What consitutes a legitimate knighthood
jsj...@fastmail.fm
The question about what consitutes a legitimate knighthood is
still a good question; because of the heraldic opportunities that go
with it. It is also nobody elses fault that Mr. Goldstraw finds
himself in the unfortunate posistion of " the target " because he
seems to display the most feathers one time after another: not a
judgement, just an observation.
Kinghthood is still good question though; don't you think?
Greg
UNQUOTE
Yes it is an intersting subject, if one can keep off having a go at
individuals.
StephenP
> Yes it is an intersting subject, if one can keep off having a go at
> individuals.
Indeed. However, for some people that is a very big IF. It seems at
times the reverse is the intention - What subject/question can be
raised in order to have a go at an individual?
Yours aye
Stephen
StephenP
quote;
"The first (and some say the only) mark of authenticity for an Order
of Chivalry is that the fons honorum must be proper and authentic."
A good a starting point as any.
Yours aye
Stephen
kau...@aol.com
I agree and would add that the awarding fons determines what is and
what is not a knight within their jurisdiction. The ICOC's criteria
are strange:
'Every independent State has the right to create its own Orders or
Decorations of Merit and lay down, at will, their particular rules.
But it must be made clear that only the higher degrees of these modern
State Orders can be deemed of knightly rank, provided they are
conferred by the Crown or by the "pro tempore" ruler of some
traditional State. '
This statement is contradictory. The first sentence admits
sovereignty, while the second restricts it.
Just because Italy or the Vatican has five grades of knight, while the
UK only two, does that make Italy or the Vatican less sovereign? The
norm in international custom and law is that the awarding power makes
the determination, not someone else.
Bill
Joseph McMillan
> On Mar 26, 5:27 am, "StephenP" <plow...@uk2.net> wrote:
>
> > I cannot claim any expertise in this field. However, I found this
> > quote;
>
> > "The first (and some say the only) mark of authenticity for an Order
> > of Chivalry is that the fons honorum must be proper and authentic."
>
> > A good a starting point as any.
>
> I agree and would add that the awarding fons determines what is and
> what is not a knight within their jurisdiction. The ICOC's criteria
> are strange:
> 'Every independent State has the right to create its own Orders or
> Decorations of Merit and lay down, at will, their particular rules.
> But it must be made clear that only the higher degrees of these modern
> State Orders can be deemed of knightly rank, provided they are
> conferred by the Crown or by the "pro tempore" ruler of some
> traditional State. '
> This statement is contradictory. The first sentence admits
> sovereignty, while the second restricts it.
>
ruler of some traditional State?" While France would seem to qualify
as a "traditional state," I don't think the President of the Republic
would qualify either as "the Crown" or as a "pro tempore ruler." So
does this mean that even the "higher degrees" of such "modern state
orders" as the LdH and the ONM cannot "be deemed of knightly rank?"
Perhaps it all makes sense in Italian?
Joseph McMillan
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
Excellent!
I'd like to back up a second here: I think that for this subject
it's important to distinguish what types authenticity we're talking
about with regard to sovereign grants of knighthood.
Let's try and keep this simple for the moment... Some sovereigns
recognize some military and religious orders, as I understand, but in
what capacity? (These are simple yes and no answers to establish a
good base)
Pro Tempore and titular royalty are excellent questions as well. What
if the Temporary sovereign looses the seat of government or
representation? Titular kings don't rule and therefore any
representative thereof carries no authority. I think that the Vatican
however is recognized as an example of a sovereign state- yes? Now,
knightly grants made by this government I would think, will come under
authentic - for that government alone...
Does such an officer or representative of the Vatican carry any
authority outside of that state? I think not.
The question is: will a knight so made be recognized by say, the King
of Sweden? That is to say: would the royal court recognize a person
as such with the title of Sir etc? Could that person's knighthood
move him in and out of current monarchies as such?
If the answers to this are - no, then arms and additainments as such
come very close to the area of being assumed, do they not?
Regards
Greg
heral...@mail.ru
> I'd like to back up a second here: //snip//
> The question is: will a knight so made be recognized by say, the King
> of Sweden? That is to say: would the royal court recognize a person
> as such with the title of Sir etc? Could that person's knighthood
> move him in and out of current monarchies as such?
>
> If the answers to this are - no, then arms and additainments as such
> come very close to the area of being assumed, do they not?
>
> Regards
> Greg-
Groan, you don't have to be a genius to know where the Troll with an
unhealthy obsession is attempting to lead this conversation ....
again.
Nicholas
kau...@aol.com
In furtherance of the discussion, let me elaborate on my earlier
statement. I see this as analogous to the situation of recognition of
rank amongst military personnel. In the Hague and Geneva conventions,
officers are granted different rights than enlisted personnel. Since
the issue of who is and who is not an officer is not dealt with by the
conventions, who decides? The default has always been to the
commissioning power, not the capturing power.
The idea of differentiation has grown over time, but even
'egalitarian' countries have found it necessary to differentiate
between officer and enlisted. How many grades of officer are
appropriate?
The US recognizes 11 commissioned grades (5 of which are general
officers) and 5 warrant (4 of which are commissioned). Since Britain
doesn't have brigadier generals anymore, should they then not
acknowledge BGs from other countries as general officers? (This is not
meant to be an attack on the British systems)
To complete the analogy, there is unlikely to be a situation where
states need to differentiate between knights and non-knights, but the
principle should stand: if rank and objective status (officer vs non-
officer) is traditionally left to the originating power, I would argue
the same should be left for the determination of knight vs non-knight
with the priviso that only legitimate fons are being discussed here.
Bill Kautt
Greg
-Show quoted text
Your military analogy is a good one. However, military officers and
non-coms are so recognized by other military personnel and their
ranking authorities (and governments) from other countries because
these military personnel are under the jurisdiction of a sovereign
government, and are acting as agents thereof for that branch of that
government. Even in the case of the UN, which is a representative
body of a coalition of sovereigns, excluding the Vatican... So, if any
sovereign country wished to change its grades in any way, those of any
grade would still be recognized...
To use your analogy: forty years ago, the US Marine Corps did not have
female Gunnery Sergeants (that I know of), so any woman appearing in
uniform before a sovereign or other military members in a country
other than the US, with no others to vouch for her Rate would have
been seriously questioned at the very least. Now, if say a Colonel
from the Salvation Army appears in the same situation; one: he has no
authority whatsoever. And two: he is not recognized as an active
military Colonel by any branch of active military - anywhere; but, to
be polite he is introduced in a public gathering as Colonel Smith (of
the Salvation Army)...
So, I don't think that grades of knighthood are applicable to the
argument: they are either active knights or not... The Vatican (as I
said) is a sovereign state, but the question in this case is: do the
honors of knighthood carry over? Now the same question can be applied
to Military (chivalric) Orders and their Knights...
Regards
Greg
kau...@aol.com
The problem with the Salvation Army is that it is not a sovereign
entity in the manner a military commission would be or as a fons would
have to be.
Cheers,
Bill
Dr
as swedish one. Untill recently that right was whitin Riddarhuset
(House of Nobles) but situation is now somewhat unclear. However if
foringe knight or nobleman is admited as a Knight of Serafimorden he/
she would be admited with his style. Additionaly He/She would be
entitled to additional benifites such as a right to be called Herr
Surname (First name will not be mantioned enymore), right to have arms
displayed in Serafimordens halls, rihgt of bell ringing of
Riddarholmskyrkan upon death and some more minor benifites.
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, yes... The Salvation Army is not a soveriegn, but in the worlds
of interenational politics, neither is the Vatican. Now before people
throw their computers out the window... The Vatican is not a
sovereign in the way say China deals with sovereigns. That's my
point. The Vatican has no trade, no statutes that are recognized by
other sovereigns in agreements of a contractual nature etc. Yet when
Prince Charles travels abroad he is so recognized as an authrative
figure representitive of Great Britain, any decisions that he makes or
agreements he signs are a representation of the Crown. The Vatican
doesn't act that way - with politcal soveriegns. (Hense the analgogy
of the Salvation Army. That Army can send Colonel Smith anywhere in
the world but his decisions and agreemnts mean nothing
internationally). So, I would argue that knights from Vatican
sponsored Orders, or other - well known perhaps, but otherwise non
governing entities have no effect, and therefore their representives
have no effect. But, technically, HM could send Sir Paul McCartney
as a representative ambassador to anywhere and he would be so
recognized and introduced and he would carry the authority of the
government of the UK.
Regards
Greg
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
I forgot about the fons: This presents a very interesting situation.
( I take it you're referring to the pro tempore of ... Rawanda is it?)
Good play :)
If the soveriegn is so recognized by a legitmate King, then even
though a temporary, his grants would be considered genuine. However,
I don't believe that is the case; ie his sovereignty (in this African
nation) is under question, if not outright denial. Therefore his
grants are meaningless; even within his own country as I understand
it.
This is an interesting scenario for new governments that go from a
monarchy to a demcoracy howeve: are their crown representatives still
recognized as "your grace" etc? Since the government of this example
no longer recognizes Royalty in a ruling capacity, I would say that
one's title would be worthless outside of the titular --realm.
Regards
Greg
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, I would agree. But would these rights extend to an honorary, or
a title given by an Order not recognized as having any international
authority?
Regards
Greg
Greg
FONS HONORUM !!!: Boy, I'm embarrassed. What constitutes "proper and
authentic"? and by whose / what standard is this authenticity being
measured?
I can't really comment without some more clarity on that quote.
Sorry for the misshap :)
Regards
Greg
Odysseus
"Greg" <scot...@comcast.net> wrote:
<snip>
> Let's try and keep this simple for the moment... Some sovereigns
> recognize some military and religious orders, as I understand, but in
> what capacity? (These are simple yes and no answers to establish a
> good base)
How can one reasonably answer "in what capacity?" with a simple "yes" or
"no"? Even if the situation were straightforward enough to be described
in one (other) word ...
--
Odysseus
Guy Stair Sainty
As you seem to be particularly focused on this issue the answer is yes, under
the Lateran treaty, honours conferred by the Holy See are specifically
recognized in Italian law. Furthermore, by the Law of 1951, no. 178, the awards
of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta are also recognised in Italian law.
Furthermore, following a parere (opinion) of the Italian Council of State, the
Italian Foreign office has the responsibility to delegate what may be considered
a "non-national Order". Recent designations of such have included the
Constantinian Order of St George (Two Sicilies and Parma), the Order of St
Stephen of Tuscany, the Order of St Joseph of Tuscany and the Order of St
Ludovico of Parma.
Many countries have laws or regulations which designate to the head of state or
someone delegated by him the responsibility of defining whether an Order
conferred by a foreign state may be considered legitimate, and whether it may be
worn in the country concerned. France, for example, has the Grand Chancellor of
the Legion of Honour - as a general rule Grand Chancellors will permit Frwench
citizens to wear as recognised Orders any Order that is conferred by a foreign
state, provided neither the insignia nor the riband resemble those of the French
state Orders [for example, French citizens will not get permission to wear the
Portuguese Order of Christ, whose ribbon is exactly the same colour as that of
the Legion of Honour). Orders are defined differently to medals, and the way
they are to be worn likewise. The Grand Chancellor has also accorded permission
to wear decorations not granted by a head of state recognised as such by the
French Republic - these include specifically the SMOM, the Order of the Holy
Sepulchre of Jerusalem, and the German Johanniter Order (and, in one rare
exception in the 1950s, the Austrian Order of the Golden Fleece).
Denmark has authorised a citizen to wear the badge of the Order of Merito
melitense of the SMOM, even though Denmark has neither diplomatic nor official
relations with the SMOM. Sweden has likewise authorised the SMOM.
But at another level, the rank of knight does not of itself carry with it any
rank or precedence in most modern states, neither within the state nor by
recognition thereof by another state. Such rank or precedence is usually
confined only to the affairs and ceremonies of the Order in question - i.e. a
member of the Order of the Legino of Honour does not enjoy thereby any special
privilege as a citizen, but he does enjoy certain precedence, depending on his
grade and the date of conferral, within the Order.
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
barrassie
> In article <1174956032.836581.148...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Greg says...
I believe that the UK is the only State where knighthood carries the
title Sir and precedence within the Kigngdom, Knights of VO St John do
not carry the title of Sir now do they have any precedence outside
their order. I would be interested to know of any other European State
that grants precedence and a title for a Knight of a Knightly Ored,
perhaps Spain and Belgium.
The Republic of Portugal recognised HRH Dom Duatre Duke of Braganza as
Head of the Royal House, the Republic of France also recognises titles
including those granted during the Hundred Days by Naploleon.
Charles McKerrell of Hillhouse
jsj...@fastmail.fm
focus on a particular subject, given that so many of us have different
viewpoints (and agendas?)
The question I put forward was what constitutes a legitimate
knighthood.
However the suggested starting point by Stephen Plowman is this:
"The first (and some say the only) mark of authenticity for an Order
of Chivalry is that the fons honorum must be proper and authentic."
This does not mention knighthood but immediately widens the question
by adding "chivalry" and "orders". I would exclude those two
concepts, just for this discussion.
I personally distinguish between knights, chivalry and orders,
although the three are quite often linked. It is possible in Britain
to be a knight and not belong to an order or an order of chivalry.
Orders nowadays are often of merit and not chivalry.
There are even British orders that have no grade of knight.
Chivalry has connotations that are not necessarily linked with
knighthood.
The real question is the legitimacy of knighthoods, and legitimacy
does not mean that something has to be legislated for. It is
sufficient to lack illegitimacy.
The element suggested by Stephen that the "fons honorum must be proper
and authentic" is reasonable, but it is not a definition of
legitimacy.
It is not illegal for anyone to belong to a group or organization that
might call all or some of its members "knights"
It is social recognition that seems to bother so many rec.herald
members.
The other issue seems to be the transportability of such recognition.
I believe one should be aware that in today's world, the concept of
knighthood is as much a social convention as a legal one. Someone in
Britain who is created a knight through the State (theoretically by
the sovereign) may use the title "Sir", but is not obliged to do so.
There is also no legal sanction against someone who does not call a
knight by the title of "Sir" - it might be bad manners and it might be
a solecism, but it is not illegal.
"Sir" is a purely British phenomenon. In Europe, and even in South
America, by convention, those who receive State-recognised
knighthoods, of any grade, do not use the title of "Sir" Other
countries might use, for example, "chevalier", "caballero" or
"ritter", but this is a matter of social usage in those countries.
If recipients of such awards decide to use such appellations in the UK
it is not illegal.
The ICOC has its own idiosyncratic definitions, but these are hardly
scientific or legal. The question of "higher degrees" of knighthood
in State orders is quite irrelevant, particularly when so many
European and South American orders have the "knight" as the lowest
grade in the order. It is really not up to the ICOC to decide, on
behalf of those countries, what is or is not "of knightly rank" The
word "knight" seems to decide what is knightly.
Independent States can create what they want within their own
boundaries and can recognise what they want, within the limits of
international usage and good manners. It is also irrelevant whether
or not the creation is by a President or a monarch - it is only the
description given by the creating State that matters.
"Recognition" is yet another concept. The laws, customs and
conventions of any State do not have extra-territorial force, although
they may be regarded as precedents in social circumstances or in
judicial decision-making. Recognition of such things as personal
styles, orders and decorations is, more often than not, a matter of
political judgement and can be found in style guides more often than
statutes.
Analogies to commissioned rank can be a bit misleading. Officers and
other ranks are paid members of armed forces and have comparable ranks
with other forces for postings between countries and joint service
operations. And of course for The Hague and Geneva conventions.
It is possible for a military person to be a "knight" of some kind and
still be outranked by a military person of a higher rank who is not a
"knight". So we then get into the realm of social precedence and its
application in appropriate social occasions, which is quite another
subject.
Dr
I don't follow you here. A title is not given by the order but
recognised as such within order. Serafimorder is Swedish state order
which would, in my opinon, make the style of that noble/knight
recognised in Sweden.
Greg
Thank you gentlemen for being so complete in your answers.
Two things: Guy Points out that many of of the circumstances
concerning
Lateran treaty are located in Italy (as is the Vatican: I use them
because of the 'sovereign state' status). The government of Italy
doesn't bestow knighthoods. Any titular royalty can't bestow
knighthood: of any worth.
But Itlaian Orders that grant knighthoods or honoray rank issues a
rank that is equally of no use. As Guy points out; the badges etc can
be worn in other countries at events etc, but any rank so bestowed as
I mentioned carries nothing more than notice as a participant in an
Order (by this I mean non governmental orders or military). So, while
it might be very nice to be a member, it is also ecentially
meaningless as rank of knighthood as explained.
Secondly, Guy says:
"But at another level, the rank of knight does not of itself carry
with it any
rank or precedence in most modern states, neither within the state nor
by
recognition thereof by another state. Such rank or precedence is
usually
confined only to the affairs and ceremonies of the Order in question -
i.e. a
member of the Order of the Legino of Honour does not enjoy thereby any
special privilege as a citizen, but he does enjoy certain precedence,
depending on his grade and the date of conferral, within the Order. "
In other words (his) rank is limited only to the confines of the
Order.
This is what I thought. I know too that there are certain heraldic
privileges that come with membership in some Orders, but these
privileges - outside the country of origin - denote membership only as
well, yes?
You all should know, that the 'agenda' is to gain a better
understanding of the subject. These days its: ' Title this' and '
Title that ' and theres been a lot whats right and not right with
regard to these things, so this is why I'm excercising this subject.
And don't let forget Odyseus: the "yes or no answer" thing was an
attempt to keep it as simple as possible for the sake of clarity. It
was an after thought, so yes, it did seem to be thrown in there.. :)
And, are you home yet?
So gents, if I'm wrong in my conclusions please point it out. If you
have more please go on.
Regards
Greg
heral...@mail.ru
> In other words (his) rank is limited only to the confines of the
> Order.
In many ways it is rather similar to your membership of a Masonic
Lodge, except of course the medals and gongs you wear within the Lodge
would most likely not be so readily acceptable if you used them with
your assumed arms (but then again being an American, there is no law
to stop you doing this, it is just a matter of good, or bad, taste but
is a matter entirly for you). Whatever grade you have within the Lodge
has no meaning outside but even outside your lodge there will be some
individuals and social groups who will accept your membership and
other individuals and groups who will abhor it; some groups will
respect you all the more because you are a member of your lodge and
some groups will take a very different view.
http://www.calodges.org/no321/TBD/0409/TNcave.htm
Whatever your view of the recipients of knighthoods might be, we must
respect it as being your view. That view might not be shared by others
of course but nevertheless you are entitled to hold such a view. Just
as others are entitled to hold their differing views on those who are
members of Masonic Lodges.
>
//snip//
> So gents, if I'm wrong in my conclusions please point it out. If you
> have more please go on.
I don't think that I would say that you were wrong in your conclusions
as you have simply paraphrased the discussion thus far placing your
own bias to the fore. If you have read and understood the posts made
earlier by Dr. Jones and Mr. Stair Sainty then little more needs to be
said on the topic.
>
> Regards
> Greg-
Nicholas
jsj...@fastmail.fm
forward.
How differing holders or users of knighthoods relate this to arms is a
matter for heralds, if indeed such things come to their notice.
There are not many official heraldic authorities and they may well
treat such issues differently.
Armigers can do what they please in most jurisdictions, the only
official notice that might be taken is in grants or matriculations.
Private heraldic bodies make their own rules for members.
barrassie
I have seen 19th cenury armorial bookplates with masonic additaments.
There is a portrait of Edward VII wearing masonic orders and
decorations.
CMKHillhouse
jsj...@fastmail.fm
is Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England and First Grand
Principal of the Supreme Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons of
England
Greg
Yes. Many of the worlds great men have and do belong to the craft.
If a man wishes to display his connections to the franternity and the
heraldic authorites make those allowences, then I suppose it's up to
him. In the usual sense however masons don't I.D. themselves.
Greg
The heraldic impact is part of what I was trying to understand as
well. I know little of nothing about most Euorpean heraldry except to
say that it is my understanding that assuming arms is done quite a bit
on the continent. Therefore additions are for anybody to use. Yet in
Scotland, I think that such additainments are included in a grant or
matriculation only, they are not added as one goes along. Yet I would
think that if one were allowed such additions, Lyon's Office would
have to apply them - somehow...
I have seen a lot of such medals of additions etc, and I'd like to get
a greater understanding of how that works with jurisdictions that have
statutes on the heraldry.
Reagrds
Greg
heral...@mail.ru
> The heraldic impact is part of what I was trying to understand as
> well.
//snip//
>Yet in
> Scotland, I think that such additainments are included in a grant or
> matriculation only, they are not added as one goes along.
This is an incorrect assumption. Whilst a new armiger might naturally
want to have any gongs included on his new letters patent there is no
requirement for him to do so and, if he has not done so, he may still
display his gong(s) if he wishes.
>Yet I would
> think that if one were allowed such additions, Lyon's Office would
> have to apply them - somehow...
Not so. Someone who gained an award or awards at some point in time
after receipt of a grant or matriculation need not keep running back
to Lyon Court for permission to do this and that. Whilst it is
unlikely that Lyon Court would include "foreign" gongs on new letter
patent, it should not be inferred that they do not allow personal and
public inclusion of "foreign" gongs elsewhere. Gongs are not a part of
the grant of arms and do not form a part of the remit of Lyon Court.
It is entirely optional for an armiger to display gongs on an
achievement and the display of them is more regulated by custom and
practice than by any law.
> I have seen a lot of such medals of additions etc, and I'd like to get
> a greater understanding of how that works with jurisdictions that have
> statutes on the heraldry.
>
> Reagrds
> Greg
You either have a very short memory or, more likely, when you are
given an answer that does not suit your purpose, you ignore it.
You ought to recall that you started another thread late last year
whereby you deliberately and willfully directed your bile against the
usual recipient of your obsessive stalking and, on that thread, the
answer to the question you once more attempt to bring to the fore was
given to you.
Your insincere questions are designed to bring the forum around to one
point alone and yet despite the fact that this very point has been
addressed in a previous thread you continue to ignore the answer
because it does not suit your purpose.
Let us get to the destination of your tiresome journey in the vain
hope that we might persuade you to get a life and move on.
Is it permissible for Scottish Armigers to display "foreign" gongs on
their armorial bearings?
An answer was given to you on the 7th December 2006 when one recently
decorated armiger stated that a fellow armiger had spoken to Carrick
(Mrs Elizabeth Ann (Bruce) Roads, MVO, Carrick Pursuivant of Arms,
Lyon Clerk and Keeper of the Records) who had given the clear answer
that whilst Lyon Court would not record or illustrate this Order
(Constantinian) in its Letters Patent, it would not dictate to an
armiger how he might want to illustrate his arms nor what additions he
might want to add to such an illustration - provided he is entitled to
them.
I believe that the gentleman who is continually the subject of your
harassment is indeed entitled to the gong and as Carrick has now
clarified the point, it would seem that he is perfectly within his
rights to display his armorial bearings in the manner he has chosen.
I believe that the gentleman who spoke to Carrick was shown to be Mr.
Duncan, the "other" recipient of the same decoration. If you doubt the
veracity of the information received by Mr. Duncan, may I suggest that
you take it up with him.
Nicholas
Jonas Arnell
> On Mar 26, 5:22 pm, "Dr" <dr.bogdanov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The King of Sweden does not have the right to recognise foringe nobles
> > as swedish one. Untill recently that right was whitin Riddarhuset
> > (House of Nobles) but situation is now somewhat unclear. However if
> > foringe knight or nobleman is admited as a Knight of Serafimorden he/
> > she would be admited with his style. Additionaly He/She would be
> > entitled to additional benifites such as a right to be called Herr
> > Surname (First name will not be mantioned enymore), right to have arms
> > displayed in Serafimordens halls, rihgt of bell ringing of
> > Riddarholmskyrkan upon death and some more minor benifites.
>
> a title given by an Order not recognized as having any international
> authority?
>
> Regards
> Greg
First a slight correction: the situation regarding Riddarhuset and HM
is related to nobility (titled or untitled), not holders of
knighthood. I am not sure, but I can not rember if any Seraphim Arms
plate from British Knight is styled 'Sir' or not on the plate, I have
to check in Per Nordenvalls excellent book. Given that the Order of
Seraphim is given to heads of state and the Britishs such is Royal, I
am not sure if such situation has existed.
I am quite sure that the prerogatives of an Knight of the Order of
Seraphim would be granted without discretion of parallell memberships,
but then again it is unlikely that a head of state would take part in
orders which are not recognized.
Otherwise, the Royal Court have been cautious to pass verdicts on
orders and I would personally suspect that the long rule of the Social
Democrats with their unforgiving attitude towards orders have caused a
suppression of the issue all together. The Calenders of the Swedish
nobility and of foreign nobility in Sweden, the roll of the Armed
Forces until 1969, the Calender of the Swedish State until 1956 and
the Swedish Orders Calender until 1975 publish memberships in orders.
Orders from formerly ruling heads of states or formerly existing
countries were marked with an * in the explanation of how different
order abbreviations that are used in Sweden are to be read, the *
giving the explanation "Order is not bestowed any more".
The one and interesting exception to this is the Order Calender of
1969, were it reads ""Order is not _officially_ bestowed any more"
This formulation might open a possibility for a wider acceptance of
for instance orders recognized by the ICOC as semi-official, very much
like how the Swedish Johanniter Order is viewed in Sweden.
Kind Regards,
Jonas
barrassie
I regularly use armorial writing paper when writing to Lyon Court. My
Arms are encircled with non chivalric insignia. I have not been
advised to cease using it with my Arms by Lyon Office, and many years
ago I was shown how I might display my insignia of St Lazarus with
Armorial bearings. In fact I was shown chivalric insignia used with a
crest. As it happens I have not used any chivalric insignia with my
Arms including Ven St John., though I aquired permission from St John
Clerkenwell 20 odd years ago to do so if I wished.
CMCKHillouse
Greg
wrote:
That's good to know. It shows that there is latitude given by LL with
regard to additions that an armiger might want to display in his arms
renderings. So, LL will not then make note of any additions that one
obtains: a grant given is how it remains. That makes sense. I'd like
to see yor letter head, perhaps you could upload it on HSS...? or
drop me a jpeg...
So, it seems that Knights prese' are, a thing of the past so to speak?
Regards
Greg
heral...@mail.ru
> So, it seems that Knights prese' are, a thing of the past so to speak?
>
> Regards
> Greg-
(On the assumption that "prese" is an illiterate attempt at the phrase
per se)
How on Earth, from the discussions held thus far, did you manage to
come to the conclusion that Knights are a thing of the past?
I should have thought that, with all this discussion on Orders of
Chivalry and Merit on these recent threads, even you would have
gathered that Knights are alive and well - and flourishing in the
modern world. But then that conclusion would not suit your purpose
would it!
Nicholas
StephenP
Perhaps it is a case where knights are a thing of the past in the same
way that an organisation set up to protect certain medieval craftsmen
is a thing of the past?
Yours aye
Stephen
jsj...@fastmail.fm
I believe knights and knighthood are very much part of today's world,
at least in the European and Western context.
What has changed is the idea of what a knight is.
Knighthood and chivalry - in the nostalgic sense of the Knights of the
Round Table and the idea of dedicated service to the sick and helpless
- are no longer the main charcteristics, if indeed they ever were.
Knighthoods today are often linked to meritorious service, or are
political rewards. THis is so for "state-level" knighthoods as well
as for knighthoods in private bodies.
Only my view of course.
kau...@aol.com
> On 30 Mar, 18:15, "StephenP" <plow...@uk2.net> wrote:
>
> > Nicholas
>
> > Perhaps it is a case where knights are a thing of the past in the same
> > way that an organisation set up to protect certain medieval craftsmen
> > is a thing of the past?
>
> > Yours aye
>
> > Stephen
>
> I believe knights and knighthood are very much part of today's world,
> at least in the European and Western context.
> What has changed is the idea of what a knight is.
> Knighthood and chivalry - in the nostalgic sense of the Knights of the
> Round Table and the idea of dedicated service to the sick and helpless
> - are no longer the main charcteristics, if indeed they ever were.
I must disagree with your assessment; there are orders with 'valid'
knights who are dedicated specifically to service to the sick and
helpless--the Orders of St John. Their knights are 'real' and are so
dedicated.
> Knighthoods today are often linked to meritorious service, or are
> political rewards. THis is so for "state-level" knighthoods as well
> as for knighthoods in private bodies.
>
Of course this is also true and merely represents another facet of the
roles of knights.
Bill Kautt
StephenP
are generally a reward for past service. (I cannot say whether or not
this also applies to the Venerable Order.)
However, those Orders that are specifically faith based, predominantly
Roman Catholic(?), membership can be just the start of the knight's
service. A quick look at the aims of the Constantinian Order, the
Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre and the Order of Malta shows
that they are all spiritually dynamic.
Yours aye
Stephen
jsj...@fastmail.fm
There are modern "knightly" orders that perpetuate the idea of service.
Guy Stair Sainty
says...
>
>Certainly in the UK it is fair to say that state awarded knighthoods
>are generally a reward for past service. (I cannot say whether or not
>this also applies to the Venerable Order.)
>
With the exception of a handful of ex-officio appointments (governors general,
lieutenant governors of provinces, etc), all promotions to the rank of Knight of
the VOSJ are on merit.
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, it seems we've come full circle. I understand that knights are
made by sovereign governments for political reasons and service. But
we come to the private body knights again: a knight so made by a
private body will not be recognized as such by a foreign sovereign.
Again I site the example of the Vatican: the head of a sovereign
state. But this state has no politcal authority whatsoever (outside of
itself and its public influence) and therefore knights within that
jurisdiction (as with all private organizations / Orders) are not
knights in that sense. They're more on line with assumed arms...
What I'm gettng at here, is that from what I've been able to learn
form this thread etc, there are in fact two classes of knights just
like there are two classes of arms: those granted and those assumed.
I could have arms granted to me by any private body and within that
body (and its concordant groups) my arms would be perfectly
legitimate. But if I take those arms outside of that body - as is,
they are merely assumed arms. I could of course attempt to get a
grant from say, LL, but two things are not likely to happen: 1, my
arms will undergo some change (in all probability) and any rank that I
held in a private body will not be transferable to the grant, unless
it is a rank so recognized by HM. Therefore, the arms and the rank
are - assumed.
Regards
Greg
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry for the typo. This line : but two things are not likely to
happen. Should read: two things are likely to happen.
jsj...@fastmail.fm
assumed arms hard to foillow.
I would keep the two thing separate.
There are some "State" orders of knighthood that have at least two
classes or grades of knight.
Many European "State" orders have knight as the lowest grade so - one
assumes - the four grades above that equate to higher grades of
knight.
The Lord Lyon will grant arms in appropriate circumstances, and
membership of a private group or order of knights would be quite
irrelevant.
I know of recipients of "Stete" knighthoods who did not seek grants of
arms (eg, the late Sir Roy Welennsky KCMG).
However, it seems a npn-issue to me.
Greg
What I mean by "assumed arms" is a correlation; ie a parallel. You're
right, they are not connected. I use the two only to illustrate the
similarity in recognition.
jsj...@fastmail.fm
> What I mean by "assumed arms" is a correlation; ie a parallel. You're
> right, they are not connected. I use the two only to illustrate the
> similarity in recognition.
Thinking about this, there must be many examples of UK armigers who
subsequently become members of "private" knighly orders. There is no
parallel there with assumed arms.
Lord St John Stevas wore his St Lazarus ribbon regularly to Opening of
Parliament ceremonies, as a Privy Counsellor, even before he was
ennobled. I suppose he has arms as a Life Peer. There is no
parallel there.
The Duke of Westminister is a member of St Lazarus. Again no
parallel.
I can give so many examples and I can also look to the SA Bureau of
Heraldry and Canadian Heraldic Authority for examples.
I think I see what you might be alluding to. This is where someone
assumes arms and also becaomes a member of a "private" knightly
order. I don't see this as a parallell event but a connected,
individual event. Someone becomes "knight" and then decides to
assume arms to display with the insignia of the order. This is
entirely an individual decision and the extent to which the person
decides to follow armorial conventions in some jurisdiction is a
matter of choice.
Greg
No, I think perhaps I used an example of an analogy and it's not
getting accross: A knight from a private order will not be recognized
outside of his order (as a knight) the very same way assumed arms are
not recognized in countries that have statutes that cover heraldry...
glu...@wp.pl
> QUOTE
> The question about what consitutes a legitimate knighthood is
> still a good question; because of the heraldic opportunities that go
> with it. It is also nobody elses fault that Mr. Goldstraw finds
> himself in the unfortunate posistion of " the target " because he
> seems to display the most feathers one time after another: not a
> judgement, just an observation.
> Kinghthood is still good question though; don't you think?
> Greg
> UNQUOTE
>
> Yes it is an intersting subject, if one can keep off having a go at
> individuals.
I've been away from the discussion group and am catching up on the
meanderings of the discussions.
The question of what constitutes a 'legitimate knighthood' is an
interesting one - but not easily answered without some context. There
is of course more than one legitimate form of knighthood. The
following perhaps oversimplifies...
Mediaeval knighthood was the provision of mounted military service - a
very important role in mediaeval society that was at the core of the
role of the governing/protecting estate (king/nobility/chivalry). The
importance of this service of carried with it both responsibility and
privilege - society organizing for those called to provide this
service the means to offer it. The provision of this service being
like other estates largely hereditary the knighthood/hereditary
nobility of the middle ages formed the core of the ancient nobility of
Europe - later a nobility of distinguished military service added to
the chivalric heritage of European nobility. You run across among the
lower nobility some hereditary knioghthoods - cavaliero ereditario,
ritter, etc. and in a somewhat different way the hereditary English
baronets. This form of knighthood survives through the descendents of
this chivalry and while these ranks are largely closed, and in many
countries a question of heritage only, there are occasional additions
through the occasional creation of hereditary baronets in England and
nobles with the title of ridder in Belgium, etc. These are all
legitimate forms of knighthood. Britain also continues the traditon of
the knight bachelor which is a personal (non-hereditary) knighthood
that is associated with membership in any knightly order.
Within the mediaeval nobility and royalty of Europe the elevation to
knighthood by a knight of a knight was a solemn affair and signified
an important passage.
The Crusades spurred the development of the ethos of the Christian
knight in the service of Christ. These forms of knighthood could be in
the form of religious orders bound by a rule )confraternal knighthood)
or individual service - the earliest guardians of the Holy Sepulchre
were not organized as an order like the Templars, Knights of St. John,
Knights of St. Mary or those of St. Lazarus. besides the confraternal
orders of knighthood in the Crusades in the The Spanish orders have
survived, the Order of St. Mary is transformed into a religious order.
The Order of St. John has through several transformations become a
sovereign entity and continues as a monastic and a chivalric order
(Sovereign Order of Malta). St. Lazarus and the templars have both
become extinct and the Holy Sepuchre was reorganized as an Order in
the 19th Century. The surviving confraternal military-religious orders
are all legitimate forms of knighthood - they are not an order of
nobility, although in some cases they may require proofs of nobility
as a prerequisite for entry or entry into a particualr category
(although nobility is not a sufficient requirement). Each of the
surviving orders is under the authority of either the Spanish throne
or Papal authority or sovereign itself (Malta) and under Papal
protection. VOStJ is a modern creation in this tradition.
Later there were monarchical confraternal orders of knighthood - like
the Order of the Garter. These single class orders have survived as
exclusive knightly confraternities or been transformed into more
modern but still exclusive orders of merit. Their pre-eminence and
traditions make these legitimate knightly orders - even when they
continue in a republican knightly context. Over the last centuries
more modern orders of merit have been established with knightly ranks
- they are often awarded in several classes with in some cases all
three or five classes termed knightly, or perhaps in the British model
only the highest classes being knightly. In Britain the award of an
order in a knightly class allows the member to be known as 'Sir' -
while remaining legally an untitled commoner. These orders are a form
of legitimate knighthood. Papal knightly orders (St. Gregory, St.
Sylvester,...) are of this form, and distinguished from the Catholic
confraternal orders of the more ancient form.
The greater difficulty arises in terms of those knightly awards that
are under the authority of no longer reigning royal houses - these
include confraternal orders such as the Constantinian Order or St.
Stephen of Tuscany as well as monarchical orders and the knightly
orders of merit of formerly reigning dynasties. Where there is a
contnuity of the order and it is awarded by the legal successor of a
monarch it is certainly legitimate within the eyes of those who
recognize it - and this can include in some cases the successor state.
Such awards are more often unrecognized by successor states and their
'legitimacy' is merely a question of legal continuity and the support
of the members and supporters of a dynasty and the members of other
historic orders. Dr. Otto Habsburg continues in this sense to
legitmately award the Golden Fleece which is certainly a very
exclusive and knightly order whose prestige is greater than many state
orders, but which is unrecognized by many states. Such orders are
legitmate in a narrower sense.
What are certainly not legitimate forms of knighthood are the various
private imitations of chivalric orders - the various silly imitations
of the Order of Malta, etc. The private revivals of extinct orders are
also not legitimate knighthoods. The order of St. Lazarus is extinct
and its very popular revival is simply a private initiative and
whatever useful charitable work it may do does not alter this,
although the charitabloe work they do is truly useful. The creation of
chivalric orders by various pseudo-princes pretending to be legitimate
heirs of a real or fictional throne are not legitimate forms of
knighthood. There are also many useful organizations or associations
of a chivalric inspiration that draw upon a chivalric tradition or
ethos without claiming to be orders of knighthood - these often have a
religious or charitable purpose. They are not self-styled orders but
simply associations of a chivalric inspiration.
Separate to the question of legitimacy is the question of recognition
- recognition of any award is a courtesy extended by one state or
sovereign entity to another. This is governed by the rules and
practices of each state. Many states do not make substantial awards to
foreign citizens or do so only on an exceptional basis. Most British
awards to individuals who are not subjects are honorary or otherwise
differentiated in the form of the award. The same holds true for the
French Legion of Honour and similar awards or for the Papal orders or
orders under Papal protection. The recently discussed awards of a
decoration of the cross of the Constantian order followed that same
principle. (there are also a number of exceptions to this principle in
some of the mentioned jurisdictions). Many nations also require
citizens to obtain permission to wear or accept the awards of foreign
states or have rules about what may be worn on what occasion.
Interestingly there are some states that are so lax that they allow
the wear of illegitimate awards (Templar awards worn on uniform in
Sweden) but this permission does not make the award legitimate, any
more than a restrictive rule in some state makes a foreign award
illegitimate.
The discussions around the analogy between assumed arms and
illegitimate chivalric awards mixes very different issues. Chivalric
awards always require a legitimate fount of honour. Arms do not. Many
states simply allow citizens to assume arms. In those lands arms that
are assumed are as legitimate as grabted arms where a grant is
required. Assumed arms not recognized by the sovereign are not ensigns
of nobility (where this is or was a relevant concept)(assumed arms
recognized by sovereigns are on the other hand ensigns of nobility -
as in the case of anciently assumed noble arms or the modern arms of
RC Cardinals for example) and imply no relationship between armiger
and sovereign. This does give such arms a different meaning although
they are not at all deficient as individual or family marks of
identity and in some republican democracies may even be the preferred
heraldic expression of a free citizenry.
The heraldic privileges of legitimate orders of knighthood are well
established and legitimate in themselves. The regulations as to what
may be 'worn' on a coat of arms is really a question of conformity
with local practices in whatever state is the arms are used. This
applies to the arms themselves and not only the doodads that hang from
the arms. The wearing of doodads in particular state is not an
indication of the legitimacy of the award but of the practices of a
given state. The use of the heraldic additiments of dynastic orders of
non-reigning states is really a question of the use of these
additiments only within the context of the group of supporters and for
the most part something that receives no official notice by states.
The use of heraldic additiments for illegitimate awards is really as
silly as the award itself - so the use of the decorations of false
orders of St. John or of St. Agatha Paterno or St. Mary of Zion to
pick on three examples simply identifies the armiger as a member of a
self-styled order. In many countries without heraldic regulation there
is no restriction on such foolishness and people are free to do what
they wish.
Greg raises the questiion of masonic symbols - and the Swedish order
of Charles XIII is the one example of a freemason (11th degree Swedish
rite) based order fo knighthood that would be used in a traditional
form with a heraldic achievement - although I'd be interested in other
examples used within freemasonry - which has in many cases tried to
incorporate into its esoterica some pseudo-chivalric forms.
Kind regards, George Lucki
Greg
Hello George,
A very lengthy and full reply. Thank you.
First let me say that it wasn't I who broached the subject of Masonic
symbols. This credit goes to C. McKerrill and sjso (whoever that
is)...
What I get from your reply (the short answer) is that symbolic
additions to one's arms renderings is purely a matter courtesy by
perhaps statute in certain jurisdictions. Membership in such Orders
can be mentioned in letters patent provided the Oder is a legitimate
one so recognised by that jurisdiction.
Would this include honorary awards, wherein the subject is not a full
member? and would said person be recognised as a knight? The reason I
ask this question, is that there are I'm sure many people who have
such awards in various jurisdictions, so I supppose each office (where
one exists) might handle it differently, and how on earth do they keep
up with what is an is not a legitimate Order?
Regards
Greg
StephenP
>
> Would this include honorary awards, wherein the subject is not a full
> member? and would said person be recognised as a knight? The reason I
> ask this question, is that there are I'm sure many people who have
> such awards in various jurisdictions, so I supppose each office (where
> one exists) might handle it differently, and how on earth do they keep
> up with what is an is not a legitimate Order?
Now I wonder of whom you are thinking?
Joseph McMillan
Colin Powell, no doubt. ;-) If I'm not mistaken, his Scottish
matriculation depicts his arms with the circlet of a KCB, even though
he is merely an honorary member of that order. Whatever can Lyon
Court have been thinking?! ;-)
Joseph McMillan
Tim Powys-Lybbe
If the monarch can countenance giving an honourary knighthood to a
goddam foreigner, then surely Lyon, her servant, can do little else with
the arms.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
jsj...@fastmail.fm
Western hemisphere.
Then I understood - this was all a lead up to trivial pursuit.
Greg
Two of the Three Stooges have shown. (wink wink smile smile wink wink)
Good old paranoia: the gift that keeps on giving.
Powell is an honorary knight commander of the order of (the) Bath: I
met another American who while in service as a colonel also received
the same knighthood - with arms. Both of these gents however have
received an honorary (within the UK) and as such, I would be very
surprised if they're membership did not appear in their grants. It's
a bit like an honorary Doctorate: the Frills but no thrills. They do
not however belong to a foreign Order... The questions concern
honorary members of foreign orders and knights thereof or...not
knights. So you guys are way off as usual with regard to any personal
reference or the same country reference of the Order so named.
So, I take it neither of you two has the wherewithal to answer the
questions?
How did I know that.
glu...@wp.pl
> Hello George,
>
> A very lengthy and full reply. Thank you.
>
> First let me say that it wasn't I who broached the subject of Masonic
> symbols. This credit goes to C. McKerrill and sjso (whoever that
> is)...
>
> What I get from your reply (the short answer) is that symbolic
> additions to one's arms renderings is purely a matter courtesy by
> perhaps statute in certain jurisdictions. Membership in such Orders
> can be mentioned in letters patent provided the Oder is a legitimate
> one so recognised by that jurisdiction.
Not at all. Heraldic privileges or rules are conferred by the
membership in the legitimate order. Grants of arms are a separate
matter. The rules concerning granted arms in the handful of countries
that presently grant arms are specific to those countries. Bill Gates
can simply display the badge of his honorary membership in a British
order of knighthood from his assumed arms (which should be quarterly
Gules, Vert, Azure and Or) with no further permisison needed - the US
having no regulations about heraldic display. The correct way of
displaying these is determined by the rules of the order. On the other
hand the order might be omitted if chose to apply to Ireland to have
his arms granted there - Ireland not conferring orders to its
citizens, etc.
>
> Would this include honorary awards, wherein the subject is not a full
> member?
Yes. ( according to the customs of the Order)
and would said person be recognised as a knight?
Yes. Think of Colin Powell or Bill Gates. Their awards are honorary.
They have not received the accolade. They do not use the title Sie.
The same applies to awards made to British clerics. Yet they are
recognzied as having received awards of a British knighthood
(honorary).
The reason I
> ask this question, is that there are I'm sure many people who have
> such awards in various jurisdictions, so I supppose each office (where
> one exists) might handle it differently, and how on earth do they keep
> up with what is an is not a legitimate Order?
I guess the reason you ask this question has to do with your recurring
issue with Martin Goldstraw and John Duncan. I don't wish to follow
that line. As to how a jurisdiction keeps up with what is a legitimate
award of a foreign state is by posing the question to that state. It
is also polite for states to inform the government of another state
when an award is made to one of its citizens.
George Lucki
Andrew Chaplin
news:1175580012....@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
<snippaggio>
> It is also polite for states to inform the government of another state
> when an award is made to one of its citizens.
Hence the fooferah over the peerage of Conrad Black. The British consulted the
Canadian PM, who said "please don't," and they did anyway, as they had every
right to.
Black is a member of the Privy Council and an officer of the Order of Canada.
I wonder what the impact of convictions for frauds in the U.S. will be. The
Governor in Council can remove him from the PC at any time pursuant to Section
11 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and the Order of Canada would likely ask him
to resign, as they did to Alan Eagleson.
I suppose the only heraldic impact would be the removal of the Order of Canada
from his achievement, should he resign or otherwise be removed.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Tim Powys-Lybbe
wrote:
> <glu...@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:1175580012....@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> <snippaggio>
> > It is also polite for states to inform the government of another
> > state when an award is made to one of its citizens.
>
> Hence the fooferah over the peerage of Conrad Black. The British
> consulted the Canadian PM, who said "please don't," and they did
> anyway, as they had every right to.
>
> Black is a member of the Privy Council and an officer of the Order of
> Canada. I wonder what the impact of convictions for frauds in the U.S.
> will be. The Governor in Council can remove him from the PC at any
> time pursuant to Section 11 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and the
> Order of Canada would likely ask him to resign, as they did to Alan
> Eagleson.
>
> I suppose the only heraldic impact would be the removal of the Order
> of Canada from his achievement, should he resign or otherwise be
> removed.
This raises the general question what any heraldic authority does if an
armiger of its remit no longer satisfies whatever might, or might not,
be their requirement to be granted arms.
I know that knighthoods can be taken away, as his was for Anthony Blunt
in 1979. Though peerages are not so readily taken away, as with Archer
when he went to prison (unlike Blunt who was committed of no crime).
But are the rights to official arms taken away these days and for what
reason and what is the procedure?
It still seems odd to me that there is a supposed requirement of
'eminence' to be granted arms in England yet those arms can still be
held many generations later by persons who are definitely no longer
eminent (save by the device of being entitled to arms).
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
> In message of 3 Apr, "Andrew Chaplin" <ab.chap...@yourfinger.rogers.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Perhaps it is because the grant of a peerage 'enobles the blood' in
law, so the eminence once created can be inherited ad infinitum. But
the whole point of having an aristocracy is to obtain a position of a
hereditary privilege which means that none of your descendants will
ever have to work - a good wheeze if you can get away with it (I wish
I'd thought of it first). I can think of one or two local families who
haven't done a stoke of work for a thousand years - now that is grand.
Andrew Chaplin
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Perhaps it is because the grant of a peerage 'enobles the blood' in
> law, so the eminence once created can be inherited ad infinitum. But
> the whole point of having an aristocracy is to obtain a position of a
> hereditary privilege which means that none of your descendants will
> ever have to work - a good wheeze if you can get away with it (I wish
> I'd thought of it first). I can think of one or two local families who
> haven't done a stoke of work for a thousand years - now that is grand.
I think, however, it was incumbent on the holder to die if his liege
got into the sort of pickle that required it. Those local familes
probably have more than a few ancestors and relatives in collateral
lines with folks who paid that sort of price.
Andrew Chaplin
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Perhaps it is because the grant of a peerage 'enobles the blood' in
> law, so the eminence once created can be inherited ad infinitum. But
> the whole point of having an aristocracy is to obtain a position of a
> hereditary privilege which means that none of your descendants will
> ever have to work - a good wheeze if you can get away with it (I wish
> I'd thought of it first). I can think of one or two local families who
> haven't done a stoke of work for a thousand years - now that is grand.
I think, however, it was incumbent on the holder to die if his liege
got into the sort of pickle that required it. Those local familes
probably have more than a few ancestors and relatives in collateral
lines with folks who paid that sort of price.
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Perhaps it is because the grant of a peerage 'enobles the blood' in
> > law, so the eminence once created can be inherited ad infinitum. But
> > the whole point of having an aristocracy is to obtain a position of a
> > hereditary privilege which means that none of your descendants will
> > ever have to work - a good wheeze if you can get away with it (I wish
> > I'd thought of it first). I can think of one or two local families who
> > haven't done a stoke of work for a thousand years - now that is grand.
>
> I think, however, it was incumbent on the holder to die if his liege
> got into the sort of pickle that required it. Those local familes
> probably have more than a few ancestors and relatives in collateral
> lines with folks who paid that sort of price.
> --
> Andrew Chaplin
>
> - Show quoted text -
True, but why let the facts get in the way of a good story? I am
practising for a career in journalism. But to be more serious, the
whole point of a hereditary aristocracy was to get to the top of the
tree and stay there. In real life, of course, the aristocracy was a
very moveable feast with an extinction rate of between 25% and 30% per
generation, which means that, apart from one of two lucky families,
the entire aristocracy was extinct within one century - every century
(given 25 years per generation = 4 generations per century, so an
extincation rate of 25% per generation = 100% per century - but some
lasted less than a century and some more of course). Just look at a
list of existing peers - am I right in saying that there is not a
single family descended, say, from the Magna Carta baronage? Clearly,
a bunch of nouveaus - so they're off my invitation list then (just
joking your lordship).
On the subject of warfare, however, I only recently realized quite
what it involved for the aristocracy. In short, it was a money-making
opportunity with not that much risk (though sometimes things got out
of hand). The reason for this was the little word 'ransom'. No-one is
going to kill a baron (on either side) when he could be ransomed for a
life-changing amount of money (I mean serious, serious lottery money
here - we're talking millions of modern-day money). Huge fortunes were
made by the English (at the expense of the French - who were almost
bankrupted by the process) during the Hundred Years War, for instance.
Of course, the king or his lieutenants kept the most prestigious
captives, or the major share of their ransoms, but even an ordinary
knight was worth a small fortune (and then there's his equipment and
horse of course) - and opportunities for a bit of pillage on the side.
I mean, who'd swap that for dancing round the maypole on the village
green every Sunday, with the off-chance of a quick kiss behind the
haystack?
Greg
Hi George,
Let's first put something to bed: I consider John Duncan to be a very
good guy, he has shown me no reason to not believe that. The issue I
had with Martin Goldstraw is now old hat and at no time in this
discussion have I mentioned either one of them. The paranoia of
others tends to stain everything.
Are we clear?
Your pints are interesting.
>Heraldic privileges or rules are conferred by the
> membership in the legitimate order
I am seperating arms and Orders. However, the question is of the
handful of countries that do have statutes governeing arms, what I
hear you saying is that (honorary) awards - outside of the UK are not
so recognised...
The US as far as I'm concerned doesn't enter into it because of the
looseness of the rules with regard to anything heraldic, so Bill Gates
is a moot point. Colin Powell however is a different matter because
he recieved his award in the UK by the UK. Now would Gen Powell's
honorary knighthood be so recognised in say Denmark?
That's the crux of the entire discussion for me. IF Colin Powell
received the same award in say - France, would his knighthood be
recognised in in the UK?
or... Spain?....Japan maybe? The US will recognize anybody as long as
there's something in it for either politics or business, so teh US
doesn't count.
Regards
Greg
glu...@wp.pl
> On Apr 2, 11:00 pm, "glu...@wp.pl" <glu...@wp.pl> wrote:
> >Heraldic privileges or rules are conferred by the
> > membership in the legitimate order
>
> I am seperating arms and Orders. However, the question is of the
> handful of countries that do have statutes governeing arms, what I
> hear you saying is that (honorary) awards - outside of the UK are not
> so recognised...
You misunderstand. I didn't say that. UK or French, etc. honorary
awards would be seen as awards of those states to foreign nationals in
other friendly states and valued as such. UK awards would have no
greater or lesser value than other foreign (eg. US, French, Danish)
awards in the eyes of any friendly third state (eg. Germany, Italy,
Hungary, etc.).
>
> The US as far as I'm concerned doesn't enter into it because of the
> looseness of the rules with regard to anything heraldic, so Bill Gates
> is a moot point.
His knighthood is also British like Colin Powell's/
Colin Powell however is a different matter because
> he recieved his award in the UK by the UK. Now would Gen Powell's
> honorary knighthood be so recognised in say Denmark?
Completely irrelevant. Colin Powell is not Danish and so Denmark would
not care about his British award one bit. Mainly countries don't care
what foreigners do with the awards of third states.
>
> That's the crux of the entire discussion for me. IF Colin Powell
> received the same award in say - France, would his knighthood be
> recognised in in the UK?
If Colin Powell received a Legion of Honour award in France he would
obtain US permission. The UK would not care. The US would likely give
permission.
Of course any foreign award including a knighthood would in a medal or
ribbon bar be worn below the lowest domestic award in most countries.
Countries value their own awards made to citizens higher than any
foreign award. UK citizens have received honorary awards of French
orders so there would be no issue with honorary French awards. Uk
citizens would wear the highest French order below their lowest
British award and French citizens would wear their highest UK award
below their lowest French award. Of course in the presence of the head
of state of another country or at a reception on that country's
national holiday it would only be polite to reverse the order to give
prominence to the foreign award despite the usual order of wear.
Courtesy trumps the usual rules.
Maybe a different example. Canadian General deChastelain received a UK
award of the Companion of Honour (a very prestigious order - and a
substantial rather than an honorary award). In Canada this rates, as a
foreign decoration because it was awarded by the Queen on the
recommendation of the UK Prime Minister and so it ranks in precedence
behind his Canadian Forces Decoration (long service good conduct
medal). If he had received the very same order of a Companion of
Honour as a Canadian Award on the recommendation of the Canadian Prime
Minister (when it was awarded to Canadians as a Canadian award) it
would be much higher in the order of precedence, ahead of his Order of
Canada.
You need to seperate the question of legitimacy of awards from how
they are treated in other jurisdictions. The way they are treated by
other jurisidctions is not necessarily a reflection of their full
intrinsic worth.
George Lucki
barrassie
The Knights of St John and all the lower grades, a private raised
order of the 19th century granted a Royal Charter 1888 in the UK, are
granted their honours and dignity on the authority of Her Majesty the
Queen. A number of Knights of St Lazarus were granted a chief of
religeon for chivalric status and in addition the stlyle His
Excellency Chevalier, where appropriate and Chevalier Sir (the title
of Sir being for a Knighthood of Her Majesty). Incidently the valid
Orders of St John as one of the Great Orders have high prestige on the
continet of Europe, where they are recognised by various sovereign
States.
CMK Hillhouse
jsj...@fastmail.fm
concept of recognition of knighthoods outside the place where the
knighthood was acquired.
Discussions on rec.heraldry will give no authoritative answers because
this is not a legal matter but one of custom, convention, usage and
perhaps current politics.
To use the example which has been given of General Colin Powell, he is
an honorary member of the Order of the Bath. Recognition of that
fact in France or Spain or Denmark or any other country is quite
irrelevant. What would the impact be in these other countries?
When would it matter? In what way would such recognition be
apparent? Better treatment by customs and excise? Precedence?
Formal precedence of "State" knights in the UK is prescribed within a
very complicated process, starting with the Precedence Act 1539, but
will have little relevance outside the UK. Precedence in France or
Spain or Denmark is decided by the internal procedures of those
countries.
Regarding the various "private" orders or groups which have members
described as "knights", these are not illegitimate unless they are
declared to be so by some law. If they wish to describe themselves
as orders of chivalry or of merit or of service, that is not illegal
or illegitimate. Various bodies might wish to use the tag
"illegitimate" for any bodies that do not fit in with their views on
what something should be, but that has no legal effect.
Come to think of it, I do recall one award that might have been
regarded as either "illegitimate" for a while or at least non-
sanctioned. This was the New Zealand Cross of 1869, which was
created by the Governor of New Zealand of the time, Sir George
Bowen. It was to rank with the fairly new Victoria Cross. He was
seen as usurping the prerogative of Queen Victoria, but she eventually
ratified his action and the decoration was awarded up to 1881.
With regard to use of awards with coats-of-arms, this had been pursued
ad nauseum. The word "recognition" has no place in the equation.
It is a matter of custom and convention, and since so few countries
have heraldic authorities, the whole question remains open. As we
have seen from some of the information provided by some members, the
Office of the Lord Lyon has no standpoint on such matters. The
Canadian Heraldic Authority actually does make some provision for the
depiction of awards with arms, but I am not sure how prescriptive
these are.
One aspect of "recognition" is actually wearing foreign orders,
decorations and medals in another country. In this case there are
formal procedures in the UK and in other countries that follow the
British traditions. In the UK this is contained in official
"permission to wear" ordinances and may give full permission to wear
or limited permission. The official order of precedence is laid down
and may change from time to time. This is precedence for awards and
is not social precedence. As George Lucki notes, in the UK "foreign"
awards are worn after UK awards, but on official occasions foreign
awards of the presenting nation are often given precedence. This can
be seen when HM Queen Elizabeth wears the appropriate foreign award on
some occasion. In such cases she will probably not wear the Garter
or her UK awards. The order of precedence might be different between
countries (eg Canada, the UK, Australia) but I cannot see anyone
changing the order of wearing medals depending on where they happen to
be - too expensive to have medals remounted. HRH the Prince of Wales
might have alternate sets for the many Commonwealth countries that he
visits - take a look occasionally at official photographs.
On recognition of awards, the key question in the UK is "how" such
awards come to the notice of the UK authorities in the first place.
This is usually by some form of official communication between
governments. Of course the sovereign may make some personal
decisions, for example relating to the exchange of dynastic awards at
Royal Family level, but I know of no instances.
For those who have an interest in such matters, here are some of
sources that prescribe social precedence in England. Practice,
custom, precedents, Precedence Act 1539, Queen Regnant's Prerogative
Act 1554, Lord Chamberlain's Order 1595, letters patent 1612 and
later, including letters patents creating baronets, royal decision
1620, Earl Marshal's Orders 1615, 1626, 1677, Act of Union 1706, Act
of Union 1800, Supreme Courts Acts 1873 and 1925, Statutes of Orders
- Bath, Royal Victorian, British Empire, Warrants 1540 to 1972, Orders
in Council.
Guy Stair Sainty
says...
>
>The greater difficulty arises in terms of those knightly awards that
>are under the authority of no longer reigning royal houses - these
>include confraternal orders such as the Constantinian Order or St.
>Stephen of Tuscany as well as monarchical orders and the knightly
>orders of merit of formerly reigning dynasties.
Actually neither of these Orders enjoys its legal foundation or present
existence because of the authority of any royal house. Both foundations were as
Religious Military Orders by Papal Bulls / Briefs in the 16th century. While the
Grand Magistery of St Stephen is tied to the titles of Duke of Florence and
Grand Duke of Tuscany, that of the Constantinian Order is very specifically tied
to the primogeniture representation of the Farnse family. Its hereditary
succession had been confirmed for the Angeli family in the late 16th and 17th
centuries, then for the Farnese family by the Brief Sincerae Fidei of 1698 and
an Imperial Patent of the same year, then by the Statutes of 1705 issued by the
Farnese given further authority by their confirmation in a Papal Brief of 1706
and finally by a Bull of 1718 (MIlitantis Eccleisae). In 1910 and 1913 Papal
placets confirmed various privileges for the ecclesiastical members of the Order
and in 1910, 1915, 1916 and 1921 the Order was granted the use of certain
churches, in two cases exempt from episcopal authority. In both Orders in the
early 20th century the Holy See authorised professions to be made. They are
therefore subjects of canon law, and their existence is not based (as, say, with
the Orders of the Garter, Golden Fleece, etc) on royal authority.
Guy Stair Sainty
Of course it would not be recognised. The Danish Crown can recognise foreign
honours only when conferred on a Danish citizen. It is several centuries since
the universal nature of knighthood has been recognised internationally. Once
states asserted authority over such matters, so sovereigns insisted that honours
conferred on their subjects must be approved by themselves - this is not a
uniquely British concept but was followed across the continent. The same applied
to nobiliary titles.
>
>That's the crux of the entire discussion for me. IF Colin Powell
>received the same award in say - France, would his knighthood be
>recognised in in the UK?
>or... Spain?....Japan maybe? The US will recognize anybody as long as
>there's something in it for either politics or business, so teh US
>doesn't count.
What a mindlessly stupid and ignorant comment. Aside from the fact that the US
does not and never has recognised the existence of either knighthood or nobility
as some kind of privileged class, foreign Orders are merely foreign awards that
confer no status and the only right resulting from their award is for their
insignia to be worn - provided in the case of the military that it conforms to
the rules set by the particular department of the military concerned.
Can you give one example where the US state through any of its executive
branches ever recognised any title or honour for money?
On the other hand would you deny that both the College of Arms and the Lord Lyon
have in the past recognised completely bogus titles and knightly awards
following payment to these bodies? Now does that tell you something about who
is, or who is not, ready to cave into commercial pressures?
Or ar4e all your opinions formed on the basis of xenophobic bigotry?
Guy Stair Sainty
says...
>
>The Knights of St John and all the lower grades, a private raised
>order of the 19th century granted a Royal Charter 1888 in the UK, are
>granted their honours and dignity on the authority of Her Majesty the
>Queen. A number of Knights of St Lazarus were granted a chief of
>religeon for chivalric status and in addition the stlyle His
>Excellency Chevalier, where appropriate and Chevalier Sir (the title
>of Sir being for a Knighthood of Her Majesty). Incidently the valid
>Orders of St John as one of the Great Orders have high prestige on the
>continet of Europe, where they are recognised by various sovereign
>States.
Where and how were the titles of Chevalier, Excellency, or Chevalier Sir,
recognised in the UK?
BTW, the title of Excellency exists in the UK only for the Ambassadors of
Foreign States and the High Commissioners of Commonwealth states accredited to
the UK, foreign Heads of State who are not entitled to other styles (Majesty,
Highness, etc), and Governor-Generals or Governors of Territories over which HM
reigns as Sovereign. No other category of person is entitled to this style.
Guy Stair Sainty
jsj...@fastmail.fm says...
>
>
>
>One aspect of "recognition" is actually wearing foreign orders,
>decorations and medals in another country. In this case there are
>formal procedures in the UK and in other countries that follow the
>British traditions. In the UK this is contained in official
>"permission to wear" ordinances and may give full permission to wear
>or limited permission.
"Unrestricted" or "Restricted"; in addition there is a rare and occasional
privilege - "private permission", granted by the Sovereign without reference to
the FCO. This was given by Edward VII (as I have shown in respect of the
Ashburnham case), and apparently by HM in respect of the use of the insignia of
the Brotherhood of St Michael of the Wing by the Duke of Wellington (but limited
to him personally and not to be considered a general permission, or for that
matter "recognition" of the Brotherhood.
The official order of precedence is laid down
>and may change from time to time. This is precedence for awards and
>is not social precedence. As George Lucki notes, in the UK "foreign"
>awards are worn after UK awards, but on official occasions foreign
>awards of the presenting nation are often given precedence. This can
>be seen when HM Queen Elizabeth wears the appropriate foreign award on
>some occasion. In such cases she will probably not wear the Garter
>or her UK awards.
although she will usually always wear the royal family Orders (i.e. of George V,
and George VI on such occasions).
>
>On recognition of awards, the key question in the UK is "how" such
>awards come to the notice of the UK authorities in the first place.
>This is usually by some form of official communication between
>governments.
Although that is theoretically how it is supposed to happen (the Ambassador of
the country concerned is supposed to contact the FCO and ask if it is ok to give
so-and-so an honour), that almost never happens today. In reality the awardee
would write to the Palace who would refer it to the FCO and the latter would
recommend restricted or unrestricted permission - the former usually meaning
that the decoration can only be worn at functions where the head of state who
awarded the honour is present, or national occasions of the awarding country.
Of course the sovereign may make some personal
>decisions, for example relating to the exchange of dynastic awards at
>Royal Family level, but I know of no instances.
I do not believe that permission has ever been given to a member of the British
royal family to accept a dynastic award of a non-reigning royal house; in the
case of a reigning royal house the same rules would usually follow without
reference to the FCO. One never sees members of the British royal family wearing
the foreign Orders they have been given, except on what might be termed
"restricted" occasions - at least in modern times. George IV liked to wear the
Golden Fleece and Edward VII and his brothers also wore foreign Orders on what
may be termed "non-restricted" occasions.
jsj...@fastmail.fm
Probably not - it was not suggested.
However, people in high places often make their own rules.
When Bill Hayden was Governor-General of Australia I remember seeing a
press report that he accepted a Korean medal of some kind, quite
ignoring the protocol of the time, which was really that of the
British Court.
jsj...@fastmail.fm
received the same award in say - France, would his knighthood be
recognised in in the UK? or... Spain?....Japan maybe? The US will
recognize anybody as long as there's something in it for either
politics or business, so teh US doesn't count".
> What a mindlessly stupid and ignorant comment.<
I think that remark is uncalled for.
Some members may have a deep knowledge of something, but that is no
reason to criticise someone who lacks that knowledge. It was a fair
question as the answers are not public knowledge.
Joseph McMillan
>
> Powell is an honorary knight commander of the order of (the) Bath: I
> met another American who while in service as a colonel also received
> the same knighthood - with arms.
I very seriously doubt that you have met any American who was made a
KCB, honorary or otherwise, as a colonel. A CB, perhaps, but that's
not a knighthood. If an American colonel was made a knight commander
of the Bath, that would be very big news, of which I'm sure all of use
would be glad to hear the details.
And what do you mean by saying he received this supposed knighthood
"with arms?" That the arms came along with the order as part of a
package deal?
Joseph McMillan
visc...@hotmail.com
> In article <1175680271.544625.86...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, barrassie
What about Ambassadors-at-Large, Envoys and Goodwill Ambassadors of a
UN Observer Mission? I have seen reference to "H.E. Mr. Diego
Maradonna" (the Argentinian soccer player) and "H.E. Mr. Chris de
Burgh" (the singer) in reference to their work as Ambassadors-at-Large
for a UN Permanent Observer Mission. Is this style wrong?
barrassie
> In article <1175680271.544625.86...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, barrassie
To:al...@findlater.org.uk
CC:
BCC:
Subject:RE: new arms and their use
Alex,
Interesting, so far I have been told reverse by previus and Carrick.
In fact on one occaission Arms were used with permission from on high
for over a year before fees were actually asked for and draft
Petition. Please use @btinternet.com.
I was informed only recently that Arms could be used when fees paid,
some years back Arms were used with permission from 'On High' over a
year before draft Letters Patent or fees aasked for. I for obvious
reasons will not be aware of this till informed by Lyon Office. Thank
you for advice.
Best wishes,
Charles
Please use @btinternet .com instead of ukonline etc, less mail to get
lost in!
Original Message:
-----------------
From: Alex Findlater al...@findlater.org.uk
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 18:43:47 +0100
To: mckerrello...@ukonline.co.uk
Subject: new arms and their use
CJ Adams
> What about Ambassadors-at-Large, Envoys and Goodwill Ambassadors of a
> UN Observer Mission? I have seen reference to "H.E. Mr. Diego
> Maradonna" (the Argentinian soccer player) and "H.E. Mr. Chris de
> Burgh" (the singer) in reference to their work as Ambassadors-at-Large
> for a UN Permanent Observer Mission. Is this style wrong?
>
Other governments or organizations may appoint
Miscellaneous Excellencies or even Lord High
Executioners
if they wish. However, the Brits will not.
Different ships; different long splices.
Cheers
CJ Adams
Greg
A quick note: I don't know what to tell you Mcmillan. I know what I
heard: he was knighted by the queen for special services and recieved
an achievement as well. This sticks out in my mind: one, because of
the circumstances of the meeting and two, because I remember telling
him that heraldry was a hobby of study for me. It was about two and
half years ago I guess.
So, go on hard believing, it won't change anything.
See ya
More comments and followups to the other guys later: great posts BTW;
a lot to take in. See you tomorrow.
To you guys...
Regards
Greg
jsj...@fastmail.fm
general rules.
However, I think the main parametsrs have been discussed even if there
is no agreement.
Different countries will do different things, and my knowledge is
limited to British-based usage.
StephenP
> So, I take it neither of you two has the wherewithal to answer the
> questions?
>
Past experience tells me it is actually pointless to try and explain
anything to you I'm afraid. You have already made it quite clear what
you want to think.
Happy Easter to one and all
Yours aye
Stephen
CJ Adams
>
> A quick note: I don't know what to tell you
Mcmillan. I know what I
> heard: he was knighted by the queen for special services and recieved
> an achievement as well. This sticks out in my mind: one, because of
> the circumstances of the meeting and two, because I remember telling
> him that heraldry was a hobby of study for me. It was about two and
> half years ago I guess.
>
> So, go on hard believing, it won't change anything.
>
Cheers
CJ Adams
*Built-in Bullshit Detector
Greg
You're simply can't answer any of the questions Stephen. Neither you
nor Mcmillan have anything useful to say -- once again.
Be sure to peel the hard boiled egg - before you eat it.
jsj...@fastmail.fm
> anything to you I'm afraid. You have already made it quite clear what
> you want to think.
> Happy Easter to one and all
I believe this is a Scottish saying:
" A man convinced against his will,
is of the same opinion still"
Happy Easter
Greg
> In article <1175645034.268390.179...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Greg says...
Mr. Sainty... The very fact that the US does not recognize a class
royalty within it's borders was exactly what I was saying. The US
will however recognize The Queen, Prince Charles and etc (with thier
royal titles) on an official level...
A US politician or corporate salesman raising funds for what- have-you
will chummy up to any title if it serves the purpose. So your rather
blind rudeness, or failure to read what is being said is out of place
and unprofessional.
>On the other hand would you deny that both the College of Arms and the Lord >Lyon have in the past recognised completely bogus titles and knightly awards
>following payment to these bodies? Now does that tell you something about >who is, or who is not, ready to cave into commercial pressures?
I have no idea what you are referring to: enlighten me.
>Or ar4e all your opinions formed on the basis of xenophobic bigotry?
You must be drinking. There is no other rational explaination for
that comment.
Perhaps a little more thought - and a lot less vanity might serve us
all.
Greg
> On Apr 3, 6:03 pm, "Greg" <scoti...@comcast.net> wrote:
Hello George,
> > On Apr 2, 11:00 pm, "glu...@wp.pl" <glu...@wp.pl> wrote:
> > >Heraldic privileges or rules are conferred by the
> > > membership in the legitimate order
This is the key question isn't it? What is a legitimate Order? That
is to say; what differentciates these orders?
> > I am seperating arms and Orders. However, the question is of the
> > handful of countries that do have statutes governeing arms, what I
> > hear you saying is that (honorary) awards - outside of the UK are not
> > so recognised...
>
> You misunderstand. I didn't say that. UK or French, etc. honorary
> awards would be seen as awards of those states to foreign nationals in
> other friendly states and valued as such. UK awards would have no
> greater or lesser value than other foreign (eg. US, French, Danish)
> awards in the eyes of any friendly third state (eg. Germany, Italy,
> Hungary, etc.).
So, what I read here is that awards of foreigners in a ' friendly
country ' are not so much recognized on any official level. But
legitimate awards to citizens within their own country can and do
receive recognition, provided the Order is so recognized as well.
> > The US as far as I'm concerned doesn't enter into it because of the
> > looseness of the rules with regard to anything heraldic, so Bill Gates
> > is a moot point.
>
> His knighthood is also British like Colin Powell's/
>
> Colin Powell however is a different matter because
>
> > he recieved his award in the UK by the UK. Now would Gen Powell's
> > honorary knighthood be so recognised in say Denmark?
>
> Completely irrelevant. Colin Powell is not Danish and so Denmark would
> not care about his British award one bit. Mainly countries don't care
> what foreigners do with the awards of third states.
Again, you've hit the nail on the head: "Mainly countries don't care
what foreigners do with the awards of third states."
> > That's the crux of the entire discussion for me. IF Colin Powell
> > received the same award in say - France, would his knighthood be
> > recognised in in the UK?
Evidently, Powell's honorary award would not matter to anybody, except
those in the UK.
That answers the question !!
> You need to seperate the question of legitimacy of awards from how
> they are treated in other jurisdictions. The way they are treated by
> other jurisidctions is not necessarily a reflection of their full
> intrinsic worth.
> George Lucki
Yes I would agree completely. Sometimes though in order to completely
exercise a subject to its full understanding there is a bit of
'untangling that needs to be done.
Thank you George, very much.
Now the final part of the scenario: If Powell received an honoary
award outside of the UK, would he be entitled to have that award
recognized in a grant of arms; either in the letters patent, or in the
presented artwork of his achievement?
Regards
Greg
Guye Pennington
stemming from the United Kingdom. Thus, in this instance, Colin
Powell would not be allowed to demonstrate his honor on arms from the
COA.
Respectfully yours,
Guye
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's exactly what I thought. Thank you Guye. What a great
discussion!
Thanks to all of you.
Regards
Greg
Joseph McMillan
> No -- to my knowledge the College of Arms only recognizes honors
> stemming from the United Kingdom. Thus, in this instance, Colin
> Powell would not be allowed to demonstrate his honor on arms from the
> COA.
To be more precise, the College of Arms would not exemplify non-
British honors on an English grant. But there's nothing in the
English custom or law of arms that would prevent a grantee of English
arms from displaying his non-British honors with the arms once they
were granted.
The same would seem to be true of Scottish grants, except that there
seem to be cases in which previous Lyons have exemplified the insignia
of the SMOM and possibly other non-British orders in Scottish letters
patent.
Joseph McMillan
Guy Stair Sainty
jsj...@fastmail.fm says...
claim is nonsense, but the author did so in order to make a silly point that is
obviously without merit.
Guy Stair Sainty
visc...@hotmail.com says...
>
>On 5 Apr, 07:16, Guy Stair Sainty <g...@sainty.org> wrote:
>> In article <1175680271.544625.86...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, barrassie
>> says...
>>
>
>What about Ambassadors-at-Large, Envoys and Goodwill Ambassadors of a
>UN Observer Mission? I have seen reference to "H.E. Mr. Diego
>Maradonna" (the Argentinian soccer player) and "H.E. Mr. Chris de
>Burgh" (the singer) in reference to their work as Ambassadors-at-Large
>for a UN Permanent Observer Mission. Is this style wrong?
>
>
ordinarily understood; UN members, however, are obliged to extend certain
courtesies to senior UN personnel that resemble in some ways those accorded to
diplomats. But I am sure these do not extend to the likes of Angelina Jolie!
Guy Stair Sainty
>
>On Apr 4, 10:57 pm, Guy Stair Sainty <g...@sainty.org> wrote:
>>In article <1175645034.268390.179...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Greg says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 2, 11:00 pm, "glu...@wp.pl" <glu...@wp.pl> wrote:
>> >> On Apr 2, 9:23 am, "Greg" <scoti...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>
>Mr. Sainty... The very fact that the US does not recognize a class
>royalty within it's borders was exactly what I was saying. The US
>will however recognize The Queen, Prince Charles and etc (with thier
>royal titles) on an official level...
That is obvious, but so does every other country with which the UK has
diplomatic relations.
>
>A US politician or corporate salesman raising funds for what- have-you
>will chummy up to any title if it serves the purpose. So your rather
>blind rudeness, or failure to read what is being said is out of place
>and unprofessional.
Since when do such persons represent the US? If you meant private individuals
then you could make the same claim of many countries, including the UK, France,
Italy, Spain, Portugal, etc, where private individuals sporting dubious titles
have been credence by others without the information or knowledge to determine
otherwise. However that is not what you wrote - you referred to "the US" which
in the context of the discussion concerning national recognitions could onlyw
have meant the US State. That was clearly stupid.
>
>You must be drinking. There is no other rational explaination for
>that comment.
I gave up alcohol for Lent, as it happens and am rather looking forward to
to-morrow not only because I shall be celebrating the Resurrection.
Guy Stair Sainty
Pennington says...
>
>No -- to my knowledge the College of Arms only recognizes honors
>stemming from the United Kingdom. Thus, in this instance, Colin
>Powell would not be allowed to demonstrate his honor on arms from the
>COA.
>
Nowadays. But in the past there are many examples where foreigners have put
their genealogies on record with references to their nobiliary titles. In quite
a few cases these titles have been spurious.
Guy Stair Sainty
McMillan says...
>
>On Apr 7, 12:58 pm, "Guye Pennington" <gwpenning...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> No -- to my knowledge the College of Arms only recognizes honors
>> stemming from the United Kingdom. Thus, in this instance, Colin
>> Powell would not be allowed to demonstrate his honor on arms from the
>> COA.
>
>To be more precise, the College of Arms would not exemplify non-
>British honors on an English grant. But there's nothing in the
>English custom or law of arms that would prevent a grantee of English
>arms from displaying his non-British honors with the arms once they
>were granted.
This is incorrect. Both the College of Arms and the Lord Lyon have included in
grants or matriculations foreign honours where the recipient has received
permission to accept and wear the honour in question.
Greg
> In article <1175764676.100893.250...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> jsjo...@fastmail.fm says...
You're being ridiculous again Mr. Sainty.You obviously have no clue
about what I'm thinking. The entire subject is very interesting.
This forum is a bit obsessed with titles so I could think of no better
place to exercise a question. I think you're a bit upset from the
stinging I gave you with regard to your lack of manners.
Andrew Chaplin
news:ev8rl...@drn.newsguy.com...
A good example would be honours such as the Order of Canada. Before the
establishment of the CHA, they were always in the grants from London, e.g.
Rollie Mitchener (http://www.heraldry.ca/arms/m/michener_r.htm). I imagine
they still are.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
jsj...@fastmail.fm
> No -- to my knowledge the College of Arms only recognizes honors
> stemming from the United Kingdom. Thus, in this instance, Colin
> Powell would not be allowed to demonstrate his honor on arms from the
> COA.
Perhaps the term "allowed" shows the limitations on "recognition".
The COA has no power to "allow" General Powell to do anything, once a
grant is made..
There is no coercive power.
There are some elements that have not been tested up to now, but -
just to obscure the discussion - what do you think the attitude of the
COA might be if an Olympic Gold medalist wanted to show the award with
a COA?
Or a Nobel Laureate? (If ther is such a thing as an emblem or medal
for a Nobel Prize).
Greg
That is an excellent question. I wonder too if internationally
recognized awards as honors are allowed in letters patent and what if
such an armiger wanted to display his or her award in their arms...
Regards
Greg
Guy Stair Sainty
>
>On Apr 7, 12:19 pm, Guy Stair Sainty <g...@sainty.org> wrote:
>> In article <1175764676.100893.250...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>> jsjo...@fastmail.fm says...
>>
>
>
>You're being ridiculous again Mr. Sainty.You obviously have no clue
>about what I'm thinking. The entire subject is very interesting.
>This forum is a bit obsessed with titles so I could think of no better
>place to exercise a question. I think you're a bit upset from the
>stinging I gave you with regard to your lack of manners.
>
Oh, I had not realised that good manners were what you were known for on this
forum. You are right, I have no idea what you think I can only judge by what you
write. If you write that the US will recognise anything if profit is involved,
then is it surprising that when the discussion has been primarily about what
governments do and do not recognise, that one should assume you are referring to
the US government?
Greg
> In article <1175980300.778407.80...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Greg says...
The US government has no official system by which recognition of any
title is made. State dinners and other functions of that nature are
the only places wherein any sort of recognition of a non-sovereign
would apply, and since that is the case in the US, I have been
atttempting to remove it from the discussion.
Colin Powell is simply an example of a foreigner receiving an honorary
award in the UK (but his award will not be recognized in the US -
right? right).
glu...@wp.pl
> In article <1175489375.789013.161...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, glu...@wp.pl
> says...
>
>
>
> >On Mar 26, 3:31 am, jsjo...@fastmail.fm wrote:
> >> QUOTE
>
> >The greater difficulty arises in terms of those knightly awards that
> >are under the authority of no longer reigning royal houses - these
> >include confraternal orders such as the Constantinian Order or St.
> >Stephen of Tuscany as well as monarchical orders and the knightly
> >orders of merit of formerly reigning dynasties.
>
> Actually neither of these Orders enjoys its legal foundation or present
> existence because of the authority of any royal house. Both foundations were as
> Religious Military Orders by Papal Bulls / Briefs in the 16th century. While the
> Grand Magistery of St Stephen is tied to the titles of Duke of Florence and
> Grand Duke of Tuscany, that of the Constantinian Order is very specifically tied
> to the primogeniture representation of the Farnse family. Its hereditary
> succession had been confirmed for the Angeli family in the late 16th and 17th
> centuries, then for the Farnese family by the Brief Sincerae Fidei of 1698 and
> an Imperial Patent of the same year, then by the Statutes of 1705 issued by the
> Farnese given further authority by their confirmation in a Papal Brief of 1706
> and finally by a Bull of 1718 (MIlitantis Eccleisae). In 1910 and 1913 Papal
> placets confirmed various privileges for the ecclesiastical members of the Order
> and in 1910, 1915, 1916 and 1921 the Order was granted the use of certain
> churches, in two cases exempt from episcopal authority. In both Orders in the
> early 20th century the Holy See authorised professions to be made. They are
> therefore subjects of canon law, and their existence is not based (as, say, with
> the Orders of the Garter, Golden Fleece, etc) on royal authority.
Guy,
I understand the point you are making and you are certainly correct in
formal terms - yet these orders are in practice under the authority of
the respective dynasties and the Holy See maintains little modern
interest in either of these, even though both the Spanish
Conatantinian and the Tuscan orders maintain their Catholic character.
There are of course 'dynastic' awards that also owe their existence to
Papal bulls. In the case of the Constantinian - it was a dynastic or
perhaps private initiative until it received papal approval.
George Lucki
glu...@wp.pl
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wrong. It is recognized as a foreign award made to Colin Powell.
George Lucki
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think your missunderstanding how I'm using the word - recognized.
Colin Powell may have his honorary award mentioned in his record, but
beyond that the US government will not make mention of it in any
official capacity. At a state dinner or other social function wherein
another award winner of this type might be present, I'm sure someone
would note Powell's award. Outside of that there isn't likely to be
anything said about it.
This is what I'm talking about when I remove the US from the equation:
as the US has no system or history of recognition, the US is out as a
sovereign example. Any other sovereigns that I've mentioned have
referred to governments (Japan has an emperor) that have a history
that includes royalty and recognitions of foreign ranks.
Guy Stair Sainty
says...
>
>On Apr 4, 11:46 pm, Guy Stair Sainty <g...@sainty.org> wrote:
>>In article <1175489375.789013.161...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, glu...@wp.pl
>> says...
>>
>Guy,
>I understand the point you are making and you are certainly correct in
>formal terms - yet these orders are in practice under the authority of
>the respective dynasties and the Holy See maintains little modern
>interest in either of these, even though both the Spanish
>Conatantinian and the Tuscan orders maintain their Catholic character.
>There are of course 'dynastic' awards that also owe their existence to
>Papal bulls. In the case of the Constantinian - it was a dynastic or
>perhaps private initiative until it received papal approval.
>George Lucki
>
>
I agree that today the HS has much less interest in these Orders than it did,
but they are still primarily Catholic institutions with Churches that they use
and (in the case of the "Spanish" Constantinian) regular Masses and spritual
activities. However it is wrong to suggest that the Constantinian is "dynastic"
since that implies that it owes it foundation and legal existence to the act of
a claimant to a state or a sovereign dynasty. This is not the case. Even the
first grand masters, the Angeli of Drivasto, did not claim to be de jure
Emperors but merely (falsely) agnatic descendants of a sometime Emperor(s).
When the Order began to receive tokens of papal recognition, these were granted
to the Order and its grand masters and not in recogntiion of any dynastic claim
- this is in stark contrast to the privileges granted to the Tuscan Order of St
Stephen, which was also a religious-military Order of similar constitution but
whose grand magistery was and is tied to the title of Grand Duke.
I can cite (here are just a few) numerous proofs of this starting with Cum a
sicut accepimus of 10 July 1585 (there were some earlier Papal breifs from the
1550s and 60s but they are only known by reference in later papal breifs and
their full texts have not survived) which conferred the right of the knights to
hold ecclesiastical benefices, two imperial patents of 7 Nov 1630 and 25 June
1671 granting certain privileges to the knights, the assignation of a church in
Munich to the Order by the Elector of Bavaria on 26 May 1669 (following
recognition of certain privileges for the knights on 8 July 1667), a Papal bull
of 1624 (recently found in the Spanish archives) addressed to Felipe III, asking
him to recognise certain privileges for the knights, the Imperial patent
confirming the transfer to the Farnese in 1698, Agnoscimus et notum facimus of 5
August 1699 which states the transfer was to Francesco farnese and his heirs,
not mentioning the dukedom of Parma, while the Brief Sincerae Fidei likewise in
its first paragraph makes it clear the transfer is to Francesco Farnese and his
family (only later does it mention that he is "for the time being" duke of Parma
and Piacenza). On 8 March 1796 King Ferdinand IV and III issued a decree stating
"In his (the King's) royal person there exists together two very distinct
qualities, the one of Monarch of the Two Sicilies, and the other of Grand Master
of the illustrious, royal and military Constantinian order, which though united
gloriously in the same person form nonetheless at the same time two separate
independent Lordships". In 1924 the President of the Tribunal of Naples wrote:
"before 1860 the Kings, Grand Masters of the Order, did not fail on every
occasion to affirm their wish to maintain the dignity of Constantinian Grand
Master distinct from those prerogatives which derive from the exercise of the
Crown, and to hold the Order separate from state institutions ..... before 1860
the Grand Masters of the Order were Reigning Princes purely through historical
coincidence, however, and not through juridical necessity". That is why Carlos
III of Spain transferred the grand magistery in a separate act to the transfer
of his Italian states, ten days later, as it was not mentioned or implied in the
earlier transfer.
This is why the so-called act of Cannes of 1900, even if it could have legally
diverted the Two Sicilies succession, could not have affected the Constaninian
Grand Magistery which is nowhere mentioned in it.