Well, thank God for soft dirt, because those of us who actually take a stab at belonging to the "equestrian classes" get our asses handed to us on a plate by our steeds from time to time. It might be worthwhile to find out if they think we’ve reached the port of gentility. I imagine a man is scarcely more a hero to his (leased) horse than he is to his (nonexistent) valet.

Fred White;54984 wrote:

It might be worthwhile to find out if they think we’ve reached the port of gentility.

They probably think you’ve been drinking the port of gentility.

________________

Footnote:  Not really aimed at Fred:  could we please stop referring to the port of gentility as if it were a threshhold that can be reached?  The expression is to bear, not reach, the port of a gentleman.  It means to behave in a gentlemanly manner.

Fred White;54984 wrote:

Well, thank God for soft dirt, because those of us who actually take a stab at belonging to the "equestrian classes" get our asses handed to us on a plate by our steeds from time to time. It might be worthwhile to find out if they think we’ve reached the port of gentility. I imagine a man is scarcely more a hero to his (leased) horse than he is to his (nonexistent) valet.

Excellent.

I think Charles’ notion of the equestrian classes and the idea of a chivalric code are a call to service and leadership and that is about the willingness to put ass on the line - so if the dirt is soft so much the better. The question of gentility is really not for horses and valets (or superiors) to determine as much as individuals to demonstrate today with a view to God and to their long departed ancestors as well as to their long yet to be born descendents - a balance of present action in the context of a heritage and calling stretching well beyond a lifetime.

It was once explained to me that a gentleman is one who will think to establish a great park for the full enjoyment of his great-grandchildren who will be around after his death at the time when the trees he planted are fully matured. By analogy that might express my views about heraldic inheritances as well.

All this talk about gentility makes me wonder about the bearing of arms in more ancient democracies than the American—the Helvetic Confederation, to be precise. How has the bearing of arms been understood among the Swiss?

As a honourable way of identification and representation, not neccessarily (and predominantly not) nobiliary, and the honourable nature of the practice being usually derived not from any fons honorum but from the measure of honourability naturally belonging to anyone. - (But any generalisation is dangerous; for ex., in the independent "absolutist republic" of Bern it was formerly used to be different and quite complicated.)

Michael Swanson;54982 wrote:

I will think about the code, of course the devil is in the details:

1. Thou shalt believe all the Church teaches and shalt obey her commandments.

2. Thou shalt defend the Church.

3. Thou shalt respect all weaknesses and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.

4. Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy.

5. Thou shalt make war against the infidel without cessation and without mercy.

6. Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties, if they be not contrary to the laws of God.

7. Thou shalt never lie, and shalt remain faithful to thy pledged word.

8. Thou shalt be generous, and give largesse to everyone.

9. Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.

It might be useful to point out that I believe that any ancient tradition that is practised today has to be "evolved forward," so that it is practiced not as it was then, but as it would or should be now, if it had continued in an unbroken chain of continuity.  It is very much like what the SCA says about experiencing the Middle Ages, not as they were, but as they should have been.  This means that by taking seriously my spiritual commitments, I am not advocating anything which I find morally repulsive.

/Charles

Charles E. Drake;54992 wrote:

This means that by taking seriously my spiritual commitments…

George Lucki ;54992 wrote:

The question of gentility is really not for horses and valets (or superiors) to determine as much as individuals to demonstrate today with a view to God…

Not to get off topic, but I think you are claiming there is a minimal but necessary religious component to being an armiger.  (Don’t tell Sir Salman Rushdie, Sir Bob Geldof, Sir Alfred Ayer, Sir Julian Huxley, among many others, about the faith requirement!)

If religion is a necessary condition for British gentility, which serves as a necessary condition for being an armiger in the British tradition, then I guess the British heraldic tradition can’t serve as a foundation for assumption (or official acquisition if that happens) in America.  We need to look elsewhere for a more inclusive heraldic model of acquisition.  (George has already acknowledged this.)

Perhaps the real issue is that the concept of gentility evolved forward into a concept so vague that it is not useful for sorting people.  Wasn’t the escape of subjective class sorting the reason many came to America, and the reason our system of government does not adopt sorting of this kind?

I acknowledge that there are those that want to sort people, modeled on the "old ways," but I think we need to move past this and look at more realistic ways to conceptualize American heraldry.

Michael Y. Medvedev;54991 wrote:

As a honourable way of identification and representation, not neccessarily (and predominantly not) nobiliary, and the honourable nature of the practice being usually derived not from any fons honorum but from the measure of honourability naturally belonging to anyone.

Thanks, Michael. This sounds like a better model for American heraldry than any of the aristocratic systems or their modern descendants.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charles E. Drake:

This means that by taking seriously my spiritual commitments…

Michael Swanson replied:

Not to get off topic, but I think you are claiming there is a minimal but necessary religious component to being an armiger.  (Don’t tell Sir Salman Rushdie, Sir Bob Geldof, Sir Alfred Ayer, Sir Julian Huxley, among many others, about the faith requirement!)

Not at all.  Sorry if it came across that way. I want to avoid anything that would encroach on the subject of religion or offend anyone.  I was speaking specifically to the rules you quoted about blind obedience to the church and slaying infidels, neither of which are for me.

I was using the term "spiritual" in a more vague or general way to refer to the ideals and principles by which I live my life.  If someone wishes to substitute altruistic or humanistic there, then that still works.  I agree with what Michael wrote about honor.

I don’t believe there should be a religious threshold for being an armiger, but I do still believe that armigers should live honorable lives, trying to help their fellow human beings, particularly those who cannot help themselves. I will admit that this idea is not one legally build into the status of armiger, but rather is connotative. When I see a coat of arms, I cannot help but be reminded of this. Maybe that’s just me.

Quote:

Perhaps the real issue is that the concept of gentility evolved forward into a concept so vague that it is not useful for sorting people.  Wasn’t the escape of subjective class sorting the reason many came to America, and the reason our system of government does not adopt sorting of this kind?

It is not that the concept of gentility has evolved forward (although it has), but that in a republican democracy vast numbers of the population are more gentle in their behavior than the aristocracy was hundreds of years ago.  This is the point George made about the citizen taking the place of the aristocrat.  We all can eat ice cream, read and write, take baths, etc.

And I don’t think there is any need to sort people at all, for in my experience they do a very good job of sorting themselves.

/Charles

Charles E. Drake;55006 wrote:

It is not that the concept of gentility has evolved forward (although it has), but that in a republican democracy vast numbers of the population are more gentle in their behavior than the aristocracy was hundreds of years ago.  This is the point George made about the citizen taking the place of the aristocrat.  We all can eat ice cream, read and write, take baths, etc.

I think George was making a different point.  The two main patterns of the state are top-down rule in the hands of the few and flat-rule in the hands of the many.  A constitutional monarchy and a democratic republic are somewhere in between, but a constitutional monarchy is anchored historically in the former patten and a democratic republic is slightly closer to the latter pattern, which has as its ideal rule by the "deme" or people (literally, "village").  In this ideal, decisions are arrived at through group deliberation.  Symbols of social status, which can symbolize unbalanced power in deliberations, are a danger to the ideal.  Everyone must think of themselves as—and be—equal deliberators for the system to work.  And that is why heraldic assumption is good for one form of state, and grants for another, but whether we are all gentlemen is not the point.

Michael Swanson;55052 wrote:

Symbols of social status, which can symbolize unbalanced power in deliberations, are a danger to the ideal.  Everyone must think of themselves as—and be—equal deliberators for the system to work.  And that is why heraldic assumption is good for one form of state, and grants for another, but whether we are all gentlemen is not the point.

Although the latter conclusion may be correct, I’m not sure if follows from the preceding statement.  Symbols of social status are rife and impossible to eliminate.  I know when I go to the polls that it is one person = one vote, regardless of whether the man in the next booth drove up in a nicer car than I or wears a nicer wrist watch.  I believe, and hope, that all of us know that we are equal deliberators.

/Charles

Charles E. Drake;55058 wrote:

Although the latter conclusion may be correct, I’m not sure if follows from the preceding statement.  Symbols of social status are rife and impossible to eliminate.  I know when I go to the polls that it is one person = one vote, regardless of whether the man in the next booth drove up in a nicer car than I or wears a nicer wrist watch.  I believe, and hope, that all of us know that we are equal deliberators.

Nicer watch, nicer car, nicer coat of arms.  Unequal in quality, all assumable.

My own views are democratic to the core. I think Charles’ interpretation of what I said, was what I was trying to say about modern democracies vs. aristocratic regimes. With respect to Michael I did draw a distinction between what he called the democratic and aristocrratic but I would see the aristocratic as existing with in the democratic as well and a tension between the two.

What appeals to me in the exchange between Michael and Charles is the way in which we see the role of symbols - even personal symbols relate to the values of the society in which we live in and the power we attribute to symbols. Particularly the challenge to balance the value of equality with the inherent inequality of life is a daunting one. While there can be an equality under the law in terms of rights and freedoms as well as certian obligations and there can be a formal equality of the sort one man = one vote, none of this actually creates a level playing field of equal deliberators. Even the village was never an equal place.

Decision making is not simply a question of election but in any form of assigned, delegated or representative government decision making is through some on behalf of the whole. Deliberations around decisions in a democracy are not simply about choosing representatives or debates in a legislature but how decisions are shaped within the whole polity. Citizens have their views and polling has created an imperfect mechanism for monitoring that. The media both reflects and shapes deliberations in a special way. Special interest groups whether grass roots or organized lobbies try to obtain a special role in deliberations around issues of concern to them. Donors and contributors as well as political volunteers and organizers have influence of a special sort. Finally there is the question of the network of relationships of influence, support, trust, kinship and shared experiences socially, in school, in military service or in business that defines a ‘privileged political class’ in a democracy. These are all citizens who have a greater (privileged, advantaged) role in political deliberations and decision making. Crassly, money as well as influence in other areas obtains greater access and a differential role in the deliberations. By analogy, it is not that different from the aristocratic court (think of the whole of the nobility or gentry as the ‘citizens’ and the members of the court as the privileged political class). The difference is in the values the society declares itself to espouse and the breadth of the citizen class and its powers. Goodness by the same token tehre is an analogy to the party elites and nomenklatura in the communist systems. Such inequalities are inevitable (and not necessarily undesirable if the political elites are well motivated and well prepared). To their credit democratic institutions seek to balance this with egalitarian laws (unfortunately while masking under this veneer of democratic laws the extent of the underlying inequalities).

A senior communist mover and shaker raised his brandy snifter and poposed a toast to the cognac he was drinking - Ah fine cognac, the drink of the whole proletariat consumed for them through the lips of their leading representatives.

American society is fundamentally unequal within an egalitarian rule of law and the institutions of representative democracy. Do we acknowledge this or eschew any symbols or ostentatious display that might allude to this?

Here is an interesting article touching points made earlier about the honor of bearing arms….

[ATTACH]410[/ATTACH]

Joseph McMillan;54985 wrote:

Footnote:  Not really aimed at Fred:  could we please stop referring to the port of gentility as if it were a threshhold that can be reached?  The expression is to bear, not reach, the port of a gentleman.  It means to behave in a gentlemanly manner.

We refer to it as such because it has been refered to as such for so long a time. The phrase is port of gentility not comport onseself as a gantleman. Port as a noun refers to a entryway whilst the verb suffix -port refers to bearing something.