Fascinating discussion.
From my own corner I’m musing… but of course sovereignty is ultimately an attribute of an individual rather than any polity - polities arise by the greater or lesser and voluntary or involuntary abridgement of individual sovereignties.
and
I’m trying to reconcile the lack of need to reemphasize personal connection with the polity with the wide personal display of flags, repeated pledges of allegiance (as though once in a lifetime isn’t enough 
), the existence of patriotic societies including genealogically based ones, etc.
and
I’m musing as to how an award made on behalf od *us* as state awards are compares to simply private awards that some committee endowed by private money might make. The second might be prestigious but it has nothing to with any recognition that *we* give as a society. Pulitzer and Medal of Honour - apples and oranges. If I am a US citizen the second represents our collective esteem, the first is the award of some committee that has nothing to do with me.
But I don’t pretend to understand. There seem to be contradictions built in in a variety of ways. I’ll keeping reading.
George Lucki;57341 wrote:
Fascinating discussion.
From my own corner I’m musing… but of course sovereignty is ultimately an attribute of an individual rather than any polity.
Rousseau thought otherwise. So did James Madison. Bodin said sovereignty does not exist in isolation from a polity.
Quote:
I’m trying to reconcile the lack of need to reemphasize personal connection with the polity with the wide personal display of flags, repeated pledges of allegiance (as though once in a lifetime isn’t enough
These are unilateral expressions of a connection that already exists. They do not require reciprocal action on the part of the state or create new connections.
Quote:
I’m musing as to how an award made on behalf od *us* as state awards are compares to simply private awards that some committee endowed by private money might make. The second might be prestigious but it has nothing to with any recognition that *we* give as a society. Pulitzer and Medal of Honour - apples and oranges. If I am a US citizen the second represents our collective esteem, the first is the award of some committee that has nothing to do with me.
So is a Nobel Prize. But most scientists I know would consider it a higher honor than the National Medal of Science, even though the latter is established by Congress and awarded by the President and the former is, in your terms, a private award. The value of an honor is in the eye of the recipient, his or her peers, and the public. It doesn’t have to come from the state.
Quote:
But I don’t pretend to understand. There seem to be contradictions built in in a variety of ways. I’ll keeping reading.
Try Lord Bryce’s The American Commonwealth.
George Lucki;57341 wrote:
I’m trying to reconcile the lack of need to reemphasize personal connection with the polity with the wide personal display of flags, repeated pledges of allegiance (as though once in a lifetime isn’t enough
There seem to be contradictions built in in a variety of ways. I’ll keeping reading.
Well, I imagine we could find contradictions aplenty built in to Canadian culture, too, if we wanted to put it under a microscope, but laisserons ca tomber, eh?
The practical problem that occurs to me (and I feel as if I’ve already said this, actually) is funding for another bureaucracy. I can’t imagine an American, Virginian, or Chicagoan college of arms ever being a palatable use of taxpayer dollars. There are too many other things to be done with those funds in the view of people who are fond of public programs, and the rest think there are too many public programs as it is.
Moreover, Americans may enjoy savoring their ties to pre-American traditions, but I don’t think they want to institutionalize any of them unless it can’t be helped. Consequently, heraldry for individuals will always be regarded as proper to the private sphere of life in the U.S.
Fred White;57345 wrote:
The practical problem that occurs to me (and I feel as if I’ve already said this, actually) is funding for another bureaucracy.
This, though, should not be a sticking point. This is the day and age of public/private partnerships. It could be a matter of figuring out—through artists’ renderings, registration fees, or some other mechanism—a way for the institution to be self-funding. How much of a staff would this really need? A very small one to start for sure. An office? Stick them in any old federal courthouse or post office building anywhere in the country.
This is all off the top of my head, so please, no flamethrowers.
How big a staff is needed depends on the workload and how fast (and thus how thoroughly) a single person can process a registration request. I worked out some rough numbers earlier tonight. Assuming it is fully funded from user fees, and assuming a per capita demand similar to that in the UK or Canada, I think we’re talking a minimum of $500 to $800 for a simple registration, with no artwork or calligraphy. I’m figuring a staff of about five, not particularly at high pay grades, including one clerical support person and a budget/finance person. Don’t forget you have to budget for retirement, health insurance, other benefits, utilities, office space (sorry—there’s no such thing as spare rooms at the local federal building; GSA charges rent by the square foot), furniture, IT support. The office would have to be somewhere with access to a large heraldic library, which means a high-cost urban area like Washington, New York, Chicago, Boston, etc.
Lower demand means fewer people, but also that the fixed costs have to be spread across fewer customers.
I’m with Fred, for several reasons, of which this is one. The solution, if there is one, will be the German model: private registrations which can be introduced in a court case as proof of a claim. The parties pay the court costs. Sort of a more refined version of how armorial disputes were settled back before there was a College of Arms.
Key word is ‘fees’.
The registration I have with the ACH cost me $350.00. The registration I have at the USHR was free. There is virutally no difference between the two, other than the wording of the registration.
A volunteer system could be initiated, much like we have here. Each of our Officers are volunteers, and as we can all see they spend quite a bit of time here. Running a massive database certainly isn’t easy, but if enough enthusiast united, it could work.
Although the discussion may have drifted a tad off-topic for this thread, I think it is a valuable discussion, so I will aid and abet.
I have the impression that different people may have different things in mind when they are discussing a government-run registry. This could run the spectrum from a lord lyon type grant and enforce at one end to a simple recording system with no quality control (or enforcement) on the other. The former is not going to happen (and the debate on whether it should would probably get into the whole basis for (small-r) republicanism) and the latter extreme adds very little value to what is being done privately.
To me the question becomes, how much influence do you want politicians to have over the use of arms? Would arms that are not politically correct be rejected? I fear that the "volunteers" appointed would not be enthusiasts like members of the AHS but would be those seeking a political plum and they’re going to want staff, travel reimbursement, per diem ...
If the desire for government involvement reflects the desire to prevent usurpation (and not some residual doubt over the legitimacy of assuming arms), the discussion should perhaps be about remedies. I beleive, however, that any protection scheme will require a statutory basis.
Jay Bohn;57369 wrote:
To me the question becomes, how much influence do you want politicians to have over the use of arms? Would arms that are not politically correct be rejected? I fear that the "volunteers" appointed would not be enthusiasts like members of the AHS but would be those seeking a political plum and they’re going to want staff, travel reimbursement, per diem ...
To me, this is the biggest problem with giving the government too much control over this (or anything else for that matter).
I think that the best approach would be a South African style registry that is state based and not federal.
I think you misunderstand the South African system. "State" in this context does not mean "state" as opposed to "federal." It means "state" as opposed to "private." The South African Bureau of Heraldry is an agency of the national government of the Republic of South Africa.
Joseph McMillan;57371 wrote:
I think you misunderstand the South African system. "State" in this context does not mean "state" as opposed to "federal." It means "state" as opposed to "private." The South African Bureau of Heraldry is an agency of the national government of the Republic of South Africa.
Perhaps - it wouldn’t be the first time though I do understand the difference between state and State.
My understanding of the South African model is that all the registry does is register the arms (if the armiger chooses to) and it provides some legal protection.
What I meant in my post was that we can use a similar model and let it be controlled at a state, rather than federal, level.
kimon;57372 wrote:
What I meant in my post was that we can use a similar model and let it be controlled at a state, rather than federal, level.
But then you get into all sorts of problems with recognition between the states; status of arms in states that refuse to run such a registry; two armigers registering the same arms (perhaps in good faith, perhaps not) in different states; "should I register in all 50 states for max protection?".
Better a national registry, or several private registries that cooperate.
Chris
Joseph McMillan;57360 wrote:
I’m with Fred, for several reasons, of which this is one. The solution, if there is one, will be the German model: private registrations which can be introduced in a court case as proof of a claim. The parties pay the court costs. Sort of a more refined version of how armorial disputes were settled back before there was a College of Arms.
I think this would be a very reasonable approach and more palatable from a legislative perspective than other regimes. Everyone would have a right to sue to protect their arms, with the costs and the burden falling on their shoulders rather than a government agency. This leaves the door open for private organizations to freely set membership criteria, etc.
Chris W.;57374 wrote:
But then you get into all sorts of problems with recognition between the states; status of arms in states that refuse to run such a registry; two armigers registering the same arms (perhaps in good faith, perhaps not) in different states; "should I register in all 50 states for max protection?".
Better a national registry, or several private registries that cooperate.
Chris
I agree but, it’s not much different that it is today with other things. Though I would prefer a private approach that can have some weight in court.
Ben Foster;57375 wrote:
I think this would be a very reasonable approach and more palatable from a legislative perspective than other regimes. Everyone would have a right to sue to protect their arms, with the costs and the burden falling on their shoulders rather than a government agency. This leaves the door open for private organizations to freely set membership criteria, etc.
This would be great! Sounds like a "prior use" model
Just as an aside, much as I participate in this whole business of figuring out ways to "protect our arms" in the US, I’ve been saying for quite some time that I really think of this as a solution in search of a problem. It may make sense for people who are de jure entitled to ancient arms (i.e., the kind that bucket shops are likely to appropriate as "arms of the name"), but that’s a tiny, tiny proportion of the people using heraldry in the United States. As a couple of other folks have suggested in this and other threads in the past few weeks, how much of a danger is it really that any of our (self designed and assumed) arms will be pirated, or that we would be damaged in any tangible way if they were?
So, in my opinion, let’s by all means keep discussing this, but I really do think that promoting good heraldic use in the US is a far, far higher priority than fretting about "protection."
Fred White;57283 wrote:
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.
Alas, another defection.
Such is the effect of the group mind, which at AHS is strongly republican.
Nevertheless, I shall remain steadfast as our token royalist. 
/Charles