fwhite;49545 wrote:
The arguments being adduced all founder on the inconsistency that arms including the insigne of the SMOM are on display at this site. The SMOM is a perfectly respectable organization, one I’d be honored to belong to, but the Maltese Cross is not bestowed by any government, is of foreign origin, and is arguably just a badge of membership in a club for Catholic philanthropists.
No, it isn’t. It’s an order of chivalry (which no matter what Guy Stair Sainty thinks or says, the Society of the Cincinnati is not) which is bestowed by a sovereign.
fwhite;49545 wrote:
Do you really mean to tell me that in the context of this uniquely American set of heraldic practices the AHS is advocating, the SMOM rates as acceptable for display and the Cincinnati eagle doesn’t?
Yes. The two are not on a par with each other.
fwhite;49545 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.
That would get us into the business of sanctioning which, as has already been repeatedly noted in this thread, is something we don’t wish to and quite simply will not do.
fwhite;49570 wrote:
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.
fwhite;49615 wrote:
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."
No, the guidelines need not be that extreme. It certainly would make it nice for those whose pet gong doesn’t make the cut but that wouldn’t make it a good policy. Rather, it would be giving in to the ease of saying that everyone should be the same. This is rooted in the fundamental mistake that difference implies inequality and anyone who has something I don’t thinks he’s better than me, which is, of course, ridiculous.
So where does that leave us? Can the emblem of the Society of the Cincinnati be displayed with your arms? The answer is it can but it shouldn’t according to the guidelines we propose and we will reserve the right not to display a emblazonment of arms on this website that does include this emblem.
But, of course the Board will be discussing this further.
Beyond stating my agreement with Fr. Guy, the following is going to be my last word on this topic:
In an earlier response, I pointed out that one key difference between the badges of the SoC, Aztec Club, MOLLUS, etc., and the insignia of decorations and orders whose display we sanction is that entitlement to the former is hereditary and entitlement to the latter is not.
Our guidelines ruthlessly—some would say too ruthlessly—shun public display of hereditary accoutrements, including coronets of rank, helmets indicating nobility, supporters, and mantles. Fred White’s proposal not only contradicts this philosophy but does so in a particularly invidious way, by suggesting that some American hereditary accoutrements are better than others.
This is not only outside the spirit of the AHS guidelines but, as I read the history, outside that of the Society of the Cincinnati itself. I might, just might, be able to sign up to the display of badges of such societies by those who are (in the words of the 1890 Congressional resolution) "members in their own right," but not by those who are members by virtue of what their 5 x great-grandfathers may have done.
I have nothing against lineage societies. I belong to three of them, and could belong to several more if I agreed with their agendas and/or took the trouble to collect the original archival documents proving descent. But I would never wear their insignia outside the context of the organizations concerned, and I would never hang their badges beneath my shield. And I will not sign up to an AHS policy that endorses the heraldic display of additaments that are open to some Americans and closed to others by virtue of who their ancestors were.
gselvester;49695 wrote:
This is rooted in the fundamental mistake that difference implies inequality and anyone who has something I don’t thinks he’s better than me, which is, of course, ridiculous.
Maybe I’m receiving poetic justice, and have wandered blindly into the ironic position of basing an argument on the fundamental mistake succinctly expressed above. I say "ironic," because this is precisely the error I have pointed out at certain times in the thinking of people who have questioned the ethical soundness of my doing anything exclusive which happens not to exclude me. I dislike hypocrisy as much as anyone, so if this is what happened, I regret it. I’ll have to give this more thought.
gselvester;49695 wrote:
So where does that leave us? Can the emblem of the Society of the Cincinnati be displayed with your arms? The answer is it can but it shouldn’t according to the guidelines we propose and we will reserve the right not to display a emblazonment of arms on this website that does include this emblem.
Well, my conclusion remains that since the consensus among the vocal here is clearly very much opposed, in principle, to the display of said emblem, and since I want to be a constructive presence in AHS, even if the board were to decide the display is—from a strict policy standpoint—permissible, I would not want to do anything that the fellowship would find grandiose, or otherwise invidious. Plus, I recognize that I’m simply inexperienced with all this and am willing to defer to your expertise. I appreciate how generous you all have been in tutoring me about the fine points of heraldic ethics.
Joseph McMillan;49696 wrote:
Our guidelines ruthlessly—some would say too ruthlessly—shun public display of hereditary accoutrements, including coronets of rank, helmets indicating nobility, supporters, and mantles.
I’m not sure the shunning is exactly ruthless. The principles guiding the design of each individual’s shield are inherited. This whole genre of visual expression is something we have inherited. We recognize that there is such a thing as legitimate inheritance of arms and endorse the use of such arms. When these legitimately inherited arms include accoutrements of rank, do we tell people to strip them in order to meet our guidelines?
Not to keep harping on the SMOM, but I think it’s an illustrative example and captures the kind of inconsistency I’m questioning here: You’re saying that we embrace the display of the SMOM emblem by those in the non-hereditary ranks, on the grounds that it is an award of merit. But in the SMOM hierarchy, are these not in fact the lower ranks? Would we oppose the display of the SMOM emblem by hereditary KMs in the ranks Guy Stair Sainty is agitating to get Americans admitted to?
Joseph McMillan;49696 wrote:
Fred White’s proposal not only contradicts this philosophy but does so in a particularly invidious way, by suggesting that some American hereditary accoutrements are better than others.
Joe, you clearly don’t object to the suggestion that some organizations are better than others, because you have made your own very sharp distinctions in appraising the relative prestige of certain memberships (cf., your remarks about the Richmond German, St. Cecilia’s, etc.). So why would you find it invidious for me to posit that some lineage societies are in one or another sense "better" (your word, mind you) than others?
gselvester;49695 wrote:
No, it isn’t. It’s an order of chivalry (which no matter what Guy Stair Sainty thinks or says, the Society of the Cincinnati is not) which is bestowed by a sovereign. . . . The two are not on a par with each other.
Well, Fr. Selvester, I’ve already responded to the above assertion in the context of your earlier declaration that the SMOM is a government and regarded as such by all. This response was censored, so I will not bother to repeat it.
Anyway, neither Guy Stair Sainty nor I (this is, of course, pairing the great with the small) have claimed that the SoC is an order of chivalry or nobility. But I think we are saying that isn’t necessary for it to be, in order to rank alongside at least some such distinctions. Obviously, the whole category of orders of chivalry and nobility doesn’t exist here, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t analogize from old world categories to new.
gselvester;49695 wrote:
That would get us into the business of sanctioning which, as has already been repeatedly noted in this thread, is something we don’t wish to and quite simply will not do.
Fair enough.
gselvester;49695 wrote:
This is rooted in the fundamental mistake that difference implies inequality and anyone who has something I don’t thinks he’s better than me, which is, of course, ridiculous.
I couldn’t agree more, but how does your embrace of this principle square with your claim of having such a strong aversion to sanctioning one or another hereditary distinction?
fwhite;49706 wrote:
I’m not sure the shunning is exactly ruthless. The principles guiding the design of each individual’s shield are inherited. This whole genre of visual expression is something we have inherited. We recognize that there is such a thing as legitimate inheritance of arms and endorse the use of such arms. When these legitimately inherited arms include accoutrements of rank, do we tell people to strip them in order to meet our guidelines?
YES! There is nothing within the shield itself that indicates rank. Nor does the crest, at least in the majority of heraldic traditions. Rank and status are indicated by external accoutrements, such as different types of helmet, coronets, and other trimmings. Section 1.5.2. explicitly states: "These guidelines ... discourage the display by American citizens of any heraldic accoutrements indicative of titles of nobility or other hereditary social ranks that have no recognized place in American society."
Quote:
Not to keep harping on the SMOM, but I think it’s an illustrative example and captures the kind of inconsistency I’m questioning here: You’re saying that we embrace the display of the SMOM emblem by those in the non-hereditary ranks, on the grounds that it is an award of merit. But in the SMOM hierarchy, are these not in fact the lower ranks? Would we oppose the display of the SMOM emblem by hereditary KMs in the ranks Guy Stair Sainty is agitating to get Americans admitted to?
It has nothing whatever to do with whether SMOM membership is based on merit. It isn’t and doesn’t claim to be. But membership also isn’t hereditary, in any rank. By the way, the guidelines do not embrace the SMOM or put it in the same category as decorations and orders awarded by a sovereign state recognized by the US. The US doesn’t recognize the SMOM as sovereign, although many countries do. Thus, as far as the guidelines go, display of the SMOM insignia is covered by section 2.2.2.3:
"In addition to those conferred by recognized heads of state, many orders of chivalry exist autonomously [e.g., SMOM] or are granted by former monarchs, former ruling families, and royal pretenders. Some of these are universally recognized as legitimate [e.g., SMOM], while others are the subject of considerable controversy and still others are clearly fraudulent. It is not the business of the American Heraldry Society to adjudicate the claims of such bodies. Armigers are urged to consider carefully whether the display of their insignia is appropriate other than in connection with the affairs of the organization itself."
Quote:
Joe, you clearly don’t object to the suggestion that some organizations are better than others, because you have made your own very sharp distinctions in appraising the relative prestige of certain memberships (cf., your remarks about the Richmond German, St. Cecilia’s, etc.). So why would you find it invidious for me to posit that some lineage societies are in one or another sense "better" (your word, mind you) than others?
I don’t have any problem judging for myself that one organization is better than another, or with your judging the same thing for yourself. I do have a problem with the AHS as a group getting into the business making that judgment for others. Furthermore, I’m not the one advocating that some of these should be allowed to display their insignia with their arms and others should not—none of them should—so whether I consider one as "better" than another is heraldically irrelevant.
fwhite;49708 wrote:
. . . neither Guy Stair Sainty nor I (this is, of course, pairing the great with the small) have claimed that the SoC is an order of chivalry or nobility. But I think we are saying that isn’t necessary for it to be, in order to rank alongside at least some such distinctions. Obviously, the whole category of orders of chivalry and nobility doesn’t exist here, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t analogize from old world categories to new. . .
ESPECIALLY since titles of nobility today are themselves, generally speaking, seldom much more than family heirlooms—just an aspect of the hypothetical armiger’s family history he might want to preserve in his COA—I don’t see why we would forbid a COA with additaments suggesting nobility in our armorial if that would violate the original blazon, though our guidelines are clear enough about our normative tastes. What is at stake, anyway? What is there to be threatened by? Nobles have their family associations, and some are managing to hold onto the ancestral pile for a few more years before a grocery store mogul buys them out, but they don’t often have any more than ceremonial entree into the corridors of power anymore, do they? The peerage’s rump presence in the House of Lords has to be the last of its kind in the developed world, and even this is doomed to extermination, I bet.
Okay, this has been chased around Robin’s barn long enough and does not seem to be going anywhere productive or pleasant. Enough. Unless you have something new to add to the discussion, please let it go.
ESPECIALLY since titles of nobility today are themselves, generally speaking, seldom much more than family heirlooms—just an aspect of the hypothetical armiger’s family history he might want to preserve in his COA—I don’t see why we would forbid a COA with additaments suggesting nobility in our armorial at the cost of disfiguring the original COA. (Our guidelines are clear enough about our normative tastes, but I’m talking about our actual rules—such as they are—not our guidelines.) What is at stake, anyway? What is there to feel threatened by? Nobles have their family associations, their social events, and some are managing to hold onto the ancestral pile for a few more years before a grocery store mogul buys them out, but they don’t often have any more than ceremonial entree into the corridors of power anymore, do they? The peerage’s rump presence in the House of Lords has to be the last of its kind in the developed world, and even this is doomed to extermination within the decade.
Patrick Williams;49715 wrote:
Okay, this has been chased around Robin’s barn long enough and does not seem to be going anywhere productive or pleasant. Enough. Unless you have something new to add to the discussion, please let it go.
I find that this thread has become a bit of a odd fascination for me. I often check it a few times day to see how it has ‘progressed’ such as it does, like a slow moving train wreck. As Patrick wrote so finely above, the time does come when traffic needs to move on, no matter how interesting the scorched, twisted and torn debris may be for gawking.
I always thought you were a rubber-necked thrill seeker, David! 
fwhite wrote:
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.
To which I responded
Quote:
I’d love to know where this came from.
I’ve now found out. I found the Wikipedia article on the Cincinnati and it asserts that:
Quote:
Full members of the Society of the Cincinnati are the only United States citizens to hold a Federal civil rank, equivalent to just under that of a commissioned officer. The President General of the Society of The Cincinnati (General Society), who is elected to a three year term of office, holds a civil rank equivalent to a Federal territorial lieutenant governor. The basis for this is Congressional Order of January 29, 1885, which was necessary to determine protocol and seating arrangements at official diplomatic functions.
The only problem is that the "Congressional Order" of January 29, 1885, was not issued to determine protocol at official diplomatic functions. For Congress to have regulated diplomatic protocol would have been a usurpation of the President’s authority over the conduct of foreign relations. In fact, the document concerned was merely the order of precedence issued by the Congressional committee charged with arrangements for the dedication of the Washington Monument. In other words, a directive as to who would stand and sit where at one particular event, one time.
One might as well look at the seating chart for a state dinner and deduce that Academy award winning actors or professional golfers have permanent fixed places in the official order of precedence.
The claim that members of the society rank just after commissioned officers would seem to come from the same event. The report of the procession to the dedication ceremony (http://www.nps.gov/archive/wamo/history/appe.htm) has the members of the SoC collectively marching just after "officers of the Army and Navy" and before the Masonic grand lodge of the District of Columbia. To extrapolate this into a claim of permanent personal precedence or "civil rank" would require likewise according "civil rank" to the Masons, not to mention giving members of the carpenters’ union precedence over DC firefighters but behind journeymen stonecutters, based on the order of march.
Bravo Joseph!
It is good to see another baseless ‘fact’ debunked. This just stands as another warning to all about putting too much trust in Wikipedia entries.
Joseph McMillan;49761 wrote:
To extrapolate this into a claim of permanent personal precedence or "civil rank" would require likewise according "civil rank" to the Masons, not to mention giving members of the carpenters’ union precedence over DC firefighters but behind journeymen stonecutters, based on the order of march.
Is that right?
David Pritchard;49762 wrote:
This just stands as another warning to all about putting too much trust in Wikipedia entries.
My source is another member of the Society, but if he in turn has relied on Wikipedia (or authored the article? Ye Gods!) then perhaps I should refrain from taking his interpretations at face value.