Social Criteria for Assumed Arms:  Pro and Con

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
11 April 2015 21:16
 

Kathy McClurg;103954 wrote:

One might also note that the US Army at one time had non commissioned officer swords (Model 1840, as an example)

I believe the Navy Cutlass can still be worn by the senior enlisted person on the USS Constitution.. I’m not sure if that extends to other enlisted personnel aboard her.

 

Point being that the authorization for Non-Commissioned Officers in the US armed services to carry sword and cutlass has changed over time.  Rank insignia changed over time.  There’s a bit of an interesting read here:  http://usmilitary.about.com/od/jointservices/a/rankhistory.htm

 

All such customs change over time for various reasons…


Kathy, agreed.  I was referencing the accepted modern practice.  The reenactment garb on the Constitution is clearly an exception.

 
liongam
 
Avatar
 
 
liongam
Total Posts:  343
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
11 April 2015 22:16
 

Dear Joe,

Apropos the College of Arms.  I can certainly recall a couple of instances in my time at College when individuals did not proceed with the notion of petitioning for a grant.  Again, with both the College and Lyon Court it is difficult to conjecture how many would be grantees fall at the first fence so to speak.

 

I do not believe that it is as simple as having a cheque book at the ready.

 

As ever

 

John

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
11 April 2015 22:19
 

David Pope;103956 wrote:

Kathy, agreed.  I was referencing the accepted modern practice.  The reenactment garb on the Constitution is clearly an exception.


Ceremonial Uniforms worn to the regulations of 1815.  They remain official uniforms for specific ceremonial purposes…  smile

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
11 April 2015 22:31
 

liongam;103959 wrote:

Dear Joe,

Apropos the College of Arms.  I can certainly recall a couple of instances in my time at College when individuals did not proceed with the notion of petitioning for a grant.  Again, with both the College and Lyon Court it is difficult to conjecture how many would be grantees fall at the first fence so to speak.

 

I do not believe that it is as simple as having a cheque book at the ready.

 

As ever

 

John


John, this is my understanding as well, based on recent communications with the COA.  We discussed the possibility of an extension of limitations, one requirement of which is that the common ancestor would need to have been able to qualify for a grant in his own right.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
12 April 2015 00:12
 

Having an adequate check (or cheque) book at the ready hopefully is not sufficient, but it certainly is necessary!

As to the outcome of the current debate (so far, but after much back & forth) it appears that despite a disparate range of philosophical starting points and personal desires we seem to have arrived at the same general result.  Some as enthusiastic philosophy, some as resigned practicality.

 

And of course we’ve plowed the same or similar ground in the past, in crafting our AHS "best practice" Guidelines and subsequent discussions here, and for some of us both before and since in other forums e.g. rec.heraldry and the HHS forum.

 

I doubt this is the last time!

 
mghofer
 
Avatar
 
 
mghofer
Total Posts:  46
Joined  14-09-2014
 
 
 
12 April 2015 03:36
 

David Pope;103939 wrote:

Here’s another example: Only officers* in the US military rate swords.  It doesn’t mean that every boot lieutenant is a better man than every Lance Corporal.  It definitely doesn’t mean that every boot lieutenant is a better man than the average Gunnery Sergeant.  What the sword does, though, is to mark out one group of folks from another.  Although the proxy for this difference is now a college degree, this previously was a difference of social rank (Officers and their Ladies, Sergeants and their Wives, Soldiers and their Women…).

*Non-Commissioned Officers of Marines are the exception to this rule.  Even in this case those below the rank of Corporal do not rate swords.


Just a quick off topic correction: U.S. Navy chief petty officers (and senior chiefs and master chiefs) may have a cutlass. This was reinstated about ten years ago; and has been quite popular among members of the Chiefs’ Mess. Another notable difference between officers and enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces is that they take different oaths. Both of these cases reflect a difference in expectation m, but not necessarily reality in any given instance.

 
liongam
 
Avatar
 
 
liongam
Total Posts:  343
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
12 April 2015 05:25
 

Quote:

Having an adequate check (or cheque) book at the ready hopefully is not sufficient, but it certainly is necessary!


Dear Mike,

 

As with all things of course, one must have sufficient funds available.  Much akin to buying a Rolls Royce, one’s weekly shop, paying the gas bill, etc.  It is a fact of life.  Whether one chooses to do so is up to the individual.  We are all free agents.

 

And as David has mentioned if one requests to have an extension of limitation to a forebear in the direct line to be cited within a grant of arms in order to ‘catch’ the other descendants of that forebear so that they too may use the arms to be granted, the College will ask for evidence that the forebear would have been qualified to have been able to petition the Earl Marshal in his own right.  Again, in addition, the College may request a pedigree to be entered into the Official Records to confirm the fact as well as to demonstrate all those who may be caught within the terms of the limitation.

 

As ever

 

John

 
zebulon
 
Avatar
 
 
zebulon
Total Posts:  65
Joined  23-12-2013
 
 
 
12 April 2015 17:23
 

Joseph McMillan;103859 wrote:

Without knowing these people personally and without talking to them, I don’t think it’s fair to guess at their reasons for pursuing such grants unless they have explained themselves publicly.  The possible motives range from the belief that such a grant makes them "noble" to that they simply wanted a coat of arms and had swallowed the old canard that the only valid way to get one was from the British heralds.  (A position I thought I had read here on this very forum just last night, no?)

Somewhat perversely, the American hereditary society community has evolved into a hotbed of Anglophilia, even in organizations such as the Cincinnati, the SAR, the Sons of the Revolution (to which I belong), and the Society of the War of 1812 (to which I also belong).  I find it very peculiar to see the British flag paraded and the Queen of the UK toasted at events celebrating ancestors who risked their lives to reject her 4xgreat-grandfather along with all his works and pomps and the glamour of monarchism.  (I’m quite willing to drink the lady’s health, it just seems incongruous in that particular setting.)

 

But to me, all of this strengthens rather than weakens the case for honest, straightforward armorial assumption in the United States.  With a small handful of exceptions, the people in the 13 colonies who used arms before Independence did so without seeking permission from the heralds back in Britain, and it’s not obvious why dumping German George should have changed that.


As I’ve recently been informed these interpretations of the AHS are not open topics for discussion, and any attempt to do so - let alone to similarly characterize them as a "canard" - are uncivil/blasphemy subjecting the perpetrator to a drum-head followed by firing squad at dawn, I’ll have to refrain from comment or reply.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
12 April 2015 17:34
 

zebulon;103973 wrote:

As I’ve recently been informed these interpretations of the AHS are not open topics for discussion, and any attempt to do so - let alone to similarly characterize them as a "canard" - are uncivil/blasphemy subjecting the perpetrator to a drum-head followed by firing squad at dawn, I’ll have to refrain from comment or reply.


No. What you’ve been told is (a) everything is open for debate, (b) it has to be done in the right thread, not taking things wildly off topic, and (c) the language has to be civil, not ridiculing or demeaning other participants.  You accepted these ground rules when you registered on the forums.

 
zebulon
 
Avatar
 
 
zebulon
Total Posts:  65
Joined  23-12-2013
 
 
 
12 April 2015 17:48
 

Joseph McMillan;103974 wrote:

No. What you’ve been told is (a) everything is open for debate, (b) it has to be done in the right thread, not taking things wildly off topic, and (c) the language has to be civil, not ridiculing or demeaning other participants.  You accepted these ground rules when you registered on the forums.


I not only have accepted them, I have followed them meticulously. If there is anything you would like to cite where I have not been civil, I will gladly apologize and retract it.

 

However, simply declaring someone to be uncivil "implied by general tone" (is that the same as "he looked at me funny?") and removing all of their contributions (while simultaneously declaring opinions different from your own to be a "canard" - an inflammatory word I would never use) as you immediately chose to do when I offered a kind and patient explanation with regard to an interpretative error you’d made is itself stretching the boundaries of civility. I choose to conduct myself in a way that I avoid making wild accusations against others unless I have a specific example to cite and, in that, my civility is evident. Don’t you agree? I’m sure you do.

 

If I can offer a calm word of analysis here, you seem to have positioned yourself as a final authority on all matters heraldica and, further, have presented your opinions (which, to be true, are largely shared by other AHS members) as statements of fact to the extent that there is no point in discussion, the matters are settled, and those who insist on further discussing them are simply being a disagreeable nuisance and evilly demeaning the legitimacy of those who bear assumed arms. In my opinion, one should choose to approach a discussion board not as a vehicle to publish monologues, declaratory edicts, and decree-laws but rather a vehicle for discussion (as the name implies). Obviously we disagree on this point, and that’s okay.

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
13 April 2015 00:25
 

zebulon;103978 wrote:

However, simply declaring someone to be uncivil "implied by general tone" (is that the same as "he looked at me funny?")


You’re assuming that was directed at you and you alone. This moderation is directed at you. Once again, you’ve managed to take the thread off of its topic into a discussion of our forum policies and whether or not you are following them.

 

I would ask again that you please keep to the topic of each thread.

 
zebulon
 
Avatar
 
 
zebulon
Total Posts:  65
Joined  23-12-2013
 
 
 
13 April 2015 01:42
 

gselvester;103991 wrote:

You’re assuming that was directed at you and you alone.


It’s not an assumption, it’s a factual observation. You said -


Quote:

I’ve reviewed all the posts Joe McMillan deleted and agree with his judgement


- which was in response to Joe McMillan deleting my posts (specifically the ones where I corrected him on a factual error he had made) with -


Quote:

The substantive aspect of the issues raised by Max Freitag is appropriate fodder for discussion ... but they don’t fit well into a single subject, and in any case the insulting tone in several posts


I have repeatedly offered to immediately apologize and retract if someone can cite even one thing I said that was "insulting" and my offers have been met with nothing but silence and blank looks, which leads one to the reasonable conclusion that, in fact, I said nothing untoward but that Joe McMillan was simply embarrassed(?) at being corrected and wanted that gone.

 

You should either (1) unambiguously clarify that I did not say anything uncivil and delete Joe McMillan’s rude and inflammatory accusation about me (the "the insulting tone" post) as quickly as you deleted my polite comments, or, (2) point out specifically what I said that was uncivil. In my opinion, slandering someone’s character is the ultimate act of incivility and also derails the discussion into rude and off-topic drama and intrigue. I also believe it is nothing that an apology from one mature adult to another can’t resolve. Don’t you agree? I’m sure you do.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
13 April 2015 16:40
 

My own response to Zebulon’s last message, in general terms re: visitors to our forum rather than specifically commenting on what he may or may not have said.

Visitors are generally welcome here, provided they first register as users.  But this is not Hyde Park or the square across from the White House, with generally untrammelled right of free speech answerable to no one - that would be rec.heraldry or other unmoderated forums.  They have their place, but we’re not it.

 

Rather this (or any other moderated forum) like visiting someone else’s home - they each have their own house rules.  They may be spelled out, but they are set, interpreted and applied by the host.  They may be different from your own house rules, or the house next door or across the street; but they are not up for public debate with the host.

 

Members of the family ( in this case our dues paying members) can debate the house rules in private (in the appropriate part of our members-only sections of the forum) but not in public with visitors present.

 

As noted, this is how I see it; I’m not an officer or moderator.  And I’m not responding to, commenting on or judging the content of any particular posting re: the topic of this thread; only to the public challenging of the host’s house rules as interpreted and applied by the host.  The topic of the thread is of course open to debate - that’s what the forum is for, and you’ve raised some interesting questions and opinions; but not the house rules and rulings re: the conduct of the debate.

 

Apologies to the moderators if this posting violates the house rules!!

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
13 April 2015 16:56
 

As I said, all the posts concerned are "soft-deleted" and can be retrieved if appropriate. They were hidden primarily because they were way off the topic of the thread—mine included. I subsequently moved many of them, including some of Mr. Freitag’s, onto new threads, and in the process made clear that, in my opinion, the topics he raised are valid for discussion, even if I disagree with them.

I’m not going to rehash in public what was offensive and what wasn’t. Some of my own language may have been a bit intemperate as well. If so, it has also been hidden from view. If anyone thinks anything I post is inappropriate or rude, he or she is always free to PM me, or to report the post to the moderators for a decision. None of us (the officers of the society) take a role in judging issues in which we’re involved.

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
13 April 2015 18:13
 

…and we need to stay on topic now as well and stop addressing issues about how the Forum is moderated in a thread entitled "Social Criteria for Assumed Arms: Pro and Con".