A modern role for the Knights Templar?
ton...@pobox.com
I've been taking a look at the Knights Templar orders around the world
but I am still not sure what their role is. Whatever the role of the
Knights in the past and whether or not they are correct in calling
themselves 'Knights' in the first place, what do they actually *do*?
Tony
George Lucki
news:1128001077.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
They dress up and pretend. It is likely fun for them.
George Lucki
Julian Richards
Their job was to beat the crap out of Muslims interfering with
Christians visiting the Holy Land. Start them at it again? Let's not
go there.
--
Julian Richards
medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk
www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"
THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL
William Black
Well the 'Knights of St John' still exist and function as a volunteer first
aid unit at many public events in the UK.
They still have a rather odd hierarchy with sort of 'cod' knighthoods and
religious overtones but I gather this doesn't impact on their medical
function.
So if the Catholic Church wanted to reintroduce the Templars they could do
so, and perform a useful public service at the same time.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Yusuf B Gursey
William Black wrote:
> <ton...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:1128001077.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I've been taking a look at the Knights Templar orders around the world
> > but I am still not sure what their role is. Whatever the role of the
> > Knights in the past and whether or not they are correct in calling
> > themselves 'Knights' in the first place, what do they actually *do*?
>
> Well the 'Knights of St John' still exist and function as a volunteer first
> aid unit at many public events in the UK.
Knights of Malta, AFAIK the same or related.
and they have an indpendent state, consisting of a building in
Swizerland.
am...@hotmail.com
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> William Black wrote:
> > <ton...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> > news:1128001077.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I've been taking a look at the Knights Templar orders around the world
> > > but I am still not sure what their role is. Whatever the role of the
> > > Knights in the past and whether or not they are correct in calling
> > > themselves 'Knights' in the first place, what do they actually *do*?
> >
> > Well the 'Knights of St John' still exist and function as a volunteer first
> > aid unit at many public events in the UK.
>
>
> Knights of Malta, AFAIK the same or related.
>
They are exactly the same ("Knights of Malta" being, IIRC, inofficial
name)
> and they have an indpendent state, consisting of a building in
> Swizerland.
I saw their buildings in some other place(s) as well but can't remember
where.
They are the smallest state in the world.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > They still have a rather odd hierarchy with sort of 'cod' knighthoods and
> > religious overtones but I gather this doesn't impact on their medical
> > function.
> >
> > So if the Catholic Church wanted to reintroduce the Templars
Well, it created them, disbanded them so why not?
>> they could do
> > so, and perform a useful public service at the same time.
Following the letter of the original regulations (AFAIK), this means
that they
will have to serve as the _poor_ guides to the tourists visiting
Palestine.
:-)
Brant Gibbard
>
>Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>> William Black wrote:
>> > Well the 'Knights of St John' still exist and function as a volunteer first
>> > aid unit at many public events in the UK.
>>
>>
>> Knights of Malta, AFAIK the same or related.
>>
>
>They are exactly the same ("Knights of Malta" being, IIRC, inofficial
>name)
>
Not exactly the same. There are various flavours of Hospitaller
descended organizations, most obviously including the (Catholic)
Knights of Malta, but also the various (Lutheran and Calvinist)
Johanniterorden in Germany, Sweden and Holland.
The English order that William is referring to is officially known as
The Venerable Order of St. John, and are best known for ambulance and
first aid work. They are not actually descended from the Hospitallers
at all (although for a long time they falsely believed they were).
They appear to have been originally founded as some sort of confidence
scheme by a fraud. However, long after the departure of the original
con-man, its members started taking themselves seriously, and began
the various medical good works for which they are now known. For that
reason they are, I gather, now on quite good terms with both the
Knights of Malta and the Johanniterorden.
There is a long, excessively complicated (and frankly boring!) account
of the shady origins and subsequent redemption through good works of
this order in one of the appendices to Desmond Seward's "The Knights
of War".
Brant Gibbard
Toronto, ON
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Guy Stair Sainty
Gursey says...
>
>
>
> Knights of Malta, AFAIK the same or related.
>
> and they have an indpendent state, consisting of a building in
> Swizerland.
>
Certainly not; the genuine SMOM does not have a "building in Switzerland"
as an independent state - it does have a Permananent Observer Mission
to the UN organizations in Geneva and the Swiss Association has offices,
but neither are even extra-territorial. I suspect you are referring to
one of the self-styled Orders, which are not states, not sovereigns, but
fantasy bodies (some of which are involved in serious financial crimes).
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Guy Stair Sainty
>The English order that William is referring to is officially known as
>The Venerable Order of St. John, and are best known for ambulance and
>first aid work. They are not actually descended from the Hospitallers
>at all (although for a long time they falsely believed they were).
>
>They appear to have been originally founded as some sort of confidence
>scheme by a fraud. However, long after the departure of the original
>con-man, its members started taking themselves seriously, and began
>the various medical good works for which they are now known. For that
>reason they are, I gather, now on quite good terms with both the
>Knights of Malta and the Johanniterorden.
Urghh this is a little off the mark. Whatever the early 19th century origins
of the MVOStJ, in 1888 it became an Order of the British Crown by Royal
Charter of Queen Victoria and today has Priories in England, Scotland,
Wales, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the United States.
>
>There is a long, excessively complicated (and frankly boring!) account
>of the shady origins and subsequent redemption through good works of
>this order in one of the appendices to Desmond Seward's "The Knights
>of War".
>
Poor Desmond, he has tried to make his books appeal to the "general reader"
- I suppose if you want really boring you should read Jonathan Riley-Smith,
Malcolm Barber, et al, who are more "serious" historians.
ax...@white-eagle.invalid.uk
Umberto Eco's _Foucault's Pendulum_) or just harmless people
probably re-enacting Mediaeval dress and so on.
The Order of St John is a very different matter. Unlike the Templars,
it survived the Middle Ages, their last great military victory
being at the Siege of Malta in 1565, and still exists.
The full name is _The Sovereign Military and Hospitaller Order of
St. John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta_. It is recognised
under international law as a sovereign order.
The Teutonic Order was effectively abolished by Napoleon but later
revived. It currently exists as a religious order.
Axel
Brant Gibbard
wrote:
>>
>Poor Desmond, he has tried to make his books appeal to the "general reader"
>- I suppose if you want really boring you should read Jonathan Riley-Smith,
>Malcolm Barber, et al, who are more "serious" historians.
<grin> I should add that the "boring" comment applies only to that
particular appendix, not to the rest of the book which was quite
enjoyable.
I realize the order in question was given royal status by Victoria,
but my comment was mainly directed at the assertion that they were the
same as the Knights of Malta. Even Queen Victoria did not have the
power to make that the case.
Brant Gibbard
Toronto, ON
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
am...@hotmail.com
Brant Gibbard wrote:
>
> The English order that William is referring to is officially known as
> The Venerable Order of St. John, and are best known for ambulance and
> first aid work. They are not actually descended from the Hospitallers
> at all (although for a long time they falsely believed they were).
The Order which still has sovereignity is not, AFAIK, associated with
England
but it is involved in charity and medical work and this is the same
order which
was located on Malta.
Brant Gibbard
I can't speak of how it is in the United States, but the St. John's
ambulance service that operates in the the U.K. and Canada is not the
same as the Knights of Malta. Anglicans are not, to the best of my
knowledge, accepted as Knights by the latter.
Brant Gibbard
The Order with internationally recognized sovereign status is the
Knights of Malta, and AFAIK full members must be Catholics. The
organisation William was referring to that runs many ambulance and
first aid services in the U.K. and former commonwealth countries is
the Most Venerable Order of St. John, and was originally based in
England, with mostly Anglican membership, although it has since
expanded, and I don't think it has any specific denominational ties.
They are not the same.
from p. 270 of Sewards' book:
"The Venerable Order of St. John was founded in 1888 as an order of
the British crown. Its sovereign is the monarch, its grand prior the
duke of Gloucester, [...] But although it occupies the old priory of
the Knights of Malta at Clerkenwell and bears their eight-pointed
cross as its insignia, it has no historical continuity whatever from
the Order of Malta or the medieval Hospitallers."
p. 284
"In 1961 the Venerable Order became one of the 'Alliance Orders of St.
John', signing a convention with the German, Dutch and Swedish
branches of the Johanniterorden. Two years later it signed a concordat
with the Sovereign Military Order [ie., the Knights of Malta] ... the
Venerable Order and the Sovereign Order began to cooperate in various
charities and be represented at each others services."
p. 285
"The Most Venerable Order of St. John has some 25,000 members., about
1,500 being knights or dames. Recently it has transformed itself into
an international order whose priories in the countries of the former
Empire (and also in the United States) have equal status with the
parent body at Clerkenwell. It is now governed by a grand council of
priors and chancellors, replacing the old General Chapter which was a
predominantly British body."
am...@hotmail.com
Brant Gibbard wrote:
> On 30 Sep 2005 05:53:09 -0700, am...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >Brant Gibbard wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> The English order that William is referring to is officially known as
> >> The Venerable Order of St. John, and are best known for ambulance and
> >> first aid work. They are not actually descended from the Hospitallers
> >> at all (although for a long time they falsely believed they were).
> >
> >The Order which still has sovereignity is not, AFAIK, associated with
> >England
> >but it is involved in charity and medical work and this is the same
> >order which
> >was located on Malta.
>
> The Order with internationally recognized sovereign status is the
> Knights of Malta, and AFAIK full members must be Catholics.
Yes, and, AFAIK, the Order is highly selective in its membership.
> The
> organisation William was referring to that runs many ambulance
We had been talking (with Yusuf) about a _sovereign_ order, which is
the
original one. I simply have no clue about <whoever they are> operating
in
the UK. As you wrote, they can't be the members of the original order
because
they are not Catholics.
AFAIK, the original ones are also doing medical services so
functionally
organizations are in the same area.
granite stone
take jerusalem. the knights of templar took the city and the island of
crete where they set up a base. good lads through in through. to join
you had extremely religious and be a mason, already one in a lodge.
the knights of templar are ancient masons opposite of the shrinners who
are free-masons. it is also called scot rite (shrinners) and york rite
(templar). both are at the 33 degree level in masonry. both show that
there are two areas of masonry. islam has free-mason beginnings and is
in the scot rite. in the film the scot rite - islam armies go against
the knights of templar - york rite. the movies does not show how
ridiculous scot rite is. a circus in the film would have done so.
great movie.
jon
am...@hotmail.com
granite stone wrote:
> shows the knights of templar 1000 years ago
in 1004?
>starting the 3 cruisades to
> take jerusalem. the knights of templar took the city
all by themselves?
> and the island of
> crete where they set up a base. good lads through in through. to join
> you had extremely religious and be a mason,
Really, how did it go together with them being the high-born nobles?
I mean masonry, not religiousness....
> already one in a lodge.
"lodge" in XI century?
> the knights of templar are ancient masons opposite of the shrinners who
> are free-masons.
...there also were those little green people from Mars and nobody can
figure out who exactly are they...
>it is also called scot rite (shrinners) and york rite
> (templar).
... which goes just fine with the fact that the order was founded by
the
French....
>both are at the 33 degree level in masonry. both show that
> there are two areas of masonry.
> islam has free-mason beginnings
... typical occupation for the camel-drivers....
> and is
> in the scot rite.
... and originated in Scotland...
> in the film
?
>the scot rite - islam armies go against
> the knights of templar - york rite.
Are you talking about "Braveheart"?
> the movies does not show how
> ridiculous scot rite is.
Painting themselves blue or just not wearing any pants?
> a circus in the film would have done so.
I'd take it easy on drinking if I was you....
Guy Stair Sainty
stone says...
This paragraph is, of course, not only nonsense but barely intelligble. The
Knights Templars, founded not 1000 years ago but less than 900, were abolished
by 1312. The Masonic fantasies which allege some secret connection are no more
than that, pure fantasies for the deluded - the Masonic movement emerged in
the late 17th / early 18th century and developed from there; the purported
Templar connection is a complete invention. This nonsense is meat for those who
also believe that Dan Brown is a serious historian and the Da Vinci Code a work
of scholarship.
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
> This paragraph is, of course, not only nonsense but barely intelligble. The
> Knights Templars, founded not 1000 years ago but less than 900, were abolished
> by 1312.
Who abolished the Templars? The Pope? But the Templars were, as far as
I am aware, not founded by the Papacy, so how can the Papacy abolish
the order? If, on the other hand, you maintain that the Papacy can
abolish things it has not established, then is it not the case that the
Protestant monarchy of England was abolished by the Papacy? It would
appear that the Templars have been no more abolished than the monarchy
in this country.
Just a thought.
Graham Senior-Milne
Andrew
spiritual superior of the Order of the Temple, and he has abolished it
once and forever. The Order of the Temple was legally (de-jure) founded
by the Holy See. It is does not matter who was a fundator of the idea
(de -facto).
For example, Order "The Society of Jesus" was idealogically (de-facto)
founded by the Ignio Lopes de Ricaldo (Ignatius Loyola), but de-jure
this Order was founded by the Holy See. If the Holy See will desire to
abolish it, the Holy See may do it any time.
Once again, you are not an expert in this matter. More, your opinion
everytime contradicts with the Law. Guy Stair Sainty is a world-known
expert and author. It is strange to see that you everytime confuse the
matters and your more then strange attack against Doctor's Sainty
information (against his well known, legal and correct information) is
quite unpleasant. For what you stated about «Protestant monarchy of
England" here? What kind of relation between the Military Order of the
Roman- Catholic Church and an territorial-political entity with of with
a form of sovereign state?
There is not such thing as Order of the Temple (and therefore there
are not Knights Templar) in our days. The Order of the Temple (it was a
one of military Orders of the Roman-catholic Church) was abolished by
following legal acts of the Pope Clementus V ( who was spiritual and
temporal suserain of this Order):
- the Bull" Vox Clamantis" of 3 April 1312 - by this Bull the all
activities of the Order was stopped.
- the Bull " Ad providam Christi Vicarii" in one month after previous
Bull - all privileges ( including all heraldic symbols)of the Order
was abolished and abandoned.
- the Bull "Vox in excelo" of 22 May 1312 - the Order was abolished
forever without possibility for rehabilitation.
George Lucki
news:1128443450.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Sheesh. First surviving English feudal baronies and now surviving Templars -
what next? ;)
The Templars did like start as something like a private association with a
religious mission but they soon became a monastic-military order of the
Roman Church. Until recognized as such by the Church they were not yet a
chivalric order in the sense we are using it here. The Templars were a
monastic order that followed a rule created by Bernard of Clairvaux, also
the founder of the Cistercian Order. In 1128 the order was recognized by the
Council of Troyesnd this recognition was confirmed by Pope Honorius II.
They received numerous later privileges from Popes - to whom they owed
allegiance. These rights could not have been assumed but only granted by
sovereign authority. Monastic-military orders of course could have no valid
existence as a chivalric order at this time without their statutes having
been authorized by the Pope. Without such recognition and authorization the
Templars would have been at best an informal association of guys with swords
working together in a common purpose. Having been abolished under albeit
very unfortunate circumstances in 1312 by Pope Clement V (as was his right
to do with an Order of the Church) the order ceased and there is absolutely
no evidence of its survival as an order. The current self-styled orders of
teh Temple are all recent creations and any connection to the original order
is really nothing but a fantasy.
Kind regards, George Lucki
ax...@white-eagle.invalid.uk
> Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
>> This paragraph is, of course, not only nonsense but barely intelligble. The
>> Knights Templars, founded not 1000 years ago but less than 900, were abolished
>> by 1312.
> Who abolished the Templars? The Pope? But the Templars were, as far as
> I am aware, not founded by the Papacy, so how can the Papacy abolish
They were not.
> the order? If, on the other hand, you maintain that the Papacy can
> abolish things it has not established, then is it not the case that the
> Protestant monarchy of England was abolished by the Papacy? It would
> appear that the Templars have been no more abolished than the monarchy
> in this country.
The Papacy connot abolish temporal rulerships. But you will find
that the entire episcopal succession and clerical orders within the
Church of England are invalid.
Axel
Andrew
Re. on : "The Papacy connot abolish temporal rulerships".
It is rubbish at least. Pope is a temporal sovereign (as well spiritual
superior), even in present ( the Pope is much more Sovereign of the
real meaning of this term, then any other ruler in the world). In the
time of existence of Papal State (not in present condition, of couse)
the Pope as temporal suzerain creates and abolishes any his
state-temporal vassal on his own chose. For example, the Grand Duchy of
Tuscany was a State of papal creation and temporal vassal - dependent
of the Holy See (in the Medici time). But, it is nothing to do with
Order of the Temple. It was a MILITARY ORDER OF THE ROMAN-CATHOLIC
CHURCH, and in the time of existence of this Order, this Order was a
CREATION and VASSAL WITH FULL DEPENDANCE from the Holy See, because the
Holy See has both capacity in this matter: as absolute temporal
sovereign (and creator, because the Order of the Temple was de-jure
founded by the Holy See) and absolute spiritual superior.
Andrew
I made several mistakes in dates of legislation on abolition of the
Order of the Temple:
Here is correct legislature:
Legislation passed on the Council of Vienna (1311-1312):
- the Bull" Vox Clamantis" or ""Vox in excelso" (dated 22 March1312)
proclaimed of 3 April 1312 - by this Bull the all activities of the
Order was stopped and the Order was abolished forever without
possibility for rehabilitation.
-the Bull " Ad providam Christi Vicarii" dated 2 May 1312 - all
symbols (including heraldry)of the Order was abolished and abandoned
forever.
Following laws regulated confiscation of the property of the former
Order:
- the Bull " Conciderantes" of date 6 May 1312
- the Bull" Nuper in concilio" of 16 May 1312
Legislation passed in Avignon:
- the Bull "Licet Pridem" of 13 January 1313 - a part of the
property of the former Order was granted to Order of St.John of
Jerusalem.
CJ Adams
> The Papacy connot abolish temporal rulerships. But you will find
> that the entire episcopal succession and clerical orders within the
> Church of England are invalid.
>
That more or less depends on whether or not you might be Anglican,
dunnit? ;-)
Cheers
CJ Adams
Arte et Marte
ax...@white-eagle.invalid.uk
> Re. on : "The Papacy connot abolish temporal rulerships".
> It is rubbish at least. Pope is a temporal sovereign (as well spiritual
> superior), even in present ( the Pope is much more Sovereign of the
> real meaning of this term, then any other ruler in the world). In the
> time of existence of Papal State (not in present condition, of couse)
> the Pope as temporal suzerain creates and abolishes any his
> state-temporal vassal on his own chose. For example, the Grand Duchy of
Much as I support the Papacy, I am afraid that the temporal role
has long since passed.
A few places do remain resistant to the modern world...
The Isle of Sark used to be one... run by the deceased Dame of Sark.
Mount Athos, a monastic state, although Orthodox.
The Vatican State obviously
San Marino
Andorra
And I should mention Lichtenstein where the prince allowed a Cossack
cavalry regiment to seek refuge and settle at the end of the Second
World War.
If anybody was to claim any descent from the Knights Templar, it
would be those heroes such as the cossacks who fought on the Eastern
Front for the same beliefs.
Axe
Andrew
> Much as I support the Papacy, I am afraid that the temporal role
> has long since passed.
Simple rubbish At Least. The Pope is a temporal sovereign and the Head
of State in International Law.
> A few places do remain resistant to the modern world...
>
> The Isle of Sark used to be one... run by the deceased Dame of Sark.
There is At Least strange statement: how it possible to put = between
the feudal signory of Sark (nothing to do with state) and the SR of San
Marino (sovereign state in International Law) for example? Simple
rubbish.
> Mount Athos, a monastic state, although Orthodox.
Where is this fantastic "state"? There is not such state no where in
the world.
> The Vatican State obviously
> San Marino
> Andorra
How it possible to state that: "The Vatican State obviously"? And
what? Andorra certainly? The Pope is a most powerful temporal sovereign
(in the real legal meaning of this term in International Law). The
Andorra is a quasi -principality with semi-sovereign power of the
General Council and quasi-power of co-princes (who is President of
French Republic and The Bishop of Urhel (last one appointed by the
Pope)
Certainly you do not fully understand the subject on which you wrote.
> And I should mention Lichtenstein where the prince allowed a Cossack
> cavalry regiment to seek refuge and settle at the end of the Second
> World War.
??? You wrote so about sovereign state (very rich state) The
Principiality of Leichtenstein???
Certainly you do not fully understand the subject on which you wrote.
George Lucki
news:UmB0f.53774$VI6....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk......
> If anybody was to claim any descent from the Knights Templar, it
> would be those heroes such as the cossacks who fought on the Eastern
> Front for the same beliefs.
?????
Russian Cossacks fighting for Nazi Germany and against Communist Russia.
What does this have to do with the 12 - 14 the century Templars?
George Lucki
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
well-mannered fashion. I have no particular knowledge of this subject
but it has been rather fun putting the cat amongst the pompous pigeons.
Well risen to the bait!
I will pose another question. The Templars were, I believe, a sovereign
military order and, rather like the Order of St. John, appointed
ambassadors to the courts of other sovereigns. Since when has one
sovereign been able to abolish another? Can't be done.
David Alex Lamb
IIRC the Catholic church does not recognize confirmations by Anglican bishops,
because nobody knows which were ordained by apostolic successors of "real"
(Catholic) bishops, and which by bishops appointed by Henry VIII.
And I was an Anglican when my (Anglican) priest told me this.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
George Lucki
news:1128465644.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Sheesh. Your response certainly does put your contributions in this
discussion into some clearer perspective. For the benefit of others who may
be interested in the question you have perhaps again as a humble cat posed
to the pompous pigeons here -
The sovereignty of the Templars (as understood in a mediaeval sense) - was
derived from numerous privileges granted it by the Papacy on whom it was
dependent as an order of the Church. All this ended with the abolishment of
the Order.
George Lucki
Andrew
sovereignty) (hypothetically) will chose to abolish SMOM ( the only
existing Sovereign Order in the world at present), the Holy See may do
it any time and without any legal problem. The base of existence of
SMOM is a Roman-Catholic religious purposes. The Pope is absolute
sovereign and superior in all matter pertaining all roman-catholic
bodies. If the Pope will issue the proper abolishing Law, the Order of
the Roman-catholic church become non-existent and its sovereignty
(based on Papal grant and thereafter recognized by other states) become
abolished as well, because the existence of any Roman-catholic Military
Order is directed for the purposes of the Roman-catholic church and the
Holy See. Those positions stated as 'fundamental' in every
constitutions (former and present) of any Roman-catholic Military
Order. This is non-disputable matter. To tell that "the Pope may not
abolish sovereignty of Roman-catholic Military Order" = to tell
absolute rubbish and fairy-tale for most silly ignoramuses.
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
I was talking about the order in this country, which is Protestant. You
will note that I referred to the Order of St. John, not the Order of
Malta. Dur!!!!!
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
consent to the abolition of the sovereigns of other countries? And am I
not right in thinking that the Papal Bull was never promulgated in
Scotland and that in Portugal the property of the Templars and the
knights themselves were transferred wholesale into the Kinghts of
Christ, an order which I think still exists today? Did not a similar
thing happen to the Teutonic Knights?
Andrew
an Order of the British Crown by Queen Victoria at 1888 and an Military
Order of the Roman-Catholic Church ( as former Order of the Temple,
SMOM, etc.) ( with exception that MVOSJ is a member od Alliance of St.
John)....
Certainly, you do not fully understand the subject on which you
wrote... No comments....
Andrew
No "Order of the Temple" existed since abolishing in 1312. The Order of
the Christ was established by King Denesh as Order of Portuguese Crown.
Thereafter the Order with the same name was established by the Holy
See. It is does not matter that some former knights of the Temple
become members of Portuguese Order of the Christ. The Order of the Holy
Mary of Jerusalem ( other name: Teutonic Order) is a Roman-catholic
Order even in present. If you mean the renegades Priory (Bailiwick) of
Utrecht, members of which was converted to Lutheranism, it become
illegal up to 1815, when this body with the same name was newly
established ( for protestant religion purposes) by the Crown of
Netherlands, and now this body is under protectorate of the same Crown.
You knowledge on the nobility, on the chivalry and on pertaining
legislature (as well in field on International Law) is very and very
poor. Your opinion everytime fully contradicts with Law and history.
Chris Hills
Andrew <kirkl...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>.
>
>You knowledge on the nobility, on the chivalry and on pertaining
>legislature (as well in field on International Law) is very and very
>poor. Your opinion everytime fully contradicts with Law and history.
OTOH the knowledge of both you and Graham is appalling when it comes to
Usenet NG's. Please set the options in your news reader so that you
quote the message you are replying to.
I assume you are using the broken Google interface to Usenet?
Regards
Chris
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch...@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
am...@hotmail.com
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk wrote:
> If the Pope could abolish the order then why did he need to get the
> consent to the abolition of the sovereigns of other countries?
Actually, it went in an opposite way. Phillip the Fair wanted to deal
with
this order (AFAIK, mostly money issue and unwillingness to have a
powerful "state within a state"). To achieve his purpose, he had to get
a papal consent. Contrary to what is written in "Da Vinchi....", Papacy
did not initiate this process. Simply, the Pope was highly dependent on
the King of France and could not resist the pressure.
George Lucki
<gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1128511327....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I do believe Graham was generous with himself when he said he had no
particular knowledge of the subject.
I recall your statement was "I will pose another question. The Templars
were, I believe, a sovereign military order and, rather like the Order of
St. John, appointed ambassadors to the courts of other sovereigns. Since
when has one sovereign been able to abolish another? Can't be done."
If you were referring to the British Veneralble Order of St. John then of
course you must realize that this order is *not* sovereign and has never
appointed ambassadors to other courts. It was a private 19th century
foundation that became a chivalric order when the British crown accepted
headship of this group. It has no real historical connection with the
Sovereign Military Order of St John of Jerusalem of Malta and of Rhodes but
rather shares a common inspiration. Of course the Pope could not abolish
this one as it is neither Catholic nor has it anything to do with the
Catholic Order of St. John (SMOM).
The statement made more sense if you had been referring to the SMOM in your
comparison.
And to respond to another post "Did not a similar
thing happen to the Teutonic Knights?"
- no nothing similar to the suppression of the Templars happened to the
Teutonic Knights. This Order continues to this day transformed from a
military-monastic order of chivalry to a religious order of the Church.
There are still lay members who are honorary knights or familiars of this
order.
With no disrespect, my suggestion to you is simply to start by reading a
basic book on the history of these orders and rejoin the discussion at that
point. This information is really readily accessible.
Kind regards, George Lucki
ax...@white-eagle.invalid.uk
> well-mannered fashion. I have no particular knowledge of this subject
> but it has been rather fun putting the cat amongst the pompous pigeons.
> Well risen to the bait!
What question? Who cannot answer? Please post some context.
Axel
ax...@white-eagle.invalid.uk
> military order and, rather like the Order of St. John, appointed
> ambassadors to the courts of other sovereigns. Since when has one
> sovereign been able to abolish another? Can't be done.
Rome did it effectively with regard to Carthage.
Axel
ax...@white-eagle.invalid.uk
Which country?
Axel
ax...@white-eagle.invalid.uk
The Teutonic knights were essentially finished by Napoleon although
later refounded.
Axel
ax...@white-eagle.invalid.uk
> ax...@white-eagle.invalid.uk wrote:
>> Much as I support the Papacy, I am afraid that the temporal role
>> has long since passed.
> Simple rubbish At Least. The Pope is a temporal sovereign and the Head
> of State in International Law.
>> A few places do remain resistant to the modern world...
>> The Isle of Sark used to be one... run by the deceased Dame of Sark.
> There is At Least strange statement: how it possible to put = between
> the feudal signory of Sark (nothing to do with state) and the SR of San
> Marino (sovereign state in International Law) for example? Simple
> rubbish.
Really?
>> Mount Athos, a monastic state, although Orthodox.
> Where is this fantastic "state"? There is not such state no where in
> the world.
It is in Greece. And it very much does exist.
>> The Vatican State obviously
>> San Marino
>> Andorra
> How it possible to state that: "The Vatican State obviously"? And
Because it is an independent state.
> what? Andorra certainly? The Pope is a most powerful temporal sovereign
> (in the real legal meaning of this term in International Law). The
> Andorra is a quasi -principality with semi-sovereign power of the
> General Council and quasi-power of co-princes (who is President of
> French Republic and The Bishop of Urhel (last one appointed by the
> Pope)
> Certainly you do not fully understand the subject on which you wrote.
I understand it fully.
Axel
Guy Stair Sainty
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk says...
>
>
>Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
>
>> This paragraph is, of course, not only nonsense but barely intelligble. The
>>Knights Templars, founded not 1000 years ago but less than 900, were abolished
>> by 1312.
>
>Who abolished the Templars? The Pope? But the Templars were, as far as
>I am aware, not founded by the Papacy, so how can the Papacy abolish
>abolish things it has not established, then is it not the case that the
>Protestant monarchy of England was abolished by the Papacy? It would
>appear that the Templars have been no more abolished than the monarchy
>in this country.
>
A silly one nonetheless; you have a basic misunderstanding of legal principles,
so let me put this in a way you might understand. You and a couple of friends
decide to go into business together, to do so you must form a limited company,
or a legal partnership. Both require various forms of legal acts to come into
being. If you fail to fulfill the legal requirements, or for certain other
reasons, your partnership may be dissolved or the company liquidated. It then
ceases to exist. It does not matter what happened in the past or your original
intentions. Your legal body has ceased to exist, just as do thousands of
comapanes and partnerships every year that are liquidated or wound up.
A group of noblemen decided to form a confraternity, for this to have any legal
form, for this body to be able to receive members who made religious promises,
for it to be able to own and receive property, for it to be exempt from temporal
or episcopal supervision, it had to have as an absolute necessity
to be formed into a corporation that would be recognized in law. This
corporation was ultimately called an order, and the authority that created its
legal existence was the Papacy. When it was perceived as failing to meet the
obligations imposed upon it in the original Papal Bulls that gave it legal
existence and privileges, these were revoked and the legal body simply ceased to
exist.
The Monarchy of Great Britain, however, was not established by the Popes and
does not owe its legal existence to Papal approval. The most the Pope could do
was by excommunicating the sovereign relieve her / his Catholic subjects of
their obligations of fealty and loyalty.
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Guy Stair Sainty
says...
>
>
>Re. on : "The Papacy connot abolish temporal rulerships".
>
>It is rubbish at least. Pope is a temporal sovereign (as well spiritual
>superior), even in present ( the Pope is much more Sovereign of the
>real meaning of this term, then any other ruler in the world). In the
>time of existence of Papal State (not in present condition, of couse)
>the Pope as temporal suzerain creates and abolishes any his
>state-temporal vassal on his own chose. For example, the Grand Duchy of
>Tuscany was a State of papal creation and temporal vassal - dependent
>of the Holy See (in the Medici time).
This is not in fact correct. The original title of Grand Duke of Tuscany was
conferred upon the Duke of Florence by the Pope as a title, it did not represent
the erection of his territories into a Grand Duchy. This was only effected
sub-sequently by a reluctant Emperor.
In actuality the territories of what became the Grand Duchy of Tuscany were
predominately within the Imperial demesne; only a small portion of the Grand
Duchy was a papal fief. Furthermore there were ongoing disputes as to whether
part of the Grand Duchy was entirely free of overlordship altogether.
The issue of the status of some of the Papal fiefs continued to be a point of
contention and remained in dispute during the negotiations over several 18th
century treaties; the Pope usually had to give way (as over Parma in 1731).
Guy Stair Sainty
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk says...
held by the Templars were fiefs of (a) the Emperor at Constantinople through
the intermediary lordship of the King of Jerusalem (who did not pay much
attention to the Emperor's overlordship, however), or through the Kings of
Cyprus also an Imperial fief, or (b) of the Pope, or (c) of the various European
sovereigns, or (d) were simple ecclesiastical benefices given exempt
(from episcopal control) jursidiction. They never enjoyed possession of a fief
such as Rhodes, a de facto sovereign territory (although the Emperor at
Constantinople claimed overlordship - and the knights initially sought his
investiture).
Envoys sent by the knights hospitallers were not treated in the same way as the
Envoys of sovereigns of equal rank by European kings. Once the knights
got possession of Malta, also as a fief of Sicily, they gradually managed to
establish the right to send and receive ambassadors and even got precedence for
their ambassador ahead of the Envoys of the Grand Duke of Tuscany at
some courts. By that stage the Templars had long been abolished.
Your theory is absolute nonesense anyway. Of course a state can be deprived of
sovereignty; this has happened to numerous states at various time, starting with
Courland, Georgia, some 300 + States of the Holy Roman Empire, the
Italian states, etc etc etc. A state loses its sovereignty when it ceases to be
an independent, sovereign terrutory with its own population, etc etc. The
SMOM is considered by many states to be sovereign sui generis, like the Holy
See, although many states do not recognize this in the case of the SMOM - but
this was NEVER the case with the Templars whose abolition long pre-dated modern
ideas of sovereignty and rights of legation.
Guy Stair Sainty
says...
I actually disagree with this thesis, because the Order of Malta no longer
depends on the Holy See other than it is religious aspects. None of the states
with which it has reciprocal diplomatic relations do so BECAUSE OF THE
ATTITUDE OF THE HOLY SEE. The 1998 Constitution and Code is also very clear that
no longer is the Pope required to confirm the election of the Grand Master, a
fact which prior to 1998 gave the Pope a measure of control; now all that is
required is that the Order "inform" the Holy See of the election of a new Grand
Master. The Order today does not even appear in the Annuario Pontificio among
the religious Orders - it is ONLY listed there under States with which the Holy
See has diplomatic relations. It still enjoys the protection of the Holy See in
its religious aspects.
This is exactly parallel to the Bishop of Urgel's co-sovereignty over Andorra.
Whatever the Papal action regarding the Bishop, Andorra's sovereignty would not
be compromised.
Guy Stair Sainty
says...
quite a number of individuals who are members of both Orders.
Guy Stair Sainty
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk says...
else. The Order of Christ was established separately, and only after its
establishment was it endowed with the Portuguese benefices of the Templars;
ditto with the Templar estates in the Kingdom of Aragon which were given to the
newly formed Order of Montesa.
The Teutonic Knights are an entirely different and unrelated and have never
been abolished; the properties of the Order in the Baltics were converted by
the master of the Knights there into the hereditary duchy of Courland (for
himself) just as the Orders' Prussian territories became the Duchy of Prussia
when the Grand Master embraced the Lutheran faith and simply declared himself
ruler. Both were confirmed by the King of Poland as fiefs - Prussia ultimately
became a Kingdom by an act of the Emperor in Vienna, and Courland was
incorporated into Russia.
Guy Stair Sainty
ax...@white-eagle.invalid.uk says...
No, that is incorrect.
By the Peace of Lunéville of 9 February 1801 and the Treaty of Amiens of 25
March 1802, The Teutonic Order's sovereign possessions on the left bank of the
Rhine, with annual revenues of three hundred and ninety-five thousand six
hundred and four florins, were distributed among the neighbouring German
sovereigns. In compensation the Order was given the chapters, abbeys and
immediate convents of Voralberg in Austrian Swabia and the immediate convents of
Augsburg and Constance. Its Grand Master, the Archduke Carl-Ludwig had taken
office without either making his vows or being enthroned but nonetheless signed
away its properties. The Order was given the ninth vote in the Council of
Princes of the Empire, although the proposal to change the name from Grand
Master to Elector was never effected and the dissolution of the Empire soon made
this position irrelevant. On 30 June 1804 Carl-Ludwig resigned the Grand
Magistery to his coadjutor, the Archduke Anton, who then made solemn profession.
By article XII of the Treaty of Pressburg of 26 December 1805 between Austria
and France all the possessions of the Grand Magistery at Mergentheim and all
those given in exchange earlier were attached to what was to be a hereditary
Grand Mastership, invested in the male line of the Imperial House of Austria.
The new Grand Master, the Archduke Anton, was the son of the Emperor Leopold II
and brother of Francis I of Austria, and had already been elected Prince Bishop
of Münster and Archbishop of Cologne. On 17 February 1806, the Emperor, Francis
I, acknowledged his brother Anton as Grand Master of the Teutonic Order,
confirming the provisions of the Treaty of Pressburg, until such time as it
would become a hereditary dignity. At the same time he also imposed some
limitations on the scope of the Treaty, to the detriment of the Order. The
sovereign status recognised in the treaty of Pressburg was now to be attributed
to whichever Prince of the House of Austria would in future hold the title of
Grand Master, but this would be a limited sovereignty, subordinated to the
“Headship of the Imperial House of Austria” (rather than “Emperor of Austria”).
The existing members were confirmed in their position, those received as novices
were to be permitted to proceed to profession and candidates for the novitiate
could continue their progress, but in a notable modification of the Grand
Master’s rights, future candidates for the novitiate could not be received
without Imperial assent. No attempt was made to consult the Holy See and this
act was in contravention of canon law. Meanwhile, the formation of the
Confederation of the Rhine on 12 July 1806 cost the Order possession of several
more commanderies, granted variously to the Kings of Bavaria and Württemberg and
the Grand Duke of Baden. By decree of Napoleon, on 24 April 1809, the Order was
suppressed in the territories of the Confederation, those knights who were not
engaged in the armies opposing the French were required to be compensated by
their new rulers and Mergentheim (Marienthal) was handed over to the Crown of
Württemberg. The only bailiwicks remaining undisturbed were those of Austria,
with three commanderies attributed to the Grand Commander and eight other
commanderies and one convent, and the bailiwick of Adige and the Mountains. The
commandery of Frankfurt am Main (Sachsenhausen) was retained, and in Austrian
Silesia it preserved two commanderies and some parishes but lost the commandery
of Namslau in Silesian Prussia, confiscated by the Prussian secularization
commission on 12 December 1810. Despite pleas on the Order’s behalf for the
enactment of the terms of the treaty of Pressburg, the Congress of Vienna of
1815 refused to return any of the properties it had lost in the preceding twenty
years of conflict.
The decision on how to treat the Order was postponed until 20 February 1826,
when the Emperor Francis asked Metternich to determine whether the Teutonic
Order should have its autonomy restored within the Austrian states. There were
now only four professed knights in addition to the Grand Master; the Order
urgently needed regeneration or it would disappear. By a decree of 8 March 1834,
the Emperor returned to the Teutonic knights all the rights they had enjoyed by
the Treaty of Pressburg, abrogating the limitation on those rights imposed by
the decree of 17 February 1806. The Order was now declared to be an “Autonomous,
Religious and Military Institute” under the protection of the Emperor, with an
Archduke as Hoch- und Deutschmeister and the status of “immediate fief of the
Empire” while the Grand Master, the Archduke Anton, was to be treated as a
Reigning Sovereign in all the Austrian States. His successors were required to
request investiture from the “sovereign of Austria” and would be considered
Ecclesiastical Vassal Princes, ranking before “all secular and ecclesiastical
princes”. The Emperor would become “suzerain and protector of the Order”.
[From Burke's Peerage and Gentry World Orders of Knighthood and Merit to be
published in Jan-Feb 2006]
Andrew
Dear Mr. Sainty, you reply my artical
<1128512761.372303.296...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, Andrew
says...
>What is rubbish!!! What kind of relation between MVOSJ, established as
>an Order of the British Crown by Queen Victoria at 1888 and an Military
>Order of the Roman-Catholic Church ( as former Order of the Temple,
>SMOM, etc.) ( with exception that MVOSJ is a member od Alliance of St.
>John)....
as such
>Both Orders have signed several direct agreements with each other.
There are
>quite a number of individuals who are members of both Orders.
I of course know that, but it was meant that is 'not any historical and
creative relation between SMOM and MVOSJ'. It was meant as explanation
because one person here everytime confused the matters and promulgate
his private opinion.
--
Andrew
>> Mount Athos, a monastic state, although Orthodox.It is in Greece. And it very much >>does exist.
Again..... There is not such a 'state' and never existed in former
time. The body that meant here is no more then simple Greek-orthodox
monastery. Existence of such a 'state' is a sequential fantastic
product of creasy mind.
My opinion ( may be it is wrong) this forum is for people with healthy
mind....
Andrew
ax...@white-eagle.invalid.uk wrote:
> >> Much as I support the Papacy, I am afraid that the temporal role
> >> has long since passed.
This is nonsense and mad rubbish (AT LEAST). Honestly: Everything
you wrote in your post here is simple rubbish. You have no knowledge
on the subject.
> >> Mount Athos, a monastic state, although Orthodox.
> It is in Greece. And it very much does exist.
After such your words any person who has HEALTHY MIND will understand
the "level" of your knowledge on the subject. Such knowledge is not
simply poor, it is non-existent.
There is not such a 'state' and such a 'state' never existed in
former times. It is a simple Greek -orthodox monastery.
Any other of your appeal not worthy the time to reply. First to start
any appeal you must to study (at least) basic history and basic
politilogy. No more comment.......................
Andrew
>> Much as I support the Papacy, I am afraid that the temporal role
>> has long since passed.
And he wrote at the same tame that the Vatican "is an independent
state"!
?????????
Yes, of course. The Vatican State City is an independent state. This
state is governed by the Holy See. The Pope is a sovereign of the Holy
See. The Pope is a temporal sovereign as well he is spiritual superior.
Andrew
Guy Stair Sainty wrote ( absolutely correct):
>The 1998 Constitution and Code is also very clear that
>no longer is the Pope required to confirm the election of the Grand Master, a
>fact which prior to 1998 gave the Pope a measure of control; now all that is
>required is that the Order "inform" the Holy See of the election of a new Grand
>Master. The Order today does not even appear in the Annuario Pontificio among
>the religious Orders - it is ONLY listed there under States with which the Holy
>See has diplomatic relations. It still enjoys the protection of the Holy See in
>its religious aspects.
It is not debatable that the Pope, as temporal sovereign may not (
hypothetically) put an sovereign act to Directly abolish sovereignty of
the SMOM ( as sovereign body) ( since new Constitutional Code
certainly), but if he will chose (hypothetically) that the SMOM is no
longer necessary as an body for the Holy Roman Church ( note: the SMOM
even in present constitutional condition has both capacity: as
sovereign entity and as military Order of the Roman-Catholic Church
,and his first capacity and all structure of the Order fully depends
from his second capacity) and put the relevant Law ( Save the God form
this!) how the SMOM ( on which base) will be operate? What kind of
purposes this sovereign entity will have thereafter? If the SMOM will
lost his relevant religious side, the SMOM become nothing (in
similarity with situation with illegal clam of Paul I of Russia for
sovereign Grandmastership out of Roman-catholic church).This is a
question... Therefore the Pope (hypothetically) technically may abolish
SMOM even as spiritual superior of the Roman-catholic Church... Save
the God from this...
George Lucki
news:di2tb...@drn.newsguy.com...
As a clarification - After the second peace of Thorn in 1466 the Order ceded
Pomerania and moved its seat from Malbork (Marienburg) to Konigsberg. The
ceded territories became Royal Prussia and incorporated into the Crown of
Poland. At the same time the Grand Master of the Order and the Order's
territories became a vassal of Poland at this point.
In 1525 the transformation of the Order's territories into Ducal Prussia
occurred with the conversion of the Grand Master Albrecht Hohenzollern to
Lutheranism. He performed a solemn act of vassal fealty to the Polish King
Sigismund the Old and was confirmed as Duke. In 1618 with the extinction of
this Prussian line Sigismund III of Poland authorized a personal union
between Brandenburg and Ducal Prussia in the Elector of Brandenberg Johann
Sigismund Hohenzollern. The foundation of the Kingdom of Prussia evolved
from this personal union and the eventual weakening of Poland after the
Swedish invasion. The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 expanded the territories
of Prussia and in 1657 the Great Elector Frederich Wilhelm obtained the
sovereignty of Ducal Prussia from Poland and finally in 1701 the
Duke-Elector Frederich III declared himself Frederich I Konig in Preussen
(as the Polish Kings were still Kings of Prussia).
In Courland we were dealing with a seperate military religous Order - not
the Teutonic Knights. It was the Order of the Bretheren of the Sword
(Fratres militiae Christi) who arrived in 1202 and were nearly wiped out in
1236. They then amalgamated with the Teutonic Knights but as an autonomoue
branch with their own Master. This Branch held strong when the Teutonic
order weakened in the 15th century. In 1557 the last Master of this order
Gotthard Kettler converted to Lutheranism secularized the order and in 1561
became a vassal of Poland in the new Duchy of Courland. Most of the
territories of the order were incorporated directly into the Crown of Poland
and the Duchy remained a fief of Poland until the third partition of Poland
in 1795.
Kind regards, George Lucki
Tom Accuosti
Speaking of which, is there a reason that this argument is being X-posted to
alt.freemasonry? I ask merely for information. ;-)
--
Tom Accuosti
Grand Sovereign Pontiff and Secret Exposuer
Ambassador to Zeta-Reticula
Over-the-Counter Intelligence Agent
Jack-Booted Civil Rights Porn Thug
Usenet Masonic Enforcer Goon
Lesser Masonic Shadow
Fundamentalist Fanatical Extremist Zealot
Crop Circle Planning & Zoning Commissioner
Aluminum Foil Beanie Fitting and Training Consultant
Team Osiris Obelisk Siting and Surveying
Manager, Dulces/Denver Airport Massage & Day Spa
Cydonia Vacation Resort Concierge
Friendship #33.3 AM&FM
Area 51, Atlantis
This post contains the minimum daily requirements of Argumentative
Ignorance, Intellectual Laziness, and Bad Attitude.
Some contents may have settled during transmission.
am...@hotmail.com
Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
> I actually disagree with this thesis, because the Order of Malta no longer
> depends on the Holy See other than it is religious aspects.
Can you please, shed some light on a period when the Order left Malta
and selected
Emperor Paul I as its Grand Master? My knowledge of this boils down to
the few
rather rudimentary facts:
1. Paul was elected Grand Master (IIRC, there was some illegality but
eventually
election was confirmed).
2. Pope agreed, which created a paradoxical situation of a Catholic
order being
run by an Orthodox Emperor who definitely did not bow to the Pope in
either
religious or secular aspect. How these 'ideological' issues were
reconcilled?
3. Under Paul Order was expanded to include his Russian subjects who
were either
Orthodox or Protestants. IIRC, the requirement of a proper number of
the noble
ancestors was preserved but the new members were not required to be
celebate,
convert to Catholicism, etc. Were they 'full' members or was there some
'limited
membership'? "Maltese Cross" became for a while one of the Russian
state awards
(there were at least 2 degrees of it) but this is probably irrelevant.
I know that well before Paul's time membership in the Order was given,
as a
courtesy, to non-Catholics like Sheremetiev who visited Malta in the
late XVII.
What type of a membership would it be?
Guy Stair Sainty
says...
that would have any legal effect on its claims to be a sovereign entity in
international law nor its humanitarian activities. In practical terms such an
act would surely be seen as those states with which it has diplomatic relations
as a signal of Papal disapprobation, which may affect the political
reasons why they would maintain diplomatic relations with the Order but not the
legal reasons.
Guy Stair Sainty
says...
would strongly deny any suggestion it is - it is a sovereign territory,
over which the Holy See exercised sovereign rights. This is a crucial
difference in its status vis-a-vis Italian law, which before 1929 considered
the Vatican to have the equivalent of extra-territorial status but still
Italian territory (as is, for example, the Palazzo Malta on the via
Condotti), but actually has little relevance for the Holy See in its
diplomatic dealings with other states with which it has mutual treaty
agreements - these are based on the premise that the Holy See is sovereign
sui generis [Israel is an exception, although the government has accepted
this and the earlier Israel - Holy See treaty has been amended to reflect it
- the Israeli parliament has not yet ratified this revision]. The sovereign
nature of the territory is obviously important to the Vatican as it preserved
it from invasion on any pretext, which in the years 1939-44 was incredibly
important, but today gives it guarantees which are primarily relevant to
the dealings with Italy.
Guy Stair Sainty
am...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
>
>> I actually disagree with this thesis, because the Order of Malta no longer
>> depends on the Holy See other than it is religious aspects.
>
>Can you please, shed some light on a period when the Order left Malta
>and selected
>Emperor Paul I as its Grand Master? My knowledge of this boils down to
>the few
>rather rudimentary facts:
>
>1. Paul was elected Grand Master (IIRC, there was some illegality but
>eventually
>election was confirmed).
His election was NEVER confirmed and was never canoncially valid.
>
>2. Pope agreed, which created a paradoxical situation of a Catholic
>order being
>run by an Orthodox Emperor who definitely did not bow to the Pope in
>either
>religious or secular aspect. How these 'ideological' issues were
>reconcilled?
No he did not agree nor consent; he could not of course deny the facts and
that a large number of knights of Justice had purported to elect Paul as
Grand master, and that as Paul was a very powerful sovereign who was
a determined enemy of the French revolution he was not someone with whom the
Pope would wish to have an open dispute.
>
>3. Under Paul Order was expanded to include his Russian subjects who
>were either
>Orthodox or Protestants. IIRC, the requirement of a proper number of
>the noble
>ancestors was preserved but the new members were not required to be
>celebate,
>convert to Catholicism, etc. Were they 'full' members or was there some
>'limited
>membership'? "Maltese Cross" became for a while one of the Russian
>state awards
>(there were at least 2 degrees of it) but this is probably irrelevant.
The foundation of this Grand Priory was recognized de facto, but the status of
the "non-Catholic" Grand Priory was extrenely ambiguous - the Order welcomed
the payment of responions, but these ceased in 1811 when the financial basis
of both Russian Grand Priories was removed by the Emperor, who needed the
resources to finance the war against Napoleon.
>
>I know that well before Paul's time membership in the Order was given,
>as a
>courtesy, to non-Catholics like Sheremetiev who visited Malta in the
>late XVII.
>What type of a membership would it be?
>
The cross of Devotion, just an honorific, not membership in any meaningful
sense of the word.
ax...@white-eagle.invalid.uk
> ax...@white-eagle.invalid.uk wrote:
>> >> Much as I support the Papacy, I am afraid that the temporal role
>> >> has long since passed.
> you wrote in your post here is simple rubbish. You have no knowledge
> on the subject.
Really? Does the Papacy have any power to suspend temporal rulers
these days? As opposed to its powers in Mediaeval times... hint
look at the history of England in the years 1214-1216.
>> >> Mount Athos, a monastic state, although Orthodox.
>> It is in Greece. And it very much does exist.
> After such your words any person who has HEALTHY MIND will understand
> the "level" of your knowledge on the subject. Such knowledge is not
> simply poor, it is non-existent.
> There is not such a 'state' and such a 'state' never existed in
> former times. It is a simple Greek -orthodox monastery.
Er, no, it is not a simple Greek orthodox monastery... there are 20
monasteries there which are self-governing.
Axel
David Alex Lamb
For what it's worth, Wikipedia confirms the 20 monasteries (with links to
articles about some of them) and says Mount Athos is "an autonomous state
under Greek sovereignty", whatever that means. There's a link at the end to
"The Theocratic Monk's Republic".
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
Andrew
David Alex Lamb wrote:
> For what it's worth, Wikipedia confirms the 20 monasteries (with links to
> articles about some of them) and says Mount Athos is "an autonomous state
> under Greek sovereignty", whatever that means. There's a link at the end to
> "The Theocratic Monk's Republic".
Yes, this is a most silly (even more then idiotical) rubbish. Wikipedia
is not scientific work. It is quite possible if Wikipedia will
"confirms" that the "Lunar State" is also sovereign entity in
international law and the Harry Potter is a sovereign of the Universe.
There is not such state in the world as "The Theocratic Monk's
Republic" in the Mount Athos(Afon) and it was never existent. It is
silly idiotical fantasy promulgated by an unknown silly ignoramus. This
body is a religious body of the Greek-ortodox church (as monastery or
even a complex of monasteries, does not any matter). No any body of the
Greec-ortodox church posses sovereignity. The only governing body of
the Church (in all the world) that possess full sovereignity is a Holy
See - the governing body of the Holy Roman Church. The Holy See also
have full territirial sovereignity over the Vatican State City.
Andrew
a...@white-eagle.invalid.uk wrote :
>> >> Much as I support the Papacy, I am afraid that the temporal role
>> >> has long since passed.
Andrew <kirklist...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in reply:
> This is nonsense and mad rubbish (AT LEAST).
a...@white-eagle.invalid.uk wrote in reply:
>> >> Really? Does the Papacy have any power to suspend temporal rulers
>> >> these days? As opposed to its powers in Mediaeval times... hint
>> >> look at the history of England in the years 1214-1216.
What REALLY?Do you understand the term of the question? You wrote that
the Pope "has not temporal role at present" (meant "has not temporal
power"). The correct reply is that you statement is silly rubbish. No,
the Pope ( as temporal sovereign of present condition) may not abolish
of any other temporal sovereign who is not his full dependant ( the
same was in former times). It is not question for people with healthy
mind. But, the Pope as spiritual superior of the Roman Catholic Church
may any time on his chose abolish any legal body in this church ( not
as temporal ruler, but as a spiritual superior), and it is does not
matter if it such a body possess temporal sovereignty or no. The order
of the Temple was abolished by the Pope in his both capacity- as
temporal suzerain of the Order ( and successor of the Pope who was
creator of this body) and as spiritual superior of the Holy Roman
Church ( because this Order was an military Order of the Holy Roman
Church). As stated by Doctor Sainty, the Holy See is a sovereign jus
generis (to be honest - the most old and most powerful sovereign jus
generis, and its capacity and power is absolutely uncial).
am...@hotmail.com
OK, you managed to get me all confused. :-)
Text of the initial offer
(http://www2.prestel.co.uk/church/oosj/litta.htm)
speaks about Paul being invited to be Order's "Protector" by Order's
Grand Master and its Supreme Council:
"I am charged to acquaint Your Imperial Majesty with the universal wish
of the whole Order that you would deign to become chief of this
establishment, and accept a title so dear, and so encouraging to us all
; a title indeed which you, Sire, by your generous sentiments, and the
favours bestowed upon us, have already so justly acquired, namely, that
of Protector- of the Order of Malta, and as such we trust we shall see
Your Imperial Majesty invested with the ensigns of an Order equally
ancient and illustrious, ever renowned for its exploits, and venerable
from the sanctity of its institutions."
So far, everything is reasonably straightforward and membership
initially limited
to the Catholic (Polish) nobility of the Russian Empire. Even monetary
issues
had been discussed in Polish currency (florins and zloty). AS I
understand,
formally, Paul simply restored the old Order's chapter that existed
before
Partitions.
Then things became more confusing to me. Russian Priory had been
created for
Orthodox nobility (with monetary issues being discussed in roubles). If
I understand you correctly, this act was of a questionable legality
even if
_formally_ it was OK. Why? Just because of the issues of Catholicism vs
Orthodoxy?
Then (http://www2.prestel.co.uk/church/oosj/conventa.htm):
December l6th:
"The declaration was published, in which the Russian Emperor Paul the
First, with deep regret, made known the fact that the Grandmaster of
the Order Ferdinand Hompesh was yielding the island of Malta to the
attacking French forces without offering any resistance. This fact
brought him eternal disgrace and all the Cavaliers of the Order
expressed their disgust and considered Grandmaster Hompesh as an
unworthy leader to represent the Order. All the members of the Order
expressed their wish that His Highness Emperor Paul the First accept
the title of Grandmaster. So, the Russian Emperor proclaimed his solemn
acceptance of the title of the Grandmaster of the Order of St. John of
Jerusalem. He appointed the base for the Order in his Imperial
capital."
What type of a 'confirmation' was necessary to make election legal?
Clearly,
Paul could not care less about Papal blessing (or its absense) but was
this
the only problem with his election? If it was, was it a _crucial_
problem?
Guy Stair Sainty
says...
>
As stated by Doctor Sainty, the Holy See is a sovereign jus
>generis (to be honest - the most old and most powerful sovereign jus
>generis, and its capacity and power is absolutely uncial).
>
certainly would not want to find myself in his position when mis-identified
as a doctor]
Guy Stair Sainty
am...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
>> In article <1128632189.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>> am...@hotmail.com says...
>
>OK, you managed to get me all confused. :-)
>
>Text of the initial offer
>(http://www2.prestel.co.uk/church/oosj/litta.htm)
>speaks about Paul being invited to be Order's "Protector" by Order's
>Grand Master and its Supreme Council:
Protector yes, but no more.
>So far, everything is reasonably straightforward and membership
>initially limited
>to the Catholic (Polish) nobility of the Russian Empire. Even monetary
>issues
>had been discussed in Polish currency (florins and zloty). AS I
>understand,
>formally, Paul simply restored the old Order's chapter that existed
>before
>Partitions.
>
>Then things became more confusing to me. Russian Priory had been
>created for
>Orthodox nobility (with monetary issues being discussed in roubles). If
>I understand you correctly, this act was of a questionable legality
>even if
>_formally_ it was OK. Why? Just because of the issues of Catholicism vs
>
>Orthodoxy?
Yes, because one could not become a *member* of the Order if one was not a
Catholic. The Order itself would have actually welcomed the return to the
fold of the Protestant Johanniter Order and Grand Master Pinto and Frederick
the Great negotiated over this, but the Pope ordered the GM to stop as his
religious superior. The Order would have at one level welcomed the non-Catholic
Russian Grand Priory, not least because this might have provided its financial
salvation. It was not the Order which did away with this but Emperor Alexander
I.
Even today there are non-Catholics decorated with the Cross of the Order but who
are ineligible for membership - one such being HM Queen Beatrix of the
Netherlands, a Dame Grand Cross of Honour and Devotion, as was her mother.
>
>Then (http://www2.prestel.co.uk/church/oosj/conventa.htm):
>
>December l6th:
>"The declaration was published, in which the Russian Emperor Paul the
>First, with deep regret, made known the fact that the Grandmaster of
>the Order Ferdinand Hompesh was yielding the island of Malta to the
>attacking French forces without offering any resistance. This fact
>brought him eternal disgrace and all the Cavaliers of the Order
>expressed their disgust and considered Grandmaster Hompesh as an
>unworthy leader to represent the Order. All the members of the Order
>expressed their wish that His Highness Emperor Paul the First accept
>the title of Grandmaster. So, the Russian Emperor proclaimed his solemn
>acceptance of the title of the Grandmaster of the Order of St. John of
>Jerusalem. He appointed the base for the Order in his Imperial
>capital."
All the members of the Order *Resident in the Russian Empire*.
>
>What type of a 'confirmation' was necessary to make election legal?
>Clearly,
>Paul could not care less about Papal blessing (or its absense) but was
>this
>the only problem with his election? If it was, was it a _crucial_
>problem?
>
Paul absolutely did care about Papal approval and tried very hard to get
it, but it was not forthcoming. When he was murdered his son refused the
title, recognized the election of Grand Master Tommasi (who was actually
the preferred candidate of both Russian Grand Priories). Alexander then
gave most of the regalia and the archives to the Lieutenant Grand Master
Guevaro Suardo in 1806. In 1811 the jus patronatus commanderies were dissolved
and their holders invited to pay a fee to the state treasury to receove the
estates for their families; they and the oher Russian knights were permitted to
hold the title and wear the insignia for the rest of their lives.
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
> Your theory is absolute nonesense anyway. Of course a state can be deprived of
> sovereignty; this has happened to numerous states at various time, starting with
> Courland, Georgia, some 300 + States of the Holy Roman Empire, the
> Italian states, etc etc etc. A state loses its sovereignty when it ceases to be
> an independent, sovereign terrutory with its own population, etc etc. The
> SMOM is considered by many states to be sovereign sui generis, like the Holy
> See, although many states do not recognize this in the case of the SMOM - but
> this was NEVER the case with the Templars whose abolition long pre-dated modern
> ideas of sovereignty and rights of legation.
You are getting confused about the basic meaning of words (not good for
someone who claims to be a scholar). There is a difference between
legal ABOLITION and EXTERMINATION as a result of an act of war. We are
considering whether the papacy had a legal righ to abolish an order
(and, by the way, I think you will find that at the time Scotland was
excommunicate i.e. outside Christendom and therefore the papal
authority). In your book Hitler 'abolished' 6 million Jews.
George Lucki
news:1128775710....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Not at all. Scotland was not outside of Christendom or outside Papal
authority at this time. I think it important to understand correctly the
nature of excommunication.
Robert the Bruce was personally excommunicated for the murder of John Comyn
and the threat of excommunication was placed on any Scot who was not loyal
to Edward II. Excommunication in the Catholic Church is a Church sanction
that bars someone from holding Church office, receiving the sacraments, and
participating in the communal life of the Church. Those excommunicated do
not stop being Catholics or subject to the Church's laws in the same way as
other Catholics. The sanction is temporary and the excommunicant is expected
to repent and go to confession and receive absolution from the appropriate
Church authority. Robert the Bruce by his petition to the Pope in the
Declaration of Arbroath sought to restore his relationship with the Church
and obtain the blessing of the Pope that he needed if he hoped to be the
legitimate ruler of Scotland.
I am not at all clear as to what you are getting at with Hitler 'abolished'
6 million Jews. Hitler perpetrated genocide against the Jewish people and
against other nations and groups. I think there was no question that it was
extermination and I have read no posting in this thread that suggests
otherwise. If this is intended as a slur against another in this discussion
then certainly you continue to reveal your own character. If you are
suggesting that the abolition of the Templars was an act of genocide then I
would disagree. I am not making any defense of excesses that occurred.
The arrest and execution of many members of the Knights Templar needs be
seen in the context of that age, In the 14th century various authorities
(notably the King of France and a number of local ecclesiastic officials)
took advantage of the weakness of the order to charge and imprison or
execute various Templar officials and seize property. Such events in many
cases preceeded the suppression of the Order by the Pope. De Molay and
several others did appear before a Papal Court in 1314 and were sentenced to
life imprisonment. Their subsequent execution was though the initiative of
Phillipe IV of France. The torture and execution of numerous members of the
order certainly do not meet contemporary notions of justice and are an
indication of the sensibilities and excesses of the age. The murder or
arbitrary imprisonment of not only defeated enemies but potential rivals was
still very clearly a part of mediaeval life (as were some massacres of
defeated enemies) and such excesses certainly stimulated the movement among
nobles to safeguard their rights - already in the previous century through
the Magna Carta in England or through the first attempts to introduce the
idea of Habeus corpus in the early 14th century or the devlopment of ideas
of due process such as the emerging Polish legal principle "Neminem
captivabimus nisi iure victum" or "nullum terrigenam possessionatum
capiemus, nisi judicio rationabiliter fuerit convictus". The evolution of
such legal principles was though slow to take root and it would be centuries
until they were applied with any consistency by powerful rulers.
A much more apt (but not fully) example might have been the lengthy Crusade
against the Prussians undertaken by the Teutonic Order. The historic
Prussian nation virtually disappeared, supplanted by the Order who
eventually came to see themselves as the real Prussians. Certainly there
were other excesses of the Mediaeval period as well.
Kind regards, George Lucki
am...@hotmail.com
Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
> >Text of the initial offer
> >(http://www2.prestel.co.uk/church/oosj/litta.htm)
> >speaks about Paul being invited to be Order's "Protector" by Order's
> >Grand Master and its Supreme Council:
>
> Protector yes, but no more.
Indeed. As I said, nothing confusing so far.
>
> >So far, everything is reasonably straightforward and membership
> >initially limited
> >to the Catholic (Polish) nobility of the Russian Empire. Even monetary
> >issues
> >had been discussed in Polish currency (florins and zloty). AS I
> >understand,
> >formally, Paul simply restored the old Order's chapter that existed
> >before
> >Partitions.
> >
> >Then things became more confusing to me. Russian Priory had been
> >created for
> >Orthodox nobility (with monetary issues being discussed in roubles). If
> >I understand you correctly, this act was of a questionable legality
> >even if
> >_formally_ it was OK. Why? Just because of the issues of Catholicism vs
> >
> >Orthodoxy?
>
> Yes, because one could not become a *member* of the Order if one was not a
> Catholic. The Order itself would have actually welcomed the return to the
> fold of the Protestant Johanniter Order and Grand Master Pinto and Frederick
> the Great negotiated over this, but the Pope ordered the GM to stop as his
> religious superior.
Here we go. Pope _explicitly prohibited_ this particular act (which
presumably
looked legal to the Grand Master). Absense of an explicit prohibition
on a
different act may(or may not) indicate that _this_ act was legal. After
all,
Orthodoxy was not a total equivalent to the Protestantism and relations
between
all 3 were somewhat different. For example, in the old (pre-Petrian)
Russia term
"heretic" applied only to the Protestants even if the Catholics were
equally
disliked.
> The Order would have at one level welcomed the non-Catholic
> Russian Grand Priory, not least because this might have provided its financial
> salvation. It was not the Order which did away with this but Emperor Alexander
> I.
Indeed. Alexander, from the very beginning, limited his role to one of
Protector.
Not that the whole establishment was very popular in Russia except as a
way to
get closer to the Emperor. All that knightly paraphernalia and the
rituals were
skin deep at best. Of course, Paul personally was a strong believer in
them and
saw them as a way to remedy many of the existing problems (esp. those
he usually
associated with his mother's reign) but it is possible that he was the
only
sincere believer in the whole Empire.
>
> Even today there are non-Catholics decorated with the Cross of the Order but who
> are ineligible for membership - one such being HM Queen Beatrix of the
> Netherlands, a Dame Grand Cross of Honour and Devotion, as was her mother.
>
With her it is also a little bit of s sexual problem. I mean her being
of a wrong
sex. :-)
> >
> >Then (http://www2.prestel.co.uk/church/oosj/conventa.htm):
> >
> >December l6th:
> >"The declaration was published, in which the Russian Emperor Paul the
> >First, with deep regret, made known the fact that the Grandmaster of
> >the Order Ferdinand Hompesh was yielding the island of Malta to the
> >attacking French forces without offering any resistance. This fact
> >brought him eternal disgrace and all the Cavaliers of the Order
> >expressed their disgust and considered Grandmaster Hompesh as an
> >unworthy leader to represent the Order. All the members of the Order
> >expressed their wish that His Highness Emperor Paul the First accept
> >the title of Grandmaster. So, the Russian Emperor proclaimed his solemn
> >acceptance of the title of the Grandmaster of the Order of St. John of
> >Jerusalem. He appointed the base for the Order in his Imperial
> >capital."
>
> All the members of the Order *Resident in the Russian Empire*.
Ah, this detail was conveniently omitted from the text. Surely, there
could be
technical problems with getting _all_ votes. :-)
Was 'universal vote' necessary?
> >
> >What type of a 'confirmation' was necessary to make election legal?
> >Clearly,
> >Paul could not care less about Papal blessing (or its absense) but was
> >this
> >the only problem with his election? If it was, was it a _crucial_
> >problem?
> >
> Paul absolutely did care about Papal approval and tried very hard to get
> it,
He did? What did he do to get it?
>ut it was not forthcoming.
Well, I'd assume that he did not try hard enough and long enough. With
the Russian
troops being in Italy in 1799, I suspect that Pope could be persuaded
to give
a necessary permission.
>hen he was murdered his son refused the
> title, recognized the election of Grand Master Tommasi (who was actually
> the preferred candidate of both Russian Grand Priories). Alexander then
> gave most of the regalia and the archives to the Lieutenant Grand Master
> Guevaro Suardo in 1806. In 1811 the jus patronatus commanderies were dissolved
> and their holders invited to pay a fee to the state treasury to receove the
> estates for their families; they and the oher Russian knights were permitted to
> hold the title and wear the insignia for the rest of their lives.
Later(I can check exact year) the order (Maltese Cross) was excluded
from the
list of the orders of the Russian Empire. It could be worn as any other
foreign
award.
Jack Hickey
>I've been taking a look at the Knights Templar orders around the world
>but I am still not sure what their role is. Whatever the role of the
>Knights in the past and whether or not they are correct in calling
>themselves 'Knights' in the first place, what do they actually *do*?
I don't believe that ANYONE can claim a pedigree that legitimately
dates back to the original Knights, who were disbanded rather
forcefully some 700 years ago.
There are many different orders who call themselves "Knights Templar",
and since there is no copyright on the name, pretty much anyone can.
I think that the other responder who said that the role of the modern
Knights is to "dress up and have fun" pretty well nailed it.
Jack Hickey
IPM Isaiah Thomas Lodge A.F. & A.M.
MG Henry Knox Lodge A.F. & A.M.
Worcester County Commandery #5, Knights Templar
"Never criticize another until you have walked a mile in his shoes.
Then, if he gets mad at you for the criticism, you're a mile away and you have his shoes."
Jim Bennie
<nom...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:17:45 CST, ton...@pobox.com wrote:
> >I've been taking a look at the Knights Templar orders around the world
> >but I am still not sure what their role is. Whatever the role of the
> >Knights in the past and whether or not they are correct in calling
> >themselves 'Knights' in the first place, what do they actually *do*?
<snip>
> I think that the other responder who said that the role of the modern
> Knights is to "dress up and have fun" pretty well nailed it.
Jack, I may be the wrong guy to comment, as I'm not active in my
Preceptory, but I wouldn't call putting on a glorified cape and
a pillbox hat and listening to minutes and correspondence "dress
up and have fun."
I would suggest the answer to "what do they actually do" is no
different than what a lodge does (substitute apron for cape and hat).
Knights go to watch/take part in ceremonies which espouses values
they believe in. They go for fellowship. They pay dues because some
part of the money goes to charitible causes.
Years ago, and I mean 120 or so, the KTs used to march in parades
in the USA. I imagine this was probably appealing; members could
have felt important going out in pseudo-military costume for the
local town-folk to view them. I've read old editorials in Canadian
Masonic periodicals of the day (and books) pooh-poohing such public
displays and criticising Canadian KTs for wanting to do the same thing.
Jim Bennie
KT, Columbia No. 34, Vancouver
Jack Hickey
Bennie) wrote:
>I would suggest the answer to "what do they actually do" is no
>different than what a lodge does (substitute apron for cape and hat).
>Knights go to watch/take part in ceremonies which espouses values
>they believe in. They go for fellowship. They pay dues because some
>part of the money goes to charitible causes.
You don't consider that to be a lot of fun? I mean, if you have to
live in Massachusetts (especially during the Winter), putting on a
cape and a hat with feathers, and listening to minutes being read, is
Livin' la Vida Loca.
Jim Bennie
<nom...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 02:43:42 +0000 (UTC), jgbe...@vcn.bc.ca (Jim
> Bennie) wrote:
> You don't consider that to be a lot of fun? I mean, if you have to
> live in Massachusetts (especially during the Winter), putting on a
> cape and a hat with feathers, and listening to minutes being read, is
> Livin' la Vida Loca.
It's better than watching the Red Sox.
Jim Bennie
KT, Columbia No. 34, Vancouver
PS.. no feathers in hats here. We use English-style regalia.
Jack Hickey
Bennie) wrote:
>It's better than watching the Red Sox.
Watching paint dry is better than watching the Red Sox.
Jack Hickey
IPM Isaiah Thomas Lodge A.F. & A.M.
MG Henry Knox Lodge A.F. & A.M.
J L Ruble
"Jim Bennie" <jgbe...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:dibqj0$e8h$1...@vcn.bc.ca...
Unfortunately, we have to wait until next April to watch them.
Go White Sox.
My two favorite baseball teams, the Dodgers (wish they had never left
Brooklyn) and whoever is playing the Yankees.
SCOTTY
Guy Stair Sainty
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk says...
subject one is tempted to just give up responding. I cannot, however, ignore
your obtuseness on this subject.
There was not Order of the Templars until it was founded by Papal Bull; none
at all whatever you like to believe in your own fantasy world. A Papal
bull brought it into existence and it was thenabolished by Papal Bull. It then
ceased to exist. Your hypothesis re Scotland is simply ridiculous. I suppose
you are a fan of Dan Brown?
You obviously understand nothing about Catholic canon law, what excommunication
means, or much about history. The Templars were abolished and their properties
in Scotland given over to the Hospitallers. All the silly nonsense about the
Rosslyn Chapel, its supposed shape mimicking that of the Temple, etc etc,
are all drivel.
Guy Stair Sainty
>
George you are being too kind to give these explanations; I am afraid you'are
wasting your time. This correspondent is evidently a follower of the "conspiracy
theory" of history, and the Dan Brown world of scholarship. I am sure you would
find the Da Vinci Code in a hallowed place on his book
shelves.
Guy Stair Sainty
am...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>
>
>Here we go. Pope _explicitly prohibited_ this particular act (which
>presumably
>looked legal to the Grand Master).
No he did not think it was legal; he hoped to get the Johanniter in a kind
of allied role, not as full members but in a kind of honorary capacity. The
Order wanted their money; the Pope told them no, as the religious superior of
the knights.
>Not that the whole establishment was very popular in Russia except as a
>way to
>get closer to the Emperor. All that knightly paraphernalia and the
>rituals were
>skin deep at best. Of course, Paul personally was a strong believer in
>them and
>saw them as a way to remedy many of the existing problems (esp. those
>he usually
>associated with his mother's reign) but it is possible that he was the
>only
>sincere believer in the whole Empire.
>
I think that is a little unfair; the Order's council continued to function
after Paul's death, knights were admitted and commanderies established (and'this
represented a substantial commitment). The Order would have liked
the rlationship to have continued, the Russians wanted a firm say in the
Order. the Catholic Russian Grand Priory sent electors to the election of
Tommasi, and indeed Tommasi was the preferred Russian candidate. The Russian
knights were quite disappointed when the whole thing was closed down and
they had to pay large sums to the Treasury to get back the very properties
they had given a few years earlier as commanderies.
>
>
>>
>>Even today there are non-Catholics decorated with the Cross of the Order but who
>> are ineligible for membership - one such being HM Queen Beatrix of the
>> Netherlands, a Dame Grand Cross of Honour and Devotion, as was her mother.
>>
>With her it is also a little bit of s sexual problem. I mean her being
>of a wrong
>sex. :-)
Ughhh ? That is a little obscure for me.
>> >
>> >Then (http://www2.prestel.co.uk/church/oosj/conventa.htm):
>> >
>> >December l6th:
>> >"The declaration was published, in which the Russian Emperor Paul the
>> >First, with deep regret, made known the fact that the Grandmaster of
>> >the Order Ferdinand Hompesh was yielding the island of Malta to the
>> >attacking French forces without offering any resistance. This fact
>> >brought him eternal disgrace and all the Cavaliers of the Order
>> >expressed their disgust and considered Grandmaster Hompesh as an
>> >unworthy leader to represent the Order. All the members of the Order
>> >expressed their wish that His Highness Emperor Paul the First accept
>> >the title of Grandmaster. So, the Russian Emperor proclaimed his solemn
>> >acceptance of the title of the Grandmaster of the Order of St. John of
>> >Jerusalem. He appointed the base for the Order in his Imperial
>> >capital."
>>
>> All the members of the Order *Resident in the Russian Empire*.
>
>Ah, this detail was conveniently omitted from the text. Surely, there
>could be
>technical problems with getting _all_ votes. :-)
>
>Was 'universal vote' necessary?
No, but all the Langues and Grand Priories needed to be represented -
and were at the election of Tommasi, except the Spanish.
>
>Well, I'd assume that he did not try hard enough and long enough. With
>the Russian
>troops being in Italy in 1799, I suspect that Pope could be persuaded
>to give
>a necessary permission.
No, and he couldn't. The Pope was in any case a French prisoner.
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
> George you are being too kind to give these explanations; I am afraid you'are
> wasting your time. This correspondent is evidently a follower of the "conspiracy
> theory" of history, and the Dan Brown world of scholarship. I am sure you would
> find the Da Vinci Code in a hallowed place on his book
> shelves.
It is you who are going on about conspiracy theories, not me. And when
you descend to personal insults you demonstrate the standards of your
own 'scholarship' to the world. You are clearly just a nasty little oik
(Excuse the comment please other readers but I did not start the
personal coments). Funnily enough, I have read the Da Vinci Code. It
interest me to find out what it is the sub-educational rabble find so
fascinating about the whole idea. The book is not just bad literature,
it is rubbish and blasphemous. Whatever it is I know nothing about,
there is something you clearly know nothing about, that is manners. Did
you go to a state school?
am...@hotmail.com
Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
> In article <1128800645.2...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> am...@hotmail.com says...
>
> >way to
> >get closer to the Emperor. All that knightly paraphernalia and the
> >rituals were
> >skin deep at best. Of course, Paul personally was a strong believer in
> >them and
> >saw them as a way to remedy many of the existing problems (esp. those
> >he usually
> >associated with his mother's reign) but it is possible that he was the
> >only
> >sincere believer in the whole Empire.
> >
> I think that is a little unfair; the Order's council continued to function
> after Paul's death, knights were admitted and commanderies established (and'this
> represented a substantial commitment).
I was talking about the attitudes among the Russians (non-Catholics).
During the
Paul's reign membership was a good career step because it moved person
closer
to the throne. In the country where "only those people matter to whom
I'm talking
and they matter only as long as I keep talking to them", chance to be
"linked"
to a monarch was extremely important.
Paul was, to a great degree, an idealist who sincerely believed in
justice and
"knightly" notions. Being an absolute monarch of Russia AND being not
totally
mentally stable, he tended to implement these notions in rather bizzare
ways
(numerous episodes support that, including stories told by those close
to him
personally, like Rostopchin).
Mass of the Russian nobility did not share Paul's views because they
were in a
direct contradiction with the cultural and historical traditions and
with everyday
life as well. Not to mention that Paul's erratic ways did not make him
personally
loved even by the people who owed their career to him (take Count Palen
for example).
OTOH, in the Russian reality of the XVIII-XIX centuries the state
awards played
_very_ important role. As long as Maltese Cross was among the highest
state
awards, it was important and so were the related routines and
procedures. The
_beliefs_ had very little to do with this issue.
The fact that Alexander did not abolish this institution also has
little to do
with his 'beliefs' (if he had any). There were numerous issues of a
political
convenience. Not to mention that Alexander did not break with many
other important
parts of his father's heritage: contrary to the pre-Paul's tradition,
Prussian
style of the parade-ground drilling remained in the army and grew worse
in
post-Napoleonic times. Even Arakcheev, one of the few 'ideologists' of
Paul's
time, retained his position close to the throne.
> The Order would have liked
> the rlationship to have continued, the Russians wanted a firm say in the
> Order.
For the Orthodox and Protestant Russians this was predominantly a
career issue.
> the Catholic Russian Grand Priory
Poles. This is a different issue on too many levels.
>sent electors to the election of
> Tommasi, and indeed Tommasi was the preferred Russian candidate. The Russian
> knights were quite disappointed when the whole thing was closed down and
> they had to pay large sums to the Treasury to get back the very properties
> they had given a few years earlier as commanderies.
Of course, who would like to pay money for something they expected to
get for
free? Especially if you take into an acocunt that the Russian nobility
was routinely
short of cash.
Guy Stair Sainty
am...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
contrary to the pre-Paul's tradition,
>Prussian
>style of the parade-ground drilling remained in the army and grew worse
>in
>post-Napoleonic times.
I am not sure that the Russians can have disliked this as much as you suggest;
three weeks ago I attended a party in the Kremlin palace which was preceded by a
rather incredible parade display of soldiers, a band and mounted soldiers with
splendid uniforms, banners, etc, and the soldiers were using the extraordinary
marching of kicking their legs forward at 90 degrees to their
bodies, just as in the time of Paul I.
>
>> the Catholic Russian Grand Priory
>
>Poles. This is a different issue on too many levels.
Not just Poles at all. The membership was broader than that. What is striking is
the extent to which the Russian knights of Saint John used their insignia
after Paul's death, and continued to seek membership, etc. Why did they do this
if it counted for nothing in their minds and meant nothing to Emperor Alexander?
Despite their suppression, the descendants of some of these jus
patronatus commanders, misunderstanding the nature of the rank of commander and
believing themselves to be hereditary commanders, sought permission to wear the
insignia throughout the course of the 19th century (and, surprisingly, in a
handful of cases were so authorized by the court marshal,
on the mistaken belief that these were indeed hereditary - although this was
given inconsistently and with no regularity). It is also worht noting that many
Russians, both protestants from the Baltic states and Orthodox were accorded the
Johanniter Cross during the course of the 19th century. A recent publication by
Mr Robert M. Clark has usefully provided a complete catalogue of the Russian
recipients of the Johanniter Cross to the end of the Monarchy. It is difficult
to see how this can have advanced their interests in any way with their own
Emperor.
am...@hotmail.com
> In article <1129131058....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> am...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> >
> >Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
>
> contrary to the pre-Paul's tradition,
> >Prussian
> >style of the parade-ground drilling remained in the army and grew worse
> >in
> >post-Napoleonic times.
>
> I am not sure that the Russians can have disliked this as much as you suggest;
> three weeks ago I attended a party in the Kremlin palace which was preceded by a
> rather incredible parade display of soldiers, a band and mounted soldiers with
> splendid uniforms, banners, etc, and the soldiers were using the extraordinary
> marching of kicking their legs forward at 90 degrees to their
> bodies, just as in the time of Paul I.
Paul set this tradition and there are numerous contemporary materials
confirming
general dislike of it. However, the "frunt" was carried on by his sons,
Alexander I and Nicholas I and with a passage of time became part of
the Russian
military tradition. It took few decades to achieve this change of an
attitude
and even Nicholas' "father commander" Paskevich, who supported "frunt"
in
general, was making unhappy noises about what he called 'acrobatics'.
You quoted the second half of my statement. The 1st was about Alexander
continuing Paul's tradition.
BTW, what you saw is peanuts. Just some 'Kremlin Guards' (or whatever
their
name is now) unit trained for a show. In Paul's times (and then in
Alexander's
and Nicholas') this was a request for the _whole_ army and, AFAIK, it
was
considerably more complicated than what you saw (and/or what I saw).
But back to what I was saying, too many contemporaries said too many
negative
things about Paul's idea of a military training. The most famous was,
probably
Suvorov's little verse: "Powder for the hair is not a gunpowder,
pigtail is
not a sabre, etc."
BTW, Paul's new system was not limited to the marching. He
(re-)introduced the
Prussian style uniforms (hated by the Russians), pigtails (a lot of
nuissance
and very inconvenient), powdering of the hair (tooks a lot of time and
created
hygiene problems), tri-corner hats (inconvenient and already obsolete),
espantons for the officers and non-coms (completely useless and
involved a
lot of an extra drill). All these things had been abolished by
Alexander but
he was brought up within "frunt" system and liked it. Actually,
initially, he
was rather easy on it but after defeat of Napoleon he brought it back.
> >
> >> the Catholic Russian Grand Priory
> >
> >Poles. This is a different issue on too many levels.
>
> Not just Poles at all. The membership was broader than that. What is striking is
> the extent to which the Russian knights of Saint John used their insignia
> after Paul's death, and continued to seek membership, etc. Why did they do this
> if it counted for nothing in their minds and meant nothing to Emperor Alexander?
Alexander did not stop bringing the new members until 1810 and
continued to
be 'Protector' of the order for a while.
Now, to clarify situation, let me go a little bit back in time. By the
time of
Catherine's death there was a well-established system of the state
awards with
a clear priority of the orders and certain privileges attached to at
least some
of them. In a society where everybody had to serve (at least
temporarily) and
where prosperity and a social advancement depended mostly on a monarch,
orders
were an indication of monarch's appreciation.
However, _any_ award was highly valued (even a foreign one) because it
was a
certain indication of person's social status. The awards which
indicated
membership in some 'exclusive club' for nobility were highly
desireable.
Paul started his reign with abolishing two very important orders (as
his mother's
invention), St. Vladimir and St. George (Russian most important
military award).
He made St.Anna the Russian order - during Catherine's reign he (mostly
on his
mother's orders) was awarding it in his capacity as a 'heir' to the
Duke of
Golstein and a little bit later joined all remaining orders into a
single one
with the old names being just indicators of the degrees.
Then he broke his system with introduction of the Maltese Cross. The
Big Cross of
this order became de-facto competitor of the Order of St.Andrew
(Russian highest
state award) because it indicated personal attention of the Emperor. As
one of
the contemporaries commented, Paul considered this membership as a
part of
nobility's quest for <whatever his ideals were>. However, most of the
Russian
nobility never were a part of this mystic knightly quest for the
conservative
ideals (even if and when they were conservative) and treated the whole
establishment as a career move.
After Paul's death Alexander restored St.Vladimir and St.George but
left
Maltese Cross in place and did not indicate in any way that his
attitude
changed. Small wonder that the order was still highly desireable but
not to
the same degree as in Paul's times.
> It is also worht noting that many
> Russians, both protestants from the Baltic states and Orthodox were accorded the
> Johanniter Cross during the course of the 19th century.
By the goverment only until 1810. In 1817 (IIRC) Order was declared
"unexisting
in the Russian Empire".
This does not mean that the Russians could not get membership
and to wear cross as a foreign order. "Order hunting" often was
bordering
on a mania. For example, in 1814-15 many Russian officers were trying
to get
an order from the restored Bourbons ("Fleur de Lis", IIRC). Do you
suspect them being serious Borbon supporters? IIRC, when Barclay was
_offered_
this order by Louis XVIII, he rejeted it with an explanation that
order's
chapter speaks about loyalty to the Bourbons, something unacceptable to
him as
Russian officer. Most of the rest were not that picky. And they did not
get any
tangible benefits from this award, just some bauble to put on uniform.
>A recent publication by
> Mr Robert M. Clark has usefully provided a complete catalogue of the Russian
> recipients of the Johanniter Cross to the end of the Monarchy. It is difficult
> to see how this can have advanced their interests in any way with their own
> Emperor.
You are answering the wrong question. :-)
Getting some prestigious foreign award or title did not hurt anybody
socially.
Why would Demidov need French title of Prince San-Donato? Why would
Russian
officer receive French, Austrian or Prussian order and vice versa? How
St. George
of the 1st class would 'advance' interests of Prince Shwartzenberg,
Blucher or
Wellington? (OK, for Bernadotte it _did_ mean something).
The REAL question is how many of them shared Paul's mystical views on
nobility
and its tasks?
In Paul's times, not too many. Or not too many who somehow indicated
that this
was anything but an issue of prestige and career. When Suvorov got his
Big
Cross, do you think that he (with all his conservatism) stopped
considering
Paul silly? Do you think that Rostopchin for a minute stopped
considering
Paul as anything but a milk cow? His recollections of this period
(recorded by Dmitriev, IIRC) tell mostly how he tricked Paul into
believeing in his loyalty and how silly Paul was in his attempts to be
just to his subjects. Membership
clearly did not prevent Palen and others from plotting against Paul.
There
is a sneaking suspicion that Arakcheev could be sincere but he was too
much of
an animal to be idealist.
Guy Stair Sainty
>BTW, what you saw is peanuts. Just some 'Kremlin Guards' (or whatever
>their
>name is now) unit trained for a show. In Paul's times (and then in
>Alexander's
>and Nicholas') this was a request for the _whole_ army and, AFAIK, it
>was
>considerably more complicated than what you saw (and/or what I saw).
I have also seen the guard at the monument to the "Great Patriotic War (1941-45,
there is not monument to the dead of the less patriotic war of 1939-41), using
this marching style.
>
>Now, to clarify situation, let me go a little bit back in time. By the
>time of
>Catherine's death there was a well-established system of the state
>awards with
>a clear priority of the orders and certain privileges attached to at
>least some
>of them.
>
>Paul started his reign with abolishing two very important orders (as
>his mother's
>invention), St. Vladimir and St. George (Russian most important
>military award).
He did not abolish them; he simply did not award them - in fact he extended
the privileges of the existing members of Saint George (I can refer to the
essay in the forthcoming Burke's World Orders of Knighthood and Merit, in the
essay by Mr Michael Medvedev on the Russian Orders - Mr Medvedev is a member of
the Heraldic Council of the President, a State Councillor and official heraldist
of the Assembly of the Nobility of the Governorship of Saint Petersburg).
>He made St.Anna the Russian order - during Catherine's reign he (mostly
>on his
>mother's orders) was awarding it in his capacity as a 'heir' to the
>Duke of
>Golstein and a little bit later joined all remaining orders into a
>single one
>with the old names being just indicators of the degrees.
In 1797 Paul established the "Chivalric Order of Russia" (Rossiyskiy Kavalerskiy
Orden), which was headed by the Order of Saint Andrew,
then the Order of Saint Alexander Nevsky, the Order of Saint Catherine and the
Order of Saint Anne, which was only fourth in precedence. The Orders of Saint
Vladimir and Saint George, both created by Catherine II, were simply ignored in
the new law, not abolished. Following Paul's death this single institution
(the Chivalric Order) was replaced with the designation "the Russian Orders"
and an "Orders' Chapter". In 1831 the Chapter of the Russian Imperial and Royal
Orders was established. The Order of Saint George had its own Diet and Chapter,
which was never integrated with that of the other Russian Orders; this in 1855
became the Chapter of the The Imperial Military Order of St George the
Victorious and the Great Martyr. Awards of the Order of Saint Vladimir were
begun again in the reign of Alexander I and the Order integrated into the other
Russian Order.
>> It is also worht noting that many
>>Russians, both protestants from the Baltic states and Orthodox were accorded the
>> Johanniter Cross during the course of the 19th century.
>
>By the goverment only until 1810. In 1817 (IIRC) Order was declared
>"unexisting
>in the Russian Empire".
Yes, that is true (when a request for admission was refused), but there was
still a remaining council even into the 1820s. There is a document in the
Archives Nationales in Paris from this council, addressed to the Grand
Chancellor of the Legion of Honour, informing the latter that a particular
French citizen had been received into membership of the Russian grand priory, in
connection with this man's request to wear the Order in France. Nonetheless this
body had no authority or other functions.
>
>
>Getting some prestigious foreign award or title did not hurt anybody
>socially.
>Why would Demidov need French title of Prince San-Donato? Why would
>Russian
>officer receive French, Austrian or Prussian order and vice versa? How
>St. George
>of the 1st class would 'advance' interests of Prince Shwartzenberg,
>Blucher or
>Wellington? (OK, for Bernadotte it _did_ mean something).
Wellington was actually quite keen on his foreign awards; he had somem
influence, for example, in the organization and foundation of the Order of
Saint Ferdinand in Spain, of which he was the first recipient, and the
Portuguese Order of the Tower and Sword was founded to reward him and his
officers. I would be very surprised if he had not valued the Order of Saint
George. And, as you say, it certainly meant something to Bernadotte whose famous
picture by Kinson included just the Legion of Honour and Saint George.
The practicing of giving Orders to non-subjects really began in the wars against
Napoleon who himself had been th first to distribute what was a newly founded
Order of Merit, the Legion of Honour to foreigners. This set the pattern and the
foundation of numerous Orders that were then widely exchanged. This was why the
Prince Regent, in the name of his father, founded the Hanoverian Guelphic Order
so he could give out a lot of crosses without devaluign the Bath. One sees the
extent of this in the Almanach Royal between 1815 and 1830, with the huge number
of foreigners listed in the Legion of Honour and Saint Louis, and the many
prominent Frenchmen who had received foreign Orders (their names all being
listed in the Almanach).
>
Membership
>clearly did not prevent Palen and others from plotting against Paul.
>There
>is a sneaking suspicion that Arakcheev could be sincere but he was too
>much of
>an animal to be idealist.
>
I have not suggested for a moment that loyalty was the issue; just that
rather more Russians than you suggest valued their membership in the Order of
Saint John, for many years after Paul's death (and all recipients were permitted
to wear it for the rest of their lives - and from the evidence of
19th century Russian portraits, continued to do so).
As for Demidoff, he was overjoyed with his title of Prince and received
permission to use the title in Russia; what he would have liked even more was to
have received this title from his own sovereign, of course.
am...@hotmail.com
Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
> In article <1129219346....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> am...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> >Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
> >
>
> >BTW, what you saw is peanuts. Just some 'Kremlin Guards' (or whatever
> >their
> >name is now) unit trained for a show. In Paul's times (and then in
> >Alexander's
> >and Nicholas') this was a request for the _whole_ army and, AFAIK, it
> >was
> >considerably more complicated than what you saw (and/or what I saw).
>
> I have also seen the guard at the monument to the "Great Patriotic War (1941-45,
Which one? "Unknown soldier" near the Kremlin wall or some other
place? I'm
a little bit out of date with their monuments.
> there is not monument to the dead of the less patriotic war of 1939-41),
Surprise, surprise....
>using
> this marching style.
Let me assure (based on certain personal experience) that _most_ of the
troops
are not taught to do all this goosestep thingies: they are taught
parade marching
but not up to this degree.
And, as I said, what you saw is nothing comparing to what had been
written about
"frunt" in the times of Paul and his sons.
> >
>
> >Now, to clarify situation, let me go a little bit back in time. By the
> >time of
> >Catherine's death there was a well-established system of the state
> >awards with
> >a clear priority of the orders and certain privileges attached to at
> >least some
> >of them.
> >
> >Paul started his reign with abolishing two very important orders (as
> >his mother's
> >invention), St. Vladimir and St. George (Russian most important
> >military award).
>
> He did not abolish them; he simply did not award them
Perhaps my book is a little bit inaccurate on this.
>- in fact he extended
> the privileges of the existing members of Saint George
Can you give some details on this.
>(I can refer to the
> essay in the forthcoming Burke's World Orders of Knighthood and Merit, in the
> essay by Mr Michael Medvedev on the Russian Orders - Mr Medvedev is a member of
> the Heraldic Council of the President, a State Councillor and official heraldist
> of the Assembly of the Nobility of the Governorship of Saint Petersburg).
Looks like they REALLY don't have any other problems in today's Russia.
>
> >He made St.Anna the Russian order - during Catherine's reign he (mostly
> >on his
> >mother's orders) was awarding it in his capacity as a 'heir' to the
> >Duke of
> >Golstein and a little bit later joined all remaining orders into a
> >single one
> >with the old names being just indicators of the degrees.
>
> In 1797 Paul established the "Chivalric Order of Russia" (Rossiyskiy Kavalerskiy
> Orden), which was headed by the Order of Saint Andrew,
> then the Order of Saint Alexander Nevsky, the Order of Saint Catherine and the
> Order of Saint Anne, which was only fourth in precedence.
Yes, but Paul made it Russian order, which it was not initially.
>The Orders of Saint
> Vladimir and Saint George, both created by Catherine II, were simply ignored in
> the new law, not abolished.
I see what you meant above. Yes, I choose the wrong word.
>Following Paul's death this single institution
> (the Chivalric Order) was replaced with the designation "the Russian Orders"
> and an "Orders' Chapter". In 1831 the Chapter of the Russian Imperial and Royal
> Orders was established. The Order of Saint George had its own Diet and Chapter,
> which was never integrated with that of the other Russian Orders;
Indeed. This order stayed separately from the other awards because the
rules of
order's "rank" did not apply. St.George of the 1st degree was much more
exclusive
than St.Andrew: 25 people (IIRC) vs few thousands and only 4 people had
all degrees
of this order.
[]
> >> It is also worht noting that many
> >>Russians, both protestants from the Baltic states and Orthodox were accorded the
> >> Johanniter Cross during the course of the 19th century.
> >
> >By the goverment only until 1810. In 1817 (IIRC) Order was declared
> >"unexisting
> >in the Russian Empire".
>
> Yes, that is true (when a request for admission was refused), but there was
> still a remaining council even into the 1820s.
Yes, there is no contradiction. Alexander was not Phillip the Fair and
Maltese
Order was not Templars. Things were much more civilized in XIX century.
:-)
But if you look at the official portraits of the later period, quite a
few
people who had been awarded Maltese Cross are shown without it. For
example,
famous portrait of Kutuzov by Dow does not show it and, IIRC, Kutuzov
had a Big
Cross of this order.
> >
> >Getting some prestigious foreign award or title did not hurt anybody
> >socially.
> >Why would Demidov need French title of Prince San-Donato? Why would
> >Russian
> >officer receive French, Austrian or Prussian order and vice versa? How
> >St. George
> >of the 1st class would 'advance' interests of Prince Shwartzenberg,
> >Blucher or
> >Wellington? (OK, for Bernadotte it _did_ mean something).
>
> Wellington was actually quite keen on his foreign awards; he had somem
> influence, for example, in the organization and foundation of the Order of
> Saint Ferdinand in Spain, of which he was the first recipient, and the
> Portuguese Order of the Tower and Sword was founded to reward him and his
> officers.
I know this. Goya had been quite busy redrawing W's awards on his
portrait. :-)
However, this is a bad example because W _was_ actively involved in the
fighting
on Penninsula.
> I would be very surprised if he had not valued the Order of Saint
> George.
I rest my case. :-)
High-ranking foreign order was valuable even if it did not mean any
favour from
person's king.
> And, as you say, it certainly meant something to Bernadotte whose famous
> picture by Kinson included just the Legion of Honour and Saint George.
I said this because B was working hard to strenghten his alliance with
Russia.
I don't remember the Duke being excessive Russophillic and Prince
Schwartzenberg
probably was even less so taking into an account tensions atCongress of
Vienna.
> The practicing of giving Orders to non-subjects really began in the wars against
> Napoleon
I think that this habit started much earlier. It is just that in the
earlier
times the orders tended to be much more exclusive and the number of
people awarded
was small.
[]
> Membership
> >clearly did not prevent Palen and others from plotting against Paul.
> >There
> >is a sneaking suspicion that Arakcheev could be sincere but he was too
> >much of
> >an animal to be idealist.
> >
> I have not suggested for a moment that loyalty was the issue; just that
> rather more Russians than you suggest valued their membership in the Order of
> Saint John, for many years after Paul's death (and all recipients were permitted
> to wear it for the rest of their lives - and from the evidence of
> 19th century Russian portraits, continued to do so).
We misunderstand each other. I was saying that a number of people who
sincerely
shared Paul's _ideas_ was small.
Order was attractive either as a sign of monarch's favor or just as a
prestigious
thing to have. I already mentioned B.P. Sheremetiev. His portraits
often show
Maltese Cross. What was it to him? Just a prestigious foreign bauble,
which he
got from one time visit of Malta (well, by this time he could be
credited with
killing quite a few Muslims but I can't see too many 'ideological'
connections).
>
> As for Demidoff, he was overjoyed with his title of Prince
AFAIK, he paid a lot to get this title.
>and received
> permission to use the title in Russia; what he would have liked even more was to
> have received this title from his own sovereign, of course.
Indeed. But his chances to get princely title in Russia were rather
slim: he was
not on the service.
Guy Stair Sainty
>Indeed. This order stayed separately from the other awards because the
>rules of
>order's "rank" did not apply. St.George of the 1st degree was much more
>exclusive
>than St.Andrew: 25 people (IIRC) vs few thousands and only 4 people had
>all degrees
>of this order.
I do not think the recipients of the St Andrew were in the 1000s, or even over
1000! While all grand dukes received it at birth, and it was given to closely
related royal princes and foreing sovereigns, the number of Russian recipients
at any one time was very small.
Actually there was tremendous conflict in British foreign policy of the 1820s,
over the attitude to Russia. Wellington was politically inclined to suppor the
Holy Alliance; his liberal opponents saw Russia as the great threat - for
example, George De Lacey Evans built his political career on a book warning of
the Russian threat which led to his election as a radical to parliament in
1831. Later he commanded the British Legion in Spain fighting for the
constitutionalists and ended his career as a full general in the Crimean war,
where he ably demonstrated his fears were fully warranted. Wellington, like
Richelieu (the Russophilic French PM) and Pozzi di Borgo, the French Ambassador
to London, who had both served the Emperor Alexander I were all
pro-Russian.
>
>>The practicing of giving Orders to non-subjects really began in the wars against
>> Napoleon
>
>I think that this habit started much earlier. It is just that in the
>earlier
>times the orders tended to be much more exclusive and the number of
>people awarded
>was small.
I disagree; one sees no awards of the Bath to foreigners unless they were in the
British service, and none of Charles III, the Bavarian or Prussian Orders,
except to foreign officers in the service of these states. There were a handful
of very rare awards of the Garter, Golden Fleece, etc to great nobles who were
not subjects but these always took into account the elevated birth of the
recipient. While English recipients of the Garter may have been "new men", the
handful of non-royal foreigners were never other than great nobles. If an
Italian received a Spanish Order then it would have been because he was a
subject of the King of Spain in his capacity as ruler in Italy. But non-Tuscans
received in the Order of Saint Stephen for example, were always in the Tuscan
service at ther time (Sir John Acton, for example).
The Holstein Order of Saint Anne was different because before 1797 it was not
(as you say) truly a Russian Order. Indeed is is surprising that Catherine was
so insistent on it being given to Russians when there were more suitable Russian
awards (with St Andrew, St Alexander Nevsky, Saint Vladimir, Saint George and
Saint Catherine) than almost any other country. Was this because St Anne did not
before 1797 confer hereditary Russian nobility, unlike the other Orders?
am...@hotmail.com
Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
> In article <1129309354....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> am...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> >
> >Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
>
> >Indeed. This order stayed separately from the other awards because the
> >rules of
> >order's "rank" did not apply. St.George of the 1st degree was much more
> >exclusive
> >than St.Andrew: 25 people (IIRC) vs few thousands and only 4 people had
> >all degrees
> >of this order.
>
> I do not think the recipients of the St Andrew were in the 1000s, or even over
> 1000!
I was wrong about "few" but, according to "Russian Orders and medals"
by
A.A.Kuznetsov, more than thousand people had St. Andrew.
> While all grand dukes received it at birth, and it was given to closely
> related royal princes and foreing sovereigns, the number of Russian recipients
> at any one time was very small.
Not always. Peter I gave it to Golovin, Mazepa (later revoked),
Printzen,
Sheremetiev, Beihling (chancellor of Saxony), himself, Menshikov,
Golovkin, Bruce
and probably few more. Catherine I gave 18 (in few months), Peter II -
5 (in
few months). Anna - 24, Elizabeth - 83, Peter III - 15, Catherine II -
100.
Don't have numbers for the following reigns.
As for the imperial family, after the reign of Catherine II, the heirs
of throne
had been given order at birth, male members of the imperial family at
baptism
(not at birth) and princes of the imperial blood at maturity.
Compare this with the number of St.George of the 1st class.
> >
> >>The practicing of giving Orders to non-subjects really began in the wars against
> >> Napoleon
> >
> >I think that this habit started much earlier. It is just that in the
> >earlier
> >times the orders tended to be much more exclusive and the number of
> >people awarded
> >was small.
>
> I disagree; one sees no awards of the Bath to foreigners unless they were in the
> British service, and none of Charles III, the Bavarian or Prussian Orders,
> except to foreign officers in the service of these states.
IIRC, Friederich II sent Black Eagle to Peter III who, AFAIK, was not
on
Prussian service.
>There were a handful
> of very rare awards of the Garter, Golden Fleece, etc to great nobles who were
> not subjects but these always took into account the elevated birth of the
> recipient.
So far it goes well with what I said about exclusivity. Garter and
Golden Fleece
were quite exclusive.
However, Peter awarded two of the St. Andrews to the foreigners,
Catherine I - 6,
etc.
The 'problem' was that most of the traditional european orders were of
a 'high
nomination'. Napoleon did not _start_ the habit of giving orders to the
foreigners
but Legion of Honor was one of the first western orders of a low
denomination,
which could be given to really big numbers of people (including
foreigners). It
also was probably the 1st real order to be given to the soldiers.
>
> The Holstein Order of Saint Anne was different because before 1797 it was not
> (as you say) truly a Russian Order. Indeed is is surprising that Catherine was
> so insistent on it being given to Russians when there were more suitable Russian
> awards (with St Andrew, St Alexander Nevsky, Saint Vladimir, Saint George and
> Saint Catherine)
There was a little bit of a problem with St. Caterine because it could
not be
awarded to a male. :-)
> than almost any other country.
Orders listed above were not necessarily 'suitable'. St. Catherine was
a female
order, St.George could be awarded in the strictly limited cases
(outside
battlefield, only for 25 years of service as an officer or for 18
6-month campaigns
in a navy). The rest were high-ranking awards. St. Anna was of a low
rank and, as
such very convenient and 'inclusive'.
>Was this because St Anne did not
> before 1797 confer hereditary Russian nobility, unlike the other Orders?
Rostopchin explained this quite well. Catherine had a habit of awarding
this
order to the people whom Paul _disliked_. Paul had to sign the papers
and Catherine
had a lot of entertainment. :-)
At some point Paul decided to award this order to two of his aids
(Rostopchin and
another officer). He gave them small crosses which should be fixed on
the sword's
hilt. Out of fear of his mother Paul ordered officers to fix it on
_inner_ side
of a hilt and to keep the whole story secret.
Rostopchin immediately reported the whole episode to his aunt who was
in Catherine's
favor. Aunt told the story to the Empress, Catherine laughed and said
"That nincompop
[Paul] can't do anything properly. Tell your nephew that I'll not
notice his order."
Next day Rostopchin appeared with the order displayed on his sword.
Paul panicked:
"You'll destroy us!". "Favor of Your Highness is too precious to me to
think about
any danger!". As a result, Paul was afraid, the second aid was afraid
and Rostopchin
was viewed by Paul as an extremely loyal person without being in any
risk.