati badge.  Why would any modern member feel the need to do other than follow his example?

A point well worth considering.

fwhite;49670 wrote:

It seems to me that heraldry is an originally military or paramilitary tradition, so I don’t think limiting the gongs as already suggested has quite the arbitrary appearance you seem to discern.

Heraldry ceased to be limited to the military context long before the custom of decorating an achievement with the insignia of orders of chivalry ever arose.  And most of the orders, etc., that traditionally are displayed with arms in heraldry-using societies have nothing in particular to do with military service.

Quote:

Fine. Why are the awards of any government whatsoever, no matter how reprehensible or obscure (e.g., North Korea, the Maldives), and the awards of our own, no matter how trivial the award (e.g., the Army Achievement Medal) more worthy of display than the gong of First Families of Virginia?

Not more worthy, but in a different category because they are awarded by recognized sovereigns, not by self-constituted voluntary societies.  It’s far easier to find the line dividing honors conferred by sovereign entities and all others than to find the one that divides those conferred by worthy private organizations and those conferred by unworthy ones.

Also, we come back to custom.  It is the custom, in most if not all heraldry-using countries, that holders of state-conferred orders and decorations may display the insignia with their arms.  It is not the custom, in most countries, for members of private non-chivalric societies to do so, and, as far as I have been able to find, such display has not been the custom in the US for members of private societies, including lineage societies.

Whether an American armiger would hang his Maldivian Order of the Distinguished Leader or (less plausibly) his North Korean Order of Kim Il Sung beneath his shield depends, I guess, on how much stock he puts in having received it in the first place and how willing he is to suffer the scorn of people who value the particular award less highly.  It’s always a matter of choice.

Joseph McMillan;49671 wrote:

And most of the orders, etc., that traditionally are displayed with arms in heraldry-using societies have nothing in particular to do with military service.

Maybe not now, but they did to begin with, right? Can the gongs proposed for inclusion not be similarly regarded?

Joseph McMillan;49671 wrote:

It’s far easier to find the line dividing honors conferred by sovereign entities and all others than to find the one that divides those conferred by worthy private organizations and those conferred by unworthy ones.

I understand the need for administrative expedients, but I don’t find ease the most compelling imperative in the effort to distinguish worthy from unworthy authorities/gongs. I think we’re up to the task.

Joseph McMillan;49671 wrote:

It is not the custom, in most countries, for members of private non-chivalric societies to do so, and, as far as I have been able to find, such display has not been the custom in the US for members of private societies, including lineage societies..

It seems to me that our heraldic customs are still being defined, and that we all believe in American exceptionalism as far as heraldry goes, so I don’t see why we can’t make some fine distinctions between worthy and unworthy—in such a way that the Society of Vegetarian War Vets gets excluded and Aztec Club doesn’t.

fwhite;49681 wrote:

It seems to me that our heraldic customs are still being defined, and that we all believe in American exceptionalism as far as heraldry goes.

We’ve been using heraldry in this country for going on 450 years.  Other than adaptations necessary to keep up with social and legal change (see the guidelines section on the law of arms), I’d say our customs are pretty well set.  They’re the same as most everyone else’s.  We don’t all believe in American exceptionalism as far as heraldry goes.

Perhaps exceptionalism is too strong a word, but either way, I reckon I should stick to speaking for myself alone.