Mark Olivo;63243 wrote:

I wonder what (in theory) would be a good canton for President of the US.

I would think the president could impale his arms with those of the United States while in office. Or perhaps bear the arms of the US as an inescutcheon of pretense, again, while in office.

As to some sort of canton that would become a permanent fixture, I would suggest that there are two centuries worth of various flags that offer inspiration. Perhaps a blue canton with a circle of thirteen mullets? Something barry of red and white? A coiled rattlesnake?

Kenneth Mansfield;63247 wrote:

A coiled rattlesnake?

Very suitable for any politician.

Madalch;63248 wrote:

Very suitable for any politician.

Maybe a two-headed coiled snake, with each head making promises.

More seriously, I think it would be cool to have a canton or demi-canton (Canadian style) with the arms of George Washington.

Of course, that might cause Washington to spin in his grave…

Mark Olivo;63249 wrote:

demi-canton (Canadian style)

A demi-canton?  Canadian style?  Eh?

The examples I gave a link to were normal cantons, apart from Trudeau’s (who wanted his centred).

I really don’t think that a canton of the arms of Washington makes sense at all for two reasons. It raises George Washington to a kin of demi-god status as if all the other Presidents are merely his successors. Also, it functions as the arms of the District of Columbia. So, rather than evoking the presidency of the United States it looks more suitable as indicating the bearer is the mayor of DC!

The canton is a great idea but I think something other than George Washington’s arms would be better.

Jeepers, Joseph, it was a joke!  I’m sorry if I put something in your cornflakes.  Wasn’t intentional!

Doug Welsh;63277 wrote:

Jeepers, Joseph, it was a joke! I’m sorry if I put something in your cornflakes. Wasn’t intentional!

Doug, my reaction wasn’t to your post (I saw the little spinning spiral).  It was to those who said in apparent seriousness that they thought such a thing would be a good idea.  Your joking suggestion of moving it merely framed my reaction; it didn’t provoke it.

Doug Welsh;63277 wrote:

Jeepers, Joseph, it was a joke!  I’m sorry if I put something in your cornflakes.  Wasn’t intentional!

I’m not sure everyone was joking. I actually like playing with the idea of augmenting Presidents’ arms but I think I’d have to agree with Joseph in the end. It doesn’t quite fit with U.S. philosophy of equality.

Jeremy Hammond;63282 wrote:

It doesn’t quite fit with U.S. philosophy of equality.

Neither does the current administration. Oh, did I say that out loud?

Kenneth Mansfield;63283 wrote:

Neither does the current administration. Oh, did I say that out loud?

SHAME on you! This is suppose to be a non-partisan, uncontroversial forum where people can freely discuss heraldry without fear of political hub-bub etc etc… blah blah blah.

I totally agree with you.

Perhaps former presidents should adopt a badge (see that other thread)—perhaps something on the theme of a Roman plow as a reminder of the example of Cincinnatus.

Jay Bohn;63285 wrote:

Although I don’t disagree, I would point out that one could make the same comment with regard to the use of "President" as a title for former presidents, which was not done in the early years of the Republic.

We shouldn’t confuse pop culture ignorance with correctness.  It is still the case that former presidents are just that—former.  Senator Clinton’s husband is not President Clinton, but Mr. Clinton, or, if we’re being formal, the Honorable William Clinton.

Quote:

As a design principle, such insigniae should not be used as a component of the arms (especially as the arms are hereditary). President Eisenhower’s crest would violate this principle I espouse.

On the grounds that it isn’t hereditary, yes, but military rank actually is held for life, provided one serves long enough to retire.  Especially true of 5-star officers, who technically don’t even retire, but stay on the active list until they die.

In principle, I would not be averse to signifying the office of a serving president by the display of the presidential flag as part of the achievement of arms, perhaps crossed with the US flag in saltire behind the shield.  My only objection would be that it would be an innovation, and therefore suspect.

Jay Bohn;63289 wrote:

I understand that the rules relating to the presidency do not necessarily apply to other retired or former office holders. Could Mr. Clinton still be called "Governor Clinton"?

I would think the same rule applies.

Jeremy Hammond;63282 wrote:

I’m not sure everyone was joking. I actually like playing with the idea of augmenting Presidents’ arms but I think I’d have to agree with Joseph in the end. It doesn’t quite fit with U.S. philosophy of equality.

I understood that to be that "All men are created equal", not that "All men stay equal forever no matter what they do for good or ill".  Some men rise above their beginnings and achieve greatness.  A couple of them have even been politicians.  Others fall far below their beginnings.  Some of them have been politicians, too.  The "Log cabin to White House Journey", to my mind, makes clear the possibility of becoming more than you were is available to all, but it also makes it clear that not all are equipped to make that Journey.  I see nothing wrong in admitting such a concept in heraldry, even in egalitarian America (which I am not convinced exists outside the fantasies of its proponents!), and I think the American population would agree that the concept of "honorable augmentation" does not violate the creed of "equal opportunity" or "equal creation".

But what do I know.

I’ve heard the rule expressed as barring one from using a title referring to an office for which there can only be only one occupant at a time. For example, there can be more than one sitting U.S. Senator at a time, so it is not improper for a former Senator to continue to use the title in retirement. Harry S. Truman reportedly preferred to be addressed as "Senator Truman." (I would note that when one listens to the LBJ tapes, both the secretary and the president call Truman "Mr. President" when speaking to him.)

Presumably this would apply to the title "Governor." In those states with a Lieutenant Governor, that person is also addressed as "Governor" and thus two persons at the same time may be properly addressed as such. Arkansas has a Lieutenant Governor, so perhaps that’s an out for him.

Perhaps one of the reasons that former presidents don’t need any indication of their former status is because they never really cease to use the US arms. Clinton, Carter, and Bush use the US arms on their personal writing paper, and so did Reagan and Ford—Reagan’s use is seen on his famous alzheimer’s letter. LBJ used his personal initials engraved in his handwriting. That might be a benefit of an augmentation but I doubt that would stop this use of the US arms post-presidency.