Renouncing titles on becoming a US citizen

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
14 October 2010 12:33
 

Joe, I understand that the US law requires it.

What makes it curious is that it does so in a way that does not bring about the legal effect it appears to seek. It is also not a necessary (nor sufficient) step towards creating the understanding of the equal treatment provisions of US law that you indicate is its intent. US citizens of course are not required to treat others equally outside the US whether it is in places such as Guantanamo or industrial enterprises located in foreign countries that do not respect human rights, child labour standards, or environmental protection.

This provision is simply window dressing and I would think was drafted to appeal to American voters who may have carried a prejudice towards some social groups. It is a request for renunciation of what US law does not recognize as creating any distinction in any case. In any case it has no application to heraldry as there is no requirement to renounce any other property whether landed or incorporeal…

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
14 October 2010 15:13
 

Look, I’m tired of arguing over whether the United States should or shouldn’t require foreign nobles to renounce their nobility as a condition of acquiring U.S. citizenship.  We do, we’ve been doing so since 1795, it’s an established and accepted aspect of our law and culture, and it isn’t going to change.

I’m also tired of the canard about how the renunciation is without effect in the home country.  We don’t care, any more than the British Crown cared that British subjects’ renunciation of German titles during World War I was without legal effect in the German states where the titles originated.  Most countries don’t accept that taking the U.S. oath abjuring allegiance to one’s former sovereign has any effect under their own laws.  Should the U.S. therefore not demand that new citizens renounce their former loyalties as a condition of naturalization?

 

The only thing up for discussion here is the heraldic implications.

 

No one here is under the impression that there is a legal requirement to renounce any aspect of one’s heraldic identity.  The issue—and the entire reason this topic even arises in this thread—is whether, having legally but voluntarily renounced one’s noble status upon taking American citizenship, one is then also morally and voluntarily bound to give up the use of the outward symbols, such as coronets of rank, of the status that one has renounced.

 

In a coat of arms, what’s on the shield is usually about personal and family identity; what’s around the shield—helm, coronet, supporters, robe of estate, etc.—is often about rank and status.  I take it as axiomatic that arms shouldn’t lie.  They shouldn’t lie genealogically, in that one must not assume the use of an existing coat of arms to which one has no hereditary entitlement.  And they shouldn’t lie in terms of status; if you aren’t an English duke or a French vicomte, you shouldn’t use a coronet implying that you are.

 

In heraldry as in a sacrament, there is supposed to be a relation between the sign and the thing signified.  To relinquish the status while clinging to the symbol implies that one thinks either that the renunciation is meaningless or that the symbol is empty.

 

If the oath was meaningless, why would one swear to it "without mental reservation or purpose of evasion…so help me God?"

 

If the heraldic accoutrement is devoid of significance, why would one continue to use it?

 

To reiterate:  this is not about what anyone must do.  It doesn’t make me angry or upset if they don’t.  I certainly am not advocating the creation of some authority that would go about defacing or pulling down heraldic displays that don’t conform to my preferences—that’s something best left to police states like Scotland wink.

 

But if we are serious about promoting the use of heraldry in the United States, we must be able to refute the critique that heraldry is un-American because it symbolizes and celebrates social concepts that have no valid place in the American republic.  Americans, whether native-born or naturalized, who persist in using heraldic devices that validate that critique are not helping the cause.

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
14 October 2010 16:14
 

It is the law. It is ineffective, but it is the law. No argument.

The oath would not seem to be a difficult one to take for those who wish to become US citizens. It applies only to those who belong to orders of nobility that still are recognized in the law of the other land (Britain, Spain, Belgium, etc.).

 

The law took no account of arms even though in 1795 many of the lawmakers in the US were descended from or related to armigerous families. If the republic wanted citizens to alter their arms it could have done so. Voluntary renunciation of property is nice if one wants to do it, but I don’t get how you can read into not renouncing other property any mental reservation about the narroe renunciation required. A person simply has not given up property that they were not required to give up. They need no other reason and certainly there is no moral requirement to do such thing not requried by law (there is nothing immoral in bearing inherited arms). The rank elements in the arms do not lie, they point to the inherited foreign heritage of the individual. The individual has renounced the title but not the heritage and even the title only within the context of US law.

 

Coming back to Hassan’s arms - Hassan would not need to renounce Egyptian nobility on naturalization because Egypt is a republic without social classes. The same would apply to Poland or even Germany where the titles survive but only as a part of the name. None of this needs be renounced in acquiring citizenship. I believe there have been court rulings in this regard. The alteration of arms under these circumstances would create a dissonance with a heritage that was not renounced and never needed to be.

 

Perhaps the republican view could reasonably be - citizenship is a high rank and a real value sought by those who were born barons, counts or dukes according to foreign customs and who now in the US, citizens by their preference and choice. Think of citizenship as the higher rank in the US.

 

I know the question was rhetorical - should the US require new citizens to renounce foreign loyalties. No. That is so 19th century. There is no issue unless old loyalties stand in conflict with new loyalties in which limited case they would need to choose. More and more we live in a world where individuals have multiple citizenships and really are members of more than one polity. Generally it brings the world closer.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
14 October 2010 21:16
 

Clearly two well-presented but essentially incompatible views of what it means to be—and especially to become—a citizen of a republic.  And in this context, leading to two equally incompatible conclusions as to what one "ought"—or "ought not"—to bear heraldically.

Each set of political and heraldic values are eminently logical in the national context of each of the debaters, and equally illogical on the other side of the longest shared border.  With that in mind, we can I think agree to disagree, and each can be politely amused re: the quaint customs of our neighbors.

 

Canada and the US, while the best and hopefully most valued of neighbors, are in spite of their many similarities,  still different in some basic ways.  As with language, we are two nations divided by a common history.  Vive la difference! (which I’ve likely misspelled)

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
15 October 2010 01:14
 

Michael F. McCartney;79770 wrote:

Clearly two well-presented but essentially incompatible views of what it means to be—and especially to become—a citizen of a republic. . . . With that in mind, we can I think agree to disagree, and each can be politely amused re: the quaint customs of our neighbors. . . . Vive la difference! (which I’ve likely misspelled)


Well presented on all sides.  I agree with Michael.  Incidentally, it’s vive la différence.  Note the first "e" in différence with the accent mark.  In French it is vive la différance.  Note the second "e" in différence has become an "a".  wink

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
15 October 2010 07:56
 

Michael F. McCartney;79770 wrote:

Clearly two well-presented but essentially incompatible views of what it means to be—and especially to become—a citizen of a republic.


Or, rather, a citizen of this particular republic, based on the particular circumstances of our history.

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
15 October 2010 09:36
 

... and to think that if it were not for the perhaps unfortunate and somewhat impulsive secession of the southern parts of North America more than two centuries ago we might all have benefit of an offical heraldic authority… smile

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
15 October 2010 10:57
 

George Lucki;79764 wrote:

The law took no account of arms even though in 1795 many of the lawmakers in the US were descended from or related to armigerous families. If the republic wanted citizens to alter their arms it could have done so.


As I’m sure George knows, armigerous ≠ noble in any of the countries from which the American founding fathers’ ancestors originated, predominantly the British Isles and to a lesser degree Germany, the Netherlands, and France. None of them claimed to be noblemen, and as far as I remember none of them whose arms I’ve encountered used any accoutrements or additaments that could be taken as signifying nobility within the traditions of their countries of origin, with the exception of Edward Rutledge’s supporters.

 

Thus there was nothing in the heraldic practice of those who led the creation of the infant United States that would run afoul of the principles I’ve set forth.

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
15 October 2010 11:59
 

Joe,

I did say armigers rather than nobles.

But, although not founding fathers but… how about a couple of Polish nobles

 

Thaddeus Kosciuszko h. Roch

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/67/Herb_Roch_III.svg/463px-

 

 

Casimir Pulaski h. Slepowron

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/47/Herb_Slepowron.jpg

 

Both of whom were were noblemen and citizens of another great republic that valued liberty and equality… The Most Serene Republic of Both Nations, the Crown of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. You will notice that in general Polish historical arms all bear the same coronet as a symbol of the equality of all nobles or citizens of the Republic. There were also princely arms for example ensigned with a prince’s mitre-bonnet, but of course princely rank gave no precedence in the republic - precedence was all a question of public office held. The level of enfranchisement was higher in this Republic than anywhere else in Europe until the advent of mob rule in the French bloodbath that started in 1789. Republics - from the time of Rome until the French and American Revolutions were never incompatible with either monarchy or nobility as parts of the social order. (I am not defending noble privilege - that of course absolutely needed and in some places still needs to be abolished - but I am reluctant to attack or erase heritage.)

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
15 October 2010 12:02
 

George Lucki;79779 wrote:

... and to think that if it were not for the perhaps unfortunate and somewhat impulsive secession of the southern parts of North America more than two centuries ago we might all have benefit of an offical heraldic authority… smile

 
Charles E. Drake
 
Avatar
 
 
Charles E. Drake
Total Posts:  553
Joined  27-05-2006
 
 
 
15 October 2010 14:15
 

This is a topic line with regard to which I would enjoy posting, except however, that it would be off topic, and I have already been rebuked for that.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
15 October 2010 16:03
 

I accept Joe’s correction re: citizens of this particular republic etc.—as George notes, there have been other republics with different histories, circumstances and values, which fostered different heraldic customs—each valid in its own context, each still "foreign" when viewed from other places & times.

George’s posting of the arms of the two Polish heroes of our revolution is most welcome—it is sometimes (for me anyway) difficult to adequately envision some Polish blazons.

 

If we were to compile an armory of foreign champions of our independence, there would also be the Marquis de Lafayette, "Baron" von Steuben, and doubtless others worthy of inclusion.  Still, if their descendants were, or were to become, American citizens, they would have had to take the same oath renouncing foreign titles etc. as any other immigrant.

 

The only arguable exceptions I’m aware of, would have been Lafayette, who was made an honorary citizen of at least one American state but of course never took up permanent residence here (but the honorary citizenship—or perhaps the reputation and affection it represented—was useful in avioding the block); and "Lord" Stirling, one of GW’s better generals who claimed to be the de jure peer but unable to satisfy the British officials—a bit of legally sound but pragmatically foolish officiousness on their part!—but IIRC (do I?) he was killed during the war so the question never really came up.

 

"Baron" von Steuben, IIRC, asked Congress after the war to acknowledge his title, but the best he could get from them was "General."

 
Benjamin Thornton
 
Avatar
 
 
Benjamin Thornton
Total Posts:  449
Joined  04-09-2009
 
 
 
15 October 2010 16:06
 

George Lucki;79779 wrote:

... and to think that if it were not for the perhaps unfortunate and somewhat impulsive secession of the southern parts of North America more than two centuries ago we might all have benefit of an offical heraldic authority… smile


This reminds me of the Fourth of July scene in "The Great Escape" when the SBO considerately asks James Garner and Steve McQueen, "How are you managing over there without us? Getting along all right, are you?"

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
15 October 2010 17:14
 

Donnchadh;79783 wrote:

...umm…i’ll take my federal republic with all of its freedoms and greatness over commonwealth, dominion, or whatever other titles less than completely free nations have…heraldic authority or no…sorry mate.


Wow. I guess I’m left wondering what ‘less than complete freedom’ Canadians enjoy…:eek:

(Just so you know I have an absolutely huge fondness for my American neighbours - historical irritants such as the 2nd American Revolution of 1812-1815 and US tacit support for Fenian terrorism against Canada 1866-1871 aside, I couldn’t want for better friends and neighbours.)

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
15 October 2010 17:43
 

Michael F. McCartney;79788 wrote:

If we were to compile an armory of foreign champions of our independence, there would also be the Marquis de Lafayette, "Baron" von Steuben, and doubtless others worthy of inclusion. Still, if their descendants were, or were to become, American citizens, they would have had to take the same oath renouncing foreign titles etc. as any other immigrant.


Morally I think the US Would need to consider General Casimir Pulaski (‘the father of American Cavalry’) one of its own given that he died for American freedom at Savannah (he lived by the maxim ‘for your freedom and ours’).

 

General Thaddeus Kosciuszko (sometimes called the father of American artillery) was made an American citizen (substantial not honorary) by Act of Congress in 1783. He did not renounce his order of nobility. He also was also voted a sum of money and land. As far as I know he used the money to buy freedom for American slaves and wrote a will, with Jefferson named as executor, asking that his property be used to free slaves - including to buy freedom for Jefferson’s slaves. smile Jefferson declined to act as executor. By the time probate was complete in the 1850s land values had dropped so that there would have been little practical benefit. I should note that Polish nobles of the day were absolutely repulsed by slavery as unconsionable to liberty - in contrast corvee labour rent contracts were the basis of Polish serfdom and even here Kosciuszko was a bit of a liberal in this regard unilaterally reducing the labour rent from three to two days for the peasants who tilled farms on his estate. He later served as Commander in Chief of the Polish army in defense of the liberty of the Republic (the noble estate primarily although with somewhat greater enfranchisement extended to burghers and peasants by the reforms of 1791). He also supported the efforts to make the elective monarchy hereditary in Poland (elections occurring only when a dynasty was extinguished) in the lineage of a foreign Saxon house in order to strengthen the Republic and avoid the tumult of royal elections and interregnums. Strengthening the constitutional monarchy was seen as a way of strengthening democracy.

 

It is always interesting to look at history and its apparent inconsistencies only to see that they are not inconsistent at all but rather finely nuanced.

 

The issue of slavery in teh US was of course a touchstone for the 3rd American Revolution of 1861-1865.

 

This discussion also had me reflecting on the irony that among the loyalists in the 1st Revolution (War of Secession) were the underclasses of post-revolution American society - the Blacks and the Indians. But, that discussion is completely non-heraldic in already off-topic and meandering (but very interesting) thread.