Joseph McMillan;105016 wrote:

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

I’m not sure what you mean by "fair." I expect historians to be truthful and accurate.

At any rate, I am talking about the main compilations, and I don’t think the phrasing "often operating a version of bucket shops" is misleading when you look at the aggregate. Apart from fabrications and (possibly) careless mistakes, such evidence as the authors present is often hard to verify. Gravestones and stained glass windows in churches are not, of course, but one hesitates to accept unreservedly such assertions as "engraved on old silver, and an ancient seal, still in possession of [unnamed] members of the family." Such is Crozier’s evidence in Virginia Heraldica for Thomas Lamar, another ancestor of mine, one recently enough honored that Lamar was my great-grandmother’s middle name. The distinguished members of the family were Mirabeau B. Lamar, Joseph Rucker Lamer, L.Q.C. Lamar, and the rather notorious C.A.L. Lamar, which is to say cousins and not my direct line. Certainly, it means nothing that I, personally, have seen no physical evidence of the putative Lamar arms. It is entirely possible that the silver and the seal referenced by Crozier were in the estate of one of the distinguished Lamars, that Crozier or a trustworthy informant saw them with his own eyes, and that we could locate them today if we tried hard enough. But I think it’s equally possible (dare I say "more likely"?) that in the pedigree arms race of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the golden age of lineage-society founding, Crozier took approaches to gathering evidence that he knew lacked integrity, and that he found plenty of willing collaborators among genteel families who were just positive that their ancestors had borne arms but had ("And it’s just the darndest thing, Mr. Crozier!") misplaced the proof when they were fleeing Sherman or setting sail from Nantucket to join the California Gold Rush.

Note that what I’m happy to call Lamar-style evidence is the same sort that Bolton, whom you’re calling the best of the lot, provides in many instances. I smell a lot of leading questions being asked, and lots of convincing words of honor and whatnot being exchanged—all while fingers were crossed and entreaties to the Almighty to be forgiven for telling stretchers were being whispered. And as you suggest, even when the family heirlooms were real, what was the actual origin of the family’s armorial pretension? An 18th c. coach painter in Boston or Williamsburg playing the same sort of game as Crozier and company? Perhaps the origins of the pretension are not important if the family actually goes on to establish ancient use.

I’d say that’s sort of what happened in my family with the arms Crozier attributed to James Habersham. My great-grandmother or one of her siblings (all DAR and UDC types, one of them ultimately married to the dean of credible Southern genealogists, A. S. Salley, who actually had little truck with sketchy pretensions) quite probably, at the time of publication, read that attribution and ordered one of Crozier’s own emblazonments, and the resulting painting of the "Habersham" arms was, as far as I ever knew, thenceforth displayed as if it simply applied to the household that eventually became my paternal grandparents’. It was simply there, never remarked upon. No one in that household (my grandparents, and until she died in 1985, my great grandmother) was concerned with the "arms follow the name" rule, if such a thing even occurred to any of them. And inasmuch as there is no evidence I’ve ever been able to locate that any member of the Habersham family ever bore those particular arms (save possibly my great x 3 grandmother, d. 1904, for whom the emblazonment might have been purchased as a gift in the last year or so of her life, but who probably would have been confused by it, given Bulloch’s contradictory 1901 work), I’d say they’ve devolved to me as the White arms, should I care to use them. I happen to think the differenced version I ginned up with the AHS eight or so years ago is better-looking, but there’s really not a whole lot at stake here, and my deeper sentimental attachment is to Crozier’s misattribution.

Anyway, when I say "bucket shops," I really don’t think I’m wide of the mark. What do you want to bet that even when editions of the other major compilations did not include the sort of advertisement one finds in Crozier’s General Armory, one was inserted with every order as a supplement?

Joseph McMillan;105017 wrote:

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.

What do you mean when you say "in the habit of doing things differently"? I assume you mean a habit that is valid, respectable, long-established, and an organic extension of something that went on previously and elsewhere, but what exactly are you referring to?

And again, what exactly is it that makes a coat of arms American?

Addressing only Fred’s last (and possibly rhetorical,?) question, "what is it that makes a coat of arms American?" -

A fair question; but I suspect the (or maybe just my) answer may seem to be circular.  Simply put, American arms are arms used by Americans in America.  You could plug in any nation in place of America and still have a valid answer - e.g. Polish/French/Italian/Swiss etc. arms are arms used by Poles/Frenchmen/Italians/Swiss etc. in Poland/France/Italy/Switzerland etc.

(The same if you plug nearly any other human activity or behavior in place of arms - banking, traffic laws, family and gender relationships,  beachwear, treatment of animals, religion, whatever.  Nations differ in their legal and customary expectations and tolerance on various issues, of which heraldry is merely one subset.)

This presupposes in each case that the arms are used consistent with whatever laws, customs, or other norms may apply in that country.  There will be examples in any country where some individuals may use arms (or otherwise behave) inconsistent with or contrary to that county’s laws, customs, or national norms.  Maybe because the individual has chosen to ignore his own nation’s laws, customs, or norms and/or prefers to follow inappropriate foreign practices.  Or maybe because someone has sold him a bill of goods (can you say,"bucket shop"?).  Either way,  we can fairly say that those examples should not set precedent for his countrymen to hide behind or blindly follow, whether as to arms or anything else in life.

(Note that whether or not arms are American, or Polish or French or Italian etc.  is a different question from whether a given coat of arms are well or poorly designed, or well or poorly emblazoned; unless the design or emblazonment includes some features inconsistent with national law, custom or norms.  Even an inappropriate design may be wonderful eye candy, just out of place; and an unappealing design may not actually violate any applicable national norms or customs.)

So much for the world view.  Turning specifically to America, what are the applicable laws, customs and norms?  First, as in most of the world, there are nearly no statutory laws directly addressing personal heraldry, other than the relatively rare cases where trademark, copyright, or fraud laws may apply, so not particularly relevant to the question.  But other laws, though not adopted with heraldry in mind, may apply - e.g. our laws re: adoption, legitimacy, gender and other types of equality, names and change of names, citizenship, etc., which should also set the American norms for related heraldic issues, whether or not other countries treat the same issues differently in their laws or heraldic practices.

Second, as Joe and others have discussed here and elsewhere over the years, American heraldry is not a blank slate - there is a long history from early colonial times, and continued before and after Independence.  Largely borrowed from English and other European sources (like our laws and political traditions generally) but pruned, adapted and modified to meet local conditions and norms (again, like our laws and traditions generally - keeping what was useful and dropping what was not).

To me, both the applicable American legal and political norms, and our heraldic history and customs, are reflected in the AHS Guidelines.  The Guidelines aren’t law, but they do present what we view as "best practices" in the context of our history, applicable laws, and national norms.  Some are same or similar to what prevails in some foreign nations, and different from other foreign nations. But while those similarities and differences are interesting academic "compare and contrast" exercises, they are ultimately no more than that - just like similar academic exercises in any other field of law, politics, customs and other norms.

And to me at least, they define (or better, set the sideboards) for what should be considered American arms.

Wilfred Leblanc;105018 wrote:

I’m not sure what you mean by "fair." I expect historians to be truthful and accurate.

So do I.  I don’t expect them to be perfect.  And I don’t accuse them of bad faith just because they’re wrong.  (I take the term "bucket shop" to imply bad faith.)

Quote:

At any rate, I am talking about the main compilations, and I don’t think the phrasing "often operating a version of bucket shops" is misleading when you look at the aggregate.

But you’re not looking at the aggregate.  You’re looking at isolated examples, and in some of them you’re merely asserting, not demonstrating, that Crozier was wrong.  He often was, and he was clearly credulous, but we can’t simply assume he was wrong just because we don’t know where to find the evidence today.

Quote:

But I think it’s equally possible (dare I say "more likely"?) that in the pedigree arms race of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the golden age of lineage-society founding, Crozier took approaches to gathering evidence that he knew lacked integrity, ...

I suppose you can assume this if you like.  Are you aware of any allegations or evidence that this was the case?  I’m not, but if there is reason to doubt Crozier’s bona fides and not just his scholarly standards, I’d like to know it.  Insufficiently critical, yes, but for most of the egregious errors that I’ve found in Virginia Heraldica, I can trace the mistake or fabrication to someone other than Crozier.

Quote:

And as you suggest, even when the family heirlooms were real, what was the actual origin of the family’s armorial pretension? An 18th c. coach painter in Boston or Williamsburg playing the same sort of game as Crozier and company? Perhaps the origins of the pretension are not important if the family actually goes on to establish ancient use.

It depends on what the coach painter painted and when he painted it.  Those who belittle the Gore Roll of Arms (a coach painter’s collection) usually do so not because the arms are pirated "arms of the name"—which is what a bucket shop sells—but because they don’t appear in the records of the College of Arms.  Hardly surprising since the visitations were still going on when most of the families in the Gore Roll arrived in New England.  Yes, I believe actual use of non-pirated arms establishes a prescriptive right to them.

Quote:

Anyway, when I say "bucket shops," I really don’t think I’m wide of the mark. What do you want to bet that even when editions of the other major compilations did not include the sort of advertisement one finds in Crozier’s General Armory, one was inserted with every order as a supplement?

The offer to sell prints of arms in a collection doesn’t strike me as compelling evidence that the collection itself lacks integrity.  The College of Arms will sell you or me an emblazonment of arms to which neither of us personally has a claim, duly labelled as the armorial bearings of so-and-so.

Wilfred Leblanc;105019 wrote:

What do you mean when you say "in the habit of doing things differently"? I assume you mean a habit that is valid, respectable, long-established, and an organic extension of something that went on previously and elsewhere, but what exactly are you referring to?

For one thing, tending to retain marks of cadency that were on the arms used by the first immigrant but not differencing beyond that.  For another, displaying women’s arms with crests and mottoes.  For a third, frequently quartering the arms of maternal lines when the women through whom they passed weren’t heraldic heiresses.  For a fourth, permitting armorial assumption.

Quote:

And again, what exactly is it that makes a coat of arms American?

The same thing that makes a coat of arms Italian, Portuguese, or Greek, mutatis mutandis.

Joseph McMillan;105022 wrote:

For one thing, tending to retain marks of cadency that were on the arms used by the first immigrant but not differencing beyond that.  For another, displaying women’s arms with crests and mottoes.  For a third, frequently quartering the arms of maternal lines when the women through whom they passed weren’t heraldic heiresses.  For a fourth, permitting armorial assumption.

I thought you were referring to something that completely escaped me. Certainly, I am cognizant of the differences you mention, but in the case of the first and the third, my perception has been that they were, in the first place, a function of naivete born of isolation, and that the data set isn’t clearly sufficient to yield a generalization that they are traditions (I mean, is it really safe to describe heraldry itself as "traditional" for individuals in the U.S.?). I will defer to you completely on the subject of American norms for women’s arms. In the case of the fourth, I’m not sure "permitting" is the right word when there’s no one to ask permission from, but I won’t quibble.

Quote:

The same thing that makes a coat of arms Italian, Portuguese, or Greek, mutatis mutandis.

But "the necessary changes having been made" still leaves a lot of ambiguity. Do you simply mean that if arms are borne by an American, the arms are American?

Joseph McMillan;105021 wrote:

So do I. I don’t expect them to be perfect.  And I don’t accuse them of bad faith just because they’re wrong.  (I take the term "bucket shop" to imply bad faith.)

In the context of ca. 1900, I might concede that the bar I set for "bad faith" is low, but from the standpoint of 2015, the whole enterprise—the armorials, the sudden proliferation of lineage societies—seems to me actuated by less than entirely elevated instincts. It’s hard not to sense that a certain smug, superior, defensive something around forming a contrast to Emma Lazarus’ "huddled masses, yearning to be free" is being pandered to for commercial gain. Not that a legitimate, wholesome desire to celebrate heritage wasn’t a dimension of it, but I have a hard time accepting that that was the principal motive. I realize that these things can be interrelated, of course.

Quote:

But you’re not looking at the aggregate.  You’re looking at isolated examples, and in some of them you’re merely asserting, not demonstrating, that Crozier was wrong.  He often was, and he was clearly credulous, but we can’t simply assume he was wrong just because we don’t know where to find the evidence today.

Well, I’m not sure I’m even going to so far as to assert anything. Rather, I’m speculating openly based on patterns I’ve observed in research on my own family. But I would be very surprised to find that my experience is unique.

Quote:

Insufficiently critical, yes, but for most of the egregious errors that I’ve found in Virginia Heraldica, I can trace the mistake or fabrication to someone other than Crozier.

I think that’s letting him off the hook too lightly.

Quote:

The offer to sell prints of arms in a collection doesn’t strike me as compelling evidence that the collection itself lacks integrity.  The College of Arms will sell you or me an emblazonment of arms to which neither of us personally has a claim, duly labelled as the armorial bearings of so-and-so.

The offer, in itself, doesn’t strike me that way, either. But the main compilations of American heraldry from ca. 1900 and the College of Arms are not analogous.

I actually have looked very carefully at all of Virginia Heraldica, and as my comments should make clear, I’m not at all impressed.  Lots of sloppiness, a fair amount of gullibility.  But no evidence that I can see that Crozier was complicit in intentional misrepresentation, and I’ve been able to confirm from examination of tombstones and seals and photographs of silver the majority of the arms he reported.  Of course, it should be more than a majority (I haven’t got a current count of numbers of good and bad), but if he was running a pure bucket shop, I’d expect to find a larger proportion of questionable entries.

The genealogies are somewhat more reliable than the heraldry; not completely, but usually consistent with the state of the art of the time.  A few fabrications, of course, that fooled more people than just Crozier, and some links that have subsequently been disproven.

By the way, I appreciate your pointing out the Lamar case.  A little digging seems to point toward the arms having come from people indulging in fantasy genealogy, including a Baltimore Sun article on which Crozier obviously relied that has a drawing in what is clearly a late 19th century style (and which shows two lions rampant guardant in pale—not quite an absurdity, but almost), not passant guardant.  I’m going to edit my draft entry on these arms to delete the emblazonment and express skepticism about their authenticity.

Joseph McMillan;105029 wrote:

By the way, I appreciate your pointing out the Lamar case.  A little digging seems to point toward the arms having come from people indulging in fantasy genealogy, including a Baltimore Sun article on which Crozier obviously relied that has a drawing in what is clearly a late 19th century style (and which shows two lions rampant guardant in pale—not quite an absurdity, but almost), not passant guardant.  I’m going to edit my draft entry on these arms to delete the emblazonment and express skepticism about their authenticity.

My pleasure. I think I’ve seen the Lamar materials you’re referring to. It’s a little off topic, but I’ll add that the fantasy genealogy seems to have extended to the longstanding but recently rebutted assumption that the Lamars were Huguenots. The immigrant Thomas Lamar’s will seems to show that he left money to a Jesuit active in southern Maryland, and no one has come up with a convincing enough explanation to get the Huguenot Society of SC to continue accepting members on the basis of Lamar descent. These days, I doubt anyone has too big a dog in that fight, but 100 years ago, members of my family would’ve (to crib some language from J. D. Salinger) had a few aneurysms apiece over it.

Mainly, this sort of thing makes me feel bad for those who felt their families’ many great, genuine accomplishments were simply not enough—that they weren’t fine just the way they were—and had to go engaging in fantasy genealogy to get right with the world. What on earth did the Lamars, for instance, have to feel inadequate about? But clearly, it was an epidemic.

Fred asked Joe, "do you simply mean that if arms are borne by an American, the arms are American?"

I spent (too) many words answering this question from my perspective in #150 above.  Hopefully Joe will expand on his "mutatis mutandi" for those of us whose Latin is limited to "caveat emptor"  - whether or not, or to what degree, Joe buys my views, I suspect it’s a bit more than Fred’s question (or straw man) might imply

I meant precisely "changing what needs to be changed."  Substitute the word "American" for "Italian, Spanish, Portuguese."  Heraldry used by Americans in the present-day USA according to the customs prevailing here.

Defining those customs may be difficult and complex.  That’s the nature of the society.  It’s an analytical challenge, but no different in kind from discerning what is common vs. what is distinctive among various regional, class, religious, and ethnic subcultures in any society.

Wilfred Leblanc;105014 wrote:

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.

The Pattillos (there are a number of variant spellings and the original was probably Pittulloch) were certainly bearing arms well before any late 19th or early 20th century bucket shops.

I have uploaded the image of the St Andrew’s University archery medal of John Patullo of Balhoussie (probably Balhousie in Angus, but possibly Balhousie in Fife) together with the accompanying text. This is from the Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland (Volume 28, 1893-94 pp 398-399).

The main elements of the arms are similar - I cannot see enough of the "hagiography" to know what was said about the arms described in it. I wonder if the tree became a hand and rose due to imaginative over-interpretation of a seal or worn monument.

I don’t know if any member of the family has matriculated arms in Lyon Register, but it is likely that Lyon, absent any matriculations would consider the archery medal a fairly sound basis for the Patillo design "concept".

It is worth noting that the medals did not always show accurate heraldry (the medal of George Dempster of Dunnichen shows the arms of Dempster of Pitliver - missing out the Dunnichen cadency bordure and using the Pitliver crest and motto). However, they are not so inaccurate as to invent arms (unlike the bucket shops).

http://www.americanheraldry.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=29&pictureid=2198

http://www.americanheraldry.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=29&pictureid=2199

James

Thanks for the input, James. Perhaps if the "Roll of Early American Arms" is down by a Lamar, it’s up by a Pattillo! I remain skeptical of the story presented in Men Of Mark In Georgia and elsewhere, but this might be a situation like ones Joe refers to—a situation where we should be slow to infer bad motives from excessive credulity and poor research. That said, if the family was originally armigerous, it would seem they forgot all about that until the fashion of ca. 1900, at which time some genealogist or another helped them remember "Et decerpta dat odorem" and so forth.

I find myself wondering, for how many generations does the use of arms have to be in abeyance before speaking of "tradition" becomes inappropriate? I guess you never, without a positive legal renunciation (in a place with laws governing heraldry and laws that specifically provide for renunciation), can be said to have permanently alienated the right to a coat of arms you’ve inherited, but if, in starting over from scratch in North America and developing this novel identity of being an American—vice a Scot, etc.—you find no place for bearing arms in your life, it raises questions. Does the moment eventually pass, once and for all? Perhaps it’s for any given generation to decide, but perhaps the passage of enough generations can make one feel ambivalent, at best, about rehabilitating such traditions. The sense I get from works like Men of Mark is that there’s a durable, general sense in the U.S. that arms comport well with some lifestyles (being president of a bank, for instance) and not so well with others (being a non-conforming pioneer in the wilds of Virginia, for instance).

Anyway, I’m sure my grandmother would be pleased to see these materials relating to her father’s kin. For what it’s worth, Pattillos of her generation (1916-1992) did not buy in to the fantasy of French origins and understood that the original ending of the family name was -loch.

Very interesting.  I knew some Pattillos growing up and always assumed the name was Italian.  Now that would have horrified Fred’s Georgia grandmother for sure!

On the "revival" of ancestral arms, I don’t think we need to be more holier than the Pope, or in this case more scrupulous than Lord Lyon or the College of Arms.  If honest, serious, objective, proven genealogy establishes to a reasonable level of certainty that we have a hereditary right to a coat of arms, then we are free to use it.  Or not, just as someone whose father got a brand new grant of arms is free not to use it.  It’s not like land, that you can lose through someone else’s adverse possession.

(As to standard of proof, the gentlemen who set the NEHGS Committee on Heraldry on the right path circa 1914 suggested the same standard that would be required to establish title to any other form of property—clear and convincing but not necessarily "beyond a reasonable doubt."  Certainly not "beyond the shadow of a doubt.")

No Pattillos in Lyon Register up till 1972, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Sir Bruce Pattullo, Governor of the Bank of Scotland 1991-98, wasn’t armigerous.

James