Fred said: "But let’s suppose that, in any case, Americans view citizenship as an honor. I guess we would then have to say that they believe in hereditary honors, wouldn’t we?"
But American citizenship, even if viewed as an "honor" on the world stage, doesn’t distinguish status differences between American citizens—and thus is not an argument in favor of other symbols or labels etc. being viewed as marks of social distinction setting one up as somehow better than other Americans, which is the only context meaningful to our debate.
Where we do honor one American’s achievements or sacrifices higher than the average citizen, the distinctive symbol in the heraldic context is the gong suspended beneath the shield. That gong—unlike the arms themselves—is not shared or inherited by one’s family; it is a stand-alone, personal honor that doesn’t require arms at all. Displaying them with arms is an attractive option, but all the arms add is a visual equivalent of a name tag identifying the bearer.
One last comment for now—whether or not some, or even many, may perceive the bearing of arms as some sort of status symbol, that association is IMO no more a "best practice" that we should condone, than similar attitudes in a non-heraldic context.
Michael F. McCartney;92289 wrote:
Fred said: "But let’s suppose that, in any case, Americans view citizenship as an honor. I guess we would then have to say that they believe in hereditary honors, wouldn’t we?"
But American citizenship, even if viewed as an "honor" on the world stage, doesn’t distinguish status differences between American citizens—and thus is not an argument in favor of other symbols or labels etc. being viewed as marks of social distinction setting one up as somehow better than other Americans, which is the only context meaningful to our debate.
Well, I don’t want to accuse you of making a straw man argument, but perhaps it would be worth pointing out that I’m simply calling a spade a spade, not "making an argument in favor of" anything.
My point about American citizenship, anyway, is entirely relevant if your description of it as an honor (or a privilege, if you prefer) is apt. There are other examples I might cite, however—legacy consideration in college admissions, for instance, and privileges accorded to children of Medal of Honor winners.
Quote:
Where we do honor one American’s achievements or sacrifices higher than the average citizen, the distinctive symbol in the heraldic context is the gong suspended beneath the shield. That gong—unlike the arms themselves—is not shared or inherited by one’s family; it is a stand-alone, personal honor that doesn’t require arms at all. Displaying them with arms is an attractive option, but all the arms add is a visual equivalent of a name tag identifying the bearer.
I guess we read the evidence differently. I see no reason to believe that a coat of arms is merely a visual equivalent of a surname.
Quote:
One last comment for now—whether or not some, or even many, may perceive the bearing of arms as some sort of status symbol, that association is IMO no more a "best practice" that we should condone, than similar attitudes in a non-heraldic context.
I agree that it would be unseemly for the AHS to promote snobbery in any avoidable way, but this thread isn’t about what the AHS should condone, it’s about whether or not there’s any reasonable basis for the creation of an official U.S. arms granting authority.
Fred White;92293 wrote:
I see no reason to believe that a coat of arms is merely a visual equivalent of a surname.
Well, the French courts say it is, substituting "simply" for "merely": [SIZE=-1]Les armoiries diffèrent essentiellement des titres de noblesse en ce qu’elles sont simplement des marques de reconnaissance accessoires du nom de famille auquel elles se rattachent indissolublement, que cette famille soit noble ou non. (Cour d’Appel de Paris, 20 déc 1949). [/SIZE]
"Arms essentially differ from titles of nobility in that they are simply marks of cognizance accessory to the name of the family to which they are indissolubly attached, whether that family is noble or not."
Joseph McMillan;92297 wrote:
Well, the French courts say it is, substituting "simply" for "merely": [SIZE=-1]Les armoiries diffèrent essentiellement des titres de noblesse en ce qu’elles sont simplement des marques de reconnaissance accessoires du nom de famille auquel elles se rattachent indissolublement, que cette famille soit noble ou non. (Cour d’Appel de Paris, 20 déc 1949). [/SIZE]
"Arms essentially differ from titles of nobility in that they are simply marks of cognizance accessory to the name of the family to which they are indissolubly attached, whether that family is noble or not."
But we’re talking about culture, principally, not the law, right? My sense is that the wearing of a chevalière, for instance, plays about the same way there that it does in England. Actually, forget there, I have a colleague here—a French teacher—who belongs to a rather well-known noble French family, and her chevalière is absolutely an assertion of her patrician roots (in the face of the comparatively mean material circumstances she lives in en ce moment, perhaps). And as I fetch back to my impressions of living with a noble French family in the 8ème (Chouette!) when I was doing a semester at the Sorbonne way back when, and to my interactions with the Frenchmen in the Society of the Cincinnati (almost every one of them noble) since then, I feel like my basis for generalizing about the experience of heraldry among the French is reasonably solid.
Fred White;92298 wrote:
But we’re talking about culture, principally, not the law, right? My sense is that the wearing of a chevalière, for instance, plays about the same way there that it does in England. Actually, forget there, I have a colleague here—a French teacher—who belongs to a rather well-known noble French family, and her chevalière is absolutely an assertion of her patrician roots (in the face of the comparatively mean material circumstances she lives in en ce moment, perhaps). And as I fetch back to my impressions of living with a noble French family in the 8ème (Chouette!) when I was doing a semester at the Sorbonne way back when, and to my interactions with the Frenchmen in the Society of the Cincinnati (almost every one of them noble) since then, I feel like my basis for generalizing about the experience of heraldry among the French is reasonably solid.
Fred, please encourage her to join our society and post her arms (probably ancient assumed/adopted) on our members’ armorial. We could use more French perspectives here.
Luis Cid;92305 wrote:
Fred, please encourage her to join our society and post her arms (probably ancient assumed/adopted) on our members’ armorial. We could use more French perspectives here.
I doubt joining the Society would be up her alley, but she might let me take a picture of the ring and post it here. I’ll see if I can think of a way to approach that.
I don’t know if it’s been mentioned, but I’d love to see a registry created and maintained by a university in exchange for a donation. Perhaps curated by a department of history or design.
Think about it — universities are always asking for money. Depending on how much you donate, you get your name in tiny print on an annual report, all the way up to having a building named in your honor if you donate a small fortune.
Why not do something similar with heraldry?
Donate a nominal amount, you are added to a roll of arms. Donate more, you get your arms hung in some hall or building or incorporated into the architecture itself.
Different schools could put different twists on it. Maybe they donate arms to worthy people? Maybe there’s some extra merit necessary to be considered, other than just giving money?
Bottom line, next to the church and the military, what else in the US has a natural heraldic connection, other than colleges?
Interesting idea.
Pro: relative permanence, compared to existing private registries; and possibly some prominence, at least within the same alumni group
Con: multiple, possibly (probably?) uncoordinated registries - there are hundreds (thousands?) of colleges; lack, or at least great variability, of expertise; and access limited to grads with sufficient free cash to meet whatever financial bar each college might set.
There are likely other pro’s & con’s as yet beyond my ken…
End the end…true to form, Americans don’t want a granting authority because we’re Americans and will do what we very well please haha.
I’d say some do, some don’t; with great & possibly contradictory desires for those pro, and a variety of possibly contradictory objections or reservations for those con.
In both cases (and IMO especially for those con) the attractions/concerns may be ideological or practical, or both.
Which I suppo9se can be said re: nearly any issue of public interest or lack thereof, in our current body politic.