Hugh Brady;63296 wrote:

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.

So have I, but it’s never made any sense to me.

Quote:

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.

As far as that goes, I suppose any of us could use the US arms, just as we can all display the US flag. Legally and heraldically, there’s no difference. At one time, the College of Arms tried to assert that the Union Jack could not be displayed by private subjects because it was a royal flag, which suggests they saw the royal arms and the flag as being of similar status, to be used by government only. If the US flag belongs to everyone, then by the same logic so do the arms.

Doug Welsh;63294 wrote:

But what do I know.

I would say quite a bit. But I’m still not convinced - despite how cool I think it would be if it were allowed and I was someday elected president.

Joseph McMillan;63303 wrote:

If the US flag belongs to everyone, then by the same logic so do the arms.

In my opinion, arms are essentially tied with the representation of power/authority, unlike flags, which, if national and not a "Dienstflagge", may be used by everyone and morally belong to everyone.

I am inclined to consider national flags as symbols of the respective nations in the most broad sense, and "national" (State) arms as symbols of these nations as represented by the national authorities to whom they [the arms] practically must "belong".
Joseph McMillan;63303 wrote:

We shouldn’t confuse pop culture ignorance with correctness. It is still the case that former presidents are just that—former.

I wonder if this practice may be - instead of being defined as merely wrong - be compared to the use of the courtesy titles? This is not a suggestion, and, being ready to rely on Joseph’s opinion, I am ready to read a negative answer… I am just curious.

only the flag of nation belongs to everyone, the flag of state and war is restricted.  it is simply in america that all six different types of flags are made the same in appearance.

yet, not every nation has the luxury to display the flag as their own.

the flag of nation is made specifically for the people.  a flag of state is to show the government authority.  i would surmise that the "by the people, of the people, for the people" mentality of our government is why they are the very one and the same.

with that, yes, in america at least, the national coat of arms, that of the president, senate and the supreme court, are the last visages of authority and absolute decision.  the seals may not be used by a single member of the house or senate.  not by the vice president.  nor a single justice.  they are not for the public.  they are not even for member of the institutions they represent.

so the national coat of arms is for the combined efforts of all these institutions.  which is why the use of the american seal as a whole require the presidents signature, an act of congress, adn the courts to dismiss or refuse any cases against the use.

this does not mean as a symbol of pride it should not be displayed.  like in england, the subjects display the banner of HM The Queen to show support.  this would technically be wrong and illegal.  yet it is allowed as it is a gesture of support that shows no harm.  so though i would say the arms are for a combined effort of government solely, as long as the arms are shown in a most respectful way, i see no harm in it.  but would never say that the arms belong to the people.

xanderliptak;63327 wrote:

only the flag of nation belongs to everyone, the flag of state and war is restricted. it is simply in america that all six different types of flags are made the same in appearance.

This makes perfect sense in vexillological theory but none in US law and practice.  It is quite true that in some countries there are all these types of flag, and vexillologists use them for taxonomical purposes.  But in the United States, at the federal level, there is no such distinction; there is no flag of state or flag of war, only a flag of the United States.

Furthermore, at the time the US flag was adopted, it was not the general practice to have separate national and state flags, certainly not in the English speaking world.  The Union Flag, which we think of today as the British national flag, was used only for state purposes, not for private display.

Quote:

with that, yes, in america at least, the national coat of arms, that of the president, senate and the supreme court, are the last visages of authority and absolute decision. the seals may not be used by a single member of the house or senate. not by the vice president. nor a single justice. they are not for the public. they are not even for member of the institutions they represent.

so the national coat of arms is for the combined efforts of all these institutions. which is why the use of the american seal as a whole require the presidents signature, an act of congress, adn the courts to dismiss or refuse any cases against the use.

There is a fundamental difference between a seal and a coat of arms.  A coat of arms may appear on a seal, or it may be used separately from a seal.  A seal may have a coat of arms on it, or it may not.  Moreover, to be absolutely precise, a seal is the actual metal object with a design cut into it or the impression made by same.  It would be entirely inappropriate and should be illegal for a private citizen to use a seal of the United States arms; it clearly would be illegal if he did so in a form that implied possession of governmental authority.  But the legal status of the arms is precisely the same as that of the flag.

Quote:

this does not mean as a symbol of pride it should not be displayed. like in england, the subjects display the banner of HM The Queen to show support. this would technically be wrong and illegal. yet it is allowed as it is a gesture of support that shows no harm. so though i would say the arms are for a combined effort of government solely, as long as the arms are shown in a most respectful way, i see no harm in it. but would never say that the arms belong to the people.

It does not seem to be the position of either the College of Arms or Lord Lyon that the private display of the Royal Standard is "allowed."  In any case, it is not possible in this matter to argue from the British situation to the American.

Clarifying my last few posts, lest it be thought I’ve gone off my rocker:

- I’m not arguing that the distinctive emblazonments of the US arms used for official purposes (such as those on the great seal and the presidential seal) should be used by private citizens.
<div class=“bbcode_indent” >
—That includes private citizens who happen to be former public officials.
</div>
- I’m also not arguing that anyone, private citizen or public official, should use the national arms as a substitute for personal arms or in a way that would suggest that they are his or her personal arms, any more than one would claim the national flag as one’s personal flag, or any more than one would appropriate someone else’s personal arms for one’s own use. In particular, one should not use the national arms (in any emblazonment) on one’s seal or signet.

- What I am saying is that a private citizen in the US is entitled to display an emblazonment of the national arms for decorative or patriotic purposes, provided that it doesn’t create an impression of a claim to governmental authority. There is a long history of such use going back to the early years after the adoption of the arms in 1782, and as far as I can tell there has never been any serious suggestion that it is incorrect.

there have also been no arrests of the subjects of HM The Queen when they waive her banner.  simply because no one wishes to imprison people for displaying the coat of arms patriotically does not make it any more legitimate.  a de facto argument, but still no more de jure.

true, arms and seals are different things.  but the seal of the us IS the coat of arms of the us.  unlike in england where the seal and arms are different, being that they are the same in america, what is applied to the seal must then be applied to the arms.  i can not draw the american arms on legal documents and argue freedom from prosecution because they are the arms and not a wax seal of the arms.

xanderliptak;63331 wrote:

the seal of the us IS the coat of arms of the us.

This idea is, strictly speaking, incorrect.  The obverse of the seal of the United States contains the arms of the United States, but the obverse of the seal contains a number of other things, as well (the eagle as heraldic supporter, the constellation and clouds as a crest).  It might be more accurate to state that the seal of the United States (at least on its obverse face) contains the achievement of arms of the United States.

But the seal also contains a reverse side, which is completely different from the obverse side.  (Both sides, obverse and reverse, may be found on the back of the US one dollar bill.)

David

xanderliptak;63331 wrote:

there have also been no arrests of the subjects of HM The Queen when they waive her banner. simply because no one wishes to imprison people for displaying the coat of arms patriotically does not make it any more legitimate. a de facto argument, but still no more de jure.

As far as I know, the official position of Her Majesty’s Government on this matter is still what was stated in circular issued by the Home Office on 2 April 1953:  "The royal arms, the royal crown and the royal cypher are the personal emblems of the Sovereign and may not be reproduced…without the Queen’s consent."  (Quoted in Re West Tarring Parish Church, 2 All ER 591 (1954).

That is a flat prohibition on any unauthorized use of the royal arms.

The US law on this matter is different.  It is 18 US Code Sec 733:  "Whoever knowingly displays any printed or other likeness of the great seal of the United States, or of the seals of the President or the Vice President of the United States, or the seal of the United States Senate, or the seal of the United States House of Representatives, or the seal of the United States Congress, or any facsimile thereof ... for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both."

In the UK, any unauthorized display of the royal arms is impermissible.  In the US, whether display of the national arms is impermissible depends (a) on whether the arms shown are a facsimile of those on the great seal or one of the other seals, and (b) on the intention or effect of the display.

Quote:

true, arms and seals are different things. but the seal of the us IS the coat of arms of the us.

No, the design of the seal of the US has one particular emblazonment of the national arms on it.  As everyone here ought to know, any coat of arms is susceptible of many artistic interpretations.  An emblazonment of the national arms that looked like this:

http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/uploads/Official/3Inf1841.jpg

or this:

http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/uploads/Official/US-StP1.jpg

would not be a facsimile of any of the seals, and could not reasonably be taken to imply official sponsorship or approval of whatever the arms were being used for, and thus would not be problematic under US custom or law.  The equivalent usage in the UK would be subject to sanctions under English and Scottish law.

Joseph McMillan;63346 wrote:

An emblazonment of the national arms that looked like this:

http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/uploads/Official/3Inf1841.jpg

 

* * * *

would not be a facsimile of any of the seals

Two observations.

1. This emblazonment is not correct because (a) there are seven red and six white stripes (should be seven white and six red) and (b) there are simply 26 stars above the eagle’s head, there should be thirteen stars breaking through clouds.

2. Are you limiting "seal" in this context to an official seal [matrix] as actually "cut" (or whatever technical term is used) rather than a depcition of the design as blazoned?

Jay Bohn;63351 wrote:

Two observations.

1. This emblazonment is not correct because (a) there are seven red and six white stripes (should be seven white and six red) and (b) there are simply 26 stars above the eagle’s head, there should be thirteen stars breaking through clouds.

Well, yes, but let’s pretend for the sake of argument that everything is heraldically correct—would a correct emblazonment in this style be an infringement of 18 USC 733?  I believe the answer is obviously not.

Quote:

2. Are you limiting "seal" in this context to an official seal [matrix] as actually "cut" (or whatever technical term is used) rather than a depcition of the design as blazoned?

No, actually I’m assuming that the statute was written by heraldic illiterates who didn’t know the difference between a physical seal, the design on the seal, and a coat of arms as something related to but separate from the seal.  Nevertheless, I think the only reasonable interpretation of "likeness" and "facsimile" is that the only prohibited emblazonments would be those that were colorable imitations of the design on on one of the actual seals.  (And, it goes without saying, prohibited only if there’s deceptive intent or effect.)

Jay Bohn;63351 wrote:

Two observations.

(b) there are simply 26 stars above the eagle’s head, there should be thirteen stars breaking through clouds.

Interesting. Therefore we can deduce that this was probably painted between 1837 and 1845, when there were 26 stars on the flag.

Yes, it is a photograph of the regimental color of the 3rd Infantry carried during the Mexican War.