What Makes a Coat of Arms "American?"

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
09 March 2016 19:19
 

I agree there is probably some common ground Jeffry, but only in the AHS.  This thread should not be about what we want but what the current practice actually is in our country as Joe has laid out for us.  Maybe we can explore American custom in the past 100 years for example, which would shed more light on what is current practice - but we are not an authority—or even experts, if anybody is when it comes to heraldic customary usage in the USA in the last 100 years!

I do agree that good taste is important, but there are many examples of coats of arms (ancient and modern) that would not today be considered good taste—nor would the lifestyle of many grantees of arms in the past!

 
JJB1
 
Avatar
 
 
JJB1
Total Posts:  83
Joined  31-10-2014
 
 
 
10 March 2016 18:19
 

What are the regional variations in US heraldry?

I always see an American with a Greek name using a Greek style. I see an American with a German name using a German style. Spanish, Spanish, etc.

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
17 March 2016 20:49
 

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?

 
JJB1
 
Avatar
 
 
JJB1
Total Posts:  83
Joined  31-10-2014
 
 
 
17 March 2016 21:44
 

I’m in agreement with something Luis said earlier about the need for a study on heraldry practiced in the US in the 20th Century. Of course, that’s easy for me to say since I don’t have the wherewithal to do it properly.

I do know, based on Joseph’s essay and what I’ve found on my own, that grants of foreign arms to Americans must be a 20th-Century construct with no precedent prior to 1916 (maybe due to the influence that Arthur Fox-Davies’ publication had on certain New Yorkers).

 

As far as AHS having a preference for assumption, I’m not sure I ever got that impression exactly. My impression was that the AHS’ stance was that any new arms, whether granted or assumed, were to be regarded as assumed from a US standpoint. I’ve heard many here say that they wouldn’t go for a grant for a number of reasons. But I haven’t heard anyone discourage others from doing it if they wanted.

 
snelson
 
Avatar
 
 
snelson
Total Posts:  464
Joined  03-06-2005
 
 
 
17 March 2016 23:53
 

Quote:

I do know, based on Joseph’s essay and what I’ve found on my own, that grants of foreign arms to Americans must be a 20th-Century construct with no precedent prior to 1916 (maybe due to the influence that Arthur Fox-Davies’ publication had on certain New Yorkers).

I think Ulster King of Arms may have made grants to US citizens prior to 1916.  Here is an entry for Mr. Edwin Armstrong of Detroit in the Irish Office dated 1910: http://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/vtls000511733#page/165/mode/1up

http://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/vtls000511733#page/164/mode/1u

This seems to be more of a confirmation than a grant, but perhaps a rainy afternoon spent on the NLI website will reveal more.

 
snelson
 
Avatar
 
 
snelson
Total Posts:  464
Joined  03-06-2005
 
 
 
19 March 2016 12:13
 

Quote:

I think Ulster King of Arms may have made grants to US citizens prior to 1916. Here is an entry for Mr. Edwin Armstrong of Detroit in the Irish Office dated 1910: http://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/vtls000511733#page/165/mode/1up

http://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/vtls000511733#page/164/mode/1up

This seems to be more of a confirmation than a grant, but perhaps a rainy afternoon spent on the NLI website will reveal more.

Here are some more glimpses of American armigers in the Irish records prior to 1916:

Thomas Ball of Pennsylvania (1901): http://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/vtls000529301#page/187/mode/1up

 

George Andrews of Pennsylvania (1901): http://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/vtls000529301#page/227/mode/1up

 

Edward Meany of New York (1911): http://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/vtls000511733#page/309/mode/1up

 

Charles Ledlie of Missouri (1913): http://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/vtls000511733#page/521/mode/1up

 

...confirmation of arms to him and the other descendants of his late father Brig. Gen. James Ledlie (1832-1882) who famously got drunk at the Battle of the Crater (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Ledlie).

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
19 March 2016 13:20
 

snelson;105680 wrote:

Here are some more glimpses of American armigers in the Irish records prior to 1916:

Thomas Ball of Pennsylvania (1901): http://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/vtls000529301#page/187/mode/1up

 

George Andrews of Pennsylvania (1901): http://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/vtls000529301#page/227/mode/1up

 

Edward Meany of New York (1911): http://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/vtls000511733#page/309/mode/1up

 

Charles Ledlie of Missouri (1913): http://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/vtls000511733#page/521/mode/1up

 

...confirmation of arms to him and the other descendants of his late father Brig. Gen. James Ledlie (1832-1882) who famously got drunk at the Battle of the Crater (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Ledlie).


It’s interesting to me that 3 of these 4 are confirmations of arms already in use in America.  If free assumption and use were the American practice, why would these Americans who are using assumed arms in America feel the need to have them confirmed by an Irish Herald?

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
19 March 2016 14:15
 

I have yet to discern a specifically American style of heraldry. I have yet to discern a specifically American name. Both root the individual in another country and are unreliable as statements of citizenship. I know of none but the most specialized circles where the coat of arms of anyone except a Medici or a Bourbon could substitute for a name. Heraldry is understood by all to be hereditary. The usual assumption in the U.S. about a coat of arms is that it is an antique. It is understood by all to denote above-average social status that has been in some sense (or promises to be) consistent across generations. So, the range of circumstances under which an American’s using any coat of arms whatsoever isn’t likely to run a substantial risk of being misleading strikes me as quite narrow.

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
19 March 2016 15:31
 

Michael F. McCartney;105678 wrote:

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.


I for one cannot entirely agree with the above since:  1) there is not a heraldic authority here to deem supporters or certain types of helms to indicate nobility - so deeming them to indicate nobility is still looking abroad for the justification for labeling them as such (especially since we do not even have recognized nobility here, either by statute or custom); 2) there does not exist a clearly and easily discernible U.S. style of heraldry - only a combination of many European types, the most important being the English; 3) there is a difference between: a. what we would allow in our world here within the AHS, b. what we in the AHS (and many others) may hold as "best practices" and c. what is probably generally allowable heraldic practice in the USA.

 

I for one do not feel the least bit lesser or discriminated against by virtue of my agnatic line not being French or Dutch with an inherited coat of arms complete with supporters, and I can’t imagine many other’s would either since there are no political, social, or economic benefit that derives from using such arms.

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
19 March 2016 15:35
 

Wilfred Leblanc;105682 wrote:

I have yet to discern a specifically American style of heraldry. I have yet to discern a specifically American name. Both root the individual in another country and are unreliable as statements of citizenship. I know of none but the most specialized circles where the coat of arms of anyone except a Medici or a Bourbon could substitute for a name. Heraldry is understood by all to be hereditary. The usual assumption in the U.S. about a coat of arms is that it is an antique. It is understood by all to denote above-average social status that has been in some sense (or promises to be) consistent across generations. So, the range of circumstances under which an American’s using any coat of arms whatsoever isn’t likely to run a substantial risk of being misleading strikes me as quite narrow.


I could not possibly agree more with the above!

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
19 March 2016 16:24
 

snelson;105671 wrote:

I think Ulster King of Arms may have made grants to US citizens prior to 1916.  Here is an entry for Mr. Edwin Armstrong of Detroit in the Irish Office dated 1910: http://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/vtls000511733#page/165/mode/1up

http://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/vtls000511733#page/164/mode/1u

This seems to be more of a confirmation than a grant, but perhaps a rainy afternoon spent on the NLI website will reveal more.


Ulster was (and the CHI is) a law unto himself.  My comments in the essay had to do with the English kings of arms.  As far as I know the first Ulster letters patent to a US resident were issued to a man in New York in 1873, although this was an outlier until the early 20th century.  The citation is Ulster Office Grants and Confirmations of Arms, Book G, fol. 259, which unfortunately is not among the OCHI digital collections at the moment, even though it was 6 months ago (how exasperating!).

 

The key, though, is that "confirmation" in these cases doesn’t mean confirmation of arms assumed in the United States or anywhere else in particular.  It’s a term of art in Ulster/CHI practice for arms that have been used by the family for a long period of time without ever having been recorded.  Judging from the ones I’ve looked at, these seem as often as not to be people who have been using "arms of the name" or more politely arms of the sept, have gone to Ulster/CHI to get them ratified, and then gently been allowed to have them "confirmed" with differences.  Which in any of the other English speaking jurisdictions would be either a grant or, if the genealogy is proven in Scotland, a matriculation.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
19 March 2016 16:26
 

David Pope;105681 wrote:

It’s interesting to me that 3 of these 4 are confirmations of arms already in use in America.  If free assumption and use were the American practice, why would these Americans who are using assumed arms in America feel the need to have them confirmed by an Irish Herald?


Assuming they were actually using them (and see my previous note), they undoubtedly read Fox-Davies or some such person who told them what they were doing was illegal, immoral, ungodly, or some such.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
19 March 2016 16:47
 

David Pope;105667 wrote:

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?


Eisenhower.  Andrew Carnegie.  J. Q. Adams.  The forefather of the Roosevelts.  In fact, anyone of Dutch origin, since the Dutch have never had a granting authority.  John Paul Jones.  James Cardinal Gibbons.

 

Would you include people who used what they took to be the arms of their family but for which there is no record of a grant or confirmation?  Then add the Lees, Thomas Jefferson, William Penn, Stephen Decatur, Paul Revere, Albert Gallatin, and many more.

 

Any number of people in the colonial period.

 

Probably 90% of the people in the 19th century who used armorial bookplates, an era when for all practical purposes no one in the US was getting English grants, and only a miniscule number Scottish or Irish ones.  A wonderful area for data mining, if someone would take the trouble.

 

 

Finally, there are even more notables who have used bucket shop arms of the name.  Shall we hold them up as exemplars as well?  If they aren’t examples to follow, why are those who assume supporters examples to follow?

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
19 March 2016 18:04
 

Carnegie would seem to be particularly germane to this discussion. The Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh’s writeup on the namesake’s coat of arms is interesting in juxtaposition with his own observation on the subject.

In 1881, Carnegie is declaring that he has no coat of arms. The one that eventually materializes on the wall of his home actually seems more like a parody of heraldry than anything. In what other setting did he use that (ironic?) coat of arms?

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
19 March 2016 21:37
 

Wilfred Leblanc;105688 wrote:

Carnegie would seem to be particularly germane to this discussion. The Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh’s writeup on the namesake’s coat of arms is interesting in juxtaposition with his own observation on the subject.

In 1881, Carnegie is declaring that he has no coat of arms. The one that eventually materializes on the wall of his home actually seems more like a parody of heraldry than anything. In what other setting did he use that (ironic?) coat of arms?

 


If the Carnegie Library’s information is correct it seems that Mr. Carnegie didn’t see arms as merely a form of visual identification…

 
JJB1
 
Avatar
 
 
JJB1
Total Posts:  83
Joined  31-10-2014
 
 
 
19 March 2016 22:18
 

Wilfred Leblanc;105682 wrote:

I have yet to discern a specifically American style of heraldry.


Here you go. Arms of Schertz, TX. https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SchertzCoatOfArms?sm=TorHpjQrLlfR9SVyXP0t5wkeuUlSxZ4Nfz+d4TiNb6I=