Steven, something similar to what you outlined is in fact the official usage north of us in Canada.
I want to clarify that I do not suggest any changes in the AHS with regard to supporters (it’s clear to me that in the English speaking world supporters have in fact come to suggest a certain rank), I only believe that although not best practice it is "allowable"; of course, you may be right that there might need to be some criteria for when the use of supporters would be deemed in good taste, even outside the AHS. I doubt most of us in the AHS would ever be able to agree to such a list.
Since there are no arms at the national level that use supporters, I’m not sure even the President should use them. Though I do like the US Coat of Arms and its placement of the eagle behind the shield (sorry that I don’t know the correct terminology), sort of reminiscent of the Holy Roman Empire’s double-headed eagle behind its shield.
However; in the rare case of a US Citizen nominally inheriting a title of nobility from a foreign country with arms and supporters, I think he should use supporters in his display of arms since the arms and supporters have historical relevance. Do I think they mean anything in the US?—no. Should he go around calling himself lord/sir so-and-so?—no. So it does absolutely no harm for him to use them.
Of course, where the AHS is concerned, rules are rules and I think those should of course be observed while one is here. That goes without saying.
steven harris;105651 wrote:
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.
I believe the stance of the General Society, the umbrella organization for the fourteen constituent societies of the SoC, is that it just isn’t interested in getting mixed up in any discussion about heraldry, so I can’t imagine it even offering an opinion on whether a person’s status as a member would, in itself, justify his using supporters. Answering the question would probably fall to the executive director, and I’m pretty sure he would shrug or roll his eyes and direct the inquirer to an entity qualified to judge such things. The only question about heraldry I’ve ever posed to the General Society had to do with whether or not it is permissible for members to depend the Cincinnati eagle from a shield in emblazonments so as to suggest that it is the equivalent of an order of chivalry. "Tolerated but not endorsed" pretty well captures the response I got, and the sense was that if someone really forced the issue (a cringe-worthy situation all would prefer to avoid, I imagine), the Society would actually discourage or forbid it and take the occasion to officially deny being anything more than a fraternal and educational organization.
Now, what any of the constituent societies (France, Rhode Island, etc.) would say about members’ heraldic prerogatives might be another thing entirely. There are some not-insignificant differences among them, both in policy and culture. Not all would necessarily concede the General Society’s jurisdiction over matters like the ones under discussion, and in general, the Society is a states’ rights sort of organization, so if members who are serious heraldry enthusiasts (there certainly are a few that I’m aware of, and I wouldn’t be shocked if one or another had entertained the idea of producing a members’ armorial) were insistent about this or that prerogative, they might be left alone in the end, but I think the law is on the side of the General Society in controlling, for instance, how the eagle can be displayed.
JJB;105654 wrote:
Since there are no arms at the national level that use supporters, I’m not sure even the President should use them. Though I do like the US Coat of Arms and its placement of the eagle behind the shield (sorry that I don’t know the correct terminology), sort of reminiscent of the Holy Roman Empire’s double-headed eagle behind its shield.
It’s a supporter. (See Charles Thomson’s explanation of the arms, submitted with the report of the committee that designed them: "The escutcheon is borne on the breast of an American Eagle without any other supporters [emphasis added].")
Quote:
However; in the rare case of a US Citizen nominally inheriting a title of nobility from a foreign country with arms and supporters, I think he should use supporters in his display of arms since the arms and supporters have historical relevance. Do I think they mean anything in the US?—no. Should he go around calling himself lord/sir so-and-so?—no. So it does absolutely no harm for him to use them.
But if he isn’t going to call himself "lord," why would he use heraldic additaments that are the graphic equivalent of "lord"? What about the coronet of rank that would typically go with the supporters?
JJB;105654 wrote:
. . . in the rare case of a US Citizen nominally inheriting a title of nobility from a foreign country with arms and supporters, I think he should use supporters in his display of arms since the arms and supporters have historical relevance. Do I think they mean anything in the US?—no. Should he go around calling himself lord/sir so-and-so?—no. So it does absolutely no harm for him to use them.
This captures my point of view exactly.
Luis Cid;105650 wrote:
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.
Luis, just to be clear, I have an academic interest in the question of whether there are circumstances under which it’s appropriate for Americans to use supporters, but I’ve long since accepted that assuming them is what we might call bad form, so I wouldn’t do so myself. Sure, my direct male line is French, so I suppose I could rationalize it on that basis, but regardless of whether or not there are any particular connotations of supporters in French heraldry, the historic norm among nobles and commoners alike seems to have been to use only a shield (and a helm or coronet of rank where appropriate, although as Francois Velde tells it, the French were none too vigilant in suppressing false claims of nobility, such that many used coronets who were not entitled to them).
Quote:
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?)
At least two US ambassadors (Winthrop Aldrich [1885-1974] and William Eagleton [1926-2011]) used supporters with their coats of arms.
snelson;105659 wrote:
At least two US ambassadors (Winthrop Aldrich [1885-1974] and William Eagleton [1926-2011]) used supporters with their coats of arms.
Assumed or granted? Ancient use?
Joseph McMillan;105656 wrote:
It’s a supporter. (See Charles Thomson’s explanation of the arms, submitted with the report of the committee that designed them: "The escutcheon is borne on the breast of an American Eagle without any other supporters [emphasis added].")
Oh, nice.
But if he isn’t going to call himself "lord," why would he use heraldic additaments that are the graphic equivalent of "lord"? What about the coronet of rank that would typically go with the supporters?
I don’t know…I’m really just talking about the subtle display of arms. I think he should keep the coronet if it’s part of the achievement. He can refer to himself as "titular such-and-such" when he writes his memoir or responds to related inquiries from distant family or has a Wikipedia article about himself. I guess I wouldn’t be bothered by it if a US Citizen happens to also be a noble in another country.
Quote:
Quote:
At least two US ambassadors (Winthrop Aldrich [1885-1974] and William Eagleton [1926-2011]) used supporters with their coats of arms.
Assumed or granted? Ancient use?
Ambassador Aldrich received a grant of honorary arms, crest and supporters from the College of Arms in 1956 (he was an honorary Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire). I think Ambassador Eagleton’s supporters may have been assumed…I don’t think they were inherited, since his arms were granted by the College of Arms in 1994.
Wilfred Leblanc;105658 wrote:
Luis, just to be clear, I have an academic interest in the question of whether there are circumstances under which it’s appropriate for Americans to use supporters, but I’ve long since accepted that assuming them is what we might call bad form, so I wouldn’t do so myself. Sure, my direct male line is French, so I suppose I could rationalize it on that basis, but regardless of whether or not there are any particular connotations of supporters in French heraldry, the historic norm among nobles and commoners alike seems to have been to use only a shield (and a helm or coronet of rank where appropriate, although as Francois Velde tells it, the French were none too vigilant in suppressing false claims of nobility, such that many used coronets who were not entitled to them).
Fred, thanks for the clarification; I generally agree with you on this as a matter of good taste. Although I believe it’s certainly allowable for Americans to assume or be granted supporters, the use of inherited supporters would be more than merely allowable if they were inherited from ancestors in nations such as Holland or France where they do not have nobiliary connotations. Not so with coronets.
snelson;105662 wrote:
Ambassador Aldrich received a grant of honorary arms, crest and supporters from the College of Arms in 1956 (he was an honorary Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire). I think Ambassador Eagleton’s supporters may have been assumed…I don’t think they were inherited, since his arms were granted by the College of Arms in 1994.
Cool find Seb! Thanks.
So how do we incorporate examples such as these, or devisals from the COA, into our understanding of American heraldry? It seems the preference here is for assumption, but foreign grants seem to be a solid chunk of the arms that Americans bear.
Is this American heraldry? Is it English heraldry? If two ambassadors, two presidents, and a Secretary of State have foreign grants, couldn’t one argue that this is the model American practice, particularly in the absence of assumption by public figures?
Is there any notable public figure besides Reagan (on the second go-around) that has assumed arms?
snelson;105662 wrote:
Ambassador Aldrich received a grant of honorary arms, crest and supporters from the College of Arms in 1956 (he was an honorary Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire). I think Ambassador Eagleton’s supporters may have been assumed…I don’t think they were inherited, since his arms were granted by the College of Arms in 1994.
Here is an image of Ambassador Aldrich’s arms from Debrett’s Guide to Heraldry and Regalia (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/26893774):
http://heraldryjunkyard.tumblr.com/image/141232874737
Here is an image of Ambassador Eagleton’s arms from the Heraldic Register of America, Vol. 8, published the American College of Heraldry in 1997 (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/165726135):
http://heraldryjunkyard.tumblr.com/image/141232907222
...and here is a video of Ambassador Aldrich at the ceremonial installation of the gates surrounding the College of Arms in the 1950s: http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//RTV/1956/05/28/BGU502060055/?s=*
snelson;105670 wrote:
Here is an image of Ambassador Eagleton’s arms from the Heraldic Register of America, Vol. 8, published the American College of Heraldry in 1997
The implication of the explanatory text beneath the emblazonment is that the supporters were part of the grant, correct?