Signification of Supporters

 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  10-03-2009
 
 
 
04 June 2011 09:32
 

That was darn funny, thanks Fr.! :rofl:

The whole time I was looking at this as more analogous to something like states rights vs. federal authority and all of a sudden… clarity! lol

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
04 June 2011 10:10
 

An observation:

We regularly go through the business about needing or being able to incorporate non-English elements into some sort of conglomerated U.S. heraldic culture, usually on the grounds that the U.S. population is an amalgam of people from different ethnic backgrounds.

 

I find myself wondering what people think are the salient differences between British/Irish heraldry and heraldry as practiced in the other countries from which the American population originates that need to be fused into a synthetic U.S. heraldic culture.  The more I study heraldry the more I find that the commonalities between heraldic practices in different places far outweigh the differences.

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
04 June 2011 11:00
 

Joseph McMillan;84069 wrote:

I find myself wondering what people think are the salient differences between British/Irish heraldry and heraldry as practiced in the other countries from which the American population originates that need to be fused into a synthetic U.S. heraldic culture.  The more I study heraldry the more I find that the commonalities between heraldic practices in different places far outweigh the differences.


There are plenty fundamental differences between the British and Continental European models:

 

1.  Granted vs.  Assumed arms;

2.  Arms as honors or ensigns of gentility vs.  arms separate from nobility;

3.  Tightly regulated vs. Loosely regulated;

4.  Strong heralds vs. Weak heralds;

5.  Strong protection (in Scotland) vs. Little protection;

6.  Different perspectives regarding helm type, supporters and crest coronets;

 

The differences are significant enough to take notice.  IMO, the Continental models are more in keeping with the realities of US society.  The British system is too elitist and too centralized for the American setting.  With this in mind I am puzzled why American heraldist are still so adamant about importing the British model in the US?

 
Brad Smith
 
Avatar
 
 
Brad Smith
Total Posts:  182
Joined  12-02-2009
 
 
 
04 June 2011 13:33
 

eploy;84073 wrote:

IMO, the Continental models are more in keeping with the realities of US society.  The British system is too elitist and too centralized for the American setting.  With this in mind I am puzzled why American heraldist are still so adamant about importing the British model in the US?


I hope that I have made it clear that in explaining WHY American heraldists tend towards British heraldry practices, I am not advocating blind emulation of the British system.  I don’t believe that any of us are advocating doing things the British way simply because of traditional dogma.  There are plenty of logical explanations for why American heraldry is in its present state, and cogent arguments for why an American shouldn’t use supporters.  I hope we aren’t confusing the two.

 

My opinion is that supporters should, if used at all, only be incorporated in US personal heraldry after careful study of ones genealogy and the rules of heraldry in the countries of origin of ones ancestors.

 

Or not.  As Fred points out, we are Americans, and we tend to treat old world traditions as a salad bar, picking and choosing what we like and leaving behind that which we don’t.  If a prospective American armiger whom I was helping decided that they wanted supporters, I couldn’t do anything to stop them.  We are not talking about a moral quandry; there is no inate right or wrong about the question of supporters.  It is hard for me to see how anyone, expert or neophyte could be "right" or "wrong" on this issue.

 

That being said, my personal heraldic taste, reinforced by the heraldic traditions of my ancestral countries on both sides my family tree, is against supporters.  To me, heraldry is an old and traditional institution.  With armories from around the world filled to bursting with Coats of Arms that range from inspired to banal, I find it difficult to countenance the incorporation of a supporter (or any other heraldic device) simply because "it looks cool" and without any deeper thought.

 

One might well ask why we don’t quarter our arms in the US.  [Seeking cover]

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
04 June 2011 14:59
 

Dohrman Byers;84064 wrote:

The debate about the use of supporters in American heraldry reminds me of a story told me by a rabbi friend.

The young rabbi comes to a congregation and finds chaos at the liturgy. When it comes time to recite the Shema, half the congregation stands while the other half remains seated. Soon those standing are shouting at those seated to stand, and those seated are shouting at those standing to sit. In an attempt to bring peace, the rabbi decides to use the ancient practice of consulting the oldest members of the congregation to see what was the original custom. He takes one representative of each party with him to see old Abraham in the Jewish Retirement Home. As soon as they enter the patriarch’s room, one of the partisans cries out: “Abraham, tell them. Is it not the custom in our schul to stand during the recitation of the Shema?” Abraham shakes his head and says, “No, that is not the custom.” The other partisan then cries triumphantly, “So it is the custom in our schul to sit during the recitation of the Shema!” Again, Abraham shakes his head: “No, that is not the custom.” Desperate, the rabbi cries out: “Abraham, I don’t care which way you tell us to go, but you must decide. Do you not understand what is happening? Whenever it comes time to recite the Shema, half the congregation stands while the other half remains seated. Those standing start shouting at those seated to stand, and those seated start shouting at those standing to sit.” Old Abraham nods: “Yes, that is the custom.”


Jewish wisdom seems especially apropos at this juncture in the discussion.

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
04 June 2011 15:55
 

Jeffrey Boyd Garrison;84047 wrote:

Our heraldic culture has not "gelled" yet.

One’s ignorance of heraldic practices in the United States heretofore does not mean that those practices have not gelled, only that one is not aware of them. I include myself in the category of the ignorant, but I keep finding evidence that such practices have existed for hundreds of years. What I have not seen is that any of those practices have included supporters.

 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
04 June 2011 15:59
 

Fred White;84051 wrote:

Americans have always picked and chosen among disparate cultural traditions, in many spheres of activity, so it would be indexical of the American ethos to say, "Yes, it may be that the minority of national heraldic traditions make no necessary connection between supporters and a legal status that has never existed here, but that minority is getting it right."


To expand a bit on this line of thinking:

 

Alongside our American instinct to pick and choose freely among cultural traditions, we have a strong instinct to reject exclusionary practices, so it is never, in the end, going to work here to say to say that such and such a thing is the impregnable province of an elite if that thing is something desirable. We constantly appropriate and resituate status markers. A certain mindset sees this as profane. Another mindset sees it as righteous. Still another mindset sees it in some more complicated way. Most are just doing it and not giving it a whole lot of thought. At any rate, this reality creates what might be an insoluble paradox for an outfit like the American Heraldry Society, which wants at one and the same time to preserve and give new life to a hoary tradition in a culture that resists kowtowing to tradition in any other than a very selective way.

 

We seem to have several linguists on board, and all of us seem to agree that heraldry is a language, so the perennial debate in language education about how to balance the teaching of prescriptive vs. descriptive grammar and how to account for the inevitability of things like semantic shift will readily—I hope—be seen as illuminating for this discussion.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
04 June 2011 16:11
 

eploy;84073 wrote:

There are plenty fundamental differences between the British and Continental European models:

1. Granted vs. Assumed arms;

2. Arms as honors or ensigns of gentility vs. arms separate from nobility;

3. Tightly regulated vs. Loosely regulated;

4. Strong heralds vs. Weak heralds;


Aren’t these four really variations on the same theme, namely the existence of regulation of the use of arms? They don’t really have anything to do with the content of the arms themselves, do they?


Quote:

5. Strong protection (in Scotland) vs. Little protection;


Scotland, perhaps, but it seems from the existing jurisprudence that arms enjoy greater protection in France than in England (no one has questioned the power of the courts to rule on heraldic usurpation cases in France, and in fact they have done so, while the judge himself in the 1954 Manchester case in the Court of Chivalry expressed doubts that the court should sit again without a proper statutory basis). There have also been cases in Poland (George Lucki knows the details) and even New York State (Orsini v Eastern Wine Corp) in which armorial usurpation has been penalized. The various German heraldry societies say the same thing is possible in German courts, although I’m not aware of any specific cases.


Quote:

6. Different perspectives regarding helm type, supporters and crest coronets;


Helm type: Different in the specifics, perhaps, but not in the notion that different types and positions of helmets signify different ranks in the social hierarchy. Many countries have such systems, some just as formally prescribed (and much more detailed) than the UK. Sweden, Finland, Germany, Italy, and Russia all restrict the use of barred helms to the nobility. In French and Spanish heraldry, non-nobles aren’t supposed to use helms at all.

 

Supporters: From my previous posts—

 

Belgium: "For barons and higher ranks supporters are de rigueur." (von Volborth)

 

Denmark: "When a member of the untitled nobility was raised to a higher degree…his arms were not always ‘improved’ by augmentations, supporters, additional crests, etc." (von Volborth) [JMcM Comment: This suggests to me that supporters are not typical of those below the titled nobility, but Danish participants on rec.heraldry deny that there is any restriction on commoners using them.]

 

France: "Supporters are used freely" (Volborth, in discussing arms of the untitled nobility); "Supporters are common in the armorial bearings of the French aristocracy, but unusual for commoners; there are however no hard and fast rules for their use."

 

Germany (including Austria and Bohemia): "Many titled families have supporters for their achievements, but this does not apply to all of them…. [They] are not looked upon as a standard appurtenance of a titled nobleman’s coat of arms." And "Some titled noble families…have supporters, others do not, and there exist no definite regulations regarding this." (von Volborth). Our colleague Reinhard Greis-Maibach said in the old forum that the more traditional German heraldic socieities will not register assumed supporters.) "In Germany the custom of bearing supporters with family arms has remained limited to the titled nobility." (Der Herold Heraldry Society of Berlin).

 

Hungary: Supporters are not customary for any rank. (Von Volborth)

 

Ireland: The CHI grants supporters only to high elected officials—in practice I believe only to the President. There was a period in which supporters were granted to "those claiming to have purchased feudal baronies or lordships" (Sean Murphy on rec.heraldry quoting an OCHI official, 10/23/02), but this was terminated in 1998.

 

Italy: "Supporters are rare. When they occur it is usually in the arms of the higher aristocracy, but there seem to be no rules for their use, and in fact it is a case of do-as-you-please." (Volborth)

 

Netherlands: "Originally [supporters] were undoubtedly the privilege of higher ranks than the untitled nobility…but today they can be assumed by anybody." And "Some bourgeois families have supporters, while many noble families do not." (Both from Volborth)

 

Poland: Supporters are not customary, and there is little history of non-noble heraldry anyway.

 

Portugal: Commoners were forbidden to bear arms at all between about 1500 and 1910. (von Volborth)

 

Spain: "Nowadays [supporters] are rarely found despite the fact that everybody may use them." (von Volborth) Castile & Leon Cronista quoted as saying supporters have no nobiliary significance in Spain and have been granted as augmentations by special request, (Guy Stair Sainty, rec.heraldry, 7/6/01), but in a discussion of this issue on rec.heraldry in 2000, Barry Gabriel challenged those arguing this position to provide any examples of a non-noble Spanish family using supporters, and no one was able to do so.

 

Sweden: "In Sweden, commoners are not entitled to supporters." (Elias Granqvist, rec.heraldry, 10/3/99). "Only titled nobility (with some few exceptions) are entitled to supporters." (Jan Bohme, rec.heraldry, 11/15/05). Use of supporters by the titled nobility is not obligatory. "Not every baron uses supporters," but for counts "the shield is generally held by supporters" but not in all cases. (Volborth)

 

Crest coronets: Can you be more specific?


Quote:

With this in mind I am puzzled why American heraldist are still so adamant about importing the British model in the US?


Who are you talking about? If me, on the basis of my position on supporters, you might as well charge me with importing the German or even the Swedish model. Certainly I’m not guilty by virtue of my position on assumption.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
04 June 2011 16:12
 

Kenneth Mansfield;84077 wrote:

One’s ignorance of heraldic practices in the United States heretofore does not mean that those practices have not gelled, only that one is not aware of them. I include myself in the category of the ignorant, but I keep finding evidence that such practices have existed for hundreds of years. What I have not seen is that any of those practices have included supporters.


I don’t think the dichotomy here is between the ignorant and the learned.

 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  10-03-2009
 
 
 
04 June 2011 17:15
 

Kenneth Mansfield;84077 wrote:

One’s ignorance of heraldic practices in the United States heretofore does not mean that those practices have not gelled, only that one is not aware of them. I include myself in the category of the ignorant, but I keep finding evidence that such practices have existed for hundreds of years. What I have not seen is that any of those practices have included supporters.


Mr. Mansfield, I see your point. When I say "gelled," I really mean uniform understanding and practice throughout on all major elements of heraldic composition.  Would you say that U.S. heraldic culture has in fact gelled by this definition?

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
04 June 2011 22:22
 

I think to a large extent it has, but occasionally there are people dissatisfied with the way it has gelled and who’d like to see it different from the way it is. I believe that there is a largely uniform understanding of it. That is not to say that everyone agrees with this uniform perspective, but you will find some in countries where there is a set standard who believe it should be different. Dissent is not the same as diversity. wink

 
 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
05 June 2011 03:58
 

Brad Smith;84074 wrote:

There are plenty of logical explanations for why American heraldry is in its present state, and cogent arguments for why an American shouldn’t use supporters.


But just as cultures change and evolve, so do heraldic practices especially in societies like the US where there is no centralized authority regulating heraldry.  As a result, I don’t see why the pendulum has to stay frozen indefinitely in time towards the British heraldic model.  I can’t help but feel that by imposing stringent standards patterned primarily around the British model we aren’t actually ossifying heraldry and perpetuating its eliteness.  Only in the UK and a very, very few other jurisdiction was heraldry that centralized and systematic.  The UK model is more the exception than the norm and I am not convinced is the best model for US private heraldry.

 


Brad Smith;84074 wrote:

My opinion is that supporters should, if used at all, only be incorporated in US personal heraldry after careful study of ones genealogy and the rules of heraldry in the countries of origin of ones ancestors.

. . . .

 

That being said, my personal heraldic taste, reinforced by the heraldic traditions of my ancestral countries on both sides my family tree, is against supporters. . . .


I agree.  One should consider one’s ancestry and the heraldic traditions (if any) of one’s ancestral country before deciding on what elements to include in one’s achievement.  For example, assuming you are of predominantly English heritage, have an English surname and feel most connected to your English heritage, then presumably English/British heraldic practices would be most suitable for your arms.  That would mean tilting helms, no supporters unless you are a peer, etc.  My problem is when the English/British model is applied at times forceably on the entire US regardless of one’s prior ethnicity, etc based simply on the argument that Americans are Anglophiles, or that there is a common language or some shared traditions.  I think the US society has evolved enough over the past couple of centuries for us to look afield for other heraldic models.


Brad Smith;84074 wrote:

One might well ask why we don’t quarter our arms in the US.  [Seeking cover]


I don’t have any problem with quartered arms if it represents one’s different ancestral lines.

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
05 June 2011 04:02
 

Fred White;84075 wrote:

Jewish wisdom seems especially apropos at this juncture in the discussion.


Agreed!!!  Thanks Dohrman for the comic relief.  :p

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
05 June 2011 04:51
 

Joseph McMillan;84079 wrote:

Aren’t these four really variations on the same theme, namely the existence of regulation of the use of arms? They don’t really have anything to do with the content of the arms themselves, do they?


Not so much variations as different sides of the same dice.  IMO there are enough subtle differences for me to separate them.  For example, it is possible for a person to be granted burgher arms (happened in parts of Germany as late as the early 20th century), and for a nobleman to simply assume arms, which would be noble arms despite what the British heralds would say.

 


Joseph McMillan;84079 wrote:

Scotland, perhaps, but it seems from the existing jurisprudence that arms enjoy greater protection in France than in England. . .


I am generalizing here.  AFAIK, the cases I have heard of involving France were mostly connected to succession of noble titles and not just heraldry.  Heraldry was at most an ancillary issue.

 


Joseph McMillan;84079 wrote:

Helm type: Different in the specifics, perhaps, but not in the notion that different types and positions of helmets signify different ranks in the social hierarchy. Many countries have such systems, some just as formally prescribed (and much more detailed) than the UK. Sweden, Finland, Germany, Italy, and Russia all restrict the use of barred helms to the nobility. In French and Spanish heraldry, non-nobles aren’t supposed to use helms at all.


Yes, but you are ignoring the fact that nobility is defined differently between the British model and in continental Europe.  In the UK, the nobles were simply the peers.  The rest of their family were regarded as commoners as were the knights, holders of orders of chivalry, mere commissioned officers, sheriffs, etc.  In Continental Europe, the nobility included the untitled nobility (i.e., they would be called "gentlemen" in the UK setting).  So if an American descended from a long line of untitled German nobles wanted to place his coronet above his helm or use the supporters from his ancestral coat, I have no problem with this.


Joseph McMillan;84079 wrote:

Denmark: "When a member of the untitled nobility was raised to a higher degree…his arms were not always ‘improved’ by augmentations, supporters, additional crests, etc." (von Volborth) [JMcM Comment: This suggests to me that supporters are not typical of those below the titled nobility, but Danish participants on rec.heraldry deny that there is any restriction on commoners using them.


Arms were not always improved because there was a trend in much of Continental Europe for the ancient nobility to keep their basic arms even after being elevated to the titled ranks.  It was a political statement against the newer nobles who were augmenting their often cluttered arms.  It became very prestigious to keep one’s arms in the ancient pattern thereby showing the antiquity of one’s nobility.  The final point, however, is that the untitled nobleman were free to assume supporters.  Some did and some didn’t.  Since there was no prohibition against them doing so in their home country, I don’t see why they should be prohibited from assuming supporters in America.  Unless of course we are trying to impose either consciously or sub-consciously with our "sense of correctness" the British standards on these Danish Americans.


Joseph McMillan;84079 wrote:

France: "Supporters are used freely" (Volborth, in discussing arms of the untitled nobility); "Supporters are common in the armorial bearings of the French aristocracy, but unusual for commoners; there are however no hard and fast rules for their use."


Again how are you defining commoner?  Is it the narrow British definition, anyone who is not a peer?  If so, the definition is not accurate for Continental Europe.


Joseph McMillan;84079 wrote:

Germany (including Austria and Bohemia):Our colleague Reinhard Greis-Maibach said in the old forum that the more traditional German heraldic socieities will not register assumed supporters.) "In Germany the custom of bearing supporters with family arms has remained limited to the titled nobility." (Der Herold Heraldry Society of Berlin).


What one private society (admittedly the most prestigous one) practices can be countered by the practices of another private society.  When I registered my arms with the HGW, I was allowed supporters and was told by Michael Waas that supporters did not necessarily signify nobility.  The Germans will look at other evidence to determine nobility.

 

For most of the other jursidictions you cite, supporters were not forbidden to the untitled nobility.  It may have been odd or rare in some of those countries, but not forbidden.


Joseph McMillan;84079 wrote:

Portugal: Commoners were forbidden to bear arms at all between about 1500 and 1910. (von Volborth)


This is a bit misleading.  In Portugal, the nobility were not limited to the titled peers as in the UK.  The nobility included the untitled nobility and included a surprisingly broad range of people.  In fact, so great was the need for civil servants and military officers to administer the Portuguese colonies overseas that one Portuguese Monarch decreed that any civil servant or military officer serving overseas for at least 3 years would automatically be recognized as noble (albeit it was just untitled nobility) upon completion of service.  This wholesale ennoblment attracted many sons from middle-class families, and even some from lower class families.

 


Joseph McMillan;84079 wrote:

Crest coronets: Can you be more specific?


In fact it was von Volborth’s writing that introduced me to the concept of crest coronets for untitled noblemen.  I was previously unaware of coronets for untitled nobles until reading von Volborth.  In short, most of Continental Europe allowed untitled noblemen to use a crest coronet to symbolize their noble status.  The exceptions (in Continental Europe) were France (untitled nobles merely bore a helm and mantling without a crest unless they were of "tournament rank"), Spain (but apparently there is now a modern crest coronet for hidalgos), and Portugal (actually the same situation as Spain).

 

And it is not just von Volborth that supports my position, but also Pinches seems to verify most if not all of what I have said above.

 


Joseph McMillan;84079 wrote:

Who are you talking about? If me, on the basis of my position on supporters, you might as well charge me with importing the German or even the Swedish model. Certainly I’m not guilty by virtue of my position on assumption.


But the German and Swedish models did not prohibit supporters for the untitled nobility.  The British model did.  With all due respect, I think you and many others on this forum are applying perhaps sub-consciously the British model and norms to the pan-European phenomenon of heraldry which is now taking root in the US.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
05 June 2011 10:06
 

Edward,

I think our disagreement stems partly from how seriously we take the equation of the English gentry with the Continental untitled nobility. I agree that in purely social terms they were/are more or less equivalent. One might say that certain elements of the breathtakingly complex American class structure fall into the same category.

 

But this comparison can only be pushed so far. On the Continent, there were at least theoretically hard and fast definitions of who was a noble (untitled or not) and who wasn’t, including the process by which a non-noble could become a noble. Your example from Portugal is an excellent case in point, and there are parallels in ancien regime France and Russia. If we were living in pre-1856 Russia, I would be a second-generation hereditary noble; my father would have satisfied the criterion of long service at or above the military rank of major, and my present civil service rank would be equivalent to statskiy sovyetnik (you may address me as Your High-bornness). I could show pieces of official paper that would leave no doubt that I was of noble status, and entitled to all the legally sanctioned privileges associated therewith.

 

This was not the case with the English or Scottish gentry (or the American gentry, of course). This is why so much ink has been spilled over the years trying to define "gentleman" in the English context. In ancien regime France, a bourgeois could not become a nobleman merely by repute, but if we look at the English visitations that’s exactly how the heralds judged whether a person was of the gentry or not—by local repute.

 

Moreover, in England being a gentleman carried no legal privilege other than the entitlement to be described as "gentleman" in formal documents, and even that was always subject to being challenged. A lot of the work of the Court of Chivalry was adjudicating disputes over who was or wasn’t a gentleman. There were no tax exemptions; there were no offices of state that were legally restricted to the gentry; there was no favorable treatment of gentlemen who got into debt or were accused of crimes.

 

This is where we get to the relevance of this issue to the American experiment. The founding fathers had nothing against the social distinction between gentlemen and not-gentlemen; Charles Pinckney, who was the most vocal delegate to the Constitutional Convention on the essential equality among all [white, male] Americans was very much a part of the South Carolina low country gentry. What they objected to was a system of legally protected hereditary privilege. The Continental institution of untitled nobility was objectionable; the British institution of peerage (or even baronetcy) was objectionable; but the permeable, informally defined gentry, members of which were treated under the law no differently than any other free man, and descendants of whom could rise or fall according to their own achievements, was not objectionable.

 

That’s why I don’t think it is valid to conclude that, because some privilege—heraldic or otherwise—was accorded to untitled nobles in Denmark (to take your example), it should therefore be endorsed for use by gentlemen in the United States.