As many Americans have an intrest in heraldry and it’s history, I’m intorducing a new blog that will concern itmes of interest to this forum.

http://theluminarypress.blogspot.com/

The topics will periodically range in interest, but The Luminary Press will always try and stay with a current theme of reporting and essays around heraldic and genealogical matters aimed at shedding light on some areas that could use clarifications.

Submissions on the design of heraldy in the US will be considered.  You may email your submissions and enquiries through the links in the blog.

Thanks

Nice Greg. Congrats on your blog.

I do note, however, that you have some mistakes in the "Irish" arms section (historical and contemporary). Frankly, I’m not surprised given past debates regarding Irish arms on HSS, but I won’t debate this ad nauseum on AHS as I and others on both sides have already done so at HSS.

Suffice to say for those who read it you should remember that part of it is Greg’s opinion and not fact while being mixed with facts. So, as a play on your ever-so-kind quip in your blog regarding the Irish situation….

Beware the Irish Heraldry Section of this blog entry #3!! as it is not completely accurate and therefore misleading.

Donnchadh;70142 wrote:

Nice Greg. Congrats on your blog.

I do note, however, that you have some mistakes in the "Irish" arms section (historical and contemporary). Frankly, I’m not surprised given past debates regarding Irish arms on HSS, but I won’t debate this ad nauseum on AHS as I and others on both sides have already done so at HSS.

 

Suffice to say for those who read it you should remember that part of it is Greg’s opinion and not fact while being mixed with facts. So, as a play on your ever-so-kind quip in your blog regarding the Irish situation….

 

Beware the Irish Heraldry Section of this blog entry #3!! as it is not completely accurate and therefore misleading.

Thank you, now tell me, what’s inaccurate about Irish heraldry…

Donnchadh;70142 wrote:

Nice Greg. Congrats on your blog.

I do note, however, that you have some mistakes in the "Irish" arms section (historical and contemporary). Frankly, I’m not surprised given past debates regarding Irish arms on HSS, but I won’t debate this ad nauseum on AHS as I and others on both sides have already done so at HSS.

 

Suffice to say for those who read it you should remember that part of it is Greg’s opinion and not fact while being mixed with facts. So, as a play on your ever-so-kind quip in your blog regarding the Irish situation….

 

Beware the Irish Heraldry Section of this blog entry #3!! as it is not completely accurate and therefore misleading.

Hello Denny,

Since you cannot back up your assertion that something in my article with respect to Irish heraldry is incorrect, and since I clearly cite my sourses, my article thus remains unchallanged.

I would also say that the article is not about what’s debatable, it’s about the realites of heraldry as they were and are today.

Greg;70161 wrote:

Hello Denny,

Since you cannot back up your assertion that something in my article with respect to Irish heraldry is incorrect, and since I clearly cite my sourses, my article thus remains unchallanged.

 

I would also say that the article is not about what’s debatable, it’s about the realites of heraldry as they were and are today.

I’m going to break my vow not to debate with this person, simply because I can’t let pass the implication that the failure of Denny or anyone else to reply instantly to every challenge implies an admission of error.

Leaving aside the questionable history and the execrable grammar and spelling, let’s look at this key passage in the blog:

Quote:

The Chief Herald’s office however has always been under the purview of the National library of Ireland and has never exercised its own authority or been sanctioned by the government proper. You will therefore pay over $5,000 for a grant (the funds of which go to the library) that is in effect not legally recognized.

Now let’s look at the official debates of the Dail Eireann (lower house of the Irish parliament) for October 25, 2007, in which the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Seamus Brennan, reported:

Quote:

The issuing of coats of arms and the administration of the Genealogical Office and Office of the Chief Herald are both the responsibility of the statutory board of the National Library of Ireland under sections 12 and 13 of the National Cultural Institutions Act 1997.

I have been advised [by the Attorney General] that the board of the National Library has lifted its temporary suspension on the granting of arms on foot of legal advice it has received which is to the effect that under the National Cultural Institutions Act 1997, the board can exercise the heraldic powers provided for in the Act....

Between 1949 and 2005 there was probably no power to grant the coats of arms that were being granted at the time by the Genealogical Office under the Chief Herald. In 1997, legislation passed by these Houses effectively legalised or regularised the post of Chief Herald. The legislation provides that “The Board shall, from time to time as occasion requires, designate a member of its staff to perform the duty of researching, granting and confirming coats of arms and such member shall use the appellation Chief Herald of Ireland or, in the Irish language, Príora hAralt na hÉireann while performing such duties.”

 

I am advised by the Attorney General that if we want to be absolutely certain that those coats of arms that were issued between 1949 and 2005 are all above board, we probably need to introduce a short Bill. His office assures me that would regularise the position. There is no difficulty at present because the Attorney General has advised that the Chief Herald can carry on with his duties. I am sure that is an enormous relief to everybody in the House.

Emphasis added.  For the full text of the exchanges in the Dail, see the official parliamentary website, http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0640/D.0640.200710250023.html.

As for the silly contention that being part of the National Library of Ireland somehow makes the Chief Herald’s office less official, by that logic the U.S. Copyright Office would have no real authority because it falls under the Library of Congress.

And with that I’ll join Denny in declining to debate this or any other issue with the blogger in question, and urge others to do likewise.

What the heck Greg?

1) I said I won’t debate it ad nauseum here at AHS as it has at HSS. I’m sorry I wasn’t clearer about that.

2) You post asking me to illustrate where it is in error and then a whole 5 hours later you claim victory with this comment:
Quote:

Since you cannot back up your assertion that something in my article with respect to Irish heraldry is incorrect, and since I clearly cite my sourses, my article thus remains unchallanged.

How very clever of you. I was not seeking a victory, Greg, which is why I did not want to bring the HSS debate over to here. I must confess, however, that I am now reminded of your fair-mindedness when you post like this here as you posted like this at HSS.

3) Since you insist I will indulge only this once and after this you can assert your ‘victories’ to your heart’s content (quotes are directly from your blog)...

Quote:

Although Ireland has a history of armory, the Anglo-Irish relations as many know, have been extremely volatile from the 12th century and heraldry was always seen as a practice of the hand of English feudalism.

Heraldry was not always seen as a practice of English feudalism during this period of Irish history. Not only did the Irish practice a proto-heraldry before the Norman Invasion, but one only need look to the armigerous Gallowglass to see this statement of yours is incorrect…or to the Irish princes and chiefs who adopted armorial devices without any direction, permission from England; in fact England’s control of Ireland from the Norman Invasion until the Tudor plantations and later was never complete, fixed, thorough, or fruitful. Many native-Irish and Norman/Cambro-Irish living outside of the major areas of English influence lived a hybrid existence and did such things as they saw fit including the adopting and use of heraldry. So much so that it frustrated later Ulster Kings of Arms not only for record keeping, but specifically because they never paid the fees to use such devices at funerals! Mr. Michael O Comain writes on this in his book on Irish heraldry, as does Dr. Edward MacLysaght.

Quote:

Although one may find many great Irish names that were granted arms, these greats were acknowledged vassals of the English crown: this was a method of survival for the Irish chiefs, particularly in Ulster.

Again you are incorrect. The Norman-Irish acted both as vassals and as independents. And the farther away they were from the English control (The Pale and smaller sea-port towns) the more Irish, or rebellious, they in fact were! The great many Irish princes and chiefs outside of a small few acted independent of England and her crown and were in no way “vassals” at all even though they used heraldry – heraldry they adopted for themselves independent of the English whom they were at war with! You are confusing the “Surrender and re-grant” policies of the Tudor and Stewart Plantations/Reformation with the earlier time, or else you are ignoring the previous 400 years, or ignorant of it…I don’t know which to be honest.

Quote:

However, heraldic practice in Ireland was always a function of the English crown even after the Irish Revolution of 1922 when the Republic took charge of the new Eireland.

Again, incorrect. It was not “always” a function of the English crown! It certainly wasn’t for the Gallowglass, or, the native Irish from 12th to early 16th centuries. It was only with the advent of later Tudor Kings and later kings than that, that any real English “control” was exercised in Ireland at all! Again you are confusing the entire Irish heraldic era with the “surrender and re-grant” time of the Tudors and Stewarts onward to modern day. You are correct, however, in that it remained a British exercise after the formation of the Irish Free State until its last independent Ulster King of arms was no more. So, this statement of yours is a half truth at best.

Quote:

Ulster of course has it’s own definitive history who’s office of arms is still overseen by England.

Yes, but that history does not include the first couple of centuries when the Irish princes and chiefs adopted their own armorial devices and where Gallowglass had their own as well irrespective of Ulster King of Arms. Not to mention that the current Ulster King of Arms is but a shadow of his former self in as much as he lost his independence when he was combined with Norry where he is most definitely under the control of the English College of Arms, whereas his predecessors exercised their authority independently of the ECOA just as Lord Lyon King of Arms does.

Quote:

Irish heraldry and its designs historically are distinctly Irish, featuring Gaelic imagery and Latin mottos (as does Scottish Highland heraldry), but the current Office of the Chief Herald of Ireland only started in 1943 and was assigned to up Dr. Edward MacLysaght who was ‘styled’ chief genealogical officer.

Correct on the first part, and correct, but misleading on the second part. There are those, not you of course, who hold that the office of Chief Herald of Ireland is in fact a continuation of the Ulster King of Arms office under, shall we say, new management. Granted there was later a ruling that there was no legal standing for this, but the idea that the office itself, not the legality of it, was in fact a successor of the previous office just as the Republic of Ireland was a successor state of the Kingdom of Ireland. But, here we’d be splitting hairs, so why bother?

Quote:

The Chief Herald’s office however has always been under the purview of the National library of Ireland and has never exercised its own authority or been sanctioned by the government proper. You will therefore pay over $5,000 for a grant (the funds of which go to the library) that is in effect not legally recognized.

Read above for first part. However, I was under the assumption that they could not legally grant arms either since the legal ruling, but found out very recently that this is not correct as the office is in fact making real, legal grants to at least the City of Limerick to which you can read on at HSS. So, this is an unintentional mistake I believe just as I was unintentional in believing it to be non-valid for Limerick a month or so ago now until I learned otherwise. So, this needs to be amended in your blog as well, or asserted as opinion.

Mr. O Comain mentions several great Irish princes and chiefs who had rather nice arms before – that they adopted and used for a couple hundred years or so – that they lost in the “Surrender and re-grant” period. He even illustrates them. One of which is on a seal. Clearly if you had taken the time to do even a little reading on Irish armory and its history you would have discovered this and not made the blanket statements about Irish armory always being a font of the English crown and therefore its users always being vassals of the English crown. You have a gap of a several hundred years where this is not correct not taking into count the armory of the Gallowglass Irish.

Donnchadh;70164 wrote:

However, I was under the assumption that they could not legally grant arms either since the legal ruling, but found out very recently that this is not correct as the office is in fact making real, legal grants to at least the City of Limerick to which you can read on at HSS. So, this is an unintentional mistake I believe just as I was unintentional in believing it to be non-valid for Limerick a month or so ago now until I learned otherwise. So, this needs to be amended in your blog as well, or asserted as opinion.

Denny,

On October 25, 2007, the Irish Minister of Arts announced on the floor of the Dail Eireann (lower house of parliament) that the CHI would resume making grants based on the opinion of the Attorney General that the National Cultural Institutions Act of 1997 had provided an adequate legal and constitutional basis for the operation of the office.  The validity of grants made by the CHI between 1943 and 2005 (when the relevant provisions of the 1997 act were implemented) remains in doubt pending further legislation, but his legal authority to make grants now and into the future is quite clear.

Donnchadh;70164 wrote:

What the heck Greg?

1) I said I won’t debate it ad nauseum here at AHS as it has at HSS. I’m sorry I wasn’t clearer about that.

 

2) You post asking me to illustrate where it is in error and then a whole 5 hours later you claim victory with this comment:  How very clever of you. I was not seeking a victory, Greg, which is why I did not want to bring the HSS debate over to here. I must confess, however, that I am now reminded of your fair-mindedness when you post like this here as you posted like this at HSS.

 

3) Since you insist I will indulge only this once and after this you can assert your ‘victories’ to your heart’s content (quotes are directly from your blog)...

 

 

Heraldry was not always seen as a practice of English feudalism during this period of Irish history. Not only did the Irish practice a proto-heraldry before the Norman Invasion, but one only need look to the armigerous Gallowglass to see this statement of yours is incorrect…or to the Irish princes and chiefs who adopted armorial devices without any direction, permission from England; in fact England’s control of Ireland from the Norman Invasion until the Tudor plantations and later was never complete, fixed, thorough, or fruitful. Many native-Irish and Norman/Cambro-Irish living outside of the major areas of English influence lived a hybrid existence and did such things as they saw fit including the adopting and use of heraldry. So much so that it frustrated later Ulster Kings of Arms not only for record keeping, but specifically because they never paid the fees to use such devices at funerals! Mr. Michael O Comain writes on this in his book on Irish heraldry, as does Dr. Edward MacLysaght.

 

 

Again you are incorrect. The Norman-Irish acted both as vassals and as independents. And the farther away they were from the English control (The Pale and smaller sea-port towns) the more Irish, or rebellious, they in fact were! The great many Irish princes and chiefs outside of a small few acted independent of England and her crown and were in no way “vassals” at all even though they used heraldry – heraldry they adopted for themselves independent of the English whom they were at war with! You are confusing the “Surrender and re-grant” policies of the Tudor and Stewart Plantations/Reformation with the earlier time, or else you are ignoring the previous 400 years, or ignorant of it…I don’t know which to be honest.

 

 

Again, incorrect. It was not “always” a function of the English crown! It certainly wasn’t for the Gallowglass, or, the native Irish from 12th to early 16th centuries. It was only with the advent of later Tudor Kings and later kings than that, that any real English “control” was exercised in Ireland at all! Again you are confusing the entire Irish heraldic era with the “surrender and re-grant” time of the Tudors and Stewarts onward to modern day. You are correct, however, in that it remained a British exercise after the formation of the Irish Free State until its last independent Ulster King of arms was no more. So, this statement of yours is a half truth at best.

 

 

Yes, but that history does not include the first couple of centuries when the Irish princes and chiefs adopted their own armorial devices and where Gallowglass had their own as well irrespective of Ulster King of Arms. Not to mention that the current Ulster King of Arms is but a shadow of his former self in as much as he lost his independence when he was combined with Norry where he is most definitely under the control of the English College of Arms, whereas his predecessors exercised their authority independently of the ECOA just as Lord Lyon King of Arms does.

 

 

Correct on the first part, and correct, but misleading on the second part. There are those, not you of course, who hold that the office of Chief Herald of Ireland is in fact a continuation of the Ulster King of Arms office under, shall we say, new management. Granted there was later a ruling that there was no legal standing for this, but the idea that the office itself, not the legality of it, was in fact a successor of the previous office just as the Republic of Ireland was a successor state of the Kingdom of Ireland. But, here we’d be splitting hairs, so why bother?

 

 

Read above for first part. However, I was under the assumption that they could not legally grant arms either since the legal ruling, but found out very recently that this is not correct as the office is in fact making real, legal grants to at least the City of Limerick to which you can read on at HSS. So, this is an unintentional mistake I believe just as I was unintentional in believing it to be non-valid for Limerick a month or so ago now until I learned otherwise. So, this needs to be amended in your blog as well, or asserted as opinion.

 

Mr. O Comain mentions several great Irish princes and chiefs who had rather nice arms before – that they adopted and used for a couple hundred years or so – that they lost in the “Surrender and re-grant” period. He even illustrates them. One of which is on a seal. Clearly if you had taken the time to do even a little reading on Irish armory and its history you would have discovered this and not made the blanket statements about Irish armory always being a font of the English crown and therefore its users always being vassals of the English crown. You have a gap of a several hundred years where this is not correct not taking into count the armory of the Gallowglass Irish.

Quote:

Heraldry was not always seen as a practice of English feudalism during this period of Irish history. Not only did the Irish practice a proto-heraldry before the Norman Invasion, but one only need look to the armigerous Gallowglass to see this statement of yours is incorrect…or to the Irish princes and chiefs who adopted armorial devices without any direction, permission from England; in fact England’s control of Ireland from the Norman Invasion until the Tudor plantations and later was never complete, fixed, thorough, or fruitful. Many native-Irish and Norman/Cambro-Irish living outside of the major areas of English influence lived a hybrid existence and did such things as they saw fit including the adopting and use of heraldry. So much so that it frustrated later Ulster Kings of Arms not only for record keeping, but specifically because they never paid the fees to use such devices at funerals! Mr. Michael O Comain writes on this in his book on Irish heraldry, as does Dr. Edward MacLysaght.

I alluded to proto-heraldry that did include Celts very early on in the article: I guess you missed that.  Heraldry in Ireland, as we know it was introduced by Normans, yes, however you forgot to mention where these Normans came from and whom they represented.  Aside from the Welshman of Pembroke: de Clare, all of the others came from England. The Gallowglass (Macdonalds) in Ulster were Scots.  You’re trying to mix apples and oranges with respect to the origins of heraldry in Ireland as I’ve outlined it.  Gaelic, Anglo and Norman history can be very arcane to someone not familiar with it. I wasn’t writing a book, but a three-thousand word article that was covering a ver complex history.

O’Neill was made a vassal of the crown: which is how he became an earl before he turned and was finally rescued by Hamilton.  O’Niell did indeed hire gallowglass against the crown, but as we know, it all led to the flight of earls in 1607. You see: how did these Irishmen become earls? That’s’ the point that the article works off of.

Fitzgerald, Burke, and Desmond likewise were all arms of the crown when they arrived as was de Corsey.  It would have taken another five of six thousand words to encompass the entirety, and I felt that it would have made the article too lengthy and bogged down with unnecessary details with respect to my thesis.  Likewise for all of the assuming of arms by the Irish all over the country and given the thesis it just didn’t seem to be anything important to the point.  Irish seals fall into the same category.

The Normans themselves became completely absorbed by the Irish over the generations and in fact Fitzgerald was attainted.  But again, that is not important to the thesis.  It could be argued that heraldry as we know it today actually sprang from many countries that had their own sort of heraldic display going on for a thousand years before the cursades, but again, where would I start?

Denny, the Irish did not invent their own heraldry any more than Romans or Egyptians invented heraldry.  Neither have the Irish ever had their own Irish sovereign sanctioned heraldic practice, just like the US as a sort of pseudo-heraldry going on.

You know as well as I do that Irish heraldry has been…unattached, to Ireland proper.  You also know that the OFCHI has been on very shaky ground legally since its inception and that Terrance MacCarthy is in that sense really a non-issue.  However his uncovering did nothing to help the situation, if fact, it quite probably buried the office for the foreseeable future.

Again, I think that your observations on the validity of my article are rather nit-picking some details that I just didn’t decide were necessary given the scope of the subject.  And I read O’Comain very carefully and with intent to find any attachment to a legal history of heraldry in Ireland as represented by the UK when I bought the book. And what I have found is that (a litgetimate, legal, and state Irish- sanctioned scope of heraldry in Ireland does not now, nor has it ever existed and I resent your accusation that I did not research my work).

Irish heraldry as we know it today was in fact rooted in the English model and was controlled, as much as possible, by the English and as I mentioned Gaelic designs, both Scotland (in 1175) and Ireland infused their own culture to the design process. And the entire idea of heraldry as we know it today sprang from the first crusade of which no Irish, on record at any rate, participated.  The civic arms of Limerick that you mentioned have been accepted and given perhaps a copyright, but that in no way gives legal authority to OFCHI and I think you know that; everybody else does.

I think perhaps your defending the OFCI, and that’s okay, but your defense does not invalidate the facts as I have laid them out.  And, I don’t participate in the HSS, or its forum any longer, and I intentionally had myself removed from the forum because I had finally reached my limit with the cabal that inhabits that place.

I’m sorry, but I have to disagree with your critique of my information based on your inability to effectively hinge your versions to anything that directly cites my article as inaccurate.

Greg;70167 wrote:

Denny, the Irish did not invent their own heraldry any more than Romans or Egyptians invented heraldry.  Neither have the Irish ever had their own Irish sovereign sanctioned heraldic practice, just like the US as a sort of pseudo-heraldry going on.

Greetings, Greg.

I don’t think that you’ll find many here who would agree with you in classifying American armory as "pseudo-heraldry." I am assuming that you feel this way because we do not possess any sort of granting authority?

Greg,

Originally I was simply going to ignore this thread but the controversy that has ignited about the content of the blog articles (especially the broad statements regarding Irish heraldry) begs me to throw in my two pence.

When I read through the articles in your blog the tone of the blog struck me as anglocentric in a very dated sort of manner. Maybe this tone reflects the age and origin of your heraldry books. May I suggest that you read heraldry books from other countries (and in different languages) so that you can develop a well rounded knowledge of the subject of heraldry? That written, the first question to come to mind is actually what is the purpose of this blog and what is it that you want to achieve with it?

DAP

Thanks Joseph. I appreciate the date when this occured. I wasn’t aware of this before, as I goofed on it at HSS. I’m glad it has corrected itself to be honest. Now I hope they find a way to validate the previous grants somehow. At least as a way of cleaning up the mess. Those people bought what they thought were legitimate grants and, I believe, those CHIs granted what they honestly thought were legitimate grants. I really hope it can get corrected. Thanks again.

Jonathan R. Baker;70172 wrote:

Greetings, Greg.

I don’t think that you’ll find many here who would agree with you in classifying American armory as "pseudo-heraldry." I am assuming that you feel this way because we do not possess any sort of granting authority?

I believe that’s correct Jon. As I recall from his posts at HSS, and Greg correct me where I’m wrong, Greg believes this, or said as much at HSS. He is one of the camp who believes because we have no granting authority that we have a lesser form of heraldry, if heraldry at all. At least that is the impression I have of his writing on the subject at HSS. I’ve found there are many who have that opinion. I obviously don’t agree with it and point to Joseph’s arguments as to why. I don’t think that makes Greg a bad guy, so I hope no one thinks that, but IIRC he does not think we have real heraldry for it lacks a sovereign’s touch so to speak. Again that is if I remember correctly and Greg feel free to correct me where wrong and I apologize if I characterized your opinion incorrectly.

Jonathan R. Baker;70172 wrote:

Greetings, Greg.

I don’t think that you’ll find many here who would agree with you in classifying American armory as "pseudo-heraldry." I am assuming that you feel this way because we do not possess any sort of granting authority?

Well Jonathan,  people don’t have to agree all the time.  The American style of heraldic display is a pseudo-heraldry in my view.  Joseph McMillan and myself have gone ‘round about this and we disagree on the subject.  My opinion on the mater however is just as valid as his and eqaully defensible.  The US has no granting authority.  The designs are not logged in any register and has no oversight, but is rather a hodge-podge.  Military logos (and that’s what they are) are recorded in an office.  I don’t wish to debate the issue again.

David Pritchard;70175 wrote:

Greg,

Originally I was simply going to ignore this thread but the controversy that has ignited about the content of the blog articles (especially the broad statements regarding Irish heraldry) begs me to throw in my two pence.

 

When I read through the articles in your blog the tone of the blog struck me as anglocentric in a very dated sort of manner. Maybe this tone reflects the age and origin of your heraldry books. May I suggest that you read heraldry books from other countries (and in different languages) so that you can develop a well rounded knowledge of the subject of heraldry? That written, the first question to come to mind is actually what is the purpose of this blog and what is it that you want to achieve with it?

 

DAP

My materal is not outdated at all as you may have read in my listed sources. When it comes to Irish heraldry, the model by which it operates is drawn from the English model, as does Scotland, yet even Scotland seperates itself from The College and Ireland by virtue of the motto over. Again, the scope of the article is consistant with an overview of the subject.  Different countries have different angles on it and with respect to Ireland, that controversy and the popularity of Irish genealogy was worthy of mention.  The state of Irish heraldry is in fact as I have explained it, and though some may avert the subject of its legality, it is nonetheless true. What I laid out with respect to Irish herladry is consistant with the facts in the matter as they have been written, reported and discussed.  Heraldry on the continent and elsewhere is also consistant with the practice as it emerged historically and as it has been maintaind by countries that practice it.

The blog is actually a place where I wish to write about things of interest; you may have read my paper on Manifest Destiny as well: researched very carefully and discovered to be a simple design with a new sort of political twist that can be directly realted to The Great Plantation. With repect to the history of the US, Scotland and Ireland, England plays a pivital role: the point being that things thought to be original can be found to in fact not be so original, and this goes for Irish heraldry as well.

Everything has its point of origin:  the states of the Middle East today draw their nationhood directly from England, save Turkey following WWI.  My interest in histroy is to connect the dots.

History is dated, that’s what makes it history.  However, again, my writing is consistant with factual analysis and historical documentation.

If there are other forums undergoing a discussion on my work, I would be interested in them, but my work stands very well on its own.  On rec.heraldry the very best that has been mounted is personal attacks on me rather than any valid critcisms of my writing, one such obstinate person is Joeseph McMillan.  I don’t get his incessent sarcasim, but he must gain some sense of strength from it: he finds himself to be very funny I suppose, but he is actually very ineffective and rather boring.

David, you may ignor my writing all you like, but it will not change my views, my experiences, my values nor my intent.

Greg, I appreciate your reply. As I said, I will not continue to debate it here in your thread on your blog, as a good portion of this has been discussed ad nauseum at HSS, and while I am an avid devotee of all things Irish heraldry and nomenclature I just don’t think that AHS is the place for it except for limited scope to specific questions as it relates to American heraldry.

If you would like, however, I would be willing to continue our discussion/debate via PM or some other vehicle, as I’d be more than happy to illustrate where your errors are and why they are errors…just not here.

One point if I might, and this comes from personal experience from my own asinine behavior at times, but it is unbecoming to come here and then in a post to David to regard any member here, in this case Joseph McMillan, in a derogatory way—some of us know not the particulars of what you are saying and some might walk away with an unreal, or unfair, impression of that said person, in this case Joseph McMillan. I dare say it is more than unbecoming, but then I’d be tempted to get my Irish up too much and I don’t want to be that person anymore.

So, please take it from me, it is better to say things kindly here, as it is a rather kind atmosphere, even with those you disagree with, than to say it so rudely. At the very least it will get you no where with those who have not formed an opinion yet as to the several issues you’ve brought up. So take it from me as I have posted more than my share of rude things here…it will get you no where and in fact is rather ugly…something I am still embarrassed about from when I did it to be honest.

Again congrats on your blog and I sincerely wish you well with it.

Greg;70179 wrote:

Well Jonathan,  people don’t have to agree all the time.  The American style of heraldic display is a pseudo-heraldry in my view.  Joseph McMillan and myself have gone ‘round about this and we disagree on the subject.  My opinion on the mater however is just as valid as his and eqaully defensible.  The US has no granting authority.  The designs are not logged in any register and has no oversight, but is rather a hodge-podge.  Military logos (and that’s what they are) are recorded in an office.  I don’t wish to debate the issue again.

Well, Greg, my point was not to say that we must only converse with those of like opinion.  Rather, I was trying to politely indicate that high-handed, anglophiliac statements might not receive the warmest welcome on this forum.  It is true that the United States does not have a central granting authority or registration office.  However, American heraldic tradition is an amalgam, as is our citizenship, and therefore it is natural that we would not follow English practices to the letter, but incorporate those traditions with those of our other originating cultures.  Americans gladly acknowledge the role that the UK played in shaping our nation, but we also recognize and appreciate the contributions of other nations, European or otherwise.

Quote:

...it will not change my views, my experiences, my values nor my intent.

One might wonder what is the purpose of entering into a dialogue in which one is not willing to genuinely listen to the other party and re-consider one’s position with a critical eye.

Quote:

Submissions on the design of heraldy in the US will be considered.

One might also wonder why submissions on American "pseudo-heraldry" would be entertained, given the natural superiority of English armory.:GreatBritain:;-)

Greg;70179 wrote:

Well Jonathan,  people don’t have to agree all the time.  The American style of heraldic display is a pseudo-heraldry in my view.  Joseph McMillan and myself have gone ‘round about this and we disagree on the subject.  My opinion on the mater however is just as valid as his and eqaully defensible.  The US has no granting authority.  The designs are not logged in any register and has no oversight, but is rather a hodge-podge.  Military logos (and that’s what they are) are recorded in an office.  I don’t wish to debate the issue again.

Denny may not want to get into it, but I will.    So, any country with no granting authority can’t have ‘real’ heraldry?  In what way is this "valid"?  Just because there is no granting authority, and no register, and in fact it is a hodge-podge, doesn’t mean there is no such thing as American heraldry.  Was all the assumption of arms by nobles throughout Europe before the rise of granting authorities "pseudo-heraldry"?  How about assumed arms in those countries which either never had or no longer have granting authorities?

Greg;70179 wrote:

When it comes to Irish heraldry, the model by which it operates is drawn from the English model, as does Scotland, yet even Scotland seperates itself from The College and Ireland by virtue of the motto over.

Is the Scottish model "drawn from" the English model?  They were seperate kingdoms at the time of the appointment of the first Lord Lyon.  I would assume, absent evidence to the contrary, that the institutions in England, Scotland, and indeed the Continent, arose independently, without reference to "models".