bucket shops

[gilmore]

...And yes, Gilmore, I think I am agreeing with you in principle, but there is precedent for an American being considered "sovereign unto himself". That is the basis for the long and proud tradition of Americans not bowing before the King.


Phil

My point, which I didn't want to go into for fear of leading the thread off into another direction, is that while the people may be sovereign, an individual person is not. If this were the case, any individual person (or perhaps corporate body) could buy a piece of land in the US and declare it a sovereign nation.

[gilmore]

Sorry, Scott, but I can't agree with this, and I have George Washington on my side :

It is far from my design to intimate an opinion, that Heraldry, Coat-Armor, etc. might not be rendered conducive to public and private use with us; or that they can have any tendency unfriendly to the purest spirit of Republicanism.* On the contrary, a different conclusion is deducible from the practice of Congress, and the states; all of which have established some kind of Armorial Devices, to authenticate their official instruments.

*emphasis mine.

As I'm sure you well know, the old boy had arms:

http://americanheraldry.org/pages/in...ent.Washington

...

To inherit arms is one thing. We can't help who we are descended from. To display them in a republic is another.

I am not surprised that my family was so committed to Revolutionary fervor that they made Washington look like a poseur. One married Patrick Henry's daughter, and Jefferson was a collateral. Another continued fighting the Revolution in the South so long after the war was over that he had to escape to Florida, which was Spanish at the time.

[macwilkin]

To inherit arms is one thing. We can't help who we are descended from. To display them in a republic is another.

You'll have to take that up with the General. He certainly saw nothing wrong with it. Same with Theodore & Franklin Roosevelt.

T.

[Dixiecat]

Originally Posted by Phil E. Begg View Post
But there is nothing wrong with using it as a decorative element in the house - along with others, if he has them - if he does not claim the arms as his own. There are many Stately Houses in the various parts of Britain which have displays of arms, many of which have had no family connection to the house in centuries.

Perhaps, but they did at one time. It isn't unusual for the owners of such a house to also sell the paintings and statues in it, but no subsequent owner who is honest claims them as his own.

Very interesting thread.

I had to comment on the above as I remember reading somewhere (I've been trying to dig it up and it's driving me crazy) that you didn't compliment a host/hostess on their 'things' as the 'things' were most likely to be inherited and not demonstrative of the taste of the current owners. To do so was considered gauche.

[gilmore]

Very interesting thread.

I had to comment on the above as I remember reading somewhere (I've been trying to dig it up and it's driving me crazy) that you didn't compliment a host/hostess on their 'things' as the 'things' were most likely to be inherited and not demonstrative of the taste of the current owners. To do so was considered gauche.

Right. It is sometimes said in a pitying whisper, "You know, they BOUGHT their furniture."

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

while the people may be sovereign, an individual person is not.

First, the individual is sovereign with sovereign rights, chief of which is his sovereign right to vote, to freedom of speech and expression, and to lawfully own property. These are but a few of his sovereign rights. Any first year law student should understand this, and if he doesn't then perhaps he should consider signing up for the Wally Thor School of Truck Driving.

In the United States constitutional rights are individual rights, not collective rights.

If this were the case, any individual person (or perhaps corporate body) could buy a piece of land in the US and declare it a sovereign nation.

I can't believe your argument about setting up a private nation is at all serious, so I'm not going to bother to address it.

You can be as imbued with as much of the spirit and zeal of your 18th century ancestors as you want-- but you can't use that as an argument for denying any citizen the right to lawfully own property, whether newly created or inherited.

Where your whole argument falls flat on its face is your failure to recognize exactly what a "coat of arms" is. While you (and perhaps others) may choose to emotionally confuse it with some sort of British-ness which you view as antithetical to the core of Americanism, you ignore completely the fact that it is, no more and no less, a piece of heritable property, the same as your surname is a piece of heritable property.

A coat of arms is merely a semiotic rendering, as opposed to the graphic representation, of a spoken name.

And the last time I read the constitution I noted that it expressly forbids depriving someone of their name. That includes the written name, the spoken name, or an artistic representation of the name.

Having a name, it seems, no matter how you utter it, write it, or depict it, is a sovereign right.

[gilmore]

First, the individual is sovereign with sovereign rights, chief of which is his sovereign right to vote, to freedom of speech and expression, and to lawfully own property. These are but a few of his sovereign rights. Any first year law student should understand this, and if he doesn't then perhaps he should consider signing up for the Wally Thor School of Truck Driving.

In the United States constitutional rights are individual rights, not collective rights.

Actually, the US constitution is not all about individual rights, as any first year law student knows. It apportions varies rights to the branches of the US government, to the federal government, to individuals, and to the states. In fact it is expressly stated that the rights not otherwise ennumerated are reserved to the states. And a state is a collective body of individuals, no matter how you slice it.


(BTW although it was a couple of decades ago, I took the book in Con Law.)

I can't believe your argument about setting up a private nation is at all serious, so I'm not going to bother to address it.

I am serious, as were the founders of the US when the Knights of Malta approached them with the idea of setting up a state governed by their own monarchical principles rather than those of representative democracy, in North Carolina. They were turned down.

You can be as imbued with as much of the spirit and zeal of your 18th century ancestors as you want-- but you can't use that as an argument for denying any citizen the right to lawfully own property, whether newly created or inherited.

Where your whole argument falls flat on its face is your failure to recognize exactly what a "coat of arms" is. While you (and perhaps others) may choose to emotionally confuse it with some sort of British-ness which you view as antithetical to the core of Americanism, you ignore completely the fact that it is, no more and no less, a piece of heritable property, the same as your surname is a piece of heritable property.

A coat of arms is merely a semiotic rendering, as opposed to the graphic representation, of a spoken name.

And the last time I read the constitution I noted that it expressly forbids depriving someone of their name.

Where?

That includes the written name, the spoken name, or an artistic representation of the name.

Having a name, it seems, no matter how you utter it, write it, or depict it, is a sovereign right.

The US constitution prohibits the granting of titles of nobility, and also provides the basis for deciding what is and is not heritable property.

As is stated in Article 1, Section 10, "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state. "

Here, clearly the constitution sets out its authority to determine whether titles, emoluments, presents, etc. may be accepted by American individuals from monarchs, and although it prohibits only those holding office of profit or trust from doing so, it is clear that the government has that power.

There is a much followed and cited case that arose in NY state where the court cited Article 1, Section 10, in refusing to grant an American citizen of German descent a change of name that would have added "von" to his surname.

Arms may be heritable property as such in the UK and elsewhere, but are not in the US. (Here it is merely a custom, and I think that if some one is going to follow that custom, questionable as it is in a democracy, it is logical and appropriate that it be followed consistently, with arms being displayed by only the one person authorized to do so by that custom, rather than by anyone merely with the same surname as the original grantee.)

Robert Burns said it best, long after all my ancestors were safely on the Western side of the Atlantic:

"Is there for honest poverty
That hangs his head, an' a' that
The coward slave, we pass him by
We dare be poor for a' that
For a' that, an' a' that
Our toil's obscure and a' that
The rank is but the guinea's stamp
The man's the gowd for a' that

What though on hamely fare we dine
Wear hoddin grey, an' a' that
Gie fools their silks, and knaves their wine
A man's a man, for a' that
For a' that, an' a' that
Their tinsel show an' a' that
The honest man, though e'er sae poor
Is king o' men for a' that

Ye see yon birkie ca'd a lord
Wha struts an' stares an' a' that
Tho' hundreds worship at his word
He's but a coof for a' that
For a' that, an' a' that
His ribband, star and a' that
The man o' independent mind
He looks an' laughs at a' that

A prince can mak' a belted knight
A marquise, duke, an' a' that
But an honest man's aboon his might
Gude faith, he maunna fa' that
For a' that an' a' that
Their dignities an' a' that
The pith o' sense an' pride o' worth
Are higher rank that a' that

Then let us pray that come it may
(as come it will for a' that)
That Sense and Worth, o'er a' the earth
Shall bear the gree an' a' that
For a' that an' a' that
It's coming yet for a' that
That man to man, the world o'er
Shall brithers be for a' that"

Sung at the opening of the Scottish Parliament.

[macwilkin]

As I mentioned before though, Gilmore, Burns, like Washington, was a student of the "gentle science" of heraldry, and designed his own arms.

Todd

[sharpdressedscot]

The US constitution prohibits the granting of titles of nobility, and also provides the basis for deciding what is and is not heritable property.

As is stated in Article 1, Section 10, "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state. "

Here, clearly the constitution sets out its authority to determine whether titles, emoluments, presents, etc. may be accepted by American individuals from monarchs, and although it prohibits only those holding office of profit or trust from doing so, it is clear that the government has that power.

I think you can aquire an "Honorary Title", correct? Is it not the same thing?

[gilmore]

I think you can aquire an "Honorary Title", correct? Is it not the same thing?

From the point of view of the UK, honors granted to those other than UK citizens---such as Bob Geldorf, Rudy Giuliani, etc.--- are honorary.