Joseph McMillan;94845 wrote:

I think there’s an important distinction to be made.  No respectable heraldist would suggest that assuming—or purchasing a grant of—arms to a long dead ancestor actually made that ancestor armigerous.  It is done either to create stem arms which all the descendants can legitimately share (with or without differencing), or in the case of grants from Lord Lyon as a legal fiction to bring a petitioner within Lyon’s self-limited granting jurisdiction.

There are indeed those who try to do what I’m disparaging here, but they are most charitably regarded as ignorant.  (The scale runs downward from there to pitiable, silly, and contemptible, depending on motivation.)

Notes that the branch thing applies to me, but that I’m also easily able to fill the ignorant and often silly slots for Joe!  :p

I never understood the need to formally promote George Washington with more stars.  While it is true that he was “only” a Lieutenant-General in rank – he served as “General of the Armies”.  The only officers that have come close to this billet were John J. Pershing (as “General of the Armies of the United States” during WWI) and George Dewey (as “Admiral of the Navy”).

After Washington’s death, the highest rank was Major-General (two stars).  The next man to wear three stars was Winfield Scott just prior to the Civil War.  Even then, his three-star rank was called “Major-General, Commanding” (presumably in deference to Washington).  It wasn’t until Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan that three- and four-star generals appeared on official rank charts.  After the war, the four-star rank disappeared again until 1917.  When the five-star ranks were authorized in 1944, it was made clear that they ranked below Washington, and below Pershing (who was still alive at the time).

Personally, since the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is by law the highest ranking military officer in the United States Armed Forces, I would re-authorize the five-star rank as a unique rank held by the CJCS (upon Senate confirmation).  I would also un-rename “Rear Admiral, Lower-Half” back to “Commodore” – but that’s just ‘cause it sounds cool!

steven harris;94867 wrote:

I would also un-rename “Rear Admiral, Lower-Half” back to “Commodore” – but that’s just ‘cause it sounds cool!

I’ve always felt that too!

Also… elevating Washington effectively defames the generals that came after him, and I believe they are due significant credit.

In terms of scale, the Generals of the Civil War were far more accomplished. They led larger armies in the largest war on American soil. Without getting into a huge internet debate, I’ll also simply say that the consequences of the Civil War have been (or would have been, in the event of a Union loss) far more impacting on the US and the average American - probably even today. I could be wrong here too, but I’ve always felt that success in the revolution was sort of a foregone conclusion - while the Civil War could easily have gone either way - and a Union victory depended more on the competence of its leaders.

Likewise, Generals (and Admirals) of WWI and WWII fought on a global scale in conflicts that enveloped multiple whole nations, and employed machines Washington could not have even conceived in his sleep.

This is a heraldry forum and while posthumous promotion of rank has some potential for relevance regarding honors/honours, the potential outcomes of both the American Revolution or the American Civil War are pretty far afield of our chosen subject.

I fear that if—repeat if, hopefully never!—the AHS decides it somehow just must have supporters, I would suggest dead horses flagellant.

If American heraldry was just recently born anew, then there may (or may not) be some value in rehashing the whole supporters business.  But it’s not new—heraldry in America is older than nationhood; and it derived, for better or worse (some of each) from largely English roots.  In that regard, it was & is (and hopefully evermore shall be) merely a subset of the broader range of legal and social values & norms which make us Americans, which also derive from largely English roots, adjusted as necessary to meet local conditions this side of the pond.

When we severed ties with England, we kept those legal and social norms & values that still fit, and dropped what we determined didn’t fit.  Ditto American heraldry.  (Note that we didn’t rebel against the Netherlands or Portugal or whatever other places might have viewed supporters differently—we rebelled against England, and kept or rejected English practices in the context of how both we, and the English of the day, understood them.  Customs other than English, while perhapos of some interest, were for better or worse largely irrelevant.

Supporters, in the context of our largely English roots, are one of the English customs that didn’t fit, simply because, in the English context, they clearly did connote elevated legal or social status.  They had rarely been used here in colonial times, except by some of the royal governors of the various colonies, where they clearly expressed elevated status in the English tradition (e.g. Lord Fairfax IIRC).  Our founding fathers, many of whom used personal (family) arms, almost universally did not adopt or use supporters.

For better or worse (IMO much better!), that is our heraldic tradition; and rewriting the rules (customs) at this late date is not true to that tradition.  It takes heraldry to a place we should not want it to go—i.e. a foolish fantasyland divorced from what has been our mainstrem tradition and custom, in heraldry as in the rest of our national norms & values for well over two centuries.

Michael F. McCartney;94880 wrote:

Note that we didn’t rebel against the Netherlands or Portugal or whatever other places might have viewed supporters differently—we rebelled against England, and kept or rejected English practices in the context of how both we, and the English of the day, understood them.

All brilliantly stated—and in substantial measure a new and compelling argument.  We focus so much on what we took from England, heraldically and otherwise, that we sometimes forget to take due notice of what we rejected.

I’m going to borrow (steal) this.  With due credit of course!

If the United States had a heraldic authority, then the use of supporters could be limited to a certain list of high-ranking officials (not unlike how it is done in Canada) – this list could be as short as:

• Presidents and Vice-Presidents

• Speakers of the House and Presidents pro tempore of the Senate

• Chief Justices and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court

• Cabinet Secretaries (maybe)

City of Portland, Maine thinks supporters are OK

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b3/Seal_of_Portland,_Maine.gif

... just sayin..

Mike - well said.

Jeremy - as I have already stated, corporate and municipal arms are a different animal altogether and have no relevance in the conversation regarding supporters as indicators of nobility or elevated social status.

Kenneth Mansfield;94886 wrote:

Mike - well said.

Jeremy - as I have already stated, corporate and municipal arms are a different animal altogether and have no relevance in the conversation regarding supporters as indicators of nobility or elevated social status.

That’s what I get for only partially following this long thread.

steven harris;94883 wrote:

If the United States had a heraldic authority, then the use of supporters could be limited to a certain list of high-ranking officials (not unlike how it is done in Canada) – this list could be as short as:

• Presidents and Vice-Presidents

• Speakers of the House and Presidents pro tempore of the Senate

• Chief Justices and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court

• Cabinet Secretaries (maybe)

But:

1.  Supporters are typically held for life.  I would prefer that our heraldry underline the principle that a former office-holder is just an ordinary citizen.

2.  I also prefer that our heraldry underline the separation between public and private personas.  The President of the United States is entitled to the use of a distinctive emblazonment of the national arms of the U.S.  The personal arms of the man Barack Obama should not be any grander than the personal arms of anyone else.

3.  What Steven proposes would also be contrary to our national heraldic customs.  Arms granting agencies should enforce customary usage and change it only when externalities require.  They shouldn’t invent things.

An alternative approach might be to permit the use of external insignia, to be used only while holding the office.  For example, the President might display his personal flag behind the shield; the Speaker might use the mace of the House of Representatives.  Even that would risk the proliferation of insignia, just as the number of officials with personal flags has proliferated far beyond the ranks of those who actually need them.

Joseph McMillan;94892 wrote:

1.  Supporters are typically held for life.  I would prefer that our heraldry underline the principle that a former office-holder is just an ordinary citizen.

Even though former Presidents are still titled "President"?

I am indifferent, but curious.

I’m not actually “proposing” anything – just throwing an idea out there.

I respect our Society President too much to pick a fight (as I said, this wasn’t a “proposal”, just a half-baked thought), but this sentence doesn’t sit well…
Joseph McMillan;94892 wrote:

What Steven proposes would also be contrary to our national heraldic customs.  Arms granting agencies should enforce customary usage and change it only when externalities require.  They shouldn’t invent things.

“contrary to our national heraldic customs” – would infer that we have a unified heraldic custom to which I could be contrary.  Doesn’t §5.4.1 of the Society’s Guidelines allow for foreign-originated arms to follow, even be bound by, foreign rules, in the United States; thus negating any codified heraldic custom?

“Arms granting agencies should enforce customary usage” – we do not have an arms granting authority; at best we have a few private endeavors, none of whom can seriously claim to ‘grant’ arms, and all of whom are free to do as they damn well please with impunity. 

“<i>and change it only when externalities require” – what kind of ‘authority’ bows to the requirements of an externality? not a very authoritative authority to be sure.

Again, I don’t see myself as having a dog in the particular fight, just seeking clarification.</i>

Jeremy Keith Hammond;94893 wrote:

Even though former Presidents are still titled "President"?

I am indifferent, but curious.

They aren’t supposed to be, but it is a breach of etiquette widely used by the media. Any elected official will forever maintain the honorific of "The Honorable…" but should be referred to and addressed as simply Mr. Such-and-such.

Kenneth Mansfield;94895 wrote:

They aren’t supposed to be, but it is a breach of etiquette widely used by the media. Any elected official will forever maintain the honorific of "The Honorable…" but should be referred to and addressed as simply Mr. Such-and-such.

no kidding…  Well, seeing as how I’ve learned my "one new thing" for today - I’m going home early :p