In the heraldic context, I’ve always thought of the Port of Gentility to be one of the ones with the producer’s arms on the label or embossed in the glass itself. As opposed to the Port of Commonality which merely has the recycle logo on the brown paper beg…
Michael F. McCartney;55185 wrote:
In the heraldic context, I’ve always thought of the Port of Gentility to be one of the ones with the producer’s arms on the label or embossed in the glass itself. As opposed to the Port of Commonality which merely has the recycle logo on the brown paper bag…
I once received a bottle of ‘77 Dows as a birthday present. I would say that is the Port of Nobility. 
/Charles
David Pritchard;55096 wrote:
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.
The original expression is "to bear the port and countenance of a gentleman." If "port" in this context refers to an entryway, kindly explain how one bears it, and what it has to do with countenance.
Joseph McMillan;55250 wrote:
The original expression is "to bear the port and countenance of a gentleman." If "port" in this context refers to an entryway, kindly explain how one bears it, and what it has to do with countenance.
The original quote is "to bear the port, charge and countenance of a gentleman" and it has nothing to do with entry ways or sea ports. 
Gentlemen carried a social responsibility in terms of leadership - and so the charge of a gentleman was his trust; office; responsibility; oversight; obigation; duty.
Finally countenance is an outward expression of the values, attitudes and motivations of the gentleman and the impact of life on the person. Balzac put it nicely, "The habits of life form the soul, and the soul forms the countenance." A man’s inner life can be seen displayed on his face, (but so can the impact of hard work in the sun).
The French gentilehomme and the English gentleman refer at their roots to the same thing - they arise from the same Latin root generosus or well-born. Gentility was the earliest form of ‘nobility’ and it was nobility as a legal estate that evolved differently in France and England - in the former associated with the hereditary rank of ecuyer and in England restricted to a higher aristocracy or peerage. The Lord Lyon grants that allude to the noblesse of Scotland are truer to the original meaning. In both lands there was the notion that one could be made a noble but only born a gentleman. England as well did not have a sense of the instant or self-made gentleman and there was a natural and understandable suspicion of the self-made or new man and his qualities (someone in another thread spoke of Capone as a wealthy man who was not a gentleman). We still hear disparagement of the nouveau riche and contrast the gentle ways of old money. This is an echo of that sense of gentlity. Of course with accelerated social mobility, and the accessibilioty of higher education, opportunities for economic advancement, etc. the ranks of the gentlemn have both swelled and access to this has become easy.
Hope that helps explain the concepts.
Geez, so much erudition! IMO "to bear the port" means roughly what we used to call in college, BYOB—or perhaps BYOP would be closer.
David Pritchard;54875 wrote:
Membership in the Royal Order of the Seraphim does confer noble status upon the thirty-two non-Swedish Royal members of this élite* order
The well-known Swedish heraldist Jan Böhme says otherwise. See posting in rec.heraldry, 12 August 2004, in response to a comment from some chap named George Lucki:
Quote:
> The knightly orders
> in Sweden also do not appear to confer Swedish nobility
Definitely not. Although the official name of the nobility as a
corporation is "Ridderskapet och adeln" (the knights and the nobility)
the knights of this or that knightly order are not _that_ kind of
knights. Nor even the knights of the Order of the Seraphim - although
these at least get a nice coat-of-arms at the expense of the
Government. The only way of becoming a real Swedish noble is to obtain
introduction to the Swedish House of Nobility, and the Order of the
Seraphim most definitely doesn’t cut it with them.
Joseph thanks for reinforcing my point.
Usually when one’s words are quoted back it is for a different result.
George Lucki;54768 wrote:
... the American system is in one sense poor with respect to the British or some of the earlier continental ones. Assumed arms in the US are a purely private and individual undertaking and without any honour in that sense (and I’m not suggesting that there is no honour in the individual who assumes them or that they might not be a treasured family heritage but they are simply private keepsakes or mementos. It is frequently (and this is my theory) misunderstood but grants of arms are a species of honour. The petitioners wishes to create an armorial connection between themselves and their sovereign or nation and petitions for arms that he might bear as a citizen of the realm and might pass on to his descendents. The sovereign representing the polity honours the recipient with the gift of a unique symbol that the recipient bears not just as a private symbol but as a public one - arms that through the request and gift registered publicly connect the individual and their lineage to the sovereign and the nation.
(snip)
No American assuming arms has the benefit of such a connection between their arms and the republic - they are not symbols confirmed by the republic or any state as a gift or connection with that polity. Canadian or British arms are not an honour because they elevate an individual (they don’t) but because they create a connection between individual and national heritage.
This has been bugging me for the last couple of months ever since George posted it, and until Fred expressed sympathy with this view in another thread I couldn’t figure out why. Then it hit me.
What is implicit in George’s view is a truly fundamental disconnect between the way most Canadians (and Brits) apparently see their relation to their polity and the way I think most Americans see their relation to their polity.
It makes sense for a Canadian or Brit to crave a symbolic relationship with his or her sovereign, because the sovereign is conceptually "out there," "up there," "over there," at a distance. It does not make sense for an American to have a similar craving because the sovereign is us. It would be bizarre for an American to view a coat of arms as establishing a connection to his polity, because Americans view their polity as being themselves.
I don’t mean that the UK or Canada is, in practice, any less democratic than the United States. It’s a matter of constitutional theory that has been engrained over the centuries into national culture. It’s a difference in perspective that is even reflected in the very framework of our respective constitutional documents. The Canadian founding document, the British North America Act (now "Constitution Act") of 1867 is something granted by the Queen:
Quote:
Be it therefore enacted and declared by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty…
while the US Constitution is something the American people gave to themselves:
Quote:
We, the People of the United States…do ordain and establish…
In short, I think George’s conception of a grant of arms as establishing a symbolic connection between the individual and the state fills a need that simply does not exist in the American context.
Joseph McMillan;57255 wrote:
In short, I think George’s conception of a grant of arms as establishing a symbolic connection between the individual and the state fills a need that simply does not exist in the American context.
I think the argument preceeding the above remark is basically sound, Joseph, but I would point out that the state here is sufficiently "other" to be in the habit of bestowing honors (viz., medals for meritorious or valorous service of different kinds), and that we tend not to perceive these as gifts to ourselves.
But these awards are in the order of recognition in service to our fellow citizens. They are congratulations from one’s peers…Not recognition from a superior.
Fred White;57257 wrote:
I think the argument preceeding the above remark is basically sound, Joseph, but I would point out that the state here is sufficiently "other" to be in the habit of bestowing honors (viz., medals for meritorious or valorous service of different kinds), and that we tend not to perceive these as gifts to ourselves.
I thought of this, but decided getting into it would take too long for someone still jet-lagged from a flight from Athens to DC yesterday. I think the central difference is where the initiative for the transaction comes from. A real honor (medal, decoration, order, whatever) is initiated by the state (i.e., the people acting through their elected representatives in the US, the Crown in the UK and Canada) in recognition of services rendered. A grant of arms in the UK and Canada is initiated by petition of the would-be recipient, and the extent to which it recognizes anything more than the desire for the connection and the ability to pay the fees is, in the best of circumstances, ambiguous.
Joseph McMillan;57255 wrote:
This has been bugging me for the last couple of months ever since George posted it, and until Fred expressed sympathy with this view in another thread I couldn’t figure out why. Then it hit me.
What is implicit in George’s view is a truly fundamental disconnect between the way most Canadians (and Brits) apparently see their relation to their polity and the way I think most Americans see their relation to their polity.
It makes sense for a Canadian or Brit to crave a symbolic relationship with his or her sovereign, because the sovereign is conceptually "out there," "up there," "over there," at a distance. It does not make sense for an American to have a similar craving because the sovereign is us. It would be bizarre for an American to view a coat of arms as establishing a connection to his polity, because Americans view their polity as being themselves.
Hmmm, an interesting observation - and there is I think some merit to it.
I do have some question as to whether this is the way Americans see themselves.
Do Americans simply view their polity as themselves "L’etat c’est nous"? or do in practice do they see their sovereignty as being embodied in something distinct - the organs of government? or both? In Canada of course Her Majesty is invariably and by constitutional convention bound to be pleased to take her government’s advice and her government is directly responsible to the people - the doctrine of sovereignty is ultimately not so different.
If I look at two contrasting republics at the time of the US constitution I don’t find anything incompatible with official registration, recognition or protection of arms and a republican ethos.
But in the end it is a question of whether Americans find an official register of arms bizarre. I can’t say.
George Lucki;57268 wrote:
If I look at two contrasting republics at the time of the US constitution I don’t find anything incompatible with official registration, recognition or protection of arms and a republican ethos.
But in the end it is a question of whether Americans find an official register of arms bizarre. I can’t say.
It’s not a register that would be bizarre but the idea that registering arms with the federal or state government created some kind of bond with the polity that was different from that enjoyed by any other citizen.
Joseph McMillan;57259 wrote:
A grant of arms in the UK and Canada is initiated by petition of the would-be recipient, and the extent to which it recognizes anything more than the desire for the connection and the ability to pay the fees is, in the best of circumstances, ambiguous.
Whatever I may have contemplated previously, I agree that the UK model is not a desirable model for the U.S.
In fact, Joseph, I kind of feel obliged to say a loud mea culpa and credit your rather lyrical exhortations to preserve the ideals of the Founding Fathers with actually implanting in me an aversion to a number of ideas around the subject of heraldry, nobility, etc. I’ve generally been sympathetic to in the recent past. From one point of view, it is deeply ironic, but involvement in the AHS definitely has pushed me towards ardor for republican principles.
Joseph McMillan;57281 wrote:
It’s not a register that would be bizarre but the idea that registering arms with the federal or state government created some kind of bond with the polity that was different from that enjoyed by any other citizen.
I agree. Americans would tend to find this idea unacceptable. Our legal system is imperfect, but the principle of complete equality before the law—and before all manifestations of the state—is as deeply seated as any here.
I don’t think that rules out the compatibility of some kind of government registry of citizens’ arms (though I can’t imagine there ever being one) with the American ethos, but I don’t think such a register would accomplish anything necessary that isn’t already being accomplished by the extant registries.