Augmentations in American Arms

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
06 April 2016 16:03
 

But "...a Canadian who expresses…" is still a Canadian so (unless he is a permanent US resident anticipating naturalization) so he falls outside our discussion, even if visiting the US.

But let’s assume he is a permanent resident, or naturalized, or merely has Canadian roots; apart from bad manners, is he heraldically inappropriate?  I’m of a mixed mind, depending on how the Canadians view the UEL title and coronet.  If it’s an " honour" - and heritable to boot - then IMO it is inappropriate this side of the border.  If it’s merely an indicator of an ancestor’s military or other service, but not an "honour" then technically OK but as Luis notes, in bad taste.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
06 April 2016 17:58
 

Michael F. McCartney;105792 wrote:

But "...a Canadian who expresses…" is still a Canadian so (unless he is a permanent US resident anticipating naturalization) so he falls outside our discussion, even if visiting the US.

But let’s assume he is a permanent resident, or naturalized, or merely has Canadian roots; apart from bad manners, is he heraldically inappropriate?  I’m of a mixed mind, depending on how the Canadians view the UEL title and coronet.  If it’s an " honour" - and heritable to boot - then IMO it is inappropriate this side of the border.  If it’s merely an indicator of an ancestor’s military or other service, but not an "honour" then technically OK but as Luis notes, in bad taste.


A question that arises, however, is whether the truth takes precedence over taste. Isn’t denuding a coat of arms of some of its actual historic features fully the sort of lying, basically, that adding phony augmentations is?

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
06 April 2016 19:04
 

Fred, my own opinion is that, as I stated, the augmentations of honor are within best practice here - if inherited.  On the other hand if a new grant it would still be "allowable" but of questionable taste to continue to use if a new immigrant and legal resident or new citizen of the U.S. (questionable judgment as well if the fellow thought he may well end-up here with us!).

An assumption of an augmentation of honor on the other hand does not even make any sense - sort of the way a Scottish or English grant does not really make any sense as an "honour" since the petitioner is 1) seeking the honor 2) does not need to prove any meritorious deeds to attain it 3) the one "honored" has to pay for it himself! (also - a very low bar).  Of course in Canada all arms are honors - but at least you must show cause for being so honored for public service, etc… unlike in the U.K.

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
06 April 2016 19:12
 

Fred, one cannot assume an augmentation of honor - whether on the sheild or an external element - by it’s nature it must be granted by a legitimate authority.

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
06 April 2016 19:26
 

Luis, my point is precisely that it would be equally dishonest to confer on oneself an unearned augmentation and to deny an inherited (or newly received) one. Heraldry is going to offer a very selective message about one’s heritage and achievements regardless, but whether we’re talking cantons, inescutcheons, coronets, or what have you, it seems to me that editing the heraldic record is far from being obviously moral or necessary to the fulfillment of civic responsibility.

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
06 April 2016 19:55
 

Fred, maybe in my verbosity I didn’t make my point clear. A) Inherited augmentations are okay, assumed augentations are not okay (phony) B) to Sebastion’s querie - the Canadian loyalist coronets and other augmentations - if inherited by a U.S. resident also okay (though a newly granted one used by new Canadian immigrant to U.S. may be in bad taste). in

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
06 April 2016 20:28
 

Luis Cid;105800 wrote:

Fred, maybe in my verbosity I didn’t make my point clear. A) Inherited augmentations are okay, assumed augentations are not okay (phony) B) to Sebastion’s querie - the Canadian loyalist coronets and other augmentations - if inherited by a U.S. resident also okay (though a newly granted one used by new Canadian immigrant to U.S. may be in bad taste). in


I think we’re on the same page.

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

Not unsurprisingly, we’re not all on the same page wink

Of course (Ihope!) no one here is likely to approve of self-awarded "augmentations".  But I strongly disagree with Fred and Luis about display, in an American context, of foreign augmentations that signify or connote some level of titled or untitled nobiliary status, which I see as just one more example of noblesse akin to coronets, supporters, and helmets signifying a status or rank higher than commoner.

 

Note that the AHS Guidelines allow for these items in two non-American contexts - display of arms properly born elsewhere by an ancestor, if clearly labeled as such; and currently, when used in the country of origin of those honors or in events or circumstances tied to that country, such as Scottish Games, clan societies, or similar ethnic activities.  This is similar to the Guidelines re: gongs or other dangling doodads from private organizations, such as fraternal groups, Scouts, etc., which should be displayed in those particular contexts and events, but not generally.  (Though I have somewhat different views on those matters - some more liberal, some more conservative - the Guidelines strike a reasonable balance to shift I generally will defer.)

 

Fred argues that just as self-assumed awards tell a lie (I agree), so does omitting foreign awards, either inherited or freshly granted from a legitimate course (I disagree).  Hopefully that is a fair summary of his argument.

 

More later - dinner will burn if I don’t mind the stove…

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
06 April 2016 22:30
 

Picking up where I left off - to me, the dishonesty - or fantasy, to be less precise but more charitable - is the visual statement, in an American context (i.e. outside of the special circumstances spelled out in the Guidelines noted above) of a special nobiliary or titled status that is incompatible with being an American.

To me, honesty means acknowledging that whatever special status one might enjoy elsewhere, entirely legitimate by the relevant foreign laws and customs in that foreign context, does not and cannot apply here.

 

That’s why my earlier questions regarding Napoleonic augmentations and the UEL business (and any other foreign augmentations) center on whether or not they convey or imply nobiliary status or some form of hereditary honours, of the sort that an immigrant would be required to renounce upon becoming a citizen.  If so, then they fall into the same category as supporters and nobiliary coronets and helmets.  If not, then no problem using them here on each and every occasion if desired.

 

To make that call in any particular case of course requires some inquiry into the relevant foreign rules and practices.  IMO we can’t, or shouldn’t, make that call based just on our own opinions as to what we might individually think it "should" mean, but on the stated intent of the grantor, or the typical assumptions of reasonably knowledgeable bystanders, in the context of the national culture in which it was granted and the broader Western culture.  Thus the questions, and the value of posting the relevant foreign rules etc.

 
JJB1
 
Avatar
 
 
JJB1
Total Posts:  83
Joined  31-10-2014
 
 
 
07 April 2016 12:46
 

I can think of a case where a self-awarded augmentation might make sense in the US. I’m thinking of those who were formally given a Thanks of Congress for some notable public deed in military or diplomacy. This differs from those awarded the Medal of Honor, Congressional Gold Medal, Medal of Freedom, a Congressional Gold Sword, etc. in that with the Thanks of Congress, nothing tangible is given. Maybe someone would have been able to commemorate that on their shield. Other than that, I don’t know.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
07 April 2016 14:23
 

Interesting question.  My initial reaction would be that adding to one’s arms the shield of the US arms, with or without the bald eagle, or the American flag, or the seal of one or both houses of Congress, would be way over the top unless specifically authorized by Congress - which never would or should happen!

But including in one’s arms a visual reference to the act or accomplishment itself - some charge that could be added whether or not Congress gave you an award - wouldn’t be improper; though it might not improve the artistic merits of the arms.

 

I’m thinking of IIRC Hershel (sp?), whose arms featured a reflecting telescope that he invented - not an augmentation, but also decidedly not very good heraldic design!

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
07 April 2016 19:14
 

Luis Cid;105800 wrote:

Fred, maybe in my verbosity I didn’t make my point clear. A) Inherited augmentations are okay, assumed augentations are not okay (phony) B) to Sebastion’s querie - the Canadian loyalist coronets and other augmentations - if inherited by a U.S. resident also okay (though a newly granted one used by new Canadian immigrant to U.S. may be in bad taste). in


I would like to correct what I wrote above: I believe it would be perfectly okay for that new Canadian immigrant to the U.S. to publicly use his Canadian grant with the loyalist coronet.  Further yet, upon thinking this out it would be perfectly fine for a native born U.S. citizen of Canadian loyalist descent to receive a new Canadian grant with a loyalist coronet.  I believe a man should honor his family heritage (as long as it’s honorable) and commemorate it in his heraldic arms; the Canadians have a system for this and it’s in good taste absolutely.  Just because a man fought against the American Revolution doesn’t make him dishonorable nor his descendants dishonorable for memorializing that history two centuries later with a loyalist coronet from the CHA, just as no Southerner should be ashamed of ancestors who fought with the Confederacy, Mexicans who fought to defend their nation from U.S. invasion in 1946, Native Americans who fought the U.S. government to protect their land, or Phillipinos who fought the U.S. to keep the independence from Spain that the U.S. then hyjacked (the war that gave birth to the Colt 45 calibre semiautomatic handgun used in close quarters in Phillipine jungles against the native patriots).

 

Just because Seb’s hypothetical Canadian immigrant’s ancestor has arms that honor a Brittish colonist that stayed loyal to the Brittish government and left Virginia, Maryland or New York for Canada more than two centuries does not make him or his arms less honorable or in any way in bad taste - they merely reflect rather than hide the man’s family’s history.

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
07 April 2016 19:35
 

Michael F. McCartney;105803 wrote:

Picking up where I left off - to me, the dishonesty - or fantasy, to be less precise but more charitable - is the visual statement, in an American context (i.e. outside of the special circumstances spelled out in the Guidelines noted above) of a special nobiliary or titled status that is incompatible with being an American.

To me, honesty means acknowledging that whatever special status one might enjoy elsewhere, entirely legitimate by the relevant foreign laws and customs in that foreign context, does not and cannot apply here.

 

That’s why my earlier questions regarding Napoleonic augmentations and the UEL business (and any other foreign augmentations) center on whether or not they convey or imply nobiliary status or some form of hereditary honours, of the sort that an immigrant would be required to renounce upon becoming a citizen.  If so, then they fall into the same category as supporters and nobiliary coronets and helmets.  If not, then no problem using them here on each and every occasion if desired.

 

To make that call in any particular case of course requires some inquiry into the relevant foreign rules and practices.  IMO we can’t, or shouldn’t, make that call based just on our own opinions as to what we might individually think it "should" mean, but on the stated intent of the grantor, or the typical assumptions of reasonably knowledgeable bystanders, in the context of the national culture in which it was granted and the broader Western culture.  Thus the questions, and the value of posting the relevant foreign rules etc.


Although I generally agree with Mike’s points about external trappings of nobility, especially coronets of rank; I cannot however agree when it comes to honorable augmentations such as Canadian loyalist coronets since they do not signify nobility but merely memorialize the loyalty and sacrifice of an individual.  I also believe it important, very important, to distinguish between what is on the shield and the external trappings of an heraldic achievement.

If we were to get too picky about what is noble or not the vast majority of Portuguese arms as well as all arms granted by a government when also enobling an individual would have to be considered inappropriate as well —a ridiculous result.

 

Essencially the sheild is the sheild and all must be considered within best practices here, regardless of how they were came by (grant or assumed) or whether the bearer was noble or came by the grant as an honor from his monarch, etc.. because as Joe once pointed out: there are no noble arms or burgher arms, only arms born by nobles and burghers.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
07 April 2016 21:10
 

If as Luis believes, the UEL designation and distinctive coronet are just mementos, or even honors with no titled or nobiliary significance, then there would be no reason to question their use, other than perhaps a raised eyebrow…

We can joke about it being "on the other side" of the Revolution, but that’s really a red herring; the same criteria would apply to, say, a hypothetical French augmentation for honorable French military or naval service in support of our Revolution - if nobiliary, not appropriate for an immigrant or descendant here; if not nobiliary, no problem.  While the French augmentation is hypothetical (I have no idea if any such existed) the principle isn’t.  When Congress honored von Steuben after the was, he requested they refer to him by his title as Baron; but they ever so politely declined, noting that General was the best they could do - no nobility here; and he accepted that.

 

So for me, the question is always the same—what was/is the nature of the particular augmentation?  Not what we think it might/should/shouldn’t be, but what was it when and where it was granted?  And if it symbolized something that an immigrant seeking citizenship would be required to renounce, then it isn’t appropriate for use here.

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
07 April 2016 21:21
 

Mike, when it comes to loyalist coronets granted by the Queen of Canada, these are not ensigns of nobility but honors commemorating the actions and or loyalty of the grantee or the grantee’s ancestor.  Neither nobility nor lifetime or inheritable titles are involved, and these augmentations of honor do not in themselves make the grantee anything other than a commoner.  This is very different from the coronet of a French or Spanish viscount or baron or the supporters granted to an English Earl or Brittish life peer.