I’vve been away for a while. At first I was happy to see a very active thread as these are often quite interesting, but much of this is unpleasant.
I take it that Greg’s position is that "American Heraldry" is not so much an oxymoron as a contradiction in terms. Even if one were to accept (which I do not) that true heraldry requires some manner of recognition from the sovereign, why do not the arms adopted by the United State and the several States (sovereigns themselves) count?
Greg;70236 wrote:
[A]s a result of heraldry’s popularity the framers adopted - assumed - heradlic like designs to represent the federal government to Europe, particularly England as a pu[n]ch in the nose. And I can assure you that political scientists and historians well versed in new American thinking will tell you that you’re dreaming if you think that "heraldry" as a practice would have been tolerated in this country.
So the whole point of adopting a seal was to take a swipe at England? This seems far-fetched, especially as that seal has continuously been used to authenticate documents both diplomatic and internal ever since. The new United States adopted both arms and a seal for the same reason that it adopted a flag, because as one of the "powers of the earth" it had use of such devices.
I also believe that the research reflected elsewhere on the Society’s webiste (e,g, the amerigous presidents series) shows use of heraldy by the founding fathers in the immediate post-Independence period. Perhaps there is some example of which I am ignorant where someone was tarred and feathered for use of arms?
The U.S. Constitution is silent on heraldry. The cited section prohibits the grant of titles of nobility. That in some countries the bearing of arms may have been limited to nobility (not all of whom need be titled) does not mean that use of arms equates to a claim of such status. Article 40 of the Constitution of Ireland not only prohibits the granting of titles of nobility by the State, but also forbids the acceptance of titles of nobility or honor by any citizen without the consent of the government. Yet, the Republic of Ireland has a chief herald who grants arms. (I am not insisting that the cognate constitutional provisions of the two countries must mean the same thing, only that mere reference to Article I, section 10, is insufficant to deny the existence of American heraldry. (Actually, section 10 prohibits grants of titles of nobility by the States, the prohibition on grants by the federal government is contained in section 9.)
It is not surprising that the denial of the possibility of "American heraldry" would evoke responses as it has. Such a thesis raises the question of whether the very name of this Society is either nonsense (if "American" modifies "Heraldry") or is indicative of celebrity-worship of our betters.
The Guidelines are strong evidence that the Society is not some fantasy-land of psuedo-English aristocracy wannabes. The elements of an achievement are limited to the basics. After much discussion, supporters have been rejected and other additiments are extremely limited.
THis discussion has, perhaps, been useful in demonstating the utility of the Society’s devising of a comprehensive statement of the basis for the implicit principle that, where not prohibited by law, assumed arms are just as valid as those granted or registered by a government. The members’ section is the appropriate part of this Forum for that exercise.
Greg;70250 wrote:
Civic heraldry is like recognizing flags. I take it you mean copyright registration. Since personal heraldry is not recognized, then heraldry has been reserved for civic identification only.
In Norway, for example, civic heraldry is treated as heraldry and not copyright, with blazons registered by the National Archives of Norway. The Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs registers the heraldry of royals and national heraldry.
Reserving heraldry for civic use would take an act of the Norwegian government.
I think you are using a semantic shift to make your point. When you wrote "heraldry has been reserved for civic use," you really meant to say "OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED heraldry has been reserved for civic use." Norwegians would agree with the latter but not the former formulation, because the former makes it sound like personal shields are no longer classified as heraldry.
I really think your entire argument about pseudo-heraldry in all countries is based on a merely semantic distinction.
Greg;70246 wrote:
. . .And I do make many licks of sense.
I see. Well, if you say so . . .
Quote:
From the Blog:
...This decision came with quite a controversy involving parliamentary censure, legal claims, appeals to the Court of Sessions, submissions of falsified court documents all by a small but contumacious group of individuals from both within and outside of Scotland who are members of The Heraldry Society of Scotland and sit in positions of its governing board as well as running its own, allegedly open online forum where ‘barons’ congregate…..
Falsified court documents?
David E. Cohen;70252 wrote:
I’ll go from Shakespeare to Beavis and Butthead: Uhhhhhh… no. Having official recognition of one area of heraldry, but not a second area, in no way proves that the second type is not heraldry. This is faulty logic.
Uhhhh, no. Pseudo-heraldry in the US is 1, not officicially recognized, and 2, used as civic or military logos only. Everything else is for fun.
Stephen J F Plowman;70262 wrote:
Falsified court documents?
Yes, Martin Goldstraw used a false address in his court filing: he gave the address of an office building in Scotland: he lives in England.
It’ll all be in the article Stephen.
Greg;70265 wrote:
Yes, Martin Goldstraw used a false address in his court filing: he gave the address of an office building in Scotland: he lives in England.
It’ll all be in the article Stephen.
I thought all the legal niceties had already been explained to you over at rec.h? I trust, in the interest of fair reporting, that you will make reference to that as well?
Greg;70265 wrote:
Yes, Martin Goldstraw used a false address in his court filing: he gave the address of an office building in Scotland: he lives in England.
It’ll all be in the article Stephen.
Greg, I know that facts never get in your way.
Quite apart from the "legal niceties being explained on rec heraldry" you might like to do a Google Maps search on the post code of the address I gave in my petition for judicial review - I’ll remind you of the post code - DG8 8JD. At the time of my petition I was living in Scotland. If you go to Google Maps using that post code (I know you like to snoop) you will not find an office block. What you will see is a rather nice medium sized domestic property (the smaller one next to the larger farm, the one with the Google letter A pointing to it) that I had use of for a time. I enjoyed it very much but sharing my time between two properties, one in England and one in Scotland, at a time when both my children were going through university meant that we had to make a financial decision to downsize - we kept the property we owned which was in England (where the kids were at Uni); it’s right opposite the school where my wife teaches.
Just in case you have difficulty finding it for yourself, here is the Google Maps link - zoom in and enjoy the view:
I have no doubt that you will now use the same Google maps to seek out my English property. It is the detached one at the end of the road- and yes, I use it (for a fee) to allow other businesses to direct their mail to me. They use it as their head office address. Now, having divulged to you far more personal information than ought to be required on a heraldry forum and far far more than you deserve perhaps you can stop stalking me and allow me some personal privacy.
Greg;70264 wrote:
Uhhhh, no. Pseudo-heraldry in the US is 1, not officicially recognized, and 2, used as civic or military logos only. Everything else is for fun.
Now, pseudo-heraldry (in the United States only, or would it include other countries where only the heraldry of governmental entities is regulated?) only comprises that heraldry used by governmental entities. Other corporate or individual ‘heraldry’ doesn’t even rise to the level of ‘pseudo-heraldry’. I guess it’s ‘pseudo-pseudo-heraldry’. I thought it couldn’t get funnier, but it has! 
A request for Moderation has been made. I can see by all the ad hominem attacks, the inability to see another’s point of view and the fact that we’ve gone way off topic that this thread is now out of control.
We’re done here.
This thread is CLOSED