Quote Originally Posted by cajunscot View Post
Yes -- fraternal titles should only be used in in conjunction with that particular organization. To the "profane", some fraternal titles may seem silly, but rest assured, there are reasons and symbolism behind him.

Although this American has no issue with genuine titles that are rightly bestowed. We could do with a lot more tradition, INMHO. George Washington, for example, saw nothing wrong with heraldry and the American Republic, and frequently displayed his personal arms on everything from his table service to his coach.

T.
At the same time, there is no law or mandate that states that the 'profane' need to accept or even consider these titles, regardless of thier reasons or symbolism. I appreciate heraldry, but as someone who lives in a country with no peerage, I most likely do not give them the importance as some others might.

Yes George Washington is said to have enjoyed heraldry.
Several of our important civilian and military learders have and most likely, still do enjoy the art and science of heraldry. Even Ronald Reagan's interesting path to arms is an example--however, this does not change my thinking with regard to peerage titles, and military titles (outside of active service) used in the US. It does inform my understanding and thank you for that.

To think that someone would actually PAY for a peerage title...
To think that one feels the need to add a title to their name that was not given them...
To think that in the US, one might actually expect other citizens to accept and defer to such a peerage title?

Complete self engrandisement----just my opinion.