Social Standing and the Right to Bear Arms

 
liongam
 
Avatar
 
 
liongam
Total Posts:  343
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
18 March 2016 04:24
 

Dear Fred,

Looking at the honours bestowed on Ambassador Eagleton I would say that although he was granted arms, crest and a device or badge in 1994 under the seal of the then Garter King of Arms, Sir Conrad Swan the only British honour he held was membership of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem at the time of the printing of his entry in the Heraldic Register of America (Vol Eight) he is stated as being a Knight of Justice of the Order.  This would certainly not qualify him to have supporters for life.  So the only conclusion is that they were assumed.  Perhaps they were attached to one of his other honorific memberships?

 

I recall that the ambassador had dealings with Sir Conrad Swan at the time as I was working for Sir Conrad in Garter House at during that period but I cannot now remember any specifics after elapse of some 22 years.

 

With every good wish

 

John

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
18 March 2016 09:17
 

For what it’s worth, there was a time when the ACH got itself entangled with a variety of dodgy and semi-dodgy "princes" and "orders" and wound up registering sundry coronets, supporters, and other trappings of the supposed nobility that was claimed by members of these groups.  The date John gives for Eagleton’s registration would have been near the tail end (and therefore around the peak period) of this era.

I don’t know if Eagleton was part of this business or not, but a lot of prominent people afflicted with Ordenshunger were taken in.  Some still refuse to accept that it was all a scam.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
18 March 2016 12:09
 

Luis Cid;105664 wrote:

. . . Not so with coronets.


I assume you strictly mean coronets of rank, but no, of course not.

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
18 March 2016 13:11
 

Yes Fred, strictly coronets of rank.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
19 March 2016 05:45
 

I start with two key principles- first, the principal function of heraldry is identification - a visual statement of identity.  A practice that does not foster that principle is, to use the technical term, a Bad Thing.

Second, any nation"s heraldic practices are constrained by that nation’s laws and norms.  Even where those laws and norms don’t specifically address heraldry (which is largely the case most places) the spirit of those laws and norms are still controlling - in heraldry as in everything else not specifically addressed in law.

 

Combining those two principles, any heraldic practices at odds with the letter or spirit of a nation’s laws and norms fail to properly identify the nationality of those using arms, and thus do not belong in that nation’s heraldry, however well they may fit some other nation’s laws, norms, and heraldic practices or how much some might personally like them.

 

Focusing on America, our laws, norms, and social values differ in varying degrees from those of other nations; and thus our heraldic practices must also differ.  Foreign practices, however appropriate there, are only appropriate here if, and only to the degree, that they are compatible with American laws and norms; and including them in American arms failsthe primary function of indicating or reflecting national identity.

 

Most of our roots go back to one or more foreign nations; but English-Americans or German-Americans or Irish- or Dutch- or French- etc. Americans are not English or Germans or Irish or Dutch or French or etc. - we are Americans, period.  And heraldic practices borrowed from any of those root cultures, however artistically or emotionally attractive to some here, are appropriate only if, and only to the extent, that they would be appropriate here if the particular root nation had never existed.  Doesn’t mean that many or even most of our root culture(s), heraldic or otherwise, are unwelcome; but they are secondary and must yield to American norms, or they will only be telling lies about who and what we are.

 

And one American norm is that "all men are created equal" - originally limited by race, gender, income or property, but evolving to now include all of us.  While we may (or may not) take pride in our ancestry, we have no fixed legal caste system, no noblesse, and no special privilege based on where our roots came from.

 

Thus commonly recognized symbols of nobility, including supporters, coronets, and those helmets generally indicating nobility ( titled or untitled) or rank (e.g. knighthood) are inappropriate because they visually suggest (or more bluntly, tell lies) about who and what we are.

 

Even for those whose roots are e.g. Dutch or other places where supporters and/or fancy helmets don’t indicate noblesse, those roots don’t justify those trappings here.  First, even if not nobiliary in e.g. the Netherlands, they will be seen as such because in most places they are nobiliary, and "that’s not what I intended" rings hollow - they will imply a claim of exalted status to most who see them, and the one using them would have to be an heraldic ignoramus not to know that.  Second, allowing supporters etc. for some, and denying them to others, based on one’s roots, is essentially discrimination on the basis of national origin.  And third, damn it, while you may be Dutch-Anerican by descent, you’re not Dutch! - you’re American.  That is your national identity, for which you or your Dutch (or whatever) ancestors left home, crossed an ocean, and took the citizenship oath to gain (including, where applicable, renouncing any foreign noble title or status).  Heraldic trappings that suggest a different and incompatible national identity fail the primary purpose or function of arms.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
19 March 2016 08:23
 

Michael F. McCartney;105678 wrote:

I start with two key principles ... [etc., all the way to- first, the principal function of heraldry is identification - a visual statement of identity.  A practice that does not foster that ]...  function of arms.


What oft was thought (by some of us, anyway) but ne’er so well expressed.

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
23 March 2016 12:39
 

Michael F. McCartney;105716 wrote:

But Fred’s last posting does (to me at least) suggest questions re: augmentations generally - or at least "on-shield" augmentations and/or new/additional crests_ in the American small-r republican context.

(Gongs, collars, supporters and coronets have been and still are subjects addressed elsewhere, but I don’t recall much discussion of goodies added to the shield of existing arms by or on behalf of a sovereign "fons honorum", or similar additions from non-sovereign groups or Orders, or self-assumed in imitation of augmentations.)

 

Examples that come to mind would include the use, here, of the inescutcheons or cantons of Baronets, or some/all? of the standardized cantons of Napoleonic heraldry; but there may be more.

 

If there is sufficient interest in this topic, perhaps the Moderators or others will move this to a new thread?  I would but don’t know how (one of the diseases of advancing age, " old dog/new tricks-itis")


Mike, I agree, this would be an interesting topic for a new thread - though I also don’t know how to do that.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
23 March 2016 16:02
 

Luis:

To open a new thread, go to the main forums index page.

Click the name of the forum in which you think the subject you want to discuss best belongs.

On the next screen, you’ll see an icon in the upper left part of the screen entitled "New Thread."  Click that.

And you’ll get a page for you to give the thread a title and make the first post.

 

I’d been thinking about moving the posts in this thread to a new thread entitled "What makes a coat of arms ‘American?’"  So I’ll go ahead and do that now.

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
23 March 2016 16:31
 

Thanks Joe!

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
23 March 2016 21:52
 

Ditto!

 
mghofer
 
Avatar
 
 
mghofer
Total Posts:  46
Joined  14-09-2014
 
 
 
24 March 2016 17:53
 

steven harris;105651 wrote:

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?)


I generally find the use of supporters in the U.S. distasteful. However, I would leave off the JCS. If having high military office were sufficient, then GO-FO rand (General Officer, Flag Officer; i.e. Generals and Admirals of any number of stars) would be enough.  If more limiting, then 3&4 stars.

 

When it comes to Justices, I would extend it down to the Circuit Courts of Appeals.

 

Again, the answer of "No supporters" is far easier, and more republican, IMHO.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
24 March 2016 22:18
 

Strongly concur.  AFAIK, from the info posted by Joe in the Arms of Famous Americans series linked to the AHS home page, no President of the US, beginning with GW, has ever used supporters; and I vaguely recall that of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence who had arms (roughly 1/2 of the Signers IIRC) only one used supporters,& unclear if that was before or after Independence.  Given that 200+ years of history, adoption or use of supporters by anyone on this list - or anyone else here - would be the height of presumption.

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
04 April 2016 08:32
 

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.


(I’ve only read this far - so, if this is said later in the thread, my apologies).  Since Ambassador Aldrich’s appear to be granted from a foreign government and not US arms, I’m unsure they should be considered in the guidelines for US arms other than a consideration that if one wishes to use their arms as granted by a foreign authority, that’s OK with us.

Ambassador Eagleton, on the other hand—using his grant from outside authority may be OK, but adding supporters, although allowable in the US, may not be considered "best practice".

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
04 April 2016 15:12
 

Nice to see Kathy back in our discussions!

I agree that whatever may be granted by a foreign state, while it may be of academic interest, doesn’t determine what is or isn’t appropriate here - both because it was granted under their rules, and because the numbers far too small to constitute a general American practice.  Also, foreign grants (confirmations, matriculations, registrations etc.) come from several places, each with their own rules; and those rules have varied over time…

 

Of interest in this regard would be Sir Crispin Agnew’s essay on heraldic jurisdiction, concluding that no nation’s heraldic jurisdiction or authority applies outside that nation except where another nation chooses to allow.  (Hopefully SKS can post the link)

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
04 April 2016 15:45
 

Thanks Mike, Agnew’s essay would be very interesting to read - hope we can get that link.  Very true - the part about the rules varying over time - so true.  Heraldry does not stand still, here or elsewhere.  Though I would say that in states that rely on customary use, such as the U.S., heraldry would tend to vary less as customary use by nature is conservative while, for example the Candadian Heraldic Authority can and has made big changes to heraldic practice in Canada in the course of it’s first few years of operation (principally female inheritance).