It’s a tough one. In the forums I remember saying at some point that Britain and Europe are places with old cultural standards and traditions that many of their citizens (or political entities) today have either generally forgotten or tend to ignore. Whereas the US is a nation that has no cultural standards and no agreed-upon set of values. So we are all sort of left to invent our own or borrow some ideas from Britain or (more often than not) take cues from Hollywood films.

This may sound like I’m picking on America, but I’m really only stating a philosophic truth. A typical British person may know nothing about heraldry, correct dinner manners, peerages or anything related. But if he or she wanted to learn about them and follow the cultural standards of his country, he or she could at least fall back on the baseline that exists. To be fair I do prefer America’s way though, because it’s nice to be able to be whom you want within the confines of the law and not be fundamentally “incorrect” according to the wide-ranging standards of the culture.

The lifestyle norms of wealthy New York socialites, politically-centric Washingtonians, west-coast celebrities and certain corporate executives dotted throughout are profoundly different; though their influences on society are more-or-less equal. Middle America can just choose to follow the forms of whichever group it likes best. Of course things are different regionally as well. And there is always the backdrop of our various interpretations of liberty and equality and the un-agreed-upon extensions or limitations of both. Amid all of this, are the hobbyists or personal interest sub-sets (dog breeders, gun enthusiasts, stamp collectors, etc.) that exist in society whose core standards might be rooted in in-depth work developed by academics.

Joseph McMillan;105431 wrote:

Fred, thanks for this point, because it gets to a point I may have made somewhere in my meandering but meant to highlight in the summing up.  Arms absolutely have to be hereditary, or it’s not heraldry.  So let’s consider another one of my relatives, whom I may have mentioned before.  Excuse me if I’m repeating myself.

My maternal grandfather’s maternal grandfather was named Nathaniel Barham, an ordinary farmer in 19th century Neshoba County, Miss.  He did his bit in the War like most of his neighbors, was a member of the Baptist church like most of his neighbors, and as far as I can tell was pretty much like most of his neighbors in all other respects as well.  Except that, he had but known it, he was entitled to a coat of arms (Argent on a fess Gules between three bears passant Sable muzzled Or a fleur-de-lis between two martlets Gold), confirmed at the 1619 visitation of Kent to his 5th great-grandfather Robert Barham of East Hall, Boughton Monchelsea.

 

Now, it is absolutely clear that Nathaniel Barham had a right to bear heraldic arms.  And if we have any kind of social qualification for bearing arms in the United States, we have to allow Nathaniel’s neighbors to have coats of arms if he does, because our ethos is that lineage, while a nice thing to have, doesn’t give you any special privileges or status.  Which means (as I already argued) that everyone has to be allowed to assume arms if, in his own eyes, he thinks it appropriate.

It is not clear to me that it would be the same for Nathaniel Barham’s neighbors in Neshoba County, Miss. to assume new arms as it would be for Mr. Barham to begin using inherited arms.  Mr. Barham would have inherited his arms as he would his surname; his arms would be as the Chronicler King of Arms Vicente de Cadenas described "a graphic expression of the surname." Mr. Barham would no more need to show any certain social standing in his community to bear those inherited arms than he would to publicly bear his surname.

But then neither would his neighbors.  Any right he had would be limited to use of that particular coat of arms, if he chooses, to the exclusion of other unrelated persons or families; but as an American, the fact that his ancestors bore arms would not give him any superior right to bear arms generally.

I agree with many before me that this series of posts ought to be specially preserved somehow.  And while I hesitate to ask for more work from their author, I belie that that the totality of the writings could intimidate most readers and that they might benefit from an executive summary or a "conference paper" version of the whole.

Joseph McMillan;105437 wrote:

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved."

I say we need to take that seriously.  By all means, let us sympathize with our cousins across the sea who had their armorial freedom taken from them by an overweening Crown, but there’s no reason we’re required to share their misery.

Amen!

Amen to both Mark and his quote from Joe!

While I differ with Joe on a few points, his historical analysis and bottom line are, with one exception, IMO spot on; I just get there by slightly different route on a few points which I’ll post FWIW separately.

(I tried a longer multi-topic posting three times, & each time the Ethernet burped and wiped it out; I can take a hint! )

Michael F. McCartney;105443 wrote:

But then neither would his neighbors.  Any right he had would be limited to use of that particular coat of arms, if he chooses, to the exclusion of other unrelated persons or families; but as an American, the fact that his ancestors bore arms would not give him any superior right to bear arms generally.

The issue involved in the hypothetical case Joe gave of his ancestor, Nathaniel Barham, as compared to his neighbors is not a matter of having a legal right to assume arms (all adults who are of sound mind and have legal contractual capacity have that right) - but rather for who it would be appropriate to assume arms based on relative social standing.  Inherited arms, such as the purely hypothetical case Joe gave, cannot be treated the same as newly assumed arms.  Also, one’s the right to inherited arms, unlike an inherited surname, does not give one special social dispensation to assume a totally different coat of arms, in this regard Mr. Barham would be in the same situation as his neighbors who do not have a right to inherited arms.

I would say that the title of this thread: "Social Standing and the Right to Bear Arms" would be more appropriately: "Social Standing and Who Should Assume Arms" since all have the right to bear arms.

Luis,

"Right" may be the wrong word, but the original issue that prompted the thread included the question of who appropriately ought to use heraldic arms.  Should there be a social criterion?  Whether my great-great-grandfather’s neighbors legally could assume arms, there are some who would argue that they shouldn’t, because they wouldn’t have been sufficiently high on the social ladder.  In some places, that would be a persuasive argument—say 18th century England—because whatever Nathaniel Barham did for a living, he was still a gentleman by right of descent and entitled to arms by right of descent.  By contrast, most of his neighbors wouldn’t have been, under the prevailing English theory of arms, and that wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow.  It’s just the way things were.  Status by birth was accepted there and then; it isn’t accepted here and now, nor would it have been in late 19th century Mississippi.

The question then is not whether Nathaniel Barham could use the arms he had a right to by inheritance (which an equally situated man would have had a right to then and at all times before and since his lifetime, regardless of his station in life), but rather would he by virtue of being armiger by inheritance give him a right to assume or be granted a different coat of arms from those he inherited juxtaposed to his neighbors (who we suppose do not have a right to inherited arms) who do not have the right (or social standing) to do the same despite being similarly situated in every other way?  I would venture to answer the question in the negative for the United States of Mr. Barham’s time and for today.  When it comes to an assumption of new arms, having inherited arms does not put one in a different position from anyone else.

However, the answer to the above question still leaves open the matter of whether all individuals in the United States of the year 2016, however situated in life should/may assume new arms?  - - - Or are there certain social criteria which would or should dictate whether such assumptions are in good taste and fit generally accept standards (if any such apply beyond not usurping another’s arms and keeping within the guidelines for a blazon)?

Luis Cid;105466 wrote:

However, the answer to the above question still leaves open the matter of whether all individuals in the United States of the year 2016, however situated in life should/may assume new arms?  - - - Or are there certain social criteria which would or should dictate whether such assumptions are in good taste and fit generally accept standards (if any such apply beyond not usurping another’s arms and keeping within the guidelines for a blazon)?

In this country all persons are created equal under the law. (At least that is the professed situation and general goal - certainly we struggle with all forms of discrimination - but - that’s an entirely different discussion)

Although there are loss of rights under felony convictions - one does not lose their name, identification, signature, right of free speech, etc. for such a conviction.  In this country arms are not tied to any government honors or award system.

It is obvious that all individuals in the United States "may" assume arms.

As to whether they "should" is a completely personal decision.  Heraldry is not something one "should" or "should not" do in this country.  It is something one can "choose" to do or "choose not" to do.  Independent or collective judgement on someone’s ... eligibility… to assume arms is at best personal bias and at worse an attempt to implement yet another form of discrimination.

Kathy McClurg;105469 wrote:

In this country all persons are created equal under the law. (At least that is the professed situation and general goal - certainly we struggle with all forms of discrimination - but - that’s an entirely different discussion)

Although there are loss of rights under felony convictions - one does not lose their name, identification, signature, right of free speech, etc. for such a conviction.  In this country arms are not tied to any government honors or award system.

 

It is obvious that all individuals in the United States "may" assume arms.

 

As to whether they "should" is a completely personal decision.  Heraldry is not something one "should" or "should not" do in this country.  It is something one can "choose" to do or "choose not" to do.  Independent or collective judgement on someone’s ... eligibility… to assume arms is at best personal bias and at worse an attempt to implement yet another form of discrimination.[/QUOTE]

 

Joe’s excellent research work answering Fred’s questions would not have been so important and valued had the answers to these questions been obvious and clear to all.

I mostly agree with Kathy re: should & shouldn’t, but do differ as to felons.

Kathy is correct in saying that felons still retain some level of their civil rights; but while she focuses on what is retained, I look at what they lose, at least until their debt to society is fully paid.

Besides the obvious loss of freedom to come and go and live where and with whom they please, they cannot vote, run for or hold public office, engage in their chosen profession (other than writing, and in some cases anything they earn is forfeited to their victims); and if out on parole, they have no 2nd Amendment right to own and bear weapons, their persons and homes are generally subject to search with no requirement for a warrant, they must report to their parole officer, and any violation of whatever their terms of parole will return them to the slammer. Thus their civil rights are far less than those of an ordinary citizen, or even of a resident alien, unless and until they have completed their sentence and been restored to their full rights of citizenship.

Of course there is no legal bar to a convict or parolre assuming, inheriting, or using arms in the US, but that hardly makes it a "best practice"!!

To expand just a bit, in terms of the historical relationship between political status and heraldry.  Joe traced the gradual expansion of the English "Commons" - those below the rank of "nobles" but allowed a growing level of political participation, and its parallel (if sometimes lagging) reflection in English heraldry.

He then compared the growth of the English Commons with the similar but much wider growth of political participation in the American colonies, where by the time of our Independence was well on its way to universal "free white male" suffrage, and later expanded to all citizens regardless of color or gender (though like the English Commons, not without its fights, fits and starts).

So by the same historical logic that heraldry reflected political rights, all Americans should be free to assume or bear arms.

But both there and here, historically and today, a person convicted of a felony was not "free" unless and until he or she paid their debt to society.  While in prison or on parole, as noted in my preceding post, a felon’s rights of citizenship are severely restricted.

Just as any society’s heraldry should (if it is to have any reality beyond fantasyland) reflect the reality of that society, in our case by allowing all free persons to exercise heraldic rights reflecting their civic rights, it should logically disallow heraldic rights to those who have lost (I would say forfeited) their civic rights by their own actions.  If and when those rights are restored to the former felon, that should also be reflected heraldically.

If the forfeiture of civic rights seems in some cases unfair, then seek to correct that societal or legal unfairness; and the heraldic correction will follow as a reflection of the societal change.

Trying to fix broader problems heraldically is like grabbing a dog’s tail because you don’t like the way the dog wags it - the dog will just bite you and go back to wagging the way he wants, in spite of you.

Of course the general principle of heraldic reflection of societal norms is not a matter of law here, but rather of logic and conviction (or maybe that’s not the best word in a discussion of felons! ). But while not enforceable at law, it should (and did) inform our concept of "best practices" generally.  To my mind, we should accept that heraldic reflection cuts both ways - it not only tells us who can bear arms consistent with our national norms and values; but who also should not, based on their own misconduct, consistent with those same norms and values.

Before I forget - apologies to Joe if I have misread or mischaracterized his writings; I tried, for better or worse, to briefly summarize those points or trends that seemed to me most relevant to the arms for felons question.

In addressing other issues, I will try to briefly extract, summarize and address from Joe and others what seems most relevant to each issue; so apologies in advance if I misread or mischaracterize those as well!

Michael,

Whether felons can assume arms does not depend on any outstanding moral debt to society nor any loss of social standing due to their status as felons, but rather the straightforeward question of: do they retain the legal capacity to enter into contracts?, petition the court for a name change?, etc..  If the answer to these types of questions is "yes" then they also retain the right to assume arms.  A completely separate question would be: would it be socially acceptable for a felon to assume arms?  This is a different take on one of the original questions this thread addresses - social standing and the community’s full acceptance or not of an assumption of arms.  (Speaking only for myself - not based on current practice here or elsewhere, I do not find it acceptable for a felon to assume or be granted arms - whether that individual had the legal right or not).