Fred White;84745 wrote:

I googled Paul Revere’s arms and found what must be the bookplate in question, along with David Hackett Fischer’s comments on it suggesting that the lion tenant is ironic. I find it hard to believe that Revere didn’t know how the lion would tend to read, but let’s just suppose it was a whimsical piece of ornamentation in a single emblazonment and not definitely intended to be understood as part of the actual blazon. What would be the objection to any other American doing something like that?

It seems like the last time I participated in a discussion here on this subject, the prevailing view was that there is no meaningful difference between using a single tenant and a pair of supporters. Is that still the prevailing view?

I have no idea; maybe others do.  I’m not sure I have a view on this practice.  I don’t think Revere’s emblazonment is obviously a supporter; I also don’t think it’s obviously not a supporter.  That’s why I flagged it, but I did count it in my totals.

On John Paul Jones, my doubt stems from the fact that the dolphins are part of a plethora of nautical decoration surrounding the shield, so it’s hard to gauge the intention.  But again, when in doubt, I counted them as supporters.

Fred White;84745 wrote:

It seems like the last time I participated in a discussion here on this subject, the prevailing view was that there is no meaningful difference between using a single tenant and a pair of supporters. Is that still the prevailing view?

My recollection is that the discussion didn’t make it past the first page before become another debate on the use of supporters just like this one. I don’t believe the position of whether there is any meaningful difference between a single tenant and supporters was never resolved (or even acknowledged again).

Kenneth Mansfield;84747 wrote:

My recollection is that the discussion didn’t make it past the first page before become another debate on the use of supporters just like this one. I don’t believe the position of whether there is any meaningful difference between a single tenant and supporters was never resolved (or even acknowledged again).

Well, I guess I’ll risk repeating myself again. It strikes me that a tenant is redolent of whimsy and is consequently a little less apt to seem ostentatious or invidious than supporters. Even if others shared this perception, I would doubt that best practices have anything to gain by attempting to make a distinction like that.

Fred White;84749 wrote:

Well, I guess I’ll risk repeating myself again. It strikes me that a tenant is redolent of whimsy and is consequently a little less apt to seem ostentatious or invidious than supporters. Even if others shared this perception, I would doubt that best practices have anything to gain by attempting to make the distinction distinction like that.

Whatever they’re properly called, I tend to agree with Fred on this one.

Although it occurs to me that someone will then decide to display his and his wife’s arms side by side, with a single tenant placed on the outside of each shield.  And once you’ve done that, what could be wrong with impaling the arms, with the pertinent tenant on the corresponding side of the shield.  And then the kids quarter the two coats and keep the tenants, which are now, in the space of one generation, supporters.

And then the great-great-grandkids see the painting and conclude that they are the descendants of a long line of viscounts, probably originating from a country that doesn’t have viscounts.

Joseph McMillan;84755 wrote:

And then the great-great-grandkids see the painting and conclude that they are the descendants of a long line of viscounts, probably originating from a country that doesn’t have viscounts.

Principality of Hutt River. :o

Fred White;84740 wrote:

American armigers are cautioned that using supporters may be seen as misleading, even if they are intended as mere decoration.

[emphasis added]

Maybe I’m not getting what you mean by mere decoration. I have in mind something like the wreath that is emblazoned around the Society’s arms here, but is not, strictly speaking part of the arms because not mentioned in the blazon. If apparent supporters are mere decoration, they cause confusion because they appear to be part of the arms. Almost sounds like something a lawyer would think up: mere decoration, so does not "violate" the "prohibition" on supporters, but always depicted, so I get de facto supporters.

Fred White;84740 wrote:

American armigers are cautioned that using supporters may be seen as misleading, even if they are intended as mere decoration.

[emphasis added]

Maybe I’m not getting what you mean by mere decoration. I have in mind something like the wreath that is emblazoned around the Society’s arms here, but is not, strictly speaking part of the arms because not mentioned in the blazon. If apparent supporters are mere decoration, they cause confusion because they appear to be part of the arms.

Fred White;84740 wrote:

Is that not a meaningful difference?

Since the rise of Photobucket?

Nope. Not meaningful at all.

Fred White;84740 wrote:

Well, clearly, we are not going to agree on some of the facts, but perhaps it doesn’t matter. I note some definite overlap in our views, so let me just cut to the chase and give a version of what I would have any American list of best practices say about supporters. Partly, it’s an adaptation of what you’re saying above:

Quote:

"Supporters in the arms of individuals will often be taken to imply noble status—something that has never existed in the United States. Internationally, there are examples of gentry, burgher, and peasant arms that have supporters, but these are the exception rather than the rule. Therefore, American armigers are cautioned that using supporters may be seen as misleading, even if they are intended as mere decoration."

Is there really any need to go further than that?

"May be seen as misleading," and "cautioned against?"

Hell yes there’s need to go further then that.

If you’re not Dutch it’s misleading. Period. If you are Dutch it will be seen as misleading by anyone unfamiliar with Dutch heraldic traditions.

"Cautioned against" just isn’t strong enough. The thing about supporters is that in every heraldic tradition except the Dutch there are thousands of people who don’t qualify for them by custom. The Canadians seem to be in the hundreds of thousands. You don’t caution people against saying they’re in the top ten thousandth of the world, you tell them they should not do that. Then you deal with that statement on it’s own merits.

Fred White;84740 wrote:

I’m responding to your saying:
Quote:

"The point of the guidelines is to force people who do things different from the historical practice to have a damn good reason . . . "

I’d forgotten I used that word.

But I stand by the statement. Forcing people to think things through is not a bad thing.

As for John Paul Jones, remember he was twice a nobleman (King Louis make him a Chevalier, and the Russian Order of St. Anne grants nobility) and Congress actually referred to him by his noble title. I have no doubt Lord Stirling also used supporters, but neither one is really a good example of what common-born Americans without foreign grants of nobility should do.

Question: In Joe’s country-by-country survey in post 235, no mention is made of Switzerland. Anyone know anything about the use of supporters in Swiss heraldry?

Nick B II;84762 wrote:

Hell yes there’s need to go further then that.

I respect your candor, Nick, and I think I’m going to have to nominate you for the AHS’s annual piss and vinegar award.

Quote:

If you’re not Dutch it’s misleading. Period.

We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Quote:

As for John Paul Jones, remember he was twice a nobleman (King Louis make him a Chevalier, and the Russian Order of St. Anne grants nobility) and Congress actually referred to him by his noble title. I have no doubt Lord Stirling also used supporters, but neither one is really a good example of what common-born Americans without foreign grants of nobility should do.

I think the accomplishments of a John Paul Jones or a Lord Stirling are in line with normative expectations of individuals whose arms have supporters. Arguably, they were not the last or by any means the only Americans to meet such expectations.

Jay Bohn;84759 wrote:

[emphasis added]

Maybe I’m not getting what you mean by mere decoration. I have in mind something like the wreath that is emblazoned around the Society’s arms here, but is not, strictly speaking part of the arms because not mentioned in the blazon. If apparent supporters are mere decoration, they cause confusion because they appear to be part of the arms. Almost sounds like something a lawyer would think up: mere decoration, so does not "violate" the "prohibition" on supporters, but always depicted, so I get de facto supporters.

Maybe the "mere decoration" bit doesn’t need to be there. You could take it out, and the statement would lose nothing essential, but I think it’s a way of anticipating and addressing precisely the kind of rationale you and others are apprehensive about, and I think it addresses that in the right tone.

Fred White;84774 wrote:

I think the accomplishments of a John Paul Jones or a Lord Stirling are in line with normative expectations of individuals whose arms have supporters. Arguably, they were not the last or by any means the only Americans to meet such expectations.

If Stirling used supporters (I haven’t yet found a contemporary image of his arms and they aren’t included in Bolton), he would have done so because he believed himself a Scottish peer, not because he was a major general in the Continental Army.  As George Costanza explained, it isn’t a lie if you believe it.

I wouldn’t put any piece of self-aggrandizement past John Paul Jones, but would note (contra Nick) that the Institution du Merite militaire to which Jones was appointed was technically not an order, did not officially carry the title of chevalier, and was not ennobling.  I’m not sure what privileges the Order of St. Anne conveyed, but at the time it was a Holstein order, not a Russian one, so the later Russian statutes wouldn’t tell us anything.

We can spend a great deal of time quibbling about the merits of each of the cases of early Americans using supporters with their arms.  That’s because time is limitless and the number of cases is miniscule.  Simple division.

have enjoyed this latest debate on this subject. this will be the only post i have on it, unlike before. hopefully my maturity in presentation and thought are seen, if not, well, so be it.

g’nite all.

Joseph McMillan;84778 wrote:

If Stirling used supporters (I haven’t yet found a contemporary image of his arms and they aren’t included in Bolton), he would have done so because he believed himself a Scottish peer, not because he was a major general in the Continental Army.

Sounds like we’re talking about a complete hypothetical in Stirling’s case.

Quote:

I wouldn’t put any piece of self-aggrandizement past John Paul Jones, but would note (contra Nick) that the Institution du Merite militaire to which Jones was appointed was technically not an order, did not officially carry the title of chevalier, and was not ennobling.  I’m not sure what privileges the Order of St. Anne conveyed, but at the time it was a Holstein order, not a Russian one, so the later Russian statutes wouldn’t tell us anything.

Good to have some clarification on that.

Quote:

We can spend a great deal of time quibbling about the merits of each of the cases of early Americans using supporters with their arms.  That’s because time is limitless and the number of cases is miniscule.  Simple division.

A reasonable thing to point out, and for me, it raises some interesting questions.

Would it be reasonable to say that the number of Americans using arms of any description ca. 1776 was comparatively miniscule? If you take the total number of blazons in Bolton (about 3,500?), generously assume all were in use in 1776, and take that as a percentage of the total population of the U.S. at that time (about 2.5 million?), you get .14 percent. For that matter, let’s say there were 10 cases of supporters being used in the original 13 states in 1776. That would make them .29 percent of all American armigers and .0004 percent of the total American population.

I wonder how these figures stack up against, for instance, the UK at that time and the United States today (excluding bucket shop purchases).

Anyway, I’m not saying the use of supporters here should be promoted or should be widespread. I’m saying it seems justified occasionally. Either way, it is happening, and in the cases I’m aware of, it seems like the armigers’ reasoning for it is plausible. I don’t think the supporters in those cases have been assumed, strictly speaking, but I don’t know what all has gone on with Bourbon-Two-Sicilies grants and the like, so maybe they might as well have been.

The ironic thing, perhaps, is that an assumed coat of arms with supporters is apt to look sort of aspirational or arriviste in the American context, simply because the vast majority of arms of any antiquity here lack them. So, I don’t think the incentive to assume them is actually all that great.

Denny, it sounds like you and I are more or less on the same page, but I think the answer to your point below is that this isn’t about making the AHS bend its knee (which kind of makes it sound like nothing more than a squabble over turf), so much as it is about what really constitutes best practices.

Donnchadh;84781 wrote:

people are still free to display arms with supporters outside of the AHS, so why make the AHS bend its knee to allow them here?