Hear hear!

Joseph McMillan;84112 wrote:

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. . . . . 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.

Joseph,

This is funny.  Earlier you were trying to prove that the heraldic practices between the UK and the Continent were not all that different.  I was trying to prove the opposite.  Now our roles seem reversed with regard to defining/differentiating English gentry & European untitled nobility.  IMO, this is surely the sign of an interesting debate and maybe even a good one, but I won’t pat my back.  I will leave it to our "peers" to decide. 

The rules on Continental Europe were not as hard and fast as you would expect.  For example, the ancient military orders of Spain (Santiago, Calatrava, Alcantara, Montesa) typically required 2 - 4 quarterings of nobility (i.e., proof that one’s grandparents were of noble stock for a certain number of generations) before the orders would admit an applicant.  On the surface it sounds clear that if your ancestors were not sufficiently noble, then you could not be admitted into the orders.  Actually, the system was not that clear cut.  In a rec.heraldry post back in 2000, Guy Stair Sainty noted:  "when an admission is made of someone who has a quarter not previously known as noble, that line is thereby recognized as noble".  He then cited the example of the Duke of Veragua, "whose mother was a Maroto, a family which had not previously proved its nobility."  Other members of the Maroto family "will on the basis of this proof be able to claim noble status".  So rather than nobility being the prerequisite for entry into the Spanish orders, it was that membership in such an order would constitute evidence of nobility.

Joseph McMillan;84112 wrote:

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.

Actually to be accepted into the nobility grades of the SMOM (i.e., Honour & Devotion or Grace & Devotion) on the continent and elsewhere in the world except the UK, the SMOM regularly relied on local repute.  The powers that be at the SMOM needed to verify that an applicant for the nobility grades was actually of noble stock and one of the best ways to do that was conferring with one’s alleged peers.  Apparently many would be nobles did forge the slips of paper you referred to earlier.

Joseph McMillan;84112 wrote:

Moreover, in England being a gentleman carried no legal privilege other than the entitlement to be described as "gentleman" in formal documents . . . . 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.

You are partially right.  In Spain and France, untitled noble status did include tax exemption and hidalgos did receive preference for many offices though commoners could rise to office and acquire "nobility of office".  Furthermore as far as I can recall, English knights (who technically were/are part of the untitled nobility/gentry since they are not English peers and hence not nobles according to the British definition) were also exempt from certain forms of taxes or labor.  In other continental European jurisdictions, untitled noble status did not even exempt the person from taxes and it was merely a social honorific with no other privileges.  So again, perhaps the differences are not as great.

Joseph McMillan;84112 wrote:

This is where we get to the relevance of this issue to the American experiment . . . . 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.

I am not disagreeing on this point.  I concede that your knowledge of American history far exceeds mine.

Joseph McMillan;84112 wrote:

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.

But I am really talking about the AHS and similar bodies, all of which are private groups not run by the US Government.  If they were run by the US Government, then I would more likely to agree with you.  The AHS afterall is not the same as the CHA, or Lord Lyon and therefore perhaps it need not be as rigorous in regulating heraldry or imposing just one standard (i.e., the British one) especially in a multiethnic society such as ours.

Furthermore, while there is a parallel between British & US society (i.e., gentry can rise and fall; its not a closed caste but a fluid class), I still don’t see why that necessarily means we must invariably apply/continuing applying the British heraldic sensibilities to private American heraldry?  And if we do, where do we stop?  If we ban supporters for individuals, why not just simply ban assumed arms as well?

Also, most modern Europe government and increasingly the underlying societies are now structured in the way you mentioned for the US & UK (i.e., the modern and even the old gentry rise and fall and its not as closed a caste as you think).  With all that in mind, I still do not see the need for the AHS or other private heraldic bodies to impose the British heraldic model on the US.

The AHS cannot ban any heraldic privileges (except inasmuch as it can prohibit their inclusion on its own website) and the AHS cannot impose any rules or regulations regarding the use of heraldry in general or heraldic additaments specifically. Nor does the society or its board of governors imply that it can. What the AHS can do and does is present a set of best practices for American heraldry.

Just like the best practice of historical reenacting is to "portray the average" the same is true in adopting best practices of heraldry in the diverse community that is America. Just because there are examples of this or that does not mean that this and that were common. No one is arguing that supporters were always limited to the nobility everywhere. But I’m not seeing any argument against the fact that supporters were mostly a sign of nobility in most places. And the argument that something was done by a minority of participants in a minority of places is not convincing to me that that minority practice should be considered as a best practice for the whole.

If any of you can supply evidence that the use of supporters by non-nobles was common anywhere, I’d be willing to reconsider my posiiton, but so far I haven’t seen that argument either put forth or supported. I’m guessing because you know it isn’t the case.

Fred White;84078 wrote:

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.

To expand a bit further, by way of acknowledging conflicts:

It would be only reasonable to note that, competing with the tendencies I describe is a tendency in America towards valuing understatement and rigorously opposing anything that looks like it might be (or is) phony. Maybe it originates in the rival sensibilities of the Puritan and the Cavalier. I can’t be sure, but sentimental support for the contra supporters position can be found there.

But we go back to this whole idea that what’s important is what is "normally" signified across heraldic traditions by any heraldic device. It being understood that burgher and peasant arms are known in some places, it seems to me that the normal understanding of arms everywhere is that they indicate (however nebulously) a status that is a cut above the average, and I don’t see any reason to believe that in America, specifically, they have ever not connoted that. When you look at any historic roll of American arms, what you see, mainly, is the self-identified but largely indubitable upper tier of American society. A tier of society, for that matter, that must often have based its pretensions to armigerous status at least partly on a sense of hereditary status. In contrast, when you look at contemporary rolls of American arms—like the ACH or the seemingly moribund USHR—or at the dominant philosophical slant of the AHS, for that matter, what you see is a decided effort to encourage basically everyone to self-identify as worthy of bearing arms and completely dismiss the idea that hereditary status has anything to do with it. This observation flies in the face of the contention that American heraldic practices have gelled. They have not. This "40 acres and a coat of arms" approach is a relative innovation. While it differs from what Joseph described earlier as the modal position of Americans on coats of arms (that everybody has one; he just needs to look in the right index) in its insistence that everyone produce an original blazon, it partakes of the same, highly egalitarian mentality. This mentality is not the norm across heraldic traditions. So much, then, for the idea that the contra supporters position is of a piece with the goal of getting Americans to speak a normal heraldic language.

Kenneth Mansfield;84123 wrote:

And the argument that something was done by a minority of participants in a minority of places is not convincing to me that that minority practice should be considered as a best practice for the whole.

You might be arguing against a position that no one here is taking. I’m not saying that best practices involve recommending that everyone who assumes a crest and shield should add supporters as well. I don’t think Edward is saying that either. What I think we’re both saying is that, certainly, supporters will frequently be taken by cognoscenti as staking a claim to status beyond that which is staked by a crest and shield, but that there is enough ambiguity about what they signify and whether or not certain Americans are analogous to certain overseas armigers whose arms include supporters that "best practices" should be flexible on this particular point. The resistance to that seems to come from an apprehension that everyone and his brother will add supporters to his already assumed arms. But that scenario does not add a significant layer of absurdity to a situation in which everyone and his brother is encouraged to view armigerous status as his American birthright to begin with.

Deep thoughts.

Fred, sometimes I can’t hold my breath long enough to get down to where you swim.

Pardon me in advance for quoting two separate posts.

Fred White;84126 wrote:

In contrast, when you look at contemporary rolls of American arms—like the ACH or the seemingly moribund USHR—or at the dominant philosophical slant of the AHS, for that matter, what you see is a decided effort to encourage basically everyone to self-identify as worthy of bearing arms and completely dismiss the idea that hereditary status has anything to do with it. This observation flies in the face of the contention that American heraldic practices have gelled. They have not. This "40 acres and a coat of arms" approach is a relative innovation. While it differs from what Joseph described earlier as the modal position of Americans on coats of arms (that everybody has one; he just needs to look in the right index) in its insistence that everyone produce an original blazon, it partakes of the same, highly egalitarian mentality. This mentality is not the norm across heraldic traditions. So much, then, for the idea that the contra supporters position is of a piece with the goal of getting Americans to speak a normal heraldic language.

I can agree that American heraldic practices continue to be defined.  I would suggest that reason for this is that heraldry is not generally practiced in the US.  Where it is practiced, its use seems to be determined by understanding of how foreign precedents would be applied in an arena with no regulating body.

Where I get lost is "This mentality is not the norm across heraldic traditions."  Are you referring to the egalitarian mentality that "everyone has [a coat of arms]; he just needs to look in the right index"? Or the egalitarian mentality that "everyone produce an original blazon"?

And just so I understand correctly, are you saying that the position of being against supporters is counterproductive promoting the use of personal heraldry in the US?

Fred White;84127 wrote:

The resistance to that seems to come from an apprehension that everyone and his brother will add supporters to his already assumed arms. But that scenario does not add a significant layer of absurdity to a situation in which everyone and his brother is encouraged to view armigerous status as his American birthright to begin with.

Also for my own clarification, are you stating that a position against supporters as ridiculous than believing that any American citizen is entitled to coat armor?

Joseph McMillan;84112 wrote:

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.

Maybe observing this just confuses the issue, but it might be worth noting that the British and Continental nobility were themselves permeable, recognizing men who rose and fell according to their own achievements. Elevation to the peerage was possible. Attainder and renunciation were also possible. Governments could come along and decree that nobility no longer existed. Others could come along and reverse that.

Brad Smith;84128 wrote:

. . . heraldry is not generally practiced in the US.  Where it is practiced, its use seems to be determined by understanding of how foreign precedents would be applied in an arena with no regulating body.

Agreed.

Quote:

Where I get lost is "This mentality is not the norm across heraldic traditions."  Are you referring to the egalitarian mentality that "everyone has [a coat of arms]; he just needs to look in the right index"? Or the egalitarian mentality that "everyone produce an original blazon"?

I’m saying that the mentality that says everyone in the U.S. is entitled to coat armor as long as it’s original is not far from the mentality that says everyone in the U.S. already has a coat of arms. I think the former has more integrity than the latter, but the two share a basic premise that does not seem normal when you’re looking at how heraldry is perceived overseas. It’s one thing to say that, theoretically and to some extent practically, free assumption was or is the norm in some large percentage of places at some time or another. It’s another to say that, because of this, everyone in America who likes heraldry should be encouraged to assume coat armor. I don’t see any compelling reason to think such a level of encouragement has normally been forthcoming across most heraldic traditions.

Quote:

And just so I understand correctly, are you saying that the position of being against supporters is counterproductive to promoting the use of personal heraldry in the US?

Yes, I’m saying that inflexible opposition to supporters (again, just supporters—not helms and coronets) undermines the argument that personal heraldry should be embraced by any American who likes it.

Quote:

Also for my own clarification, are you stating that a position against supporters is as ridiculous as believing that any American citizen is entitled to coat armor?

If I’ve used the word "ridiculous," I apologize, but yes, I am saying these two positions are ultimately incompatible.

Another question that has to be asked here is this: Which is really more conceited (and therefore phony)—assuming supporters or sneering at those who would assume them?

Ladies and gentlemen,

As much as we all dislike insubstantial posts thrown into a lively debate, I just had to share how much I am enjoying this particular argument - the scholarship, the international flavour, the collegiality.

On the matter at hand, I’ll decline to comment.  From the comfort of Canada (where the use of supporters by individuals is regulated, and generally indicative of rank or honour), I don’t believe it is my place to try to establish American convention.  Both sides have been persuasive, and cause me to vacillate somewhat, yet thus far I find one side more convincing.

Carry on - this sort of respectful, educational discourse is why I come here so often.

Michael Y. Medvedev;84020 wrote:

Well well well… hereditary or not, supporters of the peers constitute: [a] nobiliary insignia; a formally established honour.

I seem to have missed this post, Michael, but I believe what you are saying supports the point I was trying to make.

Fred White;84127 wrote:

You might be arguing against a position that no one here is taking. I’m not saying that best practices involve recommending that everyone who assumes a crest and shield should add supporters as well. I don’t think Edward is saying that either. What I think we’re both saying is that, certainly, supporters will frequently be taken by cognoscenti as staking a claim to status beyond that which is staked by a crest and shield, but that there is enough ambiguity about what they signify and whether or not certain Americans are analogous to certain overseas armigers whose arms include supporters that "best practices" should be flexible on this particular point. The resistance to that seems to come from an apprehension that everyone and his brother will add supporters to his already assumed arms. But that scenario does not add a significant layer of absurdity to a situation in which everyone and his brother is encouraged to view armigerous status as his American birthright to begin with.

My point is simply that anyone with any real understanding of heraldry should know that, while there are certainly examples of the use of supporters by non-nobles, it is the norm that they were either restricted to the nobility or predominantly used by only the nobility. Therefore any American (unless he/she is descended from a recent emigrant from a country where it is the current and common practice for non-nobles to assume supporters) assuming and using supporters is either doing so out of ignorance or pretension. I cannot think of any scenario where this is not the case.

Since you keep bringing it up, I (personal opinion) do think that all Americans have the right to assume and adopt coats of arms. While this opinion may be unpopular or elitist and may reveal me as a snob, I also think that it would be intellectually dishonest for some people to do so. I think Americans using supporters smacks of gaudiness.

Kenneth Mansfield;84164 wrote:

Therefore any American (unless he/she is descended from a recent emigrant from a country where it is the current and common practice for non-nobles to assume supporters) assuming and using supporters is either doing so out of ignorance or pretension. I cannot think of any scenario where this is not the case.

Quote:

I think Americans using supporters smacks of gaudiness.

Well, I sometimes use supporters, and in fact, I’m expecting a new emblazonment soon which, I think, will feature them. I will be sure to share it when it arrives.

Of the three choices (ignorance, pretension, and gaudiness) I prefer the last, but I confess to being astonishly vain.

Kenneth Mansfield;84164 wrote:

Since you keep bringing it up, I (personal opinion) do think that all Americans have the right to assume and adopt coats of arms. While this opinion may be unpopular or elitist and may reveal me as a snob, I also think that it would be intellectually dishonest for some people to do so.

I agree with everything Kenneth said, including this piece,  although I would use a term other than intellectual dishonesty.  The fact that everyone can (has the right to) adopt a coat of arms doesn’t mean that everyone should.  But I have no idea how one could possibly articulate that as an institutional position for the AHS—clearly it wouldn’t be tenable if some people’s dream of creating an official heralidc institution in the US were to come true.

I was also going to ask Fred how he would characterize the boundary between those for whom assumption of arms would be acceptable and those for whom it would not, and on what precedent one would base that call.

Charles E. Drake;84188 wrote:

Of the three choices (ignorance, pretension, and gaudiness) I prefer the last, but I confess to being astonishly vain. :D

Joseph McMillan;84190 wrote:

The fact that everyone can (has the right to) adopt a coat of arms doesn’t mean that everyone should.  But I have no idea how one could possibly articulate that as an institutional position for the AHS—clearly it wouldn’t be tenable if some people’s dream of creating an official heralidc institution in the US were to come true.

I was also going to ask Fred how he would characterize the boundary between those for whom assumption of arms would be acceptable and those for whom it would not, and on what precedent one would base that call.

Mr. McMillan :vader:, AHS Guidelines 3.1.1 state:

..."it is both legal and legitimate for anyone in this country to design, adopt, and use an original coat of arms of his or her choice."

Would this not be interpreted to mean that the AHS position is that anyone who desires to assume arms should?  Would not a desire to do so be the only qualification neccessary?

(feeling a bit like the star destroyer commander reporting "we just lost the Melennium Falcon" to Lord Vader)