Jeffrey Boyd Garrison;84192 wrote:

Mr. McMillan, 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?

I believe the AHS position is that anyone who desires to assume arms can (as opposed to should) and that said desire is the only qualification necessary. I don’t believe there is anything to be gained as an organization by the AHS suggesting qualifiers on the assumption of arms. You’ll also note, however, that the guidelines says "arms of his or her choice." Yet, we all agree (I think) that people should really only assume arms that are heraldically correct regarding rules of tincture, good design, etc. Again, not the official position of the AHS, because we have nothing to gain as an organization by telling people yes you can assume arms, but we have to say whether or not they are "acceptable".

I know we have members for whom my analogies between heraldry and personal attire seem strained, but given the close historical link between heraldic regulation and sumptuary legislation, I think I’m on solid ground.

So let’s imagine we’re the American Sumptuary Society, and ASS guideline 3.1.1. says "it is both legal and legitimate for anyone in this country to wear a suit and tie to work."

This is a true statement, but it doesn’t mean that everyone in the United States should wear a suit and tie to work.

Mr. McMillan, I value your analogies as they offer perspective (which is what analogies "should" do).

That said, I would poke at your analogous comparison between assumption of arms and wearing a suit to work.

In my opinion a more apt comparison would be assumption of arms and choice of a suit (without consideration of wearing it to work or elsewhere).

I think your arguments about what one SHOULD do apply more to the DISPLAY of arms (and supporting compositional elements).

Joseph McMillan;84208 wrote:

I know we have members for whom my analogies between heraldry and personal attire seem strained, but given the close historical link between heraldic regulation and sumptuary legislation, I think I’m on solid ground.

So let’s imagine we’re the American Sumptuary Society, and ASS guideline 3.1.1. says "it is both legal and :-?

A question and comment.  A person’s ancestors were here in the late 1600’s to the early 1700’s fought in the Revenlucy War and did not know of their noble status, thus never renounced it.  Later a decendent, who was adopted, later by DNA and other means, found that they were of noble “blood”.  That person and family has since asumed (prior to the DNA testing) arms in the US can those arms be changed using supporters and what kind of coronet can be used?

There is a good deal of confusion among the general public about the status of heraldry in the United States, due to the perceived link between heraldry and nobility on the one hand, to the prohibition on titles of nobility on the other hand.

Here’s what the US constitution says ( Article I, sections 9 and 10):

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

No state shall…grant any title of nobility.

A 1944 case decided that, since the Weimar constitution of Germany abolished marks of nobility so that they were considered only to be part of the name, a German national had no title or order of nobility to renounce, and he was free to keep as part of his name the portion which formerly indicated a mark of nobility.

The U.S. cannot grant titles of nobility, and foreigners who are naturalized must renounce all titles, but there is nothing that prevents a U.S. citizen from inheriting a title from abroad and using it as he pleases, unless it leads him or her to pledge allegiance to a foreign power, a case which could be grounds for loss of citizenship. Examples of US citizens holding British titles include the 5th Earl of Wharcliffe (Richard Alan Montagu Stuart Wortley, of Cumberland ME; his eldest son is viscount Carlton), and Sir John Dunbar, Bt, who was succeeded in August 1993 by his son Sir Michael Dunbar, 14th Bt, a colonel in the US Air Force.

The Constitution thus prohibits titles of nobility, but coat of arms are not titles of nobility, nor are they necessarily the prerogative of the nobility anyway. The US government is not in the habit of granting or regulating coat of arms, although nothing prevents it from doing so. But there aren’t that many governments that are in such a habit to start with. In fact, heraldry is somewhat alive in the US. States have seals, Universities have coats, individuals used to and some still do. Here is what a founding father had to say on the topic:

"It is far from my design to intimate an opinion, that Heraldry, Coat-Armor, etc. might not be rendered conducive to public and private use with us; or that they can have any tendency unfriendly to the purest spirit of Republicanism. On the contrary, a different conclusion is deducible from the practice of Congress, and the states; all of which have established some kind of Armorial Devices, to authenticate their official instruments."

George Washington

References

The Legal Status of Heraldry in the US :  François Velde

Nobility in America:  François Velde

Last modified: Apr 01, 2000

Mr. Pope, why does a naval reserve officer/university scholar deserve the privelage of arms whereas a ditch digger potentially deserves it not?  With utmost respect, this sounds like personal limitation to me.

The ditch digger may have a spirit and character equally as noble as the reserve officer’s, and if he were to assume and display handsome armory, then this would lend credence to the notion that the ditch digger is indeed a man of distinction though his job is less so. The ditch digger with arms has a vision of himself which extends to honor and armory.  By the arbitrary judgement of gentility, accomplishment and privelage (which is what we are really talking about here), his occupation alone seems to limit him to rough treatment.

I will tell you that from my own experience that there are at least some who might be considered the equivalent of ditch diggers (until you get to know them) who are far more worthy, by my standards, to armory than they might be given credit for by some points of this discussion.

dschweitzer156;84231 wrote:

A question and comment.  A person’s ancestors were here in the late 1600’s to the early 1700’s fought in the Revenlucy War and did not know of their noble status, thus never renounced it.  Later a decendent, who was adopted, later by DNA and other means, found that they were of noble “blood”.  That person and family has since asumed (prior to the DNA testing) arms in the US can those arms be changed using supporters and what kind of coronet can be used?

I doubt that someone living in the Americas in the 1600s and 1700s wouldn’t have known of their noble status. If they were "unaware" of it, they probably didn’t possess it. First of all, not all of the descendants of a noble necessarily inherited that nobility. And secondly, relying on DNA for proof of one’s nobility is a fallacy. Nobility is a social construct rather than a biological trait and therefore impossible to be passed down without one’s knowledge. It isn’t like carrying the genes for blue eyes.

dschweitzer156;84231 wrote:

A question and comment. A person’s ancestors were here in the late 1600’s to the early 1700’s fought in the Revenlucy War and did not know of their noble status, thus never renounced it. Later a decendent, who was adopted, later by DNA and other means, found that they were of noble “blood”. That person and family has since asumed (prior to the DNA testing) arms in the US can those arms be changed using supporters and what kind of coronet can be used?

Replacing the word "can" (you can do anything you want in the US, heraldically speaking, except infringe on the arms of the Swiss Confederation)...

You don’t specify a descent in the male line, but assuming that is the case…

I’m afraid I don’t buy the idea that someone could be a member of such a high order of nobility as to be using supporters in the 17th century and not know it, nor is it remotely likely that such a family wouldn’t already have and be aware of their arms.  But leaving that aside…

Why adopted?  Born out of wedlock?  Then the nobility wouldn’t be inherited.

Even if not born illegitimate, an adopted child, under American law, ceases to be the child of his biological parents and becomes fully the child of his adoptive parents.  Why then should he be entitled to inherit arms or supporters from people to whom he is no longer related?

And in any case, any right to supporters is tied to the arms.  I don’t see how one can make a case that an ancestors theoretical entitlement to supporters can justify assuming supporters for assumed arms.  If one can document the ancestors’ arms and supporters and prove entitlement to them, then there may be room for discussion, but in my opinion not otherwise.

Quote:

A 1944 case decided that, since the Weimar constitution of Germany abolished marks of nobility so that they were considered only to be part of the name, a German national had no title or order of nobility to renounce, and he was free to keep as part of his name the portion which formerly indicated a mark of nobility.

True.  On the other hand, if a naturalized citizen insists on calling himself Friedrich Freiherr von Irgendwo instead of simply Friedrich von Irgendwo—especially if he encourages people to address him as "baron"—then I’d say he’s rather missing the point.  I dislike this proclivity for gaming the system, or trying to have one’s cake and eat it, too.  I don’t think you can be a non-noble just for the benefit of the U.S. District Court and a noble the rest of the time.

Kenneth Mansfield;84194 wrote:

I believe the AHS position is that anyone who desires to assume arms can (as opposed to should) and that said desire is the only qualification necessary. I don’t believe there is anything to be gained as an organization by the AHS suggesting qualifiers on the assumption of arms. You’ll also note, however, that the guidelines says "arms of his or her choice." Yet, we all agree (I think) that people should really only assume arms that are heraldically correct regarding rules of tincture, good design, etc. Again, not the official position of the AHS, because we have nothing to gain as an organization by telling people yes you can assume arms, but we have to say whether or not they are "acceptable".

Jeffrey Boyd Garrison;84192 wrote:

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?

I think the problematic term is "legitimate." The term "legal" suffices as a hedge if the AHS doesn’t want to be in the position of opining on who should and shouldn’t be assuming arms. If I were trying to codify best practices, I would conclude my version of 3.1.1 by urging some degree of circumspection in deciding whether or not one meets normative social expectations of first-generation armigers.

In any case, I think the AHS actually does have something to gain by expressing a somewhat more restrictive of view of what constitutes a legitimate basis for assuming arms—if it’s goal is to encourage Americans to speak a normal heraldic language, that is.

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 heraldic 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.

Obviously, the issue of social class in the United States is extremely fraught, yet we are far from a classless society, and I would argue that we don’t want to be one. I would say the normative American sensibility is to want equality of opportunity and equality before the law, not equality of outcomes. We are quite comfortable with unequal outcomes; we just want them to be based principally on merit (or the lack thereof).

Anyway, more momentarily. I just got called away.

Jeffrey Boyd Garrison;84235 wrote:

Mr. Pope, why does a naval reserve officer/university scholar deserve the privelage of arms whereas a ditch digger potentially deserves it not?  With utmost respect, this sounds like personal limitation to me.

The ditch digger may have a spirit and character equally as noble as the reserve officer’s, and if he were to assume and display handsome armory, then this would lend credence to the notion that the ditch digger is indeed a man of distinction though his job is less so. The ditch digger with arms has a vision of himself which extends to honor and armory.  By the arbitrary judgement of gentility, accomplishment and privelage (which is what we are really talking about here), his occupation alone seems to limit him to rough treatment.

 

I will tell you that from my own experience that there are at least some who might be considered the equivalent of ditch diggers (until you get to know them) who are far more worthy, by my standards, to armory than they might be given credit for by some points of this discussion.

I think the difference in our views rests with what we think arms signify.  From your comments I take it that you think there is some connection between being armigerous and possessing "moral virtue".  I, on the other hand, view arms merely as an indicator of socio-econominc / social class, however anachronistic.  From my study of history I am convinced that plenty of men who possessed arms, including supporters;), possessed little to no "moral virtue".

I base my understanding on the origin of arms. As I understand it, arms were originally a means of identifying knights in battle.  If that is correct, it seems that heraldry has always been "discriminating"- i.e. one had to be a knight to possess arms, not some "mere" common soldier.  It seems likely that the idea of arms as a symbol of "social status" continued long after knights fighting in armor became obsolete (much like the vestigial gorget was the symbol of an officer long after armor was done away with and why modern military officers rate swords).

William Harrison, writing of England in the final quarter of the sixteenth century, recognizes then that arms still functioned as a symbol of social status, even while noting that "upwardly mobile" mens’ desire to attain this "social standing" often outpaced their ability to sustain such a lifestyle.  Here’s an excerpt where he discusses the types of pursuits which lead one to being considered a "gentleman" and thus "eligible" for a grant of arms:

Whosoever studieth the laws of the realm, who so abideth in the university, giving his mind to his book, or professeth physic and the liberal sciences, or beside his service in the room of a captain in the wars, or good counsel given at home, whereby his commonwealth is benefited, can live without manual labour, and thereto is able and will bear the port, charge and countenance of a gentleman, he shall for money have a coat and arms bestowed upon him by heralds (who in the charter of the same do of custom pretend antiquity and service, and many gay things) and thereunto being made so good cheap be called master, which is the title that men give to esquires and gentlemen, and reputed for a gentleman ever after.

Parsing this paragraph produces this list of "qualifications" that would lead to one being considered for a grant of arms:

1.  Lawyer/Attorney/Soliciter/Barrister/Advocate

2.  University Graduate (Graduate degree required?)

3.  Physician or University Professor?

4.  Commissioned officer in the military

5.  The equivalent of a commissioned officer in government service/the diplomatic service

6.  Vocation doesn’t involve manual labor

7.  "Looks and acts" like a gentleman

6.  Financial wherewithal to pay for a grant of arms!!!!

In my mind the tension, then, when dealing with assumed arms (where there are no restrictions on WHO bears arms or the quality of the arms, themselves) is not who CAN assume arms, but who SHOULD.

Cordially,

David

David Pope;84261 wrote:

Parsing this paragraph produces this list of "qualifications" that would lead to one being considered for a grant of arms:...

David

If the AHS were to encourage observation/recognition of social strata by armigerousness, would it not be good to pad this stratification with a middle (w/o supporters) and a top (with supporters)? :p

Fred White;84255 wrote:

Obviously, the issue of social class in the United States is extremely fraught, yet we are far from a classless society, and I would argue that we don’t want to be one. I would say the normative American sensibility is to want equality of opportunity and equality before the law, not equality of outcomes. We are quite comfortable with unequal outcomes; we just want them to be based principally on merit (or the lack thereof).

I think something like what I am saying above is a reasonable point of departure for a nuanced statement on who should and shouldn’t (I’m just going to skip scare quotes, ok?) assume arms. The idea would be to let the generally agreed-upon facts about American society and the norms of international heraldic culture speak for themselves, but not make explicit demands. Beyond the observations about American society, a statement on best practices might include excerpts from heraldic scholarship about norms overseas and conclude by saying to the reader, in effect, "If you think you fit the bill, you should feel no compunctions about assuming arms."

Jeffrey Boyd Garrison;84264 wrote:

If the AHS were to encourage observation/recognition of social strata by armigerousness, would it not be good to pad this stratification with a middle (w/o supporters) and a top (with supporters)? :p

Not if supporters are already accepted as signifying one who possesses a noble title or is head of a noble house(such as Scottish clan chiefs).

Jeffrey Boyd Garrison;84264 wrote:

If the AHS were to encourage observation/recognition of social strata by armigerousness, would it not be good to pad this stratification with a middle (w/o supporters) and a top (with supporters)? :p

I think observation/recognition of social strata is intrinsic to heraldry. There’s no getting around it without causing heraldry to metamorphose into something else. Part of the American psyche doesn’t like that, but what’s there to do?

Again, I don’t think anyone is calling for best practices to promote the assumption of supporters, but rather for them to offer a just bit more leeway in view of the leeway that is actually out there in the rest of the heraldic world. I think I am being very consistent here. I would have best practices reflect just what it is that being armigerous will normally be taken to signify, while at the same time acknowledging outliers—that peasant arms are not unheard of in some places, etc. And, I would leave it to individuals to make up their minds whether they fit the bill or not. Likewise, I would have best practices reflect just what it is supporters will generally be taken signify, while at the same time acknowledging outliers—that some traditions do not restrict their use. And again, I would leave it to individuals to make up their minds whether they fit the bill or not and just think very carefully about what it is they want their arms to say.