SMOM John Bellingham physicially attacks senior association officer
patrick donovan
Irish Assocation of the Order of Malta last week in Dublin and
witnessed ousted Vice President of the Assocation, John Bellingham,
physically attack the head of the ambluance corps, Paeder Ward.
Bellingham smacked Ward in the face!!!! Not very gentlemanly.
Seems Bellingham is worried he will be thrown out of the Order of
Malta and have his appointment as the Order's Delegate to France
cancelled or that he will be discplined by the Order's HQ in Rome!
Seems Bellingham was told by the Order of Malta through Ward not to go
on the Joe Duffy show again when he attacked the Constantinian Order
in Italy and its Duke of Calabria for bestowing awards on our
President and Taoiseach! According to reports Andrew Bertie its Grand
Master is furious with what Bellingham has done and is very upset
about the physical attack on Ward.
Seems also that the Vice President Pat White, Chancellor Kevin Cunnane
and Treasurer John Igoe of the Order of Malta in Ireland accepted the
Constantinian Order during the visit of Cardinal Pompeedda last month
following receipt of letter from Grand Master Andrew Bertie and the
Grand Chancellor telling them they approval of the award as long as it
is from the Duke of Castro, Head of the Italian constantinian Order to
which most SMOM officials in Rome belong too.
All who attended noted that all three were proudly wearing their
Constantinian decorations!
Does anyone have any more news on Bellingham's attack!
Patrick
George Lucki
Silly second-hand gossip aside -
Are you saying that SMOM through a letter from Fra' Andrew Bertie recognizes
only the one 'Castro' branch of the Constantinian Order?
Could your friend please obtain for us the specifics of this correspondence.
More than a week ago (about 100 posts back in the thread on the
Constantinian Order - a modest proposal) I made the case for the necessity
of the two Constantinian Orders to reach a rapprochment for the good of the
order. None of the folks from the 'Castro' group who have participated in
these discussions onrec.heraldry has commented on this. What is the position
of representatives of the 'Castro' group on resolving this unfortunate
dispute that diminishes both groups?
Kind regards, George Lucki
(not affiliated with either group)
"patrick donovan" <patrick...@irishfree.com> wrote in message
news:ae3ab589.04062...@posting.google.com...
Guy Stair Sainty
says...
I have passed this defamatory attack upon Ambassador John Bellingham on
to him. John Bellingham is the Official Representative of the SMOM to
the French Republic, with the rank of Ambassador; he is also Ambassador
of the SMOM to the Lebanon, and, with Prince Ludovico Rospigliosi, the
co-Heraldic Consultant to the Grand Magistery. This claim is completely
false.
He is not a member of any Constantinian Order; he is a Grand Cross of
Honour and Devotion of the SMOM, and decorated with the Grand Cross of
Merito Melitense. He has no other chivalric honours.
Ambassador Bellingham was not told "not to talk to Joe Duffy"; he was
alerted to the interview with PR operative, Mr Anthony Bailey, on the
Joe Duffy show and called in to inform Mr Duffy that there were in fact
two Constantinian Orders, and that the other one was recognized by the
King of Spain. Like many of the callers to this show - not one of whom
spoke in favour of the awards to the President, PM and Lord Mayor of
Dublin - he objected to the fools that Mr Bailey and Cardinal Pompedda
had made of Ireland's political leaders. The Apostolic Nuncio issued
a statement that these awards, which Bailey's organization had encouraged
to mis-represent as the "highest award of the Catholic Church" (as they had
done earlier when distributing the long-extinct Two Sicilies Order of
Francis I to a selection of prominent British citzens, including Lady
Thatcher, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Duke of Westminster among others),
were nothing whatsoever to do with the Holy See and furthermore that
Cardinal Pompedda was there in his private capacity and no other.
Mr Bailey, otherwise "His Excellency Anthony Bailey", as he is frequently
described even on many matters not connected with the Constantinian Order,
managed to take time on this radio programme to make an extrenely libellous
statement about former President (and Senator for Life) Francesco Cossiga.
The former President stated of the Constantinian Order given by prince
Ferdinando, from which after criticising the way it was functioning and the
legitimacy of its award, he was expelled (although on Mr Bailey's web site his
name is still claimed as a recipient of the Order), that he had "for some time
has regretted having accepted as head of State this supposed honor, not
customary for someone of his origins and nature, as a friend of the royal house
of Spain he does not regret this: indeed he rejoices." at his expulsion."
When this comment was quoted to Mr Bailey, he invented a motive that was
extrenely damaging and of which he will no doubt hear more.
I have no idea whether the recipients received an ok from the Grand Master
to accept this award; it would not be surprising since HMEmH has said on
several occasions that members of the Order of Malta may accept either
Constantinian. That is perhaps why of the present members of the Sovereign
Council, the Grand Commander (Fra Giacomo Dalla Torre), and members Fra
John MacPherson, Elie de Comminges and Anthony Sanchez Correa, are all
members of the so-called Spanish Constantinian Order without any objection
from HMEmH. One may be absolutely certain that the above correspondent is
being "economical with the truth" when he claims that Grand Master Andrew Bertie
and the Grand Chancellor wrote the three persons named above "telling them they
approval of the award as long as it is from the Duke of Castro, Head of the
Italian constantinian Order to which most SMOM officials in Rome belong too."
Perhaps this is not surprising in an organization which included in its
official publications forged documents bearing the supposed signature of
his Holiness the Pope and of Cardinal (then Archbishop) Re, pretending
to appoint a Personal Representative of the Pope to the Order, that has
claimed that Prince Ferdinando received the Supreme Order of Christ and that
the latter's son received the Collar of the Ordine Piano (an award given
only to Heads of State). That it has suffered resignations of the delegate
and most of the senior officers of its British Delegation (which led to
the rise of Mr Bailey), of delegates in Swtzerland, Naples, Genoa, Monaco,
etc, that it has expelled a Grand Chancellor and a Vice-Grand Chancellor
(who sadly committed suicide), and has a long list of distinguished persons
who have resigned.
mr Bailey also claimed that the Constantinian Order is not given to divorced
persons, without then clearly explaining how last year it was given to
Prime Minister Berlusconi, who lives with his second, civilly married wife.
Neither does he explain his statement that new members pay nothing on joining
(to Mr Duffy), when the standard "fee" is L1400 and he claims that the
average given by his British members last year was Euros 9000! Since his
body does not publish accounts, nor does it appear to be registered as a
charity, it is hard to verify this claim.
Need one be surprised that the claims of this alleged assault, and of the
supposed admonition of Ambassador Bellingham, etc, are inventions?
The legitimate Constantinian Order is not giving out awards left and right;
it very rarely confers its distinctions on serving politicians. When considering
the situations of the two "Grand Masters", one might understand
why the senior line Grand Master, HRH Infante D. Carlos, Duke of Calabria,
Doyen of the Knights of the Golden Fleece, Grand Cross of Naval Merit,
Military Merit, and Agricultural Merit of Spain, President of the Council
of the four Military Orders of Santiago, Calatrava, Alcantara and Montesa
with numerous other public positions and honours, does not need to give
out decorations to anyone who comes along with a cheque book at the ready.
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
edespalais
a écrit le 23/06/04 2:01 :
All these O.. sheer nonsense!
patrick donovan
As neither a member of either Constantinian Order or the Order of
Malta or know anyone personally in each Constantinian group, (I find
all such groups bizarre in this day and age) I do admire the
charitbale and humanitarian work of Malta and the interfaith work of
the Constantinian Order in italy, I do feel the dispute is ridiculous.
Comparing as an outsider with do loyalty to either, both Mr Sainty's
site at www.constantinianorder.org and the British & Irish Delegation
of the Constantinian Order in Italy at www.constantinian.com, it seems
in terms of the language used, that Sainty seems to devote far too
much time to the dispute and attacking the Italian Constantinians
whereas on the British site it does not even mention it at all. I
feel that bringing up the dispute only damages the Constantinian Order
of either side and makes the whole lot sound ridiculous. Attacking
the awards to the president and co did not serve to help Mr Sainty's
cause in anyway - just made the whole lot look ridiculous. He clearly
does not see that he looks as much a fool as those he attacks.
I must confess that I am amused by Mr Sainty's strong feelings on this
matter and how he justifies everything in a horrible and vidicative
manner whereas the Italians from what I can see say nothing at all. I
dont know either party but surely the less said the better by both
parties is the way forward.
As far as I can see both groups do good works and apart from Mr
Sainty's crusade to destroy the Italians, they should make up and if
necessary have two grand masters within one order. I cant in all
honestly see that happening with such aggresive attacks from Sainty on
this site. Throught that as the 'Vice Grand Chancellor' he would have
better things to do than play around in these chat rooms. Interesting
to note that no one from the Italian Constantinian's comment at all on
sites like this and no one from the Spanish Constantinian Order except
Sainty. Would suggest that instead of creating a fight with the
Italians in public, he should grow up a bit, calm down, have a drink,
and get on with the real world which might come as some sort of a
surprise, does not revolve around Mr Sainty despite all his airs and
graces and personal belief that what he says in gospel!
As for the Order of Malta, from what I can see from both sites, the
current Grand Master is a member of the Italian Constantinian Order
and attends its events. Their grand master Castro is extremely senior
in Malta as is the Duke of Calabria who was made a Baliff of the Order
some months ago according to the constantinian.com Whereas Mr Sainty's
Duke of Calabria is NOT a member of the Order of Malta. The Grand
Chancellor in Malta and the vast majority of their sovreign council
are with the Duke of Castro.
I have not seen anyone in previous emails giving opinions from the
Duke of Castro Order. would be good to know what their views are
although not participating in such debates is probably better!
Regards Patrick
"George Lucki" <cps...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<zk1Cc.4861$E84.107@edtnps89>...
patrick donovan
Thats some response! Just for the record I am not a member of any
orders and only reported what I was told by someone who attended. All
I am saying yet again and as relevant with your response today is that
you really need to calm yourself and stop making the whole
Constantinian groupees sound so ridicilous.
Whether Bellingham is an Ambassador or not or senior within Malta or not is not the point. He did attack this guy Ward and was witnessed by others and im sure you will find the irish association hq aware of it. so dont go saying its false when it is true or threatening me !!! Guy Stair Sainty <g...@sainty.org> wrote in message news:<cbah9...@drn.newsguy.com>...
Bellingham was told not to go on the show again and on the duffy show
from what i heard on the show was he said something much more stronger
than you say here namely that your calabria duke is spain is legit and
the other one not. this i find very strange that an ambassador of
malta is attacking the italian duke of calabria who is a baliff of
malta whereas your spanish duke is not. surely senior members of the
order of malta should not attack one another in public and especially
on a low class show like duffy who was trying to make political
capital prior to the election here.
so what if a former italian president handed back his gong. assume he
has eough anyway. Is he now a member of your order in spain? Check
constantinian.com and it only says that cossiga was invested into the
order at a certain time and since it refers to a point in history
noting the italian head of state accepting it as head of state, it is
therefore a fact and not misleading per say.
>
> Mr Bailey, otherwise "His Excellency Anthony Bailey", as he is frequently
> described even on many matters not connected with the Constantinian Order,
> managed to take time on this radio programme to make an extrenely libellous
> statement about former President (and Senator for Life) Francesco Cossiga.
> The former President stated of the Constantinian Order given by prince
> Ferdinando, from which after criticising the way it was functioning and the
> legitimacy of its award, he was expelled (although on Mr Bailey's web site his
> name is still claimed as a recipient of the Order), that he had "for some time
> has regretted having accepted as head of State this supposed honor, not
> customary for someone of his origins and nature, as a friend of the royal house
> of Spain he does not regret this: indeed he rejoices." at his expulsion."
>
Assume His Excellency bit is to do with him being Delegate and I
though all delegates, like Presidents of malta have whilst their in
office. See from his company site he has some impressive government
contracts too which would give him his title.
dont know why you are constantly going on and attacking bailey who I
dont know and from most accounts has received praise for having turned
his group around in britain. Dont see him ever attacking you in this
chat room or for that matter publically. in the duffy interview he
said that you and him met at his request. is that true and what was
the outscome? what exactly do your members do in britain and how much
have they raised for charity. do you have knights in ireland?
>
> Need one be surprised that the claims of this alleged assault, and of the
> supposed admonition of Ambassador Bellingham, etc, are inventions?
can assure you that the assault did happen. this wasnt any invention
from the Italian constantinians you hate, rather than malta people who
witnessed it.
>
> The legitimate Constantinian Order is not giving out awards left and right;
> it very rarely confers its distinctions on serving politicians. When considering
> the situations of the two "Grand Masters", one might understand
> why the senior line Grand Master, HRH Infante D. Carlos, Duke of Calabria,
> Doyen of the Knights of the Golden Fleece, Grand Cross of Naval Merit,
> Military Merit, and Agricultural Merit of Spain, President of the Council
> of the four Military Orders of Santiago, Calatrava, Alcantara and Montesa
> with numerous other public positions and honours, does not need to give
> out decorations to anyone who comes along with a cheque book at the ready.
thats a bit cheap Guy. Resolve your differences with italy. the
problems seem to be with you only as i cant see members of either
constantinians attacking in the manner you do. Patrick
>
> Guy Stair Sainty
> www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Sean J Murphy
personal nature of the criticisms, which we usually succeed in moderating on
this group. Secondly, 'Patrick Donovan' is something of an enigma. He is
clearly not inexperienced in posting, yet a Google shows his irishfree.com
e-mail address has only just surfaced in connection with this dispute. He
states he is unconnected with either Constantinian group, but displays a
degree of knowledge of their affairs akin to that of an insider. I could be
entirely off beam, but do you mind me asking, Patrick, are you posting under
a pseudonym, and if so, why?
Sean Murphy
"patrick donovan" <patrick...@irishfree.com> wrote in message
news:ae3ab589.04062...@posting.google.com...
Pierre Aronax
"patrick donovan" <patrick...@irishfree.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:ae3ab589.04062...@posting.google.com...
> Dear Guy
>
> Thats some response! Just for the record I am not a member of any
> orders and only reported what I was told by someone who attended.
Oh, "someone"... in that case of course.
> All
> I am saying yet again and as relevant with your response today is that
> you really need to calm yourself and stop making the whole
> Constantinian groupees sound so ridicilous.
What about stopping to make yourself sound so ridiculous with all this
someones who inform you about invented dirty little secrets?
Pierre
siabair ~^~
> He is clearly not inexperienced in posting, yet a Google
> shows his irishfree.com e-mail address has only just surfaced in
> connection with this dispute.
(Irishfree.com being a supplier of free email accounts)
"Patrick Donovan" also looks to be posting from York in northern England.
--
siabair (Old Irish) /shabba/ = 'ghost', 'phantom', 'spectre'
Sean J Murphy
news:cbco47$ph0$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
At which point in wafts Siabair. Tell me, O ghostly one, how do you go about
tracing the origin of anonymous or pseudonymous e-mails? It's a skill I must
admit I've not yet fully mastered, but one that's useful out here on this
lawless cyber-frontier. Still awaiting the response of 'Patrick Donovan' as
to whether he is real or illusory.
Sean Murphy
Sean Murphy
siabair ~^~
> At which point in wafts Siabair. Tell me, O ghostly one, how do you
> go about tracing the origin of anonymous or pseudonymous e-mails?
Insert the NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.123.225.163 from the headers of a
"Patrick Donovan" post into the first coumn fifth row of
http://www.dnsstuff.com/ to give United Kingdom - England - York - Bt-adsl.
ie: the postings from "Patrick Donovan" come from a broadband user in the
York area who is using a throwaway Irish-sounding email address.
George Lucki
There are two separate issues - the first is one of relative legitimacy (who
has the stronger claim as successor to this dynastic award) and the second
is the damage done to both groups by the dispute. I agree with you that the
best solution would be to make the necessary accomodations for
reconciliation but in a manner that paces the order on a more traditional
path in terms of its own 'calling'. This is more that simply charity.
Charitable works in and of themselves are a very very good thing but they
are not the only yardstick by which to measure a chivalric order.
Now, the resolution of the dispute is not something simply dependent on Guy
Sainty's good humour, but does relate to the substance of some of the points
he raises. Not only with regards to the dynastic question but the modern
ethos of this order and its mission in the world.
Ad personam attacks on Guy Sainty or aspersions on his character do nothing
to advance the discussion nor does the speculation about why is one person a
member of SMOM while another is not. The SMOM although the only real
surviving independent chivalric order is the keeper of a great legacy of
tradition, but with respect it is not the arbiter of the Constantinian
dispute.
The web-sites themselves may reveal something of the dispute and the way in
which either group approaches the issue but I despite my concerns about tone
the approach of either group toward the dispute is wholly seperate from the
merits of the dispute itself.
I also read nothing into the non-participation of members of the Castro
group in addressing the merits of this discussion - except that they are
choosing not to participate in this discussion on the substance and
resolution of this dispute. This is a shame as some of them have
participated in previous rec.heraldry 'brawls' and do frequent this group. I
hope they do choose to participate in this discussion - if there is any
interest there at all in finding a resolution to what you also find to be a
regrettable dispute.
Finally when you call Guy Sainty to task that he should 'have better things
to do than play around in these chat rooms' - what are you saying about
yourself or about me? After all we are here as well and could today be doing
other things.
Kind regards, George Lucki
Guy Stair Sainty
>
>
>I also read nothing into the non-participation of members of the Castro
>group in addressing the merits of this discussion - except that they are
>choosing not to participate in this discussion on the substance and
>resolution of this dispute. This is a shame as some of them have
>participated in previous rec.heraldry 'brawls' and do frequent this group. I
>hope they do choose to participate in this discussion - if there is any
>interest there at all in finding a resolution to what you also find to be a
>regrettable dispute.
The reason why there is no real debate about the issues is because in reality
they are clear cut. There are certain key documents concerning the Two Sicilies
dispute - the Pragmatic Decree of 1759, the letters between the Count of
Caserta and the Queen Regent of Spain along with the statements in the Cortes
of 1900, and the so-called Act of Cannes of 1900 - which may be debated; in
fact the proponents of the junior line rarely quote from these, and if so
only very selectively. Once compelled to read the documents and exmaine what
they actually say, their case falls apart. These have been fully examined by
three international lawyers in 1960 who wrote a lengthy opinion; by Lord
Rawlinson and Professor of International Law Gerald Draper in the late 1980s;
and of course the detailed examination by the five high organs of the Spanish
state in 1983-84.
The Constantinian dispute is even clearer because there are numerous texts -
Papal Briefs, Papal Bulls, one Imperial Bull, decrees by Charles VII (III of
Spain), Ferdinand IV and III, the Count of Caserta, and authoritative texts
published between 1759 and 1960, as well as the recent canon law study by Marini
Dettina.
The other side have published *nothing* that compares with these; only
polemical diatribes mainly concentrating on claims of who recognizes them
(often exaggerated or misrepresented), not the reasons why.
We often hear from them how the Italian republic has "recognized" them, for
example; yet as the Italian republic itself has stated in official responses to
Parliamentarians and other texts, the Republic does not "recognize" one or
other Grand Master. The Italian Council of State published a lengthy text
in 1981 giving the reasons why, and following previous decisions by the Italian
Crown, it considers that the Constantinian Order had legally survived the
collapse of the Italian pre-unitarian Monarchies [indeed the very reasons
given, the independence of the Order and Grand Magistery from the Two Sicilies
Crown, is a major argument against the claim by the junior line that the Act
of Cannes, concerned exclusively with the future succession to the Two Sicilies
Crown, could not apply to the Grand Magistery], and then stated at the end that
it had been "informed" that the Head of the Two Sicilies dynasty was Prince
Ferdinand of Bourbon, Duke of Castro. Since then, and with intermittent sus-
pensions (one of them ongoing), the Italian Republic through the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs has authorized Italian citizens awarded the Order by the duke of
Castro. The Italian Republic has never investigated the disputed succession nor
published anything one way or the other. Most recently the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs declined to authorize the use of the Orders of Saint Januarius or
Francis I, because of the "dynastic dispute" (and the now dissolved committee
set up to advise the Minister indeed recommended against recognition of the
latter because it was a "state merit Order" and NOT a dynastic Order. It has
nonetheless been widely distributed by the duke of Castro.
>Finally when you call Guy Sainty to task that he should 'have better things
>to do than play around in these chat rooms' - what are you saying about
>yourself or about me? After all we are here as well and could today be doing
>other things.
>
That is one thing I can agree about!
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Guy Stair Sainty
>
>
>I also read nothing into the non-participation of members of the Castro
>group in addressing the merits of this discussion - except that they are
>choosing not to participate in this discussion on the substance and
>resolution of this dispute. This is a shame as some of them have
>participated in previous rec.heraldry 'brawls' and do frequent this group. I
>hope they do choose to participate in this discussion - if there is any
>interest there at all in finding a resolution to what you also find to be a
>regrettable dispute.
The reason why there is no real debate about the issues is because in reality
Castro to wearthe decorations given. The Italian Republic has never investigated
the disputed succession nor published anything one way or the other. Most
recently the Ministry of Foreign Affairs declined to authorize the use of the
Orders of Saint Januarius or Francis I, because of the "dynastic dispute" (and
the now dissolved committee set up to advise the Minister indeed recommended
against recognition of the latter because it was a "state merit Order" and NOT
a dynastic Order. It has nonetheless been widely distributed by the duke of
Castro.
>Finally when you call Guy Sainty to task that he should 'have better things
>to do than play around in these chat rooms' - what are you saying about
>yourself or about me? After all we are here as well and could today be doing
>other things.
>
Sean J Murphy
> Sean J Murphy wrote:
> > At which point in wafts Siabair. Tell me, O ghostly one, how do you
> > go about tracing the origin of anonymous or pseudonymous e-mails?
>
> Insert the NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.123.225.163 from the headers of a
> "Patrick Donovan" post into the first coumn fifth row of
> http://www.dnsstuff.com/ to give United Kingdom - England - York -
Bt-adsl.
>
> ie: the postings from "Patrick Donovan" come from a broadband user in the
> York area who is using a throwaway Irish-sounding email address.
>
Thanks for that nifty tip. Sorry Siabair, but I just can't resist running
your NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.135.234.26 . . . and I get United Kingdom -
England - Manchester - Energis UK. Now are you really a Mancunian, or is
there more to the tale? Meanwhile, not terribly far away in York, 'Patrick
Donovan' has fallen strangely silent - that is, if he actually lives there.
You know, the truth actually is out there, somewhere, but you would need a
million lifetimes to cut through all the exponentially growing deception and
distortion which exists in cyberspace.
Sean Murphy
Sean Murphy
patrick donovan
Sean
Never been considered 'illusory' before and being in York! do exist,
born and bred and working in ireland,catholic,and an interested
bistander following all the news in our papers about the award to the
President. wanted to find out more and found this site and others and
must admit more confused that ever about orders! seems an unholy group
by all accounts and not so interested. Just a bit of fun for me.
Patrick
Bryan J. Maloney
news:tKsCc.874542$Ig.802446@pd7tw2no:
> This is more that simply charity. Charitable works in and of
> themselves are a very very good thing but they are not the only
> yardstick by which to measure a chivalric order. Now, the resolution
The primary yardstick, is, of course, political cronyism. Suck in the
right individual, and he'll simply give state recognition and back-date the
whole "order" into legitimacy from the time of the Big Bang.
George Lucki
Most
> recently the Ministry of Foreign Affairs declined to authorize the use of
the
> Orders of Saint Januarius or Francis I, because of the "dynastic dispute"
(and
> the now dissolved committee set up to advise the Minister indeed
recommended
> against recognition of the latter because it was a "state merit Order" and
NOT
> a dynastic Order. It has nonetheless been widely distributed by the duke
of
> Castro.
Guy,
What was the rationale with respect to the Order of St. Januarius?
As I understand the Order of St. Januarius is a less widely awarded
decoration than the Constantinian Order. Unlike the Constantinian Order it
was a later creation of the Two Sicilies monarchy in the 18th century but as
a chivalric rather than a merit award (something in common with the
Constantinian). I think IIRC that it is awarded by both claimants to the
Constantinian Grand Magistry.
As a result I am unclear as to why the Italian government might give some
tacit recognition Constantinian but not Januarius even though both come from
the same claimant.
Would this relate to the point here earlier made about the relevance of the
separation of the succession to the Constantinian Grand Magistry and the
Bourbon-Two Sicilies crown? Was there a similar event in respect to the
grand mastership of the Januarian order.
If there was how would we reconcile the different positions of the Italian
government to both? If there was not what are the implications to the right
of both Constantinian claimants to award the Januarian order?
There is some information one of the discussants might have that I have
overlooked (focusing on the Constantinian I may have overlooked the same
info about the Januarian in my reading).
Finally what would be the rationale for the ongoing award by the Duke of
Castro of the Order of Francis I (I believe that he is the only one to award
this decoration) - would this not have become an extinct award of merit of
the former Kingdom of the Two Sicilies?
Kind rtegards, George Lucki
Kind regards, George Lucki
Guy Stair Sainty
>news:<QEmCc.3023$Z14....@news.indigo.ie>...
>> "siabair ~^~" <siabair@h=tmail.c=m> wrote in message
>
>Never been considered 'illusory' before and being in York! do exist,
>born and bred and working in ireland,catholic,and an interested
>bistander following all the news in our papers about the award to the
>President. wanted to find out more and found this site and others and
>must admit more confused that ever about orders! seems an unholy group
>by all accounts and not so interested. Just a bit of fun for me.
>Patrick
Strange really that Patrick Clyne, oops, Donovan, should profess to be merely
a bistander and yet apparently be up on so much gossip...!
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
George Lucki
the dispute?
Kind regards, George Lucki
"Guy Stair Sainty" <g...@sainty.org> wrote in message
news:cbfke...@drn.newsguy.com...
Guy Stair Sainty
The answer is that when the carefully orchestrated authorizations to use
and wear the Constantinian Order was engineered by the then Grand Chancellor
Di Lorenzo, he was using the "non-national" Order clause of the Law of 1951
on the wearing of Orders etc that abolished or suppressed the Savoy Orders
and established the Italian Order of Merit. No-one in 1951 imagined that
this could be used to get authorization for former royal Orders - and had
they anticipated this the law would certainly have been frame differently.
When Di Lorenzo did this in 1981, even he did not imagine that it could
have been so extended - the case for the Constantinian was argued on the
basis that it had never been abolished, and indeed had been recognized by
the highest courts and by the Italian royal authorities as continuing
to exist as a legal being.
The extension to other "dynastic" orders, given by the former sovereigns
of pre-1860 Italy and all of which had been suppressed by the King of
Sardinia or the provisional governments that deposed the old monarchies,
was the success of Dr Aldo Pezzanna, who obtained the elevatino of his
father to the rank of Baron by King Umberto and his own to that of Marquess
following his marriage to the co-heiress of the Capranica del Grillo
family (whose names he added). Pezzana is very astute, and has collected
several Grand Crosses from these heads of dynasty, and managed to obtain
authorizatino himself and for his friends to use them. He was a very
senior official, being one of the four Presidents of the Council of
State from which he has now retired.
For some reason, however, probably because it was rarely awarded, no-one
asked for this for the San gennaro (not given to Pezzana), while the
Francis I is a very recent revival. By the time the present Castro regime
did so, the Italian government was on guard with some senior Foreign
Ministry advisers suggesing that Italy had no place in this dispute. Hence
no permission.
I foresee in the future a possible change, and suspect that Italy may simply
abandon all restrictions - because of the difficulty in not recognizing the
Savoy Orders which were founded by papal bull and have been accepted by
the highest Vatican officials. No authorizations have been granted for these
Orders for some time now.
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
George Lucki
If I understand ... Your suggestion is that the inconsistent authorizations
for the two orders in Italy exist only because they were the result of what
amounts to legal loopholes used by recipients of one award who not having
received the other were less interested in its status.
Fascinating. Given human nature this is perhaps a plausible explanation.
The related question remains as to why there are two claimants awarding the
Order of St. Januarius which as I understand is a wholly seperate foundation
from that of the Constantinian Order. Given its later foundation as a
chivalric order of the crown of Two Sicilies rather than as a pre-existant
Church authorized order that had been linked to the Bourbon - Two Sicilies
dynasty I would assume its succession was based upon a somewhat different
principle than that of the Constantinian Order. I am clear that a good case
can perhaps be made for the separation of the Constantinian Order grand
magistry from that of succession to the crown, but does this also apply to
St. Januarius which had no existence other than as a chivalric order of the
Two Sicilies' Kings. How would each of the two claimants to the Grand
Magistry of St. Januarius make their claim to this order. Is the basis
identical to the basis of the Constantinian succession? If I understand
correctly the Order of St. Januarius was separated from the Two Sicilies
crown 1759-1766 and transferred seperately but I don't understand the formal
basis for this.
Kind regards, George Lucki
"Guy Stair Sainty" <g...@sainty.org> wrote in message
news:cbfl3...@drn.newsguy.com...
Guy Stair Sainty
>
>Guy,
>If I understand ... Your suggestion is that the inconsistent authorizations
>for the two orders in Italy exist only because they were the result of what
>amounts to legal loopholes used by recipients of one award who not having
>received the other were less interested in its status.
>Fascinating. Given human nature this is perhaps a plausible explanation.
Well, these legal loopholes were then used by the other dynasties when they
saw the opportunity. There are so few Kts of San Gennaro and there was no
real need to ask for permission - the permission issue was most important
for military, civil officials, diplomats, etc who were not likely to
receive this Order anyway. By the time the Castroists got round to it,
particularly with the re-distributed Francis I, it was too late - the
Italian government was thorouhgly spooked over the whole business.
>
>The related question remains as to why there are two claimants awarding the
>Order of St. Januarius which as I understand is a wholly seperate foundation
>from that of the Constantinian Order. Given its later foundation as a
>chivalric order of the crown of Two Sicilies rather than as a pre-existant
>Church authorized order that had been linked to the Bourbon - Two Sicilies
>dynasty I would assume its succession was based upon a somewhat different
>principle than that of the Constantinian Order. I am clear that a good case
>can perhaps be made for the separation of the Constantinian Order grand
>magistry from that of succession to the crown, but does this also apply to
>St. Januarius which had no existence other than as a chivalric order of the
>Two Sicilies' Kings. How would each of the two claimants to the Grand
>Magistry of St. Januarius make their claim to this order. Is the basis
>identical to the basis of the Constantinian succession? If I understand
>correctly the Order of St. Januarius was separated from the Two Sicilies
>crown 1759-1766 and transferred seperately but I don't understand the formal
The succession to the Grand Magistery of San Gennaro is a dignity of the
Headship of the Dynasty, but not absolutely necessarily tied to the Crown. When
Charles III went to Spain in 1759, he remained head of the Bourbon dynasty and
kept the Grand Magistery of San Gennaro, until 1766. This is evidence of its
dynastic status, and of course the statutes demonstrate this as well as its
Catholic character.
The succesion to the crown is governed by the Pragmatic Decree of Charles III
of 1759; this provides that the succession passed by semi-salic law, being
ceded to Infante D. Ferdinand (who became Ferdinand IV and III), and thereafter
to his heirs, and failing them to each of his younger brothers and their
heirs in turn. In the event of the extinction of the males, the throne passes
to the nearest female heiress of the last male. There was one special provision,
required under the treaty of Vienna of 1736 and the treaty of
Naples of 1759, by which if the King of the Two Sicilies inherited the
Spanish Crown, or became Prince of the Asturias "declared or to be declared"
(in the ceremony before the Cortes), he must renounce the Two Sicilies to
the next male heir. In other words, if Carlos, Prince of the Asturias (later
Carlos IV) had died, Ferdinand would have become King of Spain and would
have had to renounce the Two Sicilies to his next brother, Gabriel. This
requirement, that the two Crowns be separated, was a "fundamental" law of
the succession.
In 1900 Prince Carlo was betrothed to the Princess of the Asturias. In the
letters exchanged between the Ct of Caserta, his father, and the Queen Regent,
which comprised the terms of the marriage, it was agreed that he only needed to
renounce his former nationality. In the Cortes the Minister of Justice
responded to those liberal and republican critics of the monarchy who did not
like the fact that Caserta had been a Carlist general, that no renunciation
would be valid when they called for him to renounce his T-S rights. Nonetheless,
because the Ct of Caserta was persuaded that if the T-S claim merged with the
Spanish crown, it would be forgotten, he demanded (after the
terms of the marriage had been agreed), that Carlo sign a renunciation for
himself and his descendants of his eventual rights to the Crown of the Two
Sicilies in accord with the laws and traditions of the House and the pragmatic
Decree of 1759. Neither the laws and traditions nor the 1759 decree demanded a
renunciation in these circumstances; only if the actual crowns were united.
Nothing was said about the headship of the House, the dignities attached thereto
or the grand magistery of the Orders. In 1901 he was created an infante and
married, but his wife died in 1904 leaving him with two surviving children, a
son and daughter; the Prince of the Asturias was born to Alfonso XIII in 1907
and in the same year Carlo re-married Princess Louise of Orleans (created an
Infanta of Spain, her own mother was an Infanta and closer to the succession
than Prince Carlo), as a Prince of the Two Sicilies in a mariage presided over
by the Ct of Caserta (one of their daughters was Css of Barcelona dn mother to
Juan Carlos, another is married to Prince Pedro Gastao of Orelans-Braganza and
has just celebrated her 90th birthday). In every edition of the Almanach de
Gotha until 1944, and every edition of the Libro d'Oro della Nobilita Italian
from the first, 1907, until 1964, he and his children were included as Princes
and Princesses of the Two Sicilies, placed in their proper position in the
family with no mention of any renunciation (these entries were approved by the
head of the House). In 1941 he sold his share in the family estates, to which he
had also theoretically made an unconditional renuniation in this same act of
1900. None of his siblings objected to his taking his share along with them.
The Two Sicilies civil code specifically forbade renunciations of future
successions; so did those of Italy (of which he was now a citizen) and France
(where the act was signed). The act was not notarized, in accordance with the
law for any such act to be enforceable in the courts, but was witnessed by
his father, elder brother and various advisers. In 1868 his uncle Gaetano,
brother of the ct of Caserta, had married the heiress preusmptive to the
Spanish throne; Francis II had drawn up a renuniation "in case of need" i.e.
if she succeeded, but it was never signed as she never became Queen (in fact
poor Gaetano committed suicide three years later).
In 1949 Carlo died, and Alfonso his only surviving son refused to continue the
modest subsidy that his father had given Prince Ranieri. Neither the latter,
nor his elder brother Ferdinand-Pius, last undisputed duke of Calabria, ever
communicated with Alfonso again or responded to his letters. In the mid-1950s
F-P wrote in his will that after him he wished that his brother Ranieri,
followed by the latter's son Ferdinando, succeed him. This prince Ferdinando had
married without his uncle's consent in 1949, and his marriage was presumed
unequal and non-dynastic - it is unclear whether F-P ever considered it such but
of course Ranieri created his son Duke of Calabria in 1960, taking the title of
duke of Castro (a Farnese inheritance whose last properties were among those
sold to Italy in 1941, which was why infante Alfonso did not take this title.
That is the best summary I can manage.
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
George Lucki
Thanks for the lengthy response. It is quite clear. I had thought that the
period 1759-1766 might serve as an indication of the partial separation of
the St. Januarius order from the Two Sicilies Crown. You have made a good
case for linking it also to the headship of the house.
The second part of your letter returns us to the discussion of whether some
rights can be ceded on behalf of one's successors - or whether if ceded by
an individual are reasonably also lost by others who would have held these
as a birthright. I would like to give this some thought and may respond a
bit later. You have also questioned when is a renunciation lawful - when
does it lead to rights being really lost (when is it really real) and I do
accept that we need to look beyond face validity. the conditions under which
the 1900 renunciation occurred and the requirements for a particular process
likely diminish the significance and validity of an act that we are
nonetheless required to consider in context. The general rules of the Two
Sicilies and traditional Church practice are very relevant here and support
the idea that we should not give too much weight (although we must give
some) to the renunciation. The state of mind and understanding of the
participants at that point and in later times is certainly something we can
only infer through what was written and through their subsequent behavior
(and in my mind behavior speaks volumes) and I did find your analysis
persuasive that the contemporary Castro interpretation of these events is
not that consistent with the previous behavior of the parties (certainly
prior to 1960)
Kind regards, George Lucki
PS - I am open to hearing from one of the Castro Constantinian supporters.
"Guy Stair Sainty" <g...@sainty.org> wrote in message
news:cbhhk...@drn.newsguy.com...