steven harris;94894 wrote:

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…

We, or at least the forums, exist for the purpose of debate, so none of us should be afraid or reluctant to argue with anyone else. If the President of the U.S. is ultimately just another guy, even more so the president of the AHS.

Quote:

“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?

Yes, but I would say that custom is defined by long established practice, sort of like customary international law. The long established heraldic practice in the U.S. is that being president doesn’t entitle you to supporters. Washington didn’t do it, Adams didn’t do it, even FDR didn’t do it.

Quote:

“Arms granting agencies should enforce customary usage” – we do not have an arms granting authority;

But your proposal posited the existence of a heraldic authority. I probably assumed too much in supposing that "if the United States had a heraldic authority" it would have the power to grant arms. If not, then I amend my comment to "Heraldic authorities should enforce…"

Quote:

“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.

Sure enough; I don’t much like authoritative authorities on this kind of subject matter. But even the College of Arms bows to externalities, if slowly. When Parliament enacts a statute allowing adoption, for example, the College of Arms eventually gets around to providing for that in the heraldic world. I imagine it will eventually find itself having to do likewise in the face of parliamentary sanction of same-sex civil unions. What I don’t like is the practice of inventing new heraldic "customs" and imposing them by fiat, as Thomas Innes of Learney did in Scotland.

My recollection of the Guidelines, and of our discussions preceeding and following their adoption, is that foreign arms, and any foreign practices reflected in them, may continue to be used here to the extent—but only to tha extent—they are consistent (or at least not inconsistent) with the rest of the Guidelines.

Any foreign practices, and elements in foreign arms (e.g. additaments), that are contrary to the Guidelines remain foreign.  Prime example—supporters in personal/family arms.

There is an exception for foreign arms used in an essentially foreign context—e.g. an American who has succeeded to the position of a Scottish clan chief using his supporters while functioning in the context of his clan or of related Scottish activities, such as the various Scotish Gatherings or Highland Games—but in everyday life, the Guidelines encourage said chief to display his personal arms American-style.

Some may choose not to follow the Guidelines, but in doing so they are not demonstrating "best practices" in the American context.

I have no problem with an American who has (really) succeeded to the position of Scottish clan chief using supporters all the time. After all, they are not just the chief of the clan while they are at the highland games.

As I interpret the guidelines, we are suggesting allowances for certain foreign practices so as to facilitate the use of heraldry as it would by a particular family or person had they not emigrated to America and in so doing recognize that all rules of heraldry are not universal. By making these allowances, however, we are not submitting to the idea that what is customary in the United States has changed. There are exceptions to every rule and our guidelines are simply acknowledging that fact.

Kenneth Mansfield;94903 wrote:

I have no problem with an American who has (really) succeeded to the position of Scottish clan chief using supporters all the time. After all, they are not just the chief of the clan while they are at the highland games.

As I interpret the guidelines, we are suggesting allowances for certain foreign practices so as to facilitate the use of heraldry as it would by a particular family or person had they not emigrated to America and in so doing recognize that all rules of heraldry are not universal. By making these allowances, however, we are not submitting to the idea that what is customary in the United States has changed. There are exceptions to every rule and our guidelines are simply acknowledging that fact.

I don’t know if I agree with this.

We cannot say that we reject the trappings of nobility and at the same time accept their use.

Just like a Scottish clan chief is always a clan chief, so is a US born UK Peer or Spanish Grandee. So, we should also accept pavillions and crowns.

I think saying that the additional elements are perfectly fine in the relevant context (e.g. Highland Games, Spain events, etc.) but not in general use would both allow the flexibility to use them but also be consistent with the principles presented here.

kimon;94904 wrote:

We cannot say that we reject the trappings of nobility and at the same time accept their use.

Just like a Scottish clan chief is always a clan chief, so is a US born UK Peer or Spanish Grandee. So, we should also accept pavillions and crowns.

Do we reject the trappings of nobility? I thought we rejected nobility.

To the best of my knowledge there are currently no Peers of the UK who are Americans. If there were, I would personally have no problem with their showing this through heraldic display. The supporters do not pass with the arms automatically, but only with title, so there would be no "noble" status of family or heirs who are not in fact also peers.

I confess I don’t know thing one about Spanish Grandees. Are they relevant in Spain currently the same way Peers of the UK are? Is it possible to be one and be an American?

I do not believe American descendents of nobles or former nobles should use noble insignia or additaments. I think it is not in keeping with our heraldic customs, but I am willing to entertain the idea that there are some Americans who might find themselves in a position where they are entitled by other customs to those items.

I am, however, completely against the use of these for people who are "ennobled" by pretenders and only hold these beliefs for those categories recognized by sitting monarchs.

Kenneth Mansfield;94905 wrote:

Do we reject the trappings of nobility? I thought we rejected nobility. :D

Quote:

To the best of my knowledge there are currently no Peers of the UK who are Americans. If there were, I would personally have no problem with their showing this through heraldic display.

OK but, that would be implicit recognition of nobility right?

Quote:

I confess I don’t know thing one about Spanish Grandees. Are they relevant in Spain currently the same way Peers of the UK are?

Well, the UK Peers (save a few) aren’t exactly relevant anymore either.

Quote:

Is it possible to be one and be an American?

Yep, it absolutely is.

Quote:

I do not believe American descendents of nobles or former nobles should use noble insignia or additaments. I think it is not in keeping with our heraldic customs, but I am willing to entertain the idea that there are some Americans who might find themselves in a position where they are entitled by other customs to those items.

I think that is inconsistent though. We either reject nobility or we don’t. If we do reject nobility, I think it’s disingenuous to allow all the insignia that comes with it.

Quote:

I am, however, completely against the use of these for people who are "ennobled" by pretenders and only hold these beliefs for those categories recognized by sitting monarchs.

This is where the complication comes in. If we are to accept one group of nobles, why not another? I’m not only talking about those ennobled by pretenders but also those non-titled nobles of current monarchies. Also, what about those who are the current holders of erstwhile kingdoms such as France or Italy? Heck, what about the Hawaiian nobility?

If the principle we’re trying to apply is the republican nature of the US Constitution, why contradict it by implicitly recognizing nobles and then be inconsistent by recognizing some over others?

 

Personally, I think that it all depends on context. In a US republican context and for US citizens, there is no place for nobility (of any kind) nor its accouterments. In other contexts, nobility has its place and not just the titled kind.

Amen to Kimon’s comments.

Additional re: foreign titles & nobiliary trappings:

1. Just as heraldry is primarily a system of identification, both arms and any heraldic additaments should reflect the identity of the bearer.  Separating one’s heraldry from one’s identity denies the latter and makes the former irrelevant.  Fun perhaps in a fantasy context but hardly worthy of consideration as a "best practice."

2. We treat heraldry here (in the Guidelines for "best practices" in an American context) as an extension or reflection of broader American values.  It follows that one’s identity as an American (regardless of where our ancestors may be from) should also reflect those same American values—our ancestors may have been Scots or English or Dutch or Poles etc., but we are not.  At most we are Americans with a sentimental attachment to the Old Country (or for many of us, for a collecton of ancestral Old Countries) but only to the extent that the values etc. of those Old Countries are consistent with our primary identity as Americans.

3. Those Old Country values & customs that are inconsistent with American values were, or should have been, abandoned upon imigration. Just as this is true for our broader social, political & legal values, it should also be reflected in our heraldry.

4.  This is reflected in the oath of citizenship which requires the new citizen to disclaim any foreign allegiance and any titles of nobility.  To retain noble heraldic trappings in the context of American values is inconsistent with that oath; and for the descendant of naturalized citizens (i.e. for the majority of Americans) to resume them is at best to dishonor our ancestpr’s oath.

5.  For those of us whose citizenship was not based on that oath (e.g. familes here pre-Revolution, or children born here of non-citizen parents) to claim a "right" denied to those who took the oath, is IMO an unconscionable claim of greater rights and privileges that is inconsistent with the overriding American value of equality before the law—or at least certainly not "best practice."

6.  The narrow and limited exception in the Guidelines for heraldic expression in a foreign context (Scottish chiefs at the games, and any similar examples in other ethnic or private/familial situations) is only that—narrow and limited.  To carry it over into general use in the American context is IMO every bit as unwarranted and—let’s say, "silly" since that’s more polite than the other terms that come to mind—as insisting that one’s friends and business associates must address and treat us as nobles at work and in the general community.  There may be some who do so, but they are scarecly exemplars of "best practice" either as to manners generally or heraldic display in particular.

None of this or my other comments in this thread is new or original, except parhaps in the narrow and limited context of this one thread.

Michael F. McCartney;94908 wrote:

4.  This is reflected in the oath of citizenship which requires the new citizen to disclaim any foreign allegiance and any titles of nobility.  To retain noble heraldic trappings in the context of American values is inconsistent with that oath; and for the descendant of naturalized citizens (i.e. for the majority of Americans) to resume them is at best to dishonor our ancestpr’s oath.

I’m ok with this restriction on the one taking the original oath but I don’t see how or why it would apply on the descendants.

As I mentioned in my prior post, I do see cases where the extra "fluff" has its place. I am fully supportive of those Americans that have inherited or received nobility (personal, untitled or titled) and I don’t discriminate between those that are reigning and not

Hi all,

This is a fascinating discussion.  As I am not a member of the society, I would never presume to comment on or criticize the society’s guidelines.  However, I hope you don’t mind if I add my own two cents regarding the appropriateness of exterior heraldic additaments (like medals/badges, coronets, supporters, etc) for American citizens.  Personally, I tend to categorize such elements using two criteria: 1) are the elements hereditary or not, and 2) do the elements necessarily connotate nobility (either titled or untitled) in the context of that particular armiger.  Personally, I tend to regard the use of such elements by American citizens as inappropriate only if the elements are hereditary and at the same time outward signs of nobility.  I’ll try to illustrate:

Coronets: I wouldn’t see anything inappropriate with Americans like Rose Kennedy [1] or Thomas Foran [2] using an heraldic coronet.  Undoubtedly such coronets in these instances connotate nobility, but since the coronets wouldn’t be hereditary, it doesn’t bother me.  I would disagree with Americans like Edgar Hume [3] or Richard Wortley [4] using an heraldic coronet because they are both outward signs of nobility and hereditary.

Medals/Badges: I don’t see anything inappropriate with American members of an Order of Chivalry like the Order of St John using the medal with their arms because it isn’t hereditary and doesn’t signify nobility.  Similarly, I think it would be appropriate for Americans like James Dunbar [5] to use the badge of a baronet of Nova Scotia with their arms.  Sure, it is an hereditary exterior heraldic additament, but baronets aren’t noble (unless they also hold a peerage).  I think there are some Orders of Chivalry in which membership also confers untitled nobility (either hereditary or for life) [6].  It could be said that the badges/collars of these orders are necessarily outward signs of nobility, but since the badges/collars themselves aren’t hereditary, I think it would be fine for an American armiger to display them.

Supporters: I have no problem with an American like Winthrop Aldrich [7] using supporters.  In Ambassador Aldrich’s context, his supporters reflect his status as an honorary Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire.  Thus they aren’t hereditary and do not reflect nobility/a peerage.  I would consider the use of supporters by Richard Wortley inappropriate.  Consequently, if an American citizen was recognized as a clan chief and matriculated arms and (hereditary) supporters in Scotland, I’d consider that appropriate.  But if he inherited a peerage along with his status as a clan chief, however, then I’d consider that inappropriate.

My thoughts on this matter aren’t logical or systematic (few of my thoughts are), and I wouldn’t expect anyone to agree with them.  However, I hope they provide some food for thought!

[1] created countess *ad personam* by the Pope in 1951

[2] created baron for life by the Republic of San Marino in 1976

[3] created count by the King of Italy in 1944…not sure, but I think it was an hereditary title

[4] became 5th Earl of Wharncliffe (peerage of the United Kingdom) in 1987

[5] became 14th Baronet of Mochrum in 1993

[6] I think the Order of Isabella the Catholic and the Order of the Annunziata are two examples.  I think that members of the former become noble for life, while members of the latter received hereditary untitled nobility

[7] received an honorary grant of arms, crest and supporters from the College of Arms in 1956

PS Heim writes in Heraldry in the Catholic Church that “in composition with family arms, and even as external ornaments, the Pavilion and keys are also borne by families which have given a Pope to the Church…” (page 58 ).  Also, I think that there was some Papal Bull that ennobles the family of an elected Pope (if the family wasn’t already noble).  If I am remembering correctly, I guess by my (shoddy) logic the (hypothetical and) external use of the Pavilion and keys by an American armiger would also be inappropriate because it is 1) hereditary and 2) a sign of nobility.

(from another hotel lobby while on vacation, so quick & dirty ...well, maybe not all that quick…)

re: Kimon’s comments on my point #4 above—he sees a distinction between new citizens having taken the oath of citizenship, vs. their later born-here descendants who haven’t personally taken the oath.  I don’t see—or perhaps just don’t accept—that there is or should be a difference.  IMO the original oath-taker’s renouncing nobility is just a subset of renouncing the foreign allegiance which was the source (fons) of that nobility—both are IMO equally binding on his descendants, so long as the descendant retains American citizenship; he is legally subject to American laws reflecting American values.

Since American heraldry merely reflects the larger context of American identity and values, the same considerations should, at least as "best practice"  apply to his heraldic useage in the context of his being an American.  (That’s the thrust of my point #5 above—no excuses, no loopholes.)

If the descendant moves elsewhere and takes on that nation’s citizenship—i.e. renounces his American citizenship and the corresponding limits on nobility, he is of course free to accept or use whatever status. titles and additaments he may be granted by his new sovereign or otherwise allowed by that nation.  The AHS Guidelines on best practices in America no longer apply because he is no longer American.  At most, he is a Brit or German or whatever with perhaps some sentimental attachments to his American past, to the extent that our American values are consistent with his new citizenship; and heraldically is also no longer an American for whom our "best practices" are relevant.  (An example familiar to many here would be Mark Dennis, an American citizen who moved to the UK, became a British subject, studied heraldry, became one of the best current heraldic artists, and is now one of the heralds in Lyon Court.  We can be proud of him and his accomplishments—I certainly am!—but unless I were to follow his lead, at least as to moving and taking UK citizenship, I can’t & shouldn’t pretend the same rules apply to me here as to him there.)

As to Seb’s post, in which he makes a distinction between hereditary vs. non-hereditary and between nobiliary vs non-nobiliary—I accept the latter but not the former.  When a new citizen renounces nobility, the oath doesn’t AFAIK distinguish between personal vs hereditary titles.  A foreign title is, always and in every situation, foreign in the American context;and any heraldic goodies which reflect either variety of nobility are likewise foreign.  The Guidelines recognize a limited & narrow exception for use in a foreign context, but not in everyday American life.

Thus IMO the coronets or other additaments reflecting a foreign title are equally out of place, whether it’s a UK "life peerage" or non-hereditary "ad personum" Papal title, or whatever may exist in whatever foreign nation.  The only difference is duration.  Our Guidelines would allow their use in the relevant foreign context, but not in everyday life; just as the use of the title which those additaments reflect would be offensive to most Americans in business or social situations oitside of the relevant foreign context.

I respect Kimon’s & Seb’s opinions generally, but on these points we obviously differ, at least as to "best practice" in the American context.

As to gongs generally—I haven’t given this topic as much thought as Seb, or re-read the relevant parts of the Guidelines; but at first blush I would agree as to nobiliary vs non-nobiliary honors.

However, I would see the badge of a Baronet, either on the shield or as a dangling gong, as essentially nobiliary—not of peerage grade, but still minor nobility & with a title to boot!  If we would think "Sir" whatsit "OBE" inapprorpriate for an American honored by the UK Crown, I don’t see why "Sir" whatsit "Bart" & the corresponding badges would be any less inappropriate (i.e. not a "best practice"), at least for general use as an American in an American context.

Finally, re: Kimon’s question re: dual citizenship—leaving aside my personal uneasiness with the whole notion (one cannot serve two masters & all that) I would treat heraldry for a dual citizen just as the nations involved would AFAIK treat the potentially conflicting allegiances and the corresponding legal rights & obligations—heraldic "best practice" would follow the practices, customs, or rules of whichever hat you are wearing.  Where the rules/customs/practices are not inconsistent, then one’s heraldic display would be the same in both contexts; but where they differ, the dual citizen should honor each in its own setting, which may mean having at least two versions of his arms.  In other words, essentially the same logic & outcome as above for any American with a separate foreign identity, but perhaps arising more often.

As always, my opinions—quite strongly held!—but recognizing that others may disagree, at least until they give it more thought! 

Seb wrote (post #250 above): "PS Heim writes in Heraldry in the Catholic Church that “in composition with family arms, and even as external ornaments, the Pavilion and keys are also borne by families which have given a Pope to the Church…” (page 58 ). Also, I think that there was some Papal Bull that ennobles the family of an elected Pope (if the family wasn’t already noble). If I am remembering correctly, I guess by my (shoddy) logic the (hypothetical and) external use of the Pavilion and keys by an American armiger would also be inappropriate because it is 1) hereditary and 2) a sign of nobility."

This appears more complicated than the usual case discussed earlier, since the Pope is both head of state (Vatican) as well as head of his church.  Looking at it from the perspective of a form of nobility under the rules & traditions of a foreign state, this sounds right, at least in a general American context outside of the Church or family concerned.

... but would suspect this would be quite rare here?

Michael F. McCartney;94916 wrote:

(from another hotel lobby while on vacation, so quick & dirty ...well, maybe not all that quick…)

Mike, does your wife know what you’re doing when you sneak away?

Quote:

re: Kimon’s comments on my point #4 above—he sees a distinction between new citizens having taken the oath of citizenship, vs. their later born-here descendants who haven’t personally taken the oath.  I don’t see—or perhaps just don’t accept—that there is or should be a difference.  IMO the original oath-taker’s renouncing nobility is just a subset of renouncing the foreign allegiance which was the source (fons) of that nobility—both are IMO equally binding on his descendants, so long as the descendant retains American citizenship; he is legally subject to American laws reflecting American values…

I’m not convinced that the oath (like this one) made by a parent should be binding on a child.  Nor does the Oath of Allegiance actually mention renouncing titles - merely "that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen…". Admittedly there’s likely to be much philosophical debate about whether one can retain a foreign title without foreign allegiance and fidelity (I suspect you can), but perhaps some are conflating the citizenship oath with the Titles of Nobility clause of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 ) which applies to agents and employees of the federal government?

Quote:

As to Seb’s post, in which he makes a distinction between hereditary vs. non-hereditary and between nobiliary vs non-nobiliary—I accept the latter but not the former.  When a new citizen renounces nobility, the oath doesn’t AFAIK distinguish between personal vs hereditary titles.  A foreign title is, always and in every situation, foreign in the American context;and any heraldic goodies which reflect either variety of nobility are likewise foreign.  The Guidelines recognize a limited & narrow exception for use in a foreign context, but not in everyday American life…

Once again, there is the question of whether titles are actually renounced…

Quote:

However, I would see the badge of a Baronet, either on the shield or as a dangling gong, as essentially nobiliary—not of peerage grade, but still minor nobility & with a title to boot!  If we would think "Sir" whatsit "OBE" inapprorpriate for an American honored by the UK Crown, I don’t see why "Sir" whatsit "Bart" & the corresponding badges would be any less inappropriate (i.e. not a "best practice"), at least for general use as an American in an American context.

Is a knighted American (e.g., Steven Spielberg KBE) not "dubbed" because of American law, or rather because substantive British knightly orders are restricted to British subjects, leaving Americans open to honorary appointments which come with costume jewellery but not titles?

I also have a question of mechanics: What if a British hereditary peer emigrates, renounces his foreign allegiances and citizenships, but fails to follow through with the paperwork required of the Peerage Act, 1963 to disclaim his title (considering himself no longer bound by British law)?  (Perhaps we’re into the realm of how many American peers can dance on the head of a pin?)

Benjamin Thornton;94918 wrote:

I’m not convinced that the oath (like this one) made by a parent should be binding on a child.  Nor does the Oath of Allegiance actually mention renouncing titles - merely "that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen…". Admittedly there’s likely to be much philosophical debate about whether one can retain a foreign title without foreign allegiance and fidelity (I suspect you can), but perhaps some are conflating the citizenship oath with the Titles of Nobility clause of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 ) which applies to agents and employees of the federal government?

I’m not sure what the Oath says or what the documents one signs say but, in any case, I would argue that the spirit of what is swearing to and signing is the renouncement of all titles.

A very close friend of mine holds a Spanish title and though he holds a green card he does not want to apply for citizenship because he would have to renounce his title. I am guessing there’s a clause somewhere.

However, on your other point about inheriting the oath, I’m in agreement.

Quote:

Is a knighted American (e.g., Steven Spielberg KBE) not "dubbed" because of American law, or rather because substantive British knightly orders are restricted to British subjects, leaving Americans open to honorary appointments which come with costume jewellery but not titles?

I don’t know if this is rhetorical or not but, it’s because of British law.

Honestly, I don’t see why the laws & customs of one place care about what the same are somewhere else.

Quote:

I also have a question of mechanics: What if a British hereditary peer emigrates, renounces his foreign allegiances and citizenships, but fails to follow through with the paperwork required of the Peerage Act, 1963 to disclaim his title (considering himself no longer bound by British law)?  (Perhaps we’re into the realm of how many American peers can dance on the head of a pin?)

Regardless of pinheads, the scenario above would be like a violation of the oath taken. A bit like crossing your fingers behind your back.

My scenarios were more of the type that my parents became citizens but had no titles or anything. I am born here but because of whatever reason, I end up inheriting a title from the Kingdom of Narnia. Why shouldn’t I accept it and use whatever heraldic privileges come with it when not in a US republican environment such as my own home, personal calling card, or a function at the Narnian embassy?

Michael F. McCartney;94916 wrote:

re: Kimon’s comments on my point #4 above—he sees a distinction between new citizens having taken the oath of citizenship, vs. their later born-here descendants who haven’t personally taken the oath.  I don’t see—or perhaps just don’t accept—that there is or should be a difference.  IMO the original oath-taker’s renouncing nobility is just a subset of renouncing the foreign allegiance which was the source (fons) of that nobility—both are IMO equally binding on his descendants, so long as the descendant retains American citizenship; he is legally subject to American laws reflecting American values.

I see it more of the type of being held accountable for the acts of my parents.

Quote:

Since American heraldry merely reflects the larger context of American identity and values, the same considerations should, at least as "best practice"  apply to his heraldic useage in the context of his being an American.  (That’s the thrust of my point #5 above—no excuses, no loopholes.)

No disagreement

Quote:

If the descendant moves elsewhere and takes on that nation’s citizenship—i.e. renounces his American citizenship and the corresponding limits on nobility, he is of course free to accept or use whatever status. titles and additaments he may be granted by his new sovereign or otherwise allowed by that nation.  The AHS Guidelines on best practices in America no longer apply because he is no longer American.  At most, he is a Brit or German or whatever with perhaps some sentimental attachments to his American past, to the extent that our American values are consistent with his new citizenship; and heraldically is also no longer an American for whom our "best practices" are relevant.  (An example familiar to many here would be Mark Dennis, an American citizen who moved to the UK, became a British subject, studied heraldry, became one of the best current heraldic artists, and is now one of the heralds in Lyon Court.  We can be proud of him and his accomplishments—I certainly am!—but unless I were to follow his lead, at least as to moving and taking UK citizenship, I can’t & shouldn’t pretend the same rules apply to me here as to him there.)

Also in agreement

Quote:

I respect Kimon’s & Seb’s opinions generally, but on these points we obviously differ, at least as to "best practice" in the American context.

I find your lack of (universal) respect… disturbing

:D

Quote:

As to gongs generally—I haven’t given this topic as much thought as Seb, or re-read the relevant parts of the Guidelines; but at first blush I would agree as to nobiliary vs non-nobiliary honors.

This is whole other can of worms that I think we should start a brand new thread on, if we want to discuss it.

Quote:

However, I would see the badge of a Baronet, either on the shield or as a dangling gong, as essentially nobiliary—not of peerage grade, but still minor nobility & with a title to boot!  If we would think "Sir" whatsit "OBE" inapprorpriate for an American honored by the UK Crown, I don’t see why "Sir" whatsit "Bart" & the corresponding badges would be any less inappropriate (i.e. not a "best practice"), at least for general use as an American in an American context.

That would be consistent.

Quote:

Finally, re: Kimon’s question re: dual citizenship—leaving aside my personal uneasiness with the whole notion (one cannot serve two masters & all that) I would treat heraldry for a dual citizen just as the nations involved would AFAIK treat the potentially conflicting allegiances and the corresponding legal rights & obligations—heraldic "best practice" would follow the practices, customs, or rules of whichever hat you are wearing.  Where the rules/customs/practices are not inconsistent, then one’s heraldic display would be the same in both contexts; but where they differ, the dual citizen should honor each in its own setting, which may mean having at least two versions of his arms.  In other words, essentially the same logic & outcome as above for any American with a separate foreign identity, but perhaps arising more often.

We’re back to context which has been my point all along.