Augmentations in American Arms

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
09 April 2016 09:50
 

Wilfred Leblanc;105831 wrote:

Isn’t whether or not they did use them separate from the question of whether there is any clear reason they shouldn’t have felt free to?

In any case, to the extent that George Washington’s heraldic behavior is a frequent point of reference in discussions here, it seems worth asking whether any of us can really, truly envision George Washington assenting to the idea that his friends the Fairfaxes should stop using supporters. How about others from his generation who could have used or did use supporters, like the Rutledges, the Humes, and the Houstouns? Personally, I just can’t see it. I think he would have shrugged. I think we should, too.


Well, several things.  As he said in his first letter to Sir Isaac Heard, GW had spent his adult life focusing on somewhat more important issues than heraldic display.  He wasn’t particular interested in the niceties of all this; we, presumably, are, or we wouldn’t be in this conversation.  The main relevance of Washington to all of this has to do with modern inclinations to invent doo-dads to fancy up American arms to look like those of the European aristocracy:

 

* Why not let Presidents have supporters?  The President of Ireland does!  (Yes, but George Washington didn’t.)

* Shouldn’t the Chief Justice have insignia of office?  The British Lord Chancellor does!  (Yes, but John Marshall didn’t.)

 

Secondly, lumping together "could have used or did use" is sloppy.  We all know there were a handful of people who "could" have used supporters according to some English or other foreign criteria.  The question is did they?  If not, why not?  Consciously declining or just not knowing?

 

Correct usage can be defined by rule or by custom.  We have no rule-making authority in this country, so the challenge is to ascertain what is customary.  Abstract speculation about what ought to be—either my speculation or anyone else’s—can help generate testable hypotheses, but it can’t test them.  In my opinion, people who care about these issues need to get out of the speculation mode and into the testing mode.

 

(And, by the way, whoever dragged a thread on augmentations into a discussion of supporters:  these are entirely different things.)

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
09 April 2016 16:13
 

Michael F. McCartney;105838 wrote:

Luckily for purposes of this discussion, the Confederacy never AFAIK granted augmentations, nobiliary or otherwise, to arms borne by their supporters (maybe a bad choice of terms!)  Whether or not it would be appropriate to dangle one’s Sons of the Confederacy badge below one’s shield is a different question, perhaps for a different thread…

I did a little research (if reading one Wiki article counts as research!) on the United Empire Loyalist designation, which while interesting shed scant light on what is to me the only relevant question in this discussion - does the UE designation, and therefore the formal UEL coronets in CHA grants, constitute or signify a titled or nobiliary status that a Canadian seeking US citizenship would be required to renounce as part of his or her oath?  If so, then whatever we might wish to the contrary, the Canadian UEL designation and crest coronets should not be used here; but if not, there is no legitimate reason to disallow them (though some may question whether it would be in good taste, given the history & etc.).  At this point, I’m inclined to tentatively agree with Luis that it’s not a nobiliary title or additaments, for aught yet seen…  wink

 

But still adamantly convinced that this is the necessary test for any such foreign honor, or honour.


I’m all in with Mike on this one.

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
09 April 2016 16:28
 

Joseph McMillan;105840 wrote:

Well, several things.  As he said in his first letter to Sir Isaac Heard, GW had spent his adult life focusing on somewhat more important issues than heraldic display.  He wasn’t particular interested in the niceties of all this; we, presumably, are, or we wouldn’t be in this conversation.  The main relevance of Washington to all of this has to do with modern inclinations to invent doo-dads to fancy up American arms to look like those of the European aristocracy:

* Why not let Presidents have supporters?  The President of Ireland does!  (Yes, but George Washington didn’t.)

* Shouldn’t the Chief Justice have insignia of office?  The British Lord Chancellor does!  (Yes, but John Marshall didn’t.)

 

Secondly, lumping together "could have used or did use" is sloppy.  We all know there were a handful of people who "could" have used supporters according to some English or other foreign criteria.  The question is did they?  If not, why not?  Consciously declining or just not knowing?

 

Correct usage can be defined by rule or by custom.  We have no rule-making authority in this country, so the challenge is to ascertain what is customary.  Abstract speculation about what ought to be—either my speculation or anyone else’s—can help generate testable hypotheses, but it can’t test them.  In my opinion, people who care about these issues need to get out of the speculation mode and into the testing mode.

 

(And, by the way, whoever dragged a thread on augmentations into a discussion of supporters:  these are entirely different things.)


I agree with Joe about speculation - ultimately they need to be proven with research as Joe did with social status and the use of arms in the U.S.  There’s no heraldic authority with jurisdiction over personal or corporate heraldry here, therefore, just as with social status and all other matters concerning heraldry in our country, the use of granted augmentations, including supporters, is a matter of custom that can only be proven with good research - not opinion or speculation.  It’s possible of course that such research could end up highlighting somewhat vague customary rules or guideline as did Joe’s work on social status and the right to arms in the U.S. that may not entirely satisfy all those that hope to have bright lines to follow.

 
JJB1
 
Avatar
 
 
JJB1
Total Posts:  83
Joined  31-10-2014
 
 
 
10 April 2016 10:21
 

Luis Cid;105821 wrote:

JJB, I would also say that if your father-in-law had inherited arms that were certified by the Spanish kings of arms long prior to 1846 those arms need not follow the generally accepted best practices for U.S. arms as in that case no one immigrated to the U.S., rather the U.S. came to them (without a welcome other than bayonets).  The same could be said about members of the Hawaiian royal familty - who are entitled to their full heraldic acheivement according to their own customary usage, crown and all.


Sorry to mislead; he doesn’t have any arms as far as I know and he’s not interested in heraldry. But I see your point in the hypothetical sense.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
11 April 2016 04:36
 

A few comments touching on several recent posts, in no particular order:

As to UEL being no different than DAR, Cincinnati, etc. - not really.  The American comparators Joe mentioned are all private organizations, and are not acting as agents of the sovereign.  The UE designation was established as an hereditary distinction by the Governor General of Canada around or just after the end of the Revolutionary War; and Canadian grants of the military or civil Loyalist coronets emanate from the CHA, exercising the heraldic authority of the current Governor-General on behalf of the Queen of Canada.  There is an association of Loyalist descendants, similar to the DAR etc.; but that association did and does not create or confer the UE designation, nor does it grant arms or coronets (though it may well maintain records of those entitled to the UE designation, and possibly assist with petitions to the CHA, similar to the organization and records of Scottish feudal barons).  It may well be that neither is objectionable as contrary to the oath of citizenship (as noted, I’m leaning that way) but not based on argued similarity to the DAR etc.

 

Whether or not an American citizen of Canadian UE ancestry can apply for a Canadian grant of arms with a Loyalist coronet - can’t happen; only Canadian citizens (and maybe permanent residents seeking to become Canadians?) are eligible to petition for grants from the CHA, with or without a Loyalist coronet - their rule, not mine; my wife’s family was Canadian but only her Canadian cousins have access to the CHA :(

As to those with dual citizenship, that’s a different topic that has been discussed in this forum in the past.

As to whether a Canadian UE armiger can or should retain his/her UE designation and/or Loyalist coronet upon becoming a US citizen - already discussed, depends on whether consistent with our citizenship oath.

 

As to supporters or any other augmentations for US Presidents or other high officials - ditto Joe.  Given 200+ years of history with scant (if any) evidence of any such thing, the American customary practice seems pretty clear!

 

The arguments re: accepting whatever is on the shield of inherited or newly granted foreign arms, including shield-based augmentations - what I started this thread to discuss:

In most cases, we don’t question the shield (unless it infringes some other existing arms, which is addressed in the Guidelines - not part of this topic).  But I don’t believe this isn’t an absolute - but it’s late and this post is already long, so will continue later.

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
12 April 2016 06:57
 

I would say the Loyalist Coronet is most certainly inconsistent with the naturalization oath of allegiance which specifically states:
Quote:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;


The loyalist coronet symbolizes loyalty to a foreign government which you renounce upon becoming a citizen here.  That an ancestor had such loyalties is kind of irrelevant IMHO - if it wasn’t irrelevant, than we would have no problem with US arms having whatever ancestor’s additions if they were nobility - by becoming a US citizen, you leave that behind.

 

I must admit at this time, when I see the arms of US citizens displayed with all such paraphernalia (and, I still disagree re: barred helms which are NOT gold barred) at this point I think, "Well, those certainly aren’t their US arms - must be their foreign arms - wonder which country?"

 

There was a time I’d advocated for US citizens of descent where supporters were considered decorative to have no problem as long as the entire display was stylized from the same tradition.  More recently, I’m of two minds - 1. Since there is no nobility in the US, none of this matters - it’s all merely decorative in the US - at one time it was decorative anywhere… used to fill the space on seals and such. 2. US arms should be limited to shield and crest - that which is registered by our two most respected registration services the USHR and ACH… any other display is merely a display (as many have seen me commission a number of them with single supporters and in various styles—and there are more coming, I do very much enjoy varied artistic options and styles).  These are not part of the arms themselves.  NOTE:  One can certainly define the tinctures of the mantling, but it’s irrelevant overall and would default to the first color or metal if not defined yet in that particular display.

However, out of respect for some of our international friends and to not confuse them overly much - we probably should avoid displays which could/will offend them.

 

Anyhow - for those with interest - here is the Oath of Allegiance:

https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/naturalization-test/naturalization-oath-allegiance-united-states-america

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
12 April 2016 12:45
 

An interesting argument, addressing specifically the Canadian Loyalist coronet from an angle I hadn’t considered, based on the citizenship oath taken by all petitioners for naturalization - not just the titles and nobility renunciation required where relevant.  I gotta think and digest this argument…

One initial thought, which might involve Kathy’s thesis on a scope broader than just Canadian honours - I recall reading about various foreign titles and honors granted for services performed and to be performed or some such language - implying not just recognition of past service to the sovereign, but in effect a promise by the honoree on accepting the honor of an ongoing active allegiance.  Where the honor is heritable, that special allegiance might be seen as applying to each successive heir…

 

And as far as I can see, Kathy’s argument, while parallel to my titles and noblesse argument, is independent of titles and noblesse since it is required of every petitioner, however so high or low; and is based on change of allegiance rather than change of status.

 

As an aside, Kathy and I continue to disagree as to barred helms where the bars aren’t gold wink

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
12 April 2016 13:35
 

But the loyalist coronets do not say "I am loyal to the Queen."  If they did, the CHA could not logically restrict them to UEs.  They say "my ancestor was loyal to George III and paid a price for it."  Nothing more.

Presumably any Canadian UE who still feels deep loyalty to Elizabeth II wouldn’t take the oath to become an American citizen anyway, but (as the descendant of six or seven Confederate soldiers), I inconsistency between celebrating an ancestor who acted honorably, according to his lights, and maintaining one’s own allegiance to the country the ancestor fought against.

 

By the way, the UE coronet doesn’t require membership in the United Empire Loyalist Association of Canada (UELAC), but even if it did, the UELAC does not require members to pledge allegiance to the Queen.  In fact, there are a number of American members.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
12 April 2016 13:41
 

Michael F. McCartney;105850 wrote:

As to UEL being no different than DAR, Cincinnati, etc. - not really.  The American comparators Joe mentioned are all private organizations, and are not acting as agents of the sovereign.  The UE designation was established as an hereditary distinction by the Governor General of Canada around or just after the end of the Revolutionary War; and Canadian grants of the military or civil Loyalist coronets emanate from the CHA, exercising the heraldic authority of the current Governor-General on behalf of the Queen of Canada.


Yes, really.  As I said, apart from the British obsession with postnominals.  One might as well equate a Congressional charter of incorporation of an American hereditary society with the GG’s prescribing the initials after names on the militia rolls.  UEs have no standing in the Canadian order of precedence or any other privileges (meaning they aren’t comparable to a degree of nobility) and, as I mention in my other post, don’t even have to be within the allegiance of the Canadian Crown.  They just have to be descendants of people who left the 13 United States because of loyalist sympathies.  (Actually, they don’t even have to have left for that reason.  The Iroquois who moved to Ontario with Joseph Brant didn’t consider themselves British subjects, just British allies.)

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
12 April 2016 17:41
 

Interesting arguments from Kathy and Joe.  Kathy’s pointing to the renunciation of allegiance raised a question that hadn’t occurred to me in the UE context, so I’m still cogitating; I had only considered UE in the context of renunciation of title and nobiliary status.

Joe’s reply addressed both concerns.  As noted earlier, I’m leaning towards his approach re:  noblesse, or rather the absence thereof - thus nothing to renounce on that point - but not @100% there yet…

 

But if his approach to the allegiance business is correct, then it seems that noblesse won’t matter much.  If we view UE status and insignia as equivalent to a Congressionally chartered entity, say the DAR or Scouts, or a lineage group like the Cincinnati, then per our Guidelines, heraldic display of the relevant insignia should be limited to the context of that entity - meetings, correspondence, etc., but not in the broader context of American daily life.

 

Which, conveniently enough, are essentially the limited circumstances within which the Guidelines allow for display of foreign nobiliary additaments such as supporters, coronets of rank, and special helmets for those who are granted or inherit e.g. a knighthood, baronetcy, or peerageⁿ, none of which are suitable for daily use in the US (Guidelines 2.2.2.1 and 2.2.2.2)

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
12 April 2016 19:53
 

Michael F. McCartney;105866 wrote:

But if his approach to the allegiance business is correct, then it seems that noblesse won’t matter much.  If we view UE status and insignia as equivalent to a Congressionally chartered entity, say the DAR or Scouts, or a lineage group like the Cincinnati, then per our Guidelines, heraldic display of the relevant insignia should be limited to the context of that entity - meetings, correspondence, etc., but not in the border context of American daily life.


But the UE coronet is NOT an additament like a coronet of rank.  It’s an integral part of the crest, just like (as I said before) the mural crown to symbolize that the grantee was a general or a naval crown to symbolize that he was an admiral, or more recently the astral crown to show a connection with aviation.

 

Our guidelines say:  "5.3.2. Immigrants. A foreigner who establishes permanent residence in the United States with the intention of becoming a U.S. citizen is encouraged to adapt his arms as necessary to comply with customary American heraldic practices. This includes the omission of external accessories emblematic of nobility or other status inconsistent with American principles of equality."

 

The UE coronet is (a) not an external accessory, (b) not emblematic of nobility, and (c) not inconsistent with American principles of equality (unless Jefferson meant to exclude loyalists from "all men are created equal").

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
13 April 2016 03:38
 

I’m enjoying the debate, though the only way to really know whether the UE designation (and thus the Loyalist coronets) run afoul of the required renunciations would be for a Canadian UE seeking US citizenship to ask the INS wink

In the meantime, I disagree that the Loyalist coronets are no different from the various other special coronets - mural, naval, astral.  They are similar in that they all generally signify some commendable service; but whatever their origins, the others are not the unique property of any one jurisdiction.  The Canadian Loyalist coronets, AFAIK, are a uniquely Canadian invention, granted by the Canadian heralds as a form of heritable honour, on behalf of the Governor General of Canada exercising authority devolved by the Queen of Canada, to Canadians (not foreign citizens, even if from Canadian roots) who are entitled to the hereditary UE designation under criteria established by a past Governor General appointed by an earlier monarch.  I don’t think that it would be appropriate for any other nation’s heralds or citizens to grant or assume these uniquely distinctive coronets, even for one of their citizens with Canadian UE roots.

 

That doesn’t necessarily mean that the Canadian UE Loyalist coronets are nobiliary, or that they compromise one’s American allegiance; only that they are different in significant ways from mural, naval, or astral coronets, and that these differences warrant more careful attention than the others.

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
13 April 2016 03:41
 

Kathy McClurg;105856 wrote:

I would say the Loyalist Coronet is most certainly inconsistent with the naturalization oath of allegiance….

The loyalist coronet symbolizes loyalty to a foreign government which is renounced upon becoming a citizen here.  That an ancestor had such loyalties is kind of irrelevant IMHO - if it wasn’t irrelevant, than we would have no problem with US arms having whatever ancestor’s additions if they were nobility….


Repeating the point - it symbolizes loyalty to a foreign government.

 

IF that is not an issue, why would symbols of nobility (because an ancestor prior to the move to the US was noble) be an issue?

 

If the argument is that it pays homage to an ancestor, I think there is a distinct problem with the guidelines… the intent of which could be interpreted as… be proud of your anti-American ancestor but not your noble ancestor?... we don’t like nobles, but we like people who fought against the independence of the country?

 

Stated a different way - you have an ancestor who is granted the trappings of nobility and in the US you have to leave them behind yet an ancestor who fought against the country you should use the symbol of that as a point of honoring the ancestor?  You can probably find another symbol to honor that person acting within his conscious rather than a direct alignment with taking up arms against the independence of this country.

 

The mural crown to symbolize that the grantee was a general or a naval crown to symbolize that he was an admiral, or more recently the astral crown to show a connection with aviation do not declare loyalty to a foreign government by an ancestor.  I consider them a different case. (Personal note: I’m unsure any of them should be adopted by Americans unless that ancestor’s arms had them already - if YOU are not entitled to these crowns and your ancestor did not have arms which included them—what right do you have to them?—the operative words are "symbolize that the grantee was—).

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
13 April 2016 09:52
 

Kathy McClurg;105870 wrote:

Repeating the point - it symbolizes loyalty to a foreign government.

IF that is not an issue, why would symbols of nobility (because an ancestor prior to the move to the US was noble) be an issue?


Because the symbols of nobility that we (Mike, me, others who agree with us) are concerned about do not merely state that an ancestor was noble.  They state that the bearer IS noble.  This is the practice in every place I know of that has heraldry with nobiliary additaments.  You don’t properly use a royal crown just because your ancestor was a king; you don’t properly use an earl’s coronet just because your ancestor was an earl.  If you use the coronet of an untitled noble, you are claiming to be an untitled noble.


Quote:

If the argument is that it pays homage to an ancestor, I think there is a distinct problem with the guidelines… the intent of which could be interpreted as… be proud of your anti-American ancestor but not your noble ancestor?... we don’t like nobles, but we like people who fought against the independence of the country?


We don’t dislike nobles.  We merely don’t have any in our country, a conscious decision by the people who founded our system of government.  What is the point of using a heraldic symbol expressly to represent something that doesn’t exist?


Quote:

The mural crown to symbolize that the grantee was a general or a naval crown to symbolize that he was an admiral, or more recently the astral crown to show a connection with aviation do not declare loyalty to a foreign government by an ancestor.


Who do you suppose these generals, admirals, and air marshals were working for, if not a foreign government?  In some cases a foreign government that was fighting against ours, e.g., the mural crown in the crest of augmentation of Ross-of-Bladensburg.  Which I would have no problem whatsoever accepting if a descendant settled in the U.S.

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
13 April 2016 09:59
 

I don’t think this has been discussed yet, but some augmentations have been around for such a long time that they seem to be part of the original shield design:

http://haygenealogy.com/hay/scotland/douglasarms.jpg

 

http://www.scotland101.com/surname/images/Lockhart-Scotland.png

 

http://www.oldthingsforgotten.com/brucebdg1.gif

 

 

It seems that at some point an augmentation (at least one which is on the shield and does not denote nobility) just becomes part of an American’s "base arms".