Social Criteria for Assumed Arms:  Pro and Con

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
14 April 2015 17:29
 

I would say that there has always been what might be called a gentry class-consciousness in the United States. It existed before Independence and didn’t go away as a result of the breach with Britain. Its strength and character, however, vary from time to time and place to place. There have also always been organizations whose membership is limited to gentlemen, that term being defined for the most part by whether one is recognized as such by other gentlemen. Some of these have tended to turn into caste-like institutions in which the most important objective seems to be keeping anyone who’s "not us." Others have always been open to new gentlemen (and ladies). Still others are almost purely ascriptive but in a fairly inoffensive way. Can anyone really get upset by organizations made up almost entirely of direct descendants of their founders, whose sole purpose is to get together a few times a year for a cook-out (Philadelphia’s Fishing Company of the State in Schuylkill, Maryland’s South River Club), or to go deer hunting (any number of hunting camps and clubs scattered from North Carolina to Texas), or to hold an annual white-tie ball?

(Silly question—some people really do get upset by all of this, but they shouldn’t.)

 

I think, though, that an organization explicitly designed for the purpose of defining who is a gentleman or lady and who isn’t would truly be offensive, in a way that clubs to permit socializing among people of similar tastes, backgrounds, and interests is not.

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
14 April 2015 17:46
 

Michael F. McCartney;104037 wrote:

Any American club that explicitly promoted notions of specialness, or by silence allowed that impression to continue or grow, would thereby IMO damage American heraldry.


Michael,

 

What do you make of hereditary societies like SCV, DAR, SAR, or the Jamestown Society?  It seems that these clubs are premised on the notion that it’s special to be 1) descended from a qualifying ancestor and 2) able to document this descent.

 

They seem like a reasonable example to use for comparison.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
14 April 2015 18:44
 

I should have been more specific - the context was hypothetical groups organized in whole or large part on the basis of armigerousness (armigerosity?).

The organizations you cite AFAIK are organized on other criteria, so not relevant to my concern re: public (mis)perceptions of the nature of bearing arms in this country.

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
14 April 2015 18:47
 

What about the Society of Scottish Armigers?  Is there anything wrong with folks that have this similarity getting together as a club?

 
liongam
 
Avatar
 
 
liongam
Total Posts:  343
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
14 April 2015 18:48
 

Dear All,

I appear to have ruffled one or two feathers this evening with my mention of the word ‘club’.  All I meant to say was that those who bear arms or are interested in the art and science of heraldry from a practical point of view as a subject to be studied and enjoyed for its own sake form a loose constituency and that if one bears arms one should act accordingly in one’s day to day affairs.  I know to some this concept is neither here or there for one should always be considerate of others - as they say good manners cost you nothing, but the bearing of arms could act as a brake upon any excesses when considering one’s family’s name and pride therein.  I can honestly say that in all the years I have been a member of The Heraldry Society (which is now in excess of some 40 years) and now some 6 years in the post of the Society’s Honorary Secretary I have never met an individual who has thought that by being armigerous by inheritance or grant they are/were superior in someway to those who do not bear arms.  They all have a tendency to fairly self-effacing and self-depreciating about it all.  Yes, they display their arms where they can, but very often in a very discreet and understated way for most armigers to do not live castles, manor houses surrounded by large acreages but in country cottages, suburban houses, or flats (apartments) in cities and towns.  We do not all live the ‘Downton Abbey’ lifestyle however much individuals outside of these islands may believe we do.  I have often joked to my wife that as the top floor at the front our house has a parapet we could think of putting a flagpole out there and fly the family’s banner on high days and holidays, but I could not see myself doing so.  In my case, it might be an example of British reserve or sang-froid coming to the fore, I am not too sure which.  Again, I have met and known many individuals who are members of families that are found within the pages of Burke’s Peerage or Landed Gentry over the years and they the nicest people you could wish to meet as they are without any ‘side’ whatsoever.  What concerns me most of all is that whilst I can understand the American standpoint on the notion on equality of birth, etc, I cannot see why you cannot invest your arms with certain pride otherwise they become mere cyphers or family monomarks, perhaps to be discarded or changed at will.  Please forgive me if I am way off base with the foregoing, but these are my honest opinions from afar.

 

With every good wish

 

John

 
liongam
 
Avatar
 
 
liongam
Total Posts:  343
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
14 April 2015 18:51
 

Dear All,

I appear to have ruffled one or two feathers this evening with my mention of the word ‘club’.  All I meant to say was that those who bear arms or are interested in the art and science of heraldry from a practical point of view as a subject to be studied and enjoyed for its own sake form a loose constituency and that if one bears arms one should act accordingly in one’s day to day affairs.  I know to some this is neither here or there for one should always be considerate of others - as they say good manners cost you nothing, but the bearing of arms could well act as a brake upon any excesses when considering one’s family’s name and pride therein.  I can honestly say that in all the years I have been a member of The Heraldry Society (which is now in excess of some 40 years) and now some 6 years in the post of the Society’s Honorary Secretary I have never met an individual who has thought that by being armigerous by inheritance or grant are/were superior in someway to those who are not do not bear arms.  They all have a tendency to fairly self-effacing and self-depreciating about it all.  Yes, they display their arms where they can, but very often in a very discreet and understated way for most armigers to do not live castles, manor houses surrounded by large acreages but suburban houses, cottages or flats (apartments) in cities and towns.  I have often joked to my wife that as the top floor at the front our house has a parapet we could think of putting a flagpole out there and fly the family’s banner of high days and holidays, but I could not see myself doing so.  In my case, it might be an example of British reserve or sang-froid I am not too sure which.

 
JJB1
 
Avatar
 
 
JJB1
Total Posts:  83
Joined  31-10-2014
 
 
 
14 April 2015 18:55
 

Going back to the original post, I don’t really read too much into other peoples’ seeking a grant of arms. In my opinion, it is part of our culture to do what one wants (within the confines of the law and decency) without having to explain oneself.

I’m sure lots of Americans have many reasons for applying for a foreign grant (hard to think of the British Isles as “foreign”). I petitioned. And I don’t think my doing so had anything to do with trying to make myself feel like I am better than other Americans. I think it was that I just wanted to create a rich starting place for my descendants and for it to be a part of the historic record—even if only a small part. I doubt if anyone but my own family would or should care about that. And being only one generation removed from England, it was too easy for me to just go forward without having to prove a long pedigree. Plus, my dad changed his surname to that of his stepfather after moving to the US before I was born. So I am tied to a family name with none of my own genealogy associated with it. I saw nothing wrong with starting the history of a new name off with a coat of arms from a country where I had not-too-distant cultural ties.

 

Though I am not ashamed; I can tell you that, aside from an online forum specifically dedicated to the subject, I do not go around talking about this to anyone. Honestly, I would not even clarify the distinction if a houseguest saw my arms displayed on my wall and said, “Yeah, I have one of those. I’m a Smith. And I bought a certificate with our Smith ‘family crest’ at the Renaissance festival when it came to town.” My heraldry, just like my genealogy, will probably only be significant to my family; or to anyone with a keen interest in or knowledge of heraldry.

 

If one wants to find vulgarity in people trying to “outdo” one another in terms of social status, there are plenty of more gauche (and more-effective) ways to show it than a classic coat of arms from an historic institution. Just listen to the obnoxious talk that comes out of any (pick one) “McMansion neighborhood, USA”. But it only takes a while to realize that most people only show off in order to seek the approval of others.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
14 April 2015 18:59
 

Dave - I enjoy the eye candy on their website.  Beyond that, limited contact at thecScottish Games.  Their online info re: meaning & use of arms appears to mirror similar guidance from Lyon Office, which addresses Scottish law & practice; which is interesting but not particularly relevant to use of arms by Americans unless they individually choose (which is their right) to follow those practices.  So long as they don’t present Scottish or other foreign rules as binding here, no problem.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
14 April 2015 22:53
 

Joseph McMillan;104039 wrote:

I don’t see anything objectionable or questionable in overlapping memberships.  It’s the tone deafness of the ceremonial that I find amusing.


Fair enough.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
15 April 2015 00:10
 

John - taking pride in our own arms is not the same as seeing the possession of arms generally as honors or indicators of elevated social status.  We all have names and families, in which we take (or would like to be able to take) honest pride, but that’s not necessarily the same as claiming to be better than others on the basis of name or family.  Some may be better off, or better educated, or more famous than others; but we are equal before the law, and having arms is or should be no different.

We can be proud of our arms because (or if) they are in our eyes well designed and beautifully executed, just as we might for our home or garden or a nice piece of furniture we built in the garage.  And/or we can take a secondary pride in our arms as a symbol of our family in which we take pride, since the primary function of arms here is identification and a token of kinship.  Not "mere" cyphers or family monomarks, but tokens of the identity and kinship in which we take pride.

 

Of course anyone anywhere can feel the same; but in some places arms may also signify an hereditary honor bestowed or recognized by a sovereign, or one’s place in a more stratified legal or social structure.  That’s fine in those places - to each it’s own - but not appropriate here.  As we might say, different strokes for different folks.

 

Anyway that’s how I see it; others may view or express it differently.

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
15 April 2015 10:36
 

Michael,

I agree with you.

 

With the American practice of free assumption of arms, one might be proud of the skillful design of the arms, or proud of a particularly excellent emblazonment as a piece of art, or proud of the family and kin of which the arms are a visual identifier.

 

If one wanted to be proud of the arms as signifying something beyond that, one would need to look elsewhere, to a different jurisdiction.

 
mghofer
 
Avatar
 
 
mghofer
Total Posts:  46
Joined  14-09-2014
 
 
 
15 April 2015 12:04
 

David Pope;104059 wrote:

Michael,

I agree with you.

 

With the American practice of free assumption of arms, one might be proud of the skillful design of the arms, or proud of a particularly excellent emblazonment as a piece of art, or proud of the family and kin of which the arms are a visual identifier.

 

If one wanted to be proud of the arms as signifying something beyond that, one would need to look elsewhere, to a different jurisdiction.


Amen.