Thank you for continuing to locate these examples, Charles.

from an earlier post:

"In the case of Jones’ use of the title Chevalier, the comparison to "Baron" von Steuben might be apt, but Lord Stirling was born in New York so unless citizenship at the beginning of the republic was defined rather differently than it is now, we can’t exactly view Washington’s addressing him as "My Lord" as a case of courtesy being shown to a foreigner bearing a foreign title, can we? All I’m saying is that it would appear there might have been something more of a comfort level with old-world class distinctions in the early years of the country than might be supposed."

From my reading re: Revolutionary War, "Lord Stirling" was a competent but very proud officer, whose disenchantment with the Crown could be attributed, in part, to his resentment at being denied recognition of his claim to the title.  Don’t know if GW & the other American leaders had any particular sympathy for his claims, but apparently felt that using his "title" was a fair price to pay for his services.

I spent the weekend in a conference at Anderson House, and had a chance to raise the question we’ve batted around in this thread (i.e., whether or not the Society of the Cincinnati approves of the display of the eagle depended from a shield in full achievements of arms) in person. The executive director said he had forwarded it to the legal team when I had emailed him earlier, and that their response had been that the question is so "mind-bogglingly esoteric," that they didn’t feel able to give an opinion. I then asked the executive director if that meant the Society cares one way or the other, and he said no, the Society simply has no opinion on the subject. The current issue of the Cincinnati Fourteen doesn’t address it at all in the context of an article on appropriate uses of Society insignia. So, if the AHS’s view is that only an explicit statement of endorsement of this practice makes it advisable, it seems that none is forthcoming and that the AHS’s present view is sustained.

Much as I expected.  I have to say I am delighted to be involved in, or know about, anything "mind bogglingly esoteric."

/Charles

I share your delight, Charles.

One thing that dawned on me while I was there was that almost all the portraits of past presidents of the Society feature the eagle in precisely the same place a coat of arms would occupy—one of the upper corners, as if floating. But I don’t see that as having any clear implication for this discussion, because the context of the portraits is so narrow.

So "mind boggingly esoteric" that lawyers won’t touch it? Congratulations to all who have contributed to a thread that earned such high praise. Few things reach such a level.

While attending the Augustan Society meeting I mentioned in another thread, I presented a paper entitled "Heraldic Prerogatives of the Cincinnati." I do not wish to reawaken this thread, but merely to give those here the courtesy of knowing this was done.

In the article I referenced the inspiration of this thread appearing in the AHS forum.  I also thanked Joseph and Nathaniel Taylor specifically: Joseph for pointing out the letter from Washington to Rochambeau of 29 October 1783 and Professor Taylor for permission to reproduce the Delafield bookplate.

The Augustan Society will publish first, but eventually the article will be available.

It would come as no surprise that I came down for the affirmative, that is, that displaying the badge pendant to the shield is acceptable, but I changed my mind on a number of related points, which often happens when one carefully considers the data.

/Charles

I found another example of the badge of the Society of the Cincinnati in a portrait:

Society of Cincinnati member John Berrien; Captain of the Savannah Dragoons in 1786:

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/7008/jberrien.jpg

The image is from Alexander McC. Duncan’s 1906 book, Roll and Legend of the Georgia Hussars (pdf, half-tone images).

—Guy

Reopening an old thread: today I ran across this in a Google Books edition of Ex Libris, the journal of the American Bookplate Society that lasted all of one year (1897):

http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeohzt4/heraldry/Tousard-Bookplate.JPG

This is the bookplate of Louis de Tousard, a French officer with the Continental Army, chevalier of the Royal Order of St. Louis and member of the Society of the Cincinnati. It does in fact show the badge of the Cincinnati in armorial use during the Society’s founding generation.

Not by an American, to be sure, but in the interest of fairness I thought I had to share it.

Joseph,

Thanks for sharing.  I will add that to my collection.

I find it interesting that the text calls it an association, rather than a society or an order. Also, the term chevalier seems to apply to the Cincinnati also, due to the absence of the word membre.

Let me re-load that image of John Berrien:

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/7259/jberrien1786.jpg

The Savannah Dragoons was the antecedent of the Georgia Hussars.

Here’s another image I just found today:

http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/6408/youngmajorjohnberrien.png

Quote:

Note that Major Berrien is wearing a medal. This is the Order of the Cincinnati Medal. The medal is said to be have been awarded to him by Gen. George Washington on the front porch of Major Berrien’s family home at Rockingham in 1783….

The picture (above) is courtesy of John Berrien Whitehead III. He is descended of Major John Berrien. He is also the owner of this original oil painting and has had it restored to near original condition. On behalf of the rest of the Berrien family, thank you. And I thank you for your contribution to this website.

 

Source

Wow!  Thanks guys.  You’ve really added life into this already fascinating thread.  I love the images!

Enough to drag me out of my increasingly infrequent lurking! A tip of the hat to Joseph for the spirit of fair play. Are there any implications of this image for the AHS’s "Guidelines"?

To Charles’ point about the appellation "chevalier", there are several older sources in French that describe members of the Cincinnati thus ("Chevalier de l’Ordre de Cincinnatus" is the most usual form, I think). I feel as if I must have quoted some of them here in the past, but perhaps I’m mistaken.

Glancing back at some of them in a cursory Google search, I note the observation—repeated in more than one place—that Louis XVI recognized the "Ordre" as the "1er ordre etranger (l’insigne se portant après la croix de St-Louis)" in a document dated August 8, 1784. My French is a bit rusty, but it seems to me there is an interesting ambiguity in the designation, "premier foreign order". Supposing the source is accurate, did the king mean to assert that the order, such as it may have been, was understood to be an order that approached parity with the Order of St. Louis in its place of origin (the U.S.), or merely that the kingdom of France would regard it this way? I seem to recall Charles’ research for his Augustan Society article making the point that contemporary American sources also referred to the Cincinnati eagle as "an order", and that this strongly suggested that it was meant from the outset to be understood as analogous to a European order of chivalry.

If you’re referring to the "1er," I take that to mean "1st" as in a sequence (1er=1st, 2e=2nd, 3e=3rd, etc.) rather than "premier" as something extraordinary.

Also, the french do/did use the word etranger to describe foreign entities in service to France, though the word literally means "stranger"

Fred White;81240 wrote:

Glancing back at some of them in a cursory Google search, I note the observation—repeated in more than one place—that Louis XVI recognized the "Ordre" as the "1er ordre etranger (l’insigne se portant après la croix de St-Louis)" in a document dated August 8, 1784. My French is a bit rusty, but it seems to me there is an interesting ambiguity in the designation, "premier foreign order". Supposing the source is accurate, did the king mean to assert that the order, such as it may have been, was understood to be an order that approached parity with the Order of St. Louis in its place of origin (the U.S.), or merely that the kingdom of France would regard it this way? I seem to recall Charles’ research for his Augustan Society article making the point that contemporary American sources also referred to the Cincinnati eagle as "an order", and that this strongly suggested that it was meant from the outset to be understood as analogous to a European order of chivalry.

I think it more likely that Louis XVI thought the Cincinnati to be analogous to the Order of St. Louis, which AFAIK was not a hereditary honor.