Sanctioned Heraldry

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
25 August 2009 13:45
 

Greg;71219 wrote:

Thanks, I don’t use it publically anymore, because it’s been ripped off several times and I’m tired of arguing with thieves over it.


Sorry to hear about the usurpation of your arms. The Internet does make things like that all too easy. Perhaps just the tartan then.

 

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/4899/gregavatar.gif

 
 
Greg
 
Avatar
 
 
Greg
Total Posts:  77
Joined  07-08-2008
 
 
 
25 August 2009 13:46
 

Charles E. Drake;71218 wrote:

This is an almost pointless discussion, for there is a disagreement over a basic premise.

There are at least two, and possibly more, definitions of the legitimacy of any activity or organization. One could be termed "a functional definition," and the other "an authoritative definition."

 

Take for example, religion. Some define religion or church in authoritative terms, that is, that the true religion is the one sanctioned by the proper authority. No matter how much evidence one produces that a certain group has services, sings, takes collections, preaches, etc., those holding to a definition based on authority would deny the "spiritual" legitimacy of that activity. Finding more evidence that the group functions like a religion would never change the opinion of someone committed to a definition based on authority.

 

American society, and our laws, on the other hand, have generally accepted a definition of religion that is functional. This allows us to live together without the necessity of killing each other. Most of our citizens, even when holding a personal conviction that is authority-based, have accepted a definition that is functionally-based for interactions at-large, in society. In other words, they accept the legal legitimacy of an activity that they hold lacks spiritual legitimacy.

 

Similar examples could be found for other disciplines.

 

In this case, Greg appears to hold to a definition that true heraldry is that which is sanctioned by the government. This is a definition based on authority, and no amount of argument from a functional standpoint can change that opinion, for it is an axiom.  This axiom, however, runs counter to the underlying premise of this society, which is that there is "American heraldry" and that the definition of heraldry is functionally based.

 

Inasmuch as there is a conflict between two underlying principles, I don’t see any chance of resolution save for a sort of "conversion" of one side or the other.  I would propose Greg accept the "corporate legitimacy" of American heraldry for the purpose of interaction within this society, and we just agree that he disagrees.

 

/Charles

 

 


Axiom?  No, I disagree.  What’s happend is that an historically legitimate question has, beeen turned, toward a discussion about legitimate heraldry in the US, and not by me.  My question was very specific.  I may even join the society, I mean, why not?  The study of the uses of of heraldic design in this country is an interesting subject.

 
Greg
 
Avatar
 
 
Greg
Total Posts:  77
Joined  07-08-2008
 
 
 
25 August 2009 13:48
 

Kenneth Mansfield;71221 wrote:

Sorry to hear about the usurpation of your arms. The Internet does make things like that all too easy. Perhaps just the tartan then. Or have you abandoned your clan as well?

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/4899/gregavatar.gif


Very funny.

 

I just don’t use avatars on this forum, frankly because I’m not really accepted - therefore, joining in, as you put it, is not a comfortable position for me yet.

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
25 August 2009 14:02
 

Greg;71223 wrote:

Very funny.

I just don’t use avatars on this forum, frankly because I’m not really accepted - therefore, joining in, as you put it, is not a comfortable position for me yet.


Well, that’s a namby-pamby excuse if ever I heard one. Put yourself an avatar on your profile and act like you belong here and you’ll be one step closer to being accepted. Alternatively, I suppose you could go eat worms.

 
 
Greg
 
Avatar
 
 
Greg
Total Posts:  77
Joined  07-08-2008
 
 
 
25 August 2009 14:26
 

Kenneth Mansfield;71224 wrote:

Well, that’s a namby-pamby excuse if ever I heard one. Put yourself an avatar on your profile and act like you belong here and you’ll be one step closer to being accepted. Alternatively, I suppose you could go eat worms.


Okay, let me find something I like.  So far, I kinda like this one:  :facepalm:

 
Greg
 
Avatar
 
 
Greg
Total Posts:  77
Joined  07-08-2008
 
 
 
25 August 2009 14:36
 

Kenneth Mansfield;71224 wrote:

Well, that’s a namby-pamby excuse if ever I heard one. Put yourself an avatar on your profile and act like you belong here and you’ll be one step closer to being accepted. Alternatively, I suppose you could go eat worms.

 


Okay, here’s an image that I did.  Howzat?

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
25 August 2009 15:07
 

Okay, here is a picture of one of my collatoral ancestors - William Henshaw (1735-1820). I assume the first and fourth quarters are those of Henshaw as seen in our own Roll of Early American Arms, as William Hinshaw is the great-grandson of Joshua Henshaw, one of the two Henshaw brothers who appear there. Obviously, his father, grandfather, or great-grandfather married someone whose family also used arms and they had enough of an understanding about marshalling to quarter the shield.

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hinshaw/h04564c.jpg

 

ETA: William Henshaw was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the King’s Army in 1759, then as Adjutent General in the Colonial Army in 1775, and finally as a Lt. Colonel in the Continental Army in 1776. He was the third generation born in the colonies. So if they were still using heraldry when his name and arms were added below this portrait, there must have been the teensiest custom being practiced here.

 
 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
25 August 2009 15:18
 

I had contributed to this thread before the discussion took its ugly turn. Therefore, I had also been refraining from moderating it because I wanted to reserve the option of continuing to contribute. The moderators have an agreement not to moderate threads in which they are also actively participating.

However, the really rude tone of this thread and the number of reports of infractions and the complaints going back and forth in the PMs has really gone far enough. This is just going to go around and around ad infinitum with no one really trying to reach a consensus but everyone just sticking to his argument. In addition, the thread has frequently veered of topic (albeit to come back again) but the tone continues to deteriorate and the personal attacks continue to escalate. We’ve let this go for two days now so no one can say we’ve acted "hastily".

 

We’re done here.