Nobiliary Entitlements (was Spanish/Mexican Law)

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
23 October 2015 11:36
 

While we’re permitting tangents, I offer this quotation from Nicolás Gómez Dávila’s Escolios a un Texto Implícito:

"The most convinced reactionary is the repentant revolutionary, that is to say, the man who has known the reality of the problems and has discovered the falseness of the solutions."

 

It seems vaguely apropos.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
23 October 2015 13:23
 

I would replace "reactionary" with "conservative," and "revolutionary" with "visionary;" since in my experience it cuts both ways - whether one starts as revolutionary or reactionary.  With those revisions, yes… wink

 
JJB1
 
Avatar
 
 
JJB1
Total Posts:  83
Joined  31-10-2014
 
 
 
23 October 2015 16:39
 

Wilfred Leblanc;104979 wrote:

The bucket shop tells them that they are temporarily embarrassed gentry, in effect, and that their genes will enable them or their posterity to triumph one of these days, just as their forebearers’ genes enabled them to triumph at Agincourt or wherever. And for that prospect to be satisfying, there have to remain the great unwashed to provide counterpoint to their (latent) distinction.

I, speaking as a member of the unwashed, think you might be onto something here. I never read that much into the marketing psychology of bucket shops, but you’re probably right. Turning it to myself again (it’s my only qualifier), in contrasting old vs. new world views, my dad’s parents and their descendants going back were working class English who took absolutely no interest in this type of stuff—my dad included. And they might be typical in this as northern English of their station—very fatalistic, dry. If they had arms, their motto would have been something like, "what’s the point?" There’s something admirable and refreshing about that level of honesty and acceptance. It’s rarer here where one can do pretty much what one wants and can play genealogy make-believe as a coping mechanism for being in a low place. Yours is an interesting thought on motives behind bucket shops.


JJB;104947 wrote:

I’ll admit that the signet ring is iffy in the business community, which is one of our few upholders of contemporary standards of pragmatic American communication, style and manners. Only business owners, consultants and board members might wear heraldic signet rings without anyone thinking anything of it.

Wilfred Leblanc;104979 wrote:

Exactly.


Of course, I think I could pull it off in any context—especially in shorts and flip-flops while having a beer.


Wilfred Leblanc;104979 wrote:

No, the CHI has not proven that. Republican values do not exclude acceptance of social strata, and the cost of a grant from the CHI is itself evidence that the CHI does not intend to give grants to just anybody with Hibernian blood in the same way the USHR offers to register arms to anyone whomsoever as long as his blazon doesn’t egregiously violate the rules of blazoning. All either the CHI or the USHR proves is that heraldry is an appealing way for some people and organizations to identify themselves.


I never said republican values didn’t completely revolve around money. They just don’t revolve around stations of hereditary nobility that exist irrespective of the realms of money and property. And the CHI requires nothing but money and Irish heritage to give someone a coat of arms. And those arms granted are only arms without terms like, "gentleman" written into the grant document to imply some mark of status (I speculate that even when the COA does it it’s only out of tradition). Yes, having a coat of arms from Ireland might be perceived as a mark of financial status. So might a Rolex. But these aren’t marks of ennoblement. If we’re calling having a few extra Euros characteristic of some 21st-Century neo-noble status then that’s one thing. But aside from that, I say CHI is consistent with republican values.

 
JJB1
 
Avatar
 
 
JJB1
Total Posts:  83
Joined  31-10-2014
 
 
 
23 October 2015 17:12
 

I think another way to look at this original question would be if I or anyone else here suddenly inherited a peerage by virtue of still being alive, would any of us take any responsibility in preserving that history somehow?

As a US Citizen, I would view myself more as the current custodian of the earldom rather than as being the earl himself. I probably wouldn’t attend the royal coronation; not out of principle, but mainly because I wouldn’t know anyone and wouldn’t know what to do. I would definitely tell my family and close friends about the inheritance. And I would pass it on according to tradition. But that’s as far as it would go socially or publicly. It would go in some family book and it would be some odd bit of trivia to talk about at a bar with a friend once in a while.

 

In terms of heraldry, if I wanted to use arms, I would use the correct arms with supporters under certain circumstances in my own home as a preservation of history. I don’t know enough applications of heraldry to know when it really goes beyond bookplates or a few things in the home that few would see. I’m not big on stationary. But if I used it I would definitely not put the supporters on that. A woodcarving inside the home; yes, to supporters. Outside, no. It would be a case-by-case basis I suppose. And it would be out of respect to ancestors.

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
23 October 2015 19:45
 

Jeff, the way you would handle an English earldom you inherited by virtue of "still being alive" is exactly what I saw happen in Spain to a friend of mine who had no money to speak of and was not plugged-in with society circles and then a great uncle died quickly followed by a cousin and he found himself the heir to a Marquesado.  My friend didn’t have the money to pay the Ministry of Justice, Subsecretariate of Grace the fees due to have his title confered to him.  He also didn’t feel comfortable with such a title as he didn’t feel it fit his station in life.  I didn’t keep up with this friend and so I don’t know if he ever did anything with this.  Spanish law has changed since then (1979) and he now would not be able to wait more than 40 years from the death of the last holder of the title to make-up his mind before the title would automatically revert to the Spanish Crown. - - My friend never used the family arms - with or without the coronet of a Marques.

 
snelson
 
Avatar
 
 
snelson
Total Posts:  464
Joined  03-06-2005
 
 
 
23 October 2015 23:58
 

Wilfred Leblanc;104962 wrote:

Same Humes. See the genealogy authored by E. E. Hume himself: http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hume/biblio/A_Colonial_Scottish_Jacobite_Family.pdf


Here is another image of the Hume arms: http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hume/biblio/Armorial_Families.pdf#page=4

 

I guess the General matriculated his arms at the Lyon Office in 1921.

 

Apparently his son used the same arms but with a chief of the SMOM…according to a post made in another forum:
Quote:

...Nel Libro d’Oro (Edizione XIII - Volume XIV 1962-1964) alla pagina 713 sub voce Hume si cita che i Hume sono di origini scozzesi e il titolo Conte di Hume de Chèrisy e seguito da "Francia" in parentesi. Vi è anche la descrizione dello stemma: Inquartato, nel 1° e 4° di verde al leone rampante d’arg., nel 2° d’arg. a tre pappagalli di verde posti 2-1; nel 3° d’arg., alla croce spinata d’azz.; al capo di Malta; il tutto accollato alla croce di Malta e sormontato da cor. di conte. Cimiero: una testa di unicorno d’arg. al corno e criniera d’oro. Motto: Remember; Div.: "True to the End". Sono riportati anche che il figlio del Generale Hume, Edgar Erskine II Hume de Chèrisy (nato a Boston nel 1922, è un Cav. d’Onore e Devozione del SMOM e Cav. di Giustizia del SMO Constantiniano di San Giorgio e CAv. Corona d’Italia. Il figlio primogenito di Edgar Erskine II, Edgar Erskine III, nato nel 1947 a Louisville (Kentucky) è descritto come co. de HUme de Chèrisy…


One website I found seems to discuss General Hume’s time with Prince Umberto, but my Italian is so bad I’m not entirely sure I can understand it:
Quote:

...Umberto di Savoia decise di uscire da questa penosa situazione. Egli aveva conosciuto il generale americano Edgar E. Hume uno dei pochi ufficiali stranieri decorati dell’Ordine Militare di Malta. Il Generale Hume (l’episodio che noi raccontiamo è inedito e può solo adesso essere svelato, essendo il generale Hume morto da qualche anno) aveva una ambizione: avrebbe voluto che il figlio, anche lui ufficiale nella Ottava armata, venisse nominato Cavaliere di onore e Devozione dell’Ordine di Malta. Ma per ottenere ciò sarebbe occorso una regolare proposta firmata da due Cavalieri di Malta. Hume confessò questa sua aspirazione al maggiore Campello, aiutante di campo del Principe e anche lui cavaliere di Onore e Devozione. Campello fece in modo che alla fine del primo incontro tra Umberto di Savoia e il generale americano fosse proprio il Principe di Piemonte a proporre la sospirata nomina del figlio di Hume al gran priore dell’ordine, Maresca. Da quel momento ebbe un alleato potente. E fu in gran parte merito di Hume se si riuscì a superare il punto morto per quanto riguardava la nostra partecipazione militare alla guerra…http://www.reumberto.it/bufera7.htm

 

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
24 October 2015 10:59
 

Great finds, Seb.

 
snelson
 
Avatar
 
 
snelson
Total Posts:  464
Joined  03-06-2005
 
 
 
24 October 2015 12:07
snelson
 
Avatar
 
 
snelson
Total Posts:  464
Joined  03-06-2005
 
 
 
24 October 2015 12:38
 

If I’ve been reading correctly, it seems like General Hume’s ancestor was exiled to Virginia in the 18th century because he was a Jacobite.  Apparently General Hume met up with Crown Prince Rupert of Bavaria (the Jacobite Pretender) in Italy too during the war: http://www.jacobite.ca/essays/ww2.htm

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
24 October 2015 13:10
 

Yes, George Hume was a Jacobite pardoned on condition that he leave the British realm.

The claim to the French countship of Cherisy (which seems to have impressed King Umberto) was in right of a younger brother of the immigrant’s 6th great-grandfather, a Scottish officer in French service who was granted the countship in 1534.  The published Hume genealogy asserts that this title was granted to "heirs male whatsoever," which is a Scottish term indicating that it can be inherited in default of heirs male of the body by going back up the genealogy to the ancestors of the grantee and then back down the senior surviving male line.  The direct male line of the grantee of the countship was exterminated at the French Revolution.

 

My impression is that French titles were normally granted to heirs of the body, passing equally to male and female descendants but only through the males.  Does anyone know whether this idea of the title descending through the grantee’s brother has any standing in French law?

 
snelson
 
Avatar
 
 
snelson
Total Posts:  464
Joined  03-06-2005
 
 
 
24 October 2015 17:27
 

Quote:

Yes, George Hume was a Jacobite pardoned on condition that he leave the British realm.

The claim to the French countship of Cherisy (which seems to have impressed King Umberto) was in right of a younger brother of the immigrant’s 6th great-grandfather, a Scottish officer in French service who was granted the countship in 1534. The published Hume genealogy asserts that this title was granted to "heirs male whatsoever," which is a Scottish term indicating that it can be inherited in default of heirs male of the body by going back up the genealogy to the ancestors of the grantee and then back down the senior surviving male line. The direct male line of the grantee of the countship was exterminated at the French Revolution.

 

My impression is that French titles were normally granted to heirs of the body, passing equally to male and female descendants but only through the males. Does anyone know whether this idea of the title descending through the grantee’s brother has any standing in French law?


I think Francois Velde and James Dempster have been posting about Hume’s French title on the Héraldique Française Facebook group.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
24 October 2015 18:26
 

It seems like less-than-airtight connections to Scots ennobled by Frenchmen have been celebrated by more than one family of Scottish descent in the U.S. The Pattillo family, to which my paternal grandmother belonged, has claimed descent from a Robert Pattillo, "the little king of Gascony," who is said to have been made "lord of Sauveterre."

A typical account is included in this hagiography of my great-great-grandfather, no doubt a solid guy, but described here in terms that echo W. J. Cash’s parody of the genre in The Mind of the South.

 

The family was definitely not "originally French," as the author here states (though it seems members have succeeded in joining Huguenot organizations on the basis of that claim), but rather hailed from Dundee and perhaps sent a cadet to fight in France in the 15th c.

 

For what it’s worth, I don’t remember any displays of the alleged Pattillo arms (shield depicting an unbent bow, crest featuring a hand gloved in mail and gripping a rose, motto "Et decerpta dat odorem") this work describes. After realizing that the late 19th and early 20th c. compilers of American armorials were often operating a version of bucket shops, I’m very skeptical of these attributions. I’d be interested to know if there’s any record of these Pattillo arms with Lord Lyon—or in any French source whatsoever, for that matter—but wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that they’re a fabrication.

 

Interestingly, there is a Chilean branch of the family which seems to have produced some fine gentlemen.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
24 October 2015 23:40
 

Re: General Hume - the link to Fox-Davies’ "Armorial Families" which Seb posted listed a passle of foreign honors, but no Italian comital title.  Also no mention of being representer of the Wedderburn feudal barons, and neither the blazon nor the emblazonment include supporters.  The arms as blazoned and emblazoned would be entirely consistent with the AHS Guidelines.  How the 1921 matriculation may or may not have differed, can’t say.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
25 October 2015 09:14
 

Wilfred Leblanc;105014 wrote:

After realizing that the late 19th and early 20th c. compilers of American armorials were often operating a version of bucket shops, I’m very skeptical of these attributions.


If we’re talking about the main compilations, I think this is partly but not entirely fair.

 

Vermont (American Heraldica) was rather smug about his serious heraldic standards, and I suspect he tried, but he has quite a few arms that can only be based on creative genealogy—along with baseball and horse racing one of the leading competitive sports of the late 19th century.

 

For Matthews, Fred’s criticism is pretty much on target.  In what we might call his contemporary section, he appears to have accepted whatever his informants gave him, and I believe they paid a fee for the privilege of being listed.  Some it’s are legit, but you can’t easily tell which.  The historical section seems to be partly based on Burke and Rietstap and such (like a bucket shop) and partly on authentic evidence recorded in various places such as the Heraldic Journal.  But again, there’s no way of telling which.

 

Crozier I’ve found very frustrating, especially since he was a pretty serious genealogical or at least archival scholar.  Virginia Heraldica is more scholarly that the General Armory, but even there I’ve found nearly 20 major errors—arms that could not possibly have been borne by the Virginia family of a given name because they were first granted several generations after the immigrant’s arrival; arms belonging to a clearly different English family; blazons that are not only wrong but completely, unmistakably different from the arms on the physical evidence cited; and one case (Steptoe) where neither the arms nor the man ever existed.  He wasn’t running a bucket shop, but he’s sloppy.  The General Armory also suffers from attributing to the first immigrant the coat of arms used by descendants even many generations later, and you can’t tell how many generations.  So it could be a seal used by the immigrant’s son (pretty reliable), or it could be one of Coles’s inventions from the late 1800s, or it could be a complete bucket shop job based on the "arms of the name" in Burke.

 

Of Bolton, I think the bucket shop label would be entirely unfair.  He’s not 100% accurate, but he cites his sources and his evidence:  "Seen by L. Park on an old painting in 1904;" "Engraved on a chalice at First Church of Dorchester (Am. Ch. Silver."  These citations don’t prove a "right" to the arms that would have satisfied Fox-Davies, but they are evidence of actual use at a particular point in time.  Bolton’s main problem is that he didn’t really understand blazoning, so you sometimes have to correct for confusion in the "of the first," "of the second" stuff in particular.  At least it’s possible to go back and check the original sources, which is more than you can say for most heraldic compilations.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
25 October 2015 14:37
 

While re-reading the thread (and struggling to compose the promised reply in a way that is reasonably comprehensive without rivaling the length of War and Peace), this passage popped out at me.


Wilfred Leblanc;104978 wrote:

What counts as American heraldry, anyway? Heraldry itself is hardly indigenous here.


It’s true that heraldry is hardly indigenous in the United States, but then ultimately it’s not indigenous anywhere except that small area of northwestern Europe about the size of Rhode Island where it originated.  That’s not just flippant.  People have been using heraldry in the present-day United States for 450 years, English-speaking people for over 400.  Would we hesitate to talk about there being such a thing as "Spanish heraldry" as of the time Columbus set sail in 1492?  Of course not, yet heraldry in Spain then was a much more recent import than heraldry in the United States is today.

 

Moreover, American heraldry is clearly not just English heraldry transplanted across the Atlantic.  If we weren’t in the habit of doing things differently we wouldn’t have to listen to the fairly regular sniping from across the Atlantic about how we do things wrong.  The problem is that, up until recently, American students of heraldry were so smitten by the English model that they apologized for these differences rather than studying them or even celebrating them, the same way that some Americans even today feel compelled to apologize for not speaking the Queen’s English.

 

We need a Noah Webster for American heraldry.