JJB;105597 wrote:

Where heraldry goes, I think guys just have their hobbies and interests. Some are interested in heraldry and some aren’t. I think most people in countries where heraldry is institutionalized will say the same thing.

This is certainly the practical and gracious attitude to take about it beyond the confines of this discussion.

JJB;105597 wrote:

Those who probably ought not practice heraldry aren’t going to be interested in bookplates or anything like that and so probably won’t give it a second thought.

I’m not so sure about that, but again, I don’t mean to say that anyone besides the pretentious fool himself is much harmed by an injudicious use of heraldry.

Luis Cid;105600 wrote:

Fred, when I replied to your post explaining the definition of a culture of honor I simply accepted the short line you quoted from Wikipedia without reading the article.  I have since read the Wikipedia articles on Southern culture of honor as well as another on "honor cultures" in different parts of the world and must state that this is not what I had in mind!  I do not find anything about such "honor culture" to be admired.  It is a social code for primitive societies and those living on the rough edges of advanced societies.  None of the individuals I had in mind would ever associate with such codes of conduct - nor would I.

Luis, I hope I’ve made it clear that you had me right the first time.

Joseph McMillan;105596 wrote:

Over the last 100 years, most Americans probably would have considered that the Boy Scouts taught the kind of values that "gentlemen" ought to live by.

Your riff on Dumas is a hoot.

I was under the impression that this was very much Baden-Powell’s agenda in the first place.

JJB;105577 wrote:

As a comparison, I sometimes see on the gates outside of certain homes or ranch properties the owner’s initials or monograms. To my mind, putting initials or monograms on a gate or napkin or anything for show is far-more arrogant than a coat of arms. Letter "symbols" are literal. They beat the viewer over the head with a point of saying exactly who one is. They might imply that the name is everything. The heraldic achievement is an ambiguous bit of (to borrow Michael’s term) eye candy related to a family. It is artwork that could be reminiscent of a name, history, interests or anything. But mostly it’s just interesting and nice to look at.

Didn’t mean to let this fall through the cracks.

I think seeing monograms and ciphers as more bluntly egocentric and self-aggrandizing than a coat of arms is logical, in a way, but I don’t think this is how it really plays out, because the coat of arms will seem to claim distinction not just for the individual but for his family tree as well. The monogram says the individual has arrived. The coat of arms says that the armiger is someone who had arrived many centuries anterior to his actual birth.

Wilfred Leblanc;105614 wrote:

Didn’t mean to let this fall through the cracks.

I think seeing monograms and ciphers as more bluntly egocentric and self-aggrandizing than a coat of arms is logical, in a way, but I don’t think this is how it really plays out, because the coat of arms will seem to claim distinction not just for the individual but for his family tree as well. The monogram says the individual has arrived. The coat of arms says that the armiger is someone who had arrived many centuries anterior to his actual birth.

I can’t deny that and I think we’re generally in agreement.

Luis Cid;105598 wrote:

I loved that list Joe—made me laugh out loud!

You know, I think for me the funniest part is where helpful and clean are crossed out with Porthos offering no explanation!

A monogram, which could refer to anyone with the same initials, seems to me less informative than a coat of arms which at least identifies a particular person or family.

But in a society in which anyone and everyone can, whether or not we approve, assume and display arms, it seems to me a bit far- fetched to perceive arms as necessarily implying or claiming exalted ancestry.  At most, it may be shared by a large extended family with a common ancestor, but all it necessarily says about that ancestor is that he had surviving offspring; but not whether he owned vast acres or a prosperous business, or labored in someone else’s fields or sweatshop.

Basically, in a society in which anyone and everyone can assume arms if they wish, arms cannot indicate any particular status beyond membership (citizenship or resident alien) in that society, however much some might wish otherwise.  And that’s fine with me!

Michael F. McCartney;105619 wrote:

But in a society in which anyone and everyone can, whether or not we approve, assume and display arms, it seems to me a bit far- fetched to perceive arms as necessarily implying or claiming exalted ancestry.  At most, it may be shared by a large extended family with a common ancestor, but all it necessarily says about that ancestor is that he had surviving offspring; but not whether he owned vast acres or a prosperous business, or labored in someone else’s fields or sweatshop.

Basically, in a society in which anyone and everyone can assume arms if they wish, arms cannot indicate any particular status beyond membership (citizenship or resident alien) in that society, however much some might wish otherwise.  And that’s fine with me!

Mike, I think we can make a helpful analogy to all the Harvard paraphernalia sported by people with no connection to the school. All a Harvard sweatshirt necessarily says about the wearer is that he or someone in his life had the modest means necessary to acquire it, but in practice, it says something quite a bit more—something aspirational, something desperate, something misleading—and it’s a painful thing to behold because God help the poor soul when someone who isn’t in a particularly charitable frame of mind confronts him with the awkward question of when he attended Harvard.

Of course, you are right in a technical, legal sense, when you say that "everyone can . . . assume and display arms," but I think this just takes us back to St. Paul and permissible vs. advisable.

In no way, moreover, does a coat of arms signify citizenship in the United States. Except in the event that it’s a relatively new assumption laden with stars, stripes, and bald eagles, it makes no comment on U.S. citizenship at all and will generally be taken as homage to ancestors from Europe who predated the United States, and I really don’t think it will typically enter the viewer’s mind that the original bearer of the arms might have labored in a sweatshop. That isn’t at all the kind of association it is meant to conjure up or typically does conjure up.

Michael F. McCartney;105619 wrote:

A monogram, which could refer to anyone with the same initials, seems to me less informative than a coat of arms which at least identifies a particular person or family.

Another thing about monograms is that they actually have a way of rendering awkward, once they’re handed down, things that might otherwise be nice heirlooms (silver, namely). Unless the bearer of the monogram was truly historical and had an immediately recognizable, celebrated monogram (FDR or JFK, for instance), heraldic symbols would seem to make intergenerational transfer somewhat easier, and often be a good deal more interesting to look at besides.

Clive Cheesman (Richmond Herald) had an article in The Coat of Arms a couple of years ago called (as I remember) "The Death of Heraldry,"*** in which he describes the 17th-18th century trend away from hereditary heraldry and toward emblems more expressive of individual identity.  These included allegorical imprese as well as monograms.  Even George Washington, who used heraldry so extensively, had his initials rather than his arms painted on his dinner china.

I’ve also run across a number of cases during this period, including Washington, where private gentlemen paired their monograms and crests on seals, carriages, and in other settings.

__________

*** Wrong:  "Some Aspects of ‘The Crisis of Heraldry.’"

Wilfred Leblanc;105604 wrote:

Luis, I hope I’ve made it clear that you had me right the first time.

Fred, thank you for the further clarification and correction,  You’re right, we were both thinking along the lines of the code of conduct of honorable gentlemen in contemporary modern western societies.  Not intentionally giving offence and not accepting poor manners on the part of others is an important element, together with generosity of spirit and honesty.

Again I must state that an individual who lives by this code of conduct would not (and do not) have any qualms about using inherited arms publicly nor taking new arms - if that were not the case heraldry would not have flourished these last five centuries after heraldry had been divorced from it’s original military function.

Luis Cid;105626 wrote:

Again I must state that an individual who lives by this code of conduct would not (and do not) have any qualms about using inherited arms publicly nor taking new arms - if that were not the case heraldry would not have flourished these last five centuries after heraldry had been divorced from it’s original military function.

Luis, I agree with you up to a point, but such a person would certainly avoid being seen as putting on airs of any sort. He would be discerning enough to refrain from adopting a persona that’s inconsistent with his ordinary milieu, from doing anything to make those who may well be in some sense inferior feel inferior. There are all kinds of public uses of heraldry that wouldn’t be consistent with such a person’s mentality.

Of course there are "all kinds of public use of heraldry that would be inconsistent with…" etc.,—or more accurately, "many kinds"—but not "every kind".  And that’s true of many kinds of public display of nearly anything in life…heraldry being just one small subset of life, not some special case outside of the ups and downs that apply everywhere else in life.

The specifics may, and do, vary from society to society and over time - but again, in heraldry as in anything else in a given society, generally reflecting larger historical, social, legal, and/or cultural norms of a given society.

In our culture, there is a general preference for understatement - not that everyone has "gotten the message" (nothing is 100%, as our political debates amply demonstrate ) but those who haven’t are generally disdained as braggarts who think they are better than anyone else (did I mention thr debates?) which to most of us is a greater cultural sin here than in some other societies and cultures.

In the small subset of heraldry, that translates into recognizing that no bit of personal eye candy from whatever source, foreign or domestic, can impart any distinction beyond appreciation for the design and artistic quality of said eye candy.  And therefore avoiding heraldic excesses that generally suggest a claim or belief of personal or ancestral wonderfulness any greater than use of one’s surname would imply in general social or legal use.

Michael F. McCartney;105646 wrote:

Of course there are "all kinds of public use of heraldry that would be inconsistent with…" etc.,—or more accurately, "many kinds"—but not "every kind".  And that’s true of many kinds of public display of nearly anything in life…heraldry being just one small subset of life, not some special case outside of the ups and downs that apply everywhere else in life.

The specifics may, and do, vary from society to society and over time - but again, in heraldry as in anything else in a given society, generally reflecting larger historical, social, legal, and/or cultural norms of a given society.

 

In our culture, there is a general preference for understatement - not that everyone has "gotten the message" (nothing is 100%, as our political debates amply demonstrate ) but those who haven’t are generally disdained as braggarts who think they are better than anyone else (did I mention thr debates?) which to most of us is a greater cultural sin here than in some other societies and cultures.

 

In the small subset of heraldry, that translates into recognizing that no bit of personal eye candy from whatever source, foreign or domestic, can impart any distinction beyond appreciation for the design and artistic quality of said eye candy.  And therefore avoiding heraldic excesses that generally suggest a claim or belief of personal or ancestral wonderfulness any greater than use of one’s surname would imply in general social or legal use.

Mike - all of what you stated above seems perfectly reasonable to me.  Although supporters are not (and should not) be allowed on the AHS webpage, I do believe that if someone, possibly Fred, wanted to use them elsewhere, although maybe not considered by most of us in the AHS to be within "best practices" it is generally allowable in the USA (and should be allowable), since in places such as France and Holland (who have had colonial cultural influence here and we have many families of Dutch and French origen) supporters do not imply nobility and at the same time are not uncommon.  I would say the same for different types of helms (excepting possibly a gold barred helm) since in many places the attempts to link these to officially recognized ranks in the past was often ignored and are even given less importance today (in Spain, none).  Coronets are a very different matter as they always have and still do assert noble rank or office everywhere that heraldry is used.

While supporters may not universally imply nobility, I believe they do suggest some kind of high-office and have usually been used to differentiate the arms of their bearers.  If the AHS is going to open a bit and allow for some American use of supporters, it might be best to suggest some guidelines, rather than to just throw the floodgates open.

Without getting into a long litany, which is the risk here, I might suggest that supporters would be appropriate for use by holders of high office, assuming they are armigerous, such as:

‣ Presidents and Vice Presidents

‣ Justices of the Supreme Court

‣ Cabinet Secretaries

‣ Senators

‣ State Governors

‣ Members of the House of Representatives

‣ Joint Chiefs of Staff (maybe?)

The use of supporters here would all be for-life, since I would not think that hereditary anything, heraldic supporters included, would be a good practice to get into in the United States.

This is not to say that other groups could not use heraldic supporters among their members.  If, for example, the Society of the Cincinnati wanted to start recording or displaying the arms of their members with supports and encircled by the ribbon of their society, that would be just fine for internal use.  It would actually be rather nice if mindfully done…