Tenant vs. supporter

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
30 July 2012 09:43
 

Hmmm. Seb’s argument for the use of additaments in certain circumstances, far more than Mike’s or Kimon’s argument against, is bringing me around to the idea that supporters should only be used contextually.

 
 
Benjamin Thornton
 
Avatar
 
 
Benjamin Thornton
Total Posts:  449
Joined  04-09-2009
 
 
 
30 July 2012 13:37
 

Upon further research, I’ve found the statute which requires renunciation of nobility and titles discussed here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1448

 

My apologies for muddying the issue.

 
Jeremy Keith Hammond
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeremy Keith Hammond
Total Posts:  789
Joined  20-06-2008
 
 
 
30 July 2012 13:39
 

Benjamin Thornton;94923 wrote:

Upon further research, I’ve found the statute which requires renunciation of nobility and titles discussed here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1448

 

My apologies for muddying the issue.


For those who don’t like leaving the safety of our message board wink


Quote:

(b) Hereditary titles or orders of nobility

In case the person applying for naturalization has borne any hereditary title, or has been of any of the orders of nobility in any foreign state, the applicant shall in addition to complying with the requirements of subsection (a) of this section, make under oath in the same public ceremony in which the oath of allegiance is administered, an express renunciation of such title or order of nobility, and such renunciation shall be recorded as a part of such proceedings.

 

 
snelson
 
Avatar
 
 
snelson
Total Posts:  464
Joined  03-06-2005
 
 
 
30 July 2012 16:59
 

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.


I probably could have done a better job explaining my reasoning.  I think we all can agree that the hereditary principle at work in heraldry is not in itself incompatible with American values.  After all, many of the founding father used arms and many were comfortable with the Society of the Cincinnati (and I seem to recall that qualified children of recipients of the Medal of Honor may be admitted to the US military academies regardless of quotas and nomination requirements).  I can understand those who claim that noble status in all instances is incompatible with American values.  I think it is un-American for an American citizen to proclaim oneself as noble (verbally, in writing, or via heraldic display) based upon one’s birth or ancestry.  From my perspective, however, there is nothing inappropriate with an American citizen being recognized as noble based upon their own personal actions or deeds (either noble with a lower-case “n” due to charitable work, acts of valor, acts of kindness, etc, or noble with a capital-letter “N” due to marrying a nobleman or, crass as this might sound, paying $25,000 to the Republic of San Marino for a barony, etc).  Besides, the renunciation in the oath above refers to hereditary titles, not hereditary and personal titles.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
30 July 2012 18:04
 

The renunciation oath applies to anyone who has a hereditary title or is a member of any of the "orders of nobility" (titled or untitled) of a foreign country.  The word "order" in this context means a class or category, just as in biological taxonomy or angelology.

The logic behind the oath is to ensure that new citizens understand and accept that nobility (i.e., an ascriptive status that conveyed special privileges in the old country) has no place—indeed possesses no real existence—in this one.  This is not a peculiar idea.  Even in the UK, where the institution of noble status obviously does exist, new citizens are required to acknowledge that any title of nobility they held in their country of origin will not be given any official recognition in the UK post-naturalization.

 

To me, this is really the crux of the issue when it comes to supporters and such.  Supporters either signify something, or they signify nothing.  In most although not all heraldic traditions, they signify something, the chief exception apparently being the Netherlands.

 

But the something which they signify—a title of nobility, a knighthood, etc.—generally has substantive existence only in the country in which it was created.  A German count who becomes a British citizen will not be recognized as a count in the UK because in the UK he isn’t a count.  An American recipient of the Navy Cross who settles in the UK and applies for a grant of arms won’t be able to have the Navy Cross emblazoned on the letters patent, because (not issuing from the British font of honors) the Navy Cross has no substantive existence in the UK.

 

Of course, we accord the appropriate titles to foreigners socially, but that doesn’t give the titles any substantive reality within the U.S.  Similarly our guidelines acknowledge the use of supporters by foreign nobles, etc., in the U.S.—again as a matter of courtesy, not of right.

 

An American citizen who persists in using supporters with his arms in connection with noble status, whether granted or inherited, or even in connection with a grant of knighthood, is therefore using supporters that signify nothing, because the thing he thinks he is signifying doesn’t exist.  Why would anyone want to symbolize the non-real?  It’s as ridiculous as that awful woman on the "real housewives" series who insisted on her friends addressing her as "countess" because she used to be married to a French nobleman.

 

Obviously there are many who disagree.  That’s why the AHS guidelines are painstakingly advisory.  But this is the logic of the case as I see it.

 
snelson
 
Avatar
 
 
snelson
Total Posts:  464
Joined  03-06-2005
 
 
 
30 July 2012 20:29
 

Joseph your logic and reasoning is, as always, spot on!  I seem to recall mention of court case in 1944 concerning a German national.  I think it was decided that because the Weimar constitution abolished titles of nobility years earlier, the gentleman was not required to renounce any title upon taking the oath (because he no longer had any title…see http://heraldica.org/topics/usa/usnob.htm#mod).  According to François’ page, “he was free to keep as part of his name the portion which formerly indicated a mark of nobility.”  I’m not a lawyer, but it sounds like foreigners whose titles/nobility is no longer recognized in their country of origin aren’t required to renounce their titles/nobility when taking the oath.

Speaking of Germany, perhaps the development of appropriate American armorial customs with regards to supporters might be better illuminated by a comparison with what I believe has occurred in that country during the second half of the 20th century.  In European Heraldry and Nobility, J. H. Pinches writes “supporters, die Schildhalte, Wappenhalter, were not considered a necessary or important part of the achievement.  Burgerliche were not entitled to them.  When supporters were granted in the patent titled families retained their use, but otherwise sometimes changed them…today it is customary to display one shield and one crest, enabling the older ‘immemorial’ nobility, the Uradel, (literally primitive noble), to make use of the style of the helmet and mantling to reveal the antiquity of their origins, thus ignoring the entitlement to the use of ranking exterior ornaments, which are more likely to be displayed by those whose creations were granted after these devices to indicate rank were introduced…” (pages 89 and 77).  Von Volborth has in his Heraldry: Customs, Rules and Styles (page 75) a dramatic example of the ancient and simple arms of the von Blucher family contrasted with a drawing of the extremely complicated arms of Field Marshal von Blucher (1742-1819).

 

If I am understanding correctly, here is an example of armigers living in a modern, egalitarian republic choosing to abandon the use of supporters. Of course, German and American history are so different that perhaps a direct comparison isn’t possible.  Plus, it sounds like the modern German custom of reverting to the use of very simple arms is an attempt to convey their great antiquity, which I guess could be taken to be somewhat elitist.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
31 July 2012 12:21
 

It just hit me that I had the opportunity for a clever and learned literary allusion and absolutely, totally blew it.


Quote:

An American citizen who persists in using supporters with his arms in connection with noble status, whether granted or inherited, or even in connection with a grant of knighthood, is therefore using supporters that signify nothing…


What is it that signifies nothing?  Why "a tale told by an idiot," of course, "full of sound and fury."

 

So we may conclude that for an American to use supporters is idiotic.  Shakespeare says so!

 

wink

 
snelson
 
Avatar
 
 
snelson
Total Posts:  464
Joined  03-06-2005
 
 
 
31 July 2012 21:57
 

Quote:

...I seem to recall mention of court case in 1944 concerning a German national. I think it was decided that because the Weimar constitution abolished titles of nobility years earlier, the gentleman was not required to renounce any title upon taking the oath…


Here is a little more information about this case that I found online (not that it necessarily provides any information that furthers the discussion, but it may be of interest to some):

 

http://ct.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19440613_0040168.C02.htm/qx
Quote:

June 13, 1944

SOCIETE VINICOLE DE CHAMPAGNE

v.

MUMM.

 

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

 

Before L. HAND, SWAN, and FRANK, Circuit Judges.

 

Per Curiam.

 

If the defendant had wished to challenge Judge Woolsey’s original holding that his name was not "Mumm," but "Mumm von Schwarzenstein", the time to do so was then the decree was entered in 1937; it is now too late. Indeed, he does not ask us to unravel what was then done; on the contrary, as we understand it, he rests his case upon his change of name at the time of his naturalization, when apparently by order of the court he became no longer "Mumm von Schwarzenstein," but merely "Mumm." The record does not explicitly show that his name was then changed in that way; but we so read his affidavit, and it seems to be an evitable inference from his argument. He complains that, having now become "Mumm," the decree operates to forbid all use of the only name by which he is, or lawfully can be, known. This, he says, the law will not do; for, although courts will often limit the use of one’s surname by imposing upon it suffixes and the like, they never absolutely forbid it. Donnell v. Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Co., 208 U.S. 267, 28 S.Ct 288, 52 L. Ed. 481; Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Co. v. Hall’s Safe Co., 208 U.S. 554, 28 S. Ct. 350, 52 L. Ed. 616; Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co., 235 U.S. 88, 35 S. Ct. 91, 59 L. Ed. 42; John T. Lloyd Laboratories, Inc., v. Lloyd Bros. Pharmacists Inc., 6 Cir., 131 F.2d 703, 707. We will assume for argument the correctness of this position, if Mumm’s name had originally been "Mumm"; but it was not, and, furthermore, when he was naturalized, he did not have to drop "von Schwarzenstein." It is true that "von Schwarzenstein" had originally been a "hereditary title," and possibly also an "ordr of nobility," both of which Mumm would have been compelled to renounce, had he still possessed them. ? 735(c), Title 8 U.S.C.A. BUT Judge Woolsey found (Finding 13) that the constitution of the Weimar Republic ("Provision 109") had abolished "public privileges, or disadvantages of birth, or status" and that "marks of nobility are considered only as part of the name." Again (Finding 62), that any distinction "between the family name and the so-called ‘mark of nobility’ * * * was obliterated by the provisions of the Weimar Constitution," and that the German name of the Mumm family was "Mumm von Schwarzenstein." We do not imply that the renunciation of a "hereditary title" or an "order of nobility" must inevitably involve the abandonment of the name by which an alien has been known. There are of course thousands of persons in this country who have family names, beginning "von," "van," "de" or "di"; and many of these originated as "hereditary titles." An English peer would have to renounce his title to be naturalized, but if he went in the peerage by his family surname, he would not have to adopt another. To renounce the "title," or the "order," it can scarcely be necessary always to renounce the name which went with it. Be that as it may, Mumm had no "title" or "order" to renounce, and, as we have said, he was free to keep "von Schwarzenstein" as part of his name, if he had wished.

 

Thoe considerations which have at times moved courts to refuse altogether to prohibit all use of a family surname, and to limit relief to circumscribing it, do not extend to adopted names. No one chooses the name which his parents give him; it is imposed upon him willy-nilly; and before he has had any chance to change it, those associations which identify him have clustered about it. To prevent all use of it is to take away his identity; without it he cannot make known who he is to those who may wish to deal with him; and that is so grievous an injury that courts will avoid impoosing it, if they possibly can. But when one abandons his family name, and chooses another for his convenience, it is reasonable to charge him with whatever prejudice to others that may cause; certainly when, as here, he knows what that prejudice will be. England v. New York Pub. Co., 8 Daly, N.Y., 375, is not relevant, for Leslie, the father had actually induced Leslie, the son, to adopt the name; but Pinet v. Maison Pinet, 1898, Ch. 179, decides the point directly. And indeed, it would end all protection to trade names, if all one had to do in order to pirate them, was to change one’s own name to that of one’s intended victim, or to one near enough to his to be no more than a deceptive variant.

 

Order affirmed.

 

 
Nick B II
 
Avatar
 
 
Nick B II
Total Posts:  203
Joined  26-11-2007
 
 
 
02 August 2012 18:48
 

Walkerius;94813 wrote:

If I were to assume this as an intended premise then the suggestion is that noone should ‘prudently’ wish to outshine Washington (or I missed the real premise) or Adams or Jefferson with the symbols they used to portray themselves. In the history of the US however Congress has authorized several individuals to wear rank (which is clearly symbolized) that outstrips Gen Washington. He at the time of being a General wore the 2 star of a Major General.


Two points.

 

1) It takes an Act of Congress to promote people above Washington. No such Act will ever allow supporters.

 

2) For Abe Lincoln’s Four Score and Seven Years no American soldier was allowed three-star rank, and after that it was quite rare until WW2, despite the fact Washington’s Continental Army was quite small (35k in the Continental Army proper, ~80k counting militia) by mid-18th century standards. By most standards Zachary Taylor outranked Washington because his war involved 90,000 troops, but he never got that rank officially. He was only a Brevet Lieutenant General.

 

Even after it became routine to promote men to (and even past) three-star rank during WW2 the US felt forced to create the rank "General of the Armies" so that we wouldn’t have a Field Marshall. Even this situation was intolerable, so Washington was posthumously promoted above them.

 

In other words Americans only tolerate outranking Washington when there’s no other option, and we aren’t happy when that happens.

 

Nick

 
snelson
 
Avatar
 
 
snelson
Total Posts:  464
Joined  03-06-2005
 
 
 
04 August 2012 20:18
 

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? Is it possible to be one and be an American?


I’m not sure, but I think the present Condesa del Castillo is both a Grandee and an American [1].  She was born in Havana in 1953, and I’m not sure if she is an American citizen.  But she and her husband live in Florida, they were married in Florida, most of her children were born in Florida, and she works for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Hurricane Center in Miami [2].

 

[1]http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/1995/11/17/pdfs/A33485-33485.pdf

 

[2]Instituto Salazar y Castro. (2011). Elenco de grandezas y títulos nobiliarios españoles (44th ed.), Madrid, Spain: Ediciones de la Revista Hidalguía, pp. 302-303.

 
Michael Y. Medvedev
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Y. Medvedev
Total Posts:  844
Joined  18-01-2008
 
 
 
06 August 2012 04:56
 

It seems that there is no formal obstacle for an American citizen to inherit a title.

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
06 August 2012 06:17
 

But, if at the time of applying for citizenship a person must renounce noble title..  How can one inherit it?  I must be misunderstanding something…

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
06 August 2012 08:12
 

Michael is correct.  To answer Kathy’s question, there are several possibilities:

- You inherit the title from a relative who never immigrated to the United States, such as an uncle or grandfather.  This is how George Washington’s friend the Rev. Bryan Fairfax found himself 8th Lord Fairfax of Cameron.

 

- You are the child born in the U.S. to a noble immigrant who was never naturalized.

 

- One of your parents who is a U.S. citizen is granted a title, which you later inherit.  (There is no prohibition against someone who is already a U.S. citizen accepting a foreign title unless he/she is an employee of the U.S. government.)

 

- The noble immigrant ancestor renounces the title but the country of origin doesn’t recognize the renunciation and a descendant later reclaims it.

 

Probably others I’m not thinking of.

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
06 August 2012 19:35
 

Thanks Joe…  Nobility isn’t one of my many specialties… wink

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
06 August 2012 23:50
 

Remember that there is a difference between inheriting a title under the laws of the country of origin—that’s their business and our laws/rules/customs don’t apply there;

vs. the heir(ess), being an American citizen, actually claiming and using that title here in an American context as if the use of any foreign title of nobility by an American could ever be appropriate here—which is sufficiently inconsistent with being an American, as to clearly IMO exclude it from any meaningful compilation of "best practices" here.  The only exception our Guidelines would accept would be limited use in a foreign context e.g. Highland Games or other ethnic celebrations, to be placed back on the shelf ‘till next year, come Monday morning.  (My personal opinion is considerably stronger, but for the sake of this argument in the context of American heraldry, and a reasonable attempt at civility among friends, I’ll leave it at that.)

The nearest analogy I can think of on the spot, would be a British peer who seeks election to the House of Commons—the two statuses (is that a word?) of being a peer and a member of the Commons being oil and water.  The peer must disclaim his title; & if after his term(s) in the Commons come to a close, and the Crown wishes to honor him, the new peerage title will not be a resurrection of the one previously disclaimed.

 

(This is just a convenient analogy, for those who might value it—not an argument that this feature of British law is any more legally applicable here, than any other British law.)

 

.