I was thinking about this while I was at work the other day, and decided it would be something worth posting here. My question to the far more experienced than me is this:
What do you think the biggest downfall to American heraldry is?
I think that a big problem in the United States is that so many people have logos with a heraldic theme thrown at them, that they don’t know what true heraldry really is. Obviously it wasn’t used here as much as it was in European countries, so it has less of a historical basis. I’m sure there are some other things some of you can think, of, and I’m eager to hear your opinion. So anyway, what do you think is really holding heraldry back in this country?
Regards,
Joshua
I don’t see the US having different "problems" with heraldry than any other country in Europe. Bucket shops and pseudo-heraldic logos have existed there for as long as they have here.
Heraldic ignorance is not restricted to the United States, the Europeans do an excellent job at it too.
Also, I disagree with your assertion on there not being a heraldic history in this country. However, I will let Joseph refer you to the abundance of literature proving this.
So, what I think the "problems" with heraldry here and elsewhere is the complete and utter lack of any sort of heraldic education.
Well I should say that in the United States, heraldry was never used as it was originally intended.
At the (large) risk of leaving out other significant concerns, I would nominate—at least as serious contenders—two widespread and corrosive underlying misconceptions. They are IMO bad enough on their own, but also contribute to any number of other unfortunate misconceptions.
(1) heraldry as status symbol—the whole "nobility/gentility/ancestrial glory" business that draws the gong-mongering and status seekers, encourages unwarranted or even fraudulent self-promotion, scares off the honest newbies who might otherwise like to play the game, and turns off those who don’t share, are uncomfortable with or even abhor that whole schtick—and by extension, heraldry overall—as at best irrelevant and at worst inherently un- or even anti-American. [Is that the longest sentence of the day?]
(2) The whole "arms-of-your-surname" business—inherently inconsistent with & destructive of the main legitimate purpose of heraldry as useful identification of persons, families & other groupings or institutions. Most intelligent people easily understand that "same name doesn’t equal same family" genealogically, but that insight seems to melt into mush when faced with bright-&-shiny (or old and antique-ie) armorial eye candy.
There are of course others, but these seem to me to be both significant evils standing alone, and contributors to any number of other problems.
Our AHS Guidelines, forum & other activities are, in large part, an attempt to counter these & other misconceptions, but its an up-hill battle!
AILD;76526 wrote:
Well I should say that in the United States, heraldry was never used as it was originally intended.
You mean as designs on the shield of actual knights in armor?
Well, Americans of European origin are exactly as far removed from actual knights in armor as modern day Europeans are, and the first European settlers in the present United States brought heraldry with them in pretty much the same forms and uses as they were familiar with in the old country.
Since heraldry hasn’t been used for its putatively original purpose anywhere for well over 500 years, it’s rather hard to attribute any differences in American and European heraldic usage to the location in which it was originally used.
kimon;76525 wrote:
Also, I disagree with your assertion on there not being a heraldic history in this country. However, I will let Joseph refer you to the abundance of literature proving this.
It’s hard to know where to start. I think there are two key points to make:
1. Heraldry arrived in what is now the US with the first European settlers—literally. The first thing the Spanish and French explorers did, after saying a prayer of thanksgiving, was to erect pillars, plaques and the like with the royal arms of their respective countries. Heraldic artifacts have been found in the earliest English settlements in North America, including this 16th century English crest ring found by archaeologists near the Roanoke Island colony.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/Signet_ring.jpg/220px-Signet_ring.jpg
It’s been used in what is now the United States ever since.
2. Americans with an interest in heraldry overestimate the degree to which heraldry is used in much of Europe. The use of personal heraldry varies widely from country to country. Traditional civic heraldry is more common across Europe than in the United States, partly because other iconographic styles were in vogue (in Europe as well as here) at the time when most American towns were being founded, but personal heraldry has been a minority interest almost everywhere.
"Heraldry arrived in what is now the US with the first European settlers"
To this statement I would state yes and no. lol
In that if the purpose of heraldry is designs on a shield intended to identify warriors in battle, then surely the native Americans also used there own form of heraldry.
Plains Indians used shields in combat well into the latter part of the 1800’s, and to think that a design on a warriors shield wouldnt naturally be used in the heat of combat for identification is naive.
Yes we tend to think of the Anglo European tradition of heraldry. But there are other examples in the near and far east as well as the new world. Japanese Kamon are most certainly heraldry, and most certainly not Anglo or European. Though I am not suggesting the Japanese got here first.
Deer Sniper;76571 wrote:
"Heraldry arrived in what is now the US with the first European settlers"
To this statement I would state yes and no. lol
In that if the purpose of heraldry is designs on a shield intended to identify warriors in battle, then surely the native Americans also used there own form of heraldry.
Plains Indians used shields in combat well into the latter part of the 1800’s, and to think that a design on a warriors shield wouldnt naturally be used in the heat of combat for identification is naive.
Yes we tend to think of the Anglo European tradition of heraldry. But there are other examples in the near and far east as well as the new world. Japanese Kamon are most certainly heraldry, and most certainly not Anglo or European. Though I am not suggesting the Japanese got here first.
It all depends on your definition of "heraldry." I would argue that the use of clan symbols by American Indians and mons by the Japanese are in many respects similar to heraldry, but that the term heraldry itself is better restricted to “the systematic hereditary use of an arrangement of charges or devices on a shield” (Woodcock and Robinson, channeling J. B. Brooke-Little). Or, as Pastoureau puts it “Heraldry is both a social code and a system of signs. This system is based on charges and tinctures that are arranged on the shields according to certain conventions, principles and rules.”
I did the Pow-Wow circuit and did the Men’s Traditional Dance as a youth and young adult. I carried a shield, but I wouldn’t have called it heraldry, though it would be interesting to see how it translates. Mind you, the Hawk’s skull wasn’t painted on, but tied on.
Back on topic… (this is all assumption and supposition on my part)
I believe one of the biggest problems relating to the status of heraldry in the United States today is that I think most people associate coats of arms with antiquity and believe that heraldry is something relating to the kings, queens, and nobility of Europe in days gone by – the stuff of knights and tournaments. This is something bucket shops rely on. There is no notion that coats of arms belong to modern-day persons, organizations, companies, guilds, cities, etc., etc., etc. No; coats of arms are associated with the very beginnings of surname usage – a popular myth perpetuated again by the bucket shops. Americans, of course, see coats of arms in commercial use somewhat regularly, but I doubt they give these examples much thought at all. Much of what they see is pseudo-heraldry, which I’m sure makes the real heraldry all the more meaningless to the average American.
I guess what I’m saying ... in a word – ignorance.
I think the biggest problem is widespread ignorance of the existence of burgher/civilian/peasant arms.
People here generally think of royalty, or at best, elite prep schools, when they think of heraldry. It’s too connected to status and pretension.
The idea that arms could instead reflect deep familial pride for one’s life and labor as a merchant, farmer, artisan, etc. — the working and middle classes of old — is alien here. And that is a tremendous shame.
If this were better known, I think the popularity of heraldry would skyrocket. Better still, it would attract the right kind of armigers — people into heraldry for its personal and heritage value, rather than its ability to impress and intimidate others.
Yes, there is an odd obsession with nobility here (think of the coverage of the royal family, and the obsession with the Kennedys).
I think this fascination with "easy status" drives a good deal of the business for bucket shops and is behind gong-junkies and fly-by-night chivalry societies.
But I’d venture a greater number of Americans value hard work, bootstrapping and earned respect. If only they knew.
Ignorance seems to be the biggest problem from my perspective.
I was speaking with a good friend of mine and mentioned my passion for heraldry and he instantly questioned me on what "heraldry" was. He had no idea about any of it prior to me telling him about it. A lot of people I speak to about it have the same reaction or a general lack of interest because they see it as a sign of royalty.
The handful of people I do know that have "arms" purchased generic sheets from somewhere and claim them as their own. One example is a friend who claims a generic set of "Brooks" arms and a "Brooks" tartan. He honestly believed because his last name was Brooks, he was entitled to both because the guy at the Ren Fair told him it was…all for a low price of $49.95 and print out with fancy text.
I was never taught about heraldry and didn’t know what it was until I was in my late teens when I had made the effort to find out about it.
And, yes, here it comes -
A solid 51% of the population hardly hangs around long enough to really appreciate the artisty of design and emblazon of arms because some of the first information they get includes male line descent. Which historically it has in most countries - but if you get the wrong person early in the search, it can turn many women off to heraldry by either presentation or plain bad information.
Kathy McClurg;90403 wrote:
And, yes, here it comes -
A solid 51% of the population hardly hangs around long enough to really appreciate the artisty of design and emblazon of arms because some of the first information they get includes male line descent. Which historically it has in most countries - but if you get the wrong person early in the search, it can turn many women off to heraldry by either presentation or plain bad information.
51%, huh? Is this because every single female in the population objects to male line descent of arms, or because—by a coincidence that staggers belief—the number of women who don’t have a problem with it is exactly offset by the number of men who do?
I think it can be said that heraldry is rather male-dominated as an area of interest. But, while I recognize that fact I don’t have a problem with it.
gselvester;90412 wrote:
I think it can be said that heraldry is rather male-dominated as an area of interest. But, while I recognize that fact I don’t have a problem with it.
It is a very male dominated art and tradition, and I think it always will be. There is of course exceptions to every rule. I can think of two, maybe three women who frequent AHS.
