Russian College of Arms
lali...@my-deja.com
government authority licensed to grant coats of arms. I have that it
has been registered by the Russian ministry of justice "As the only
authority legally entitled to grant arms to individuals and
corporations."
Is the Russian college college accepted by English, Scottish, Canadian
and Spanish authorities for quartering matriculation etc?
Do the other monarchies in Europe have mechanisms for granting arms? Eg
Sweden, Belgium, Holland, Denmark etc ?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
monke...@aol.com
frankly, ... i'd like to know the answers to these questions myself.
here's a link that might help you answer some of these questions ... :
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/4111/baronnet/bibliotheque/heraldique.htm
l
peace,
steven
pritch...@my-deja.com
lali...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I was wanting to know if the Russian College of Arms is a legitimate
> government authority licensed to grant coats of arms. I have that it
> has been registered by the Russian ministry of justice "As the only
> authority legally entitled to grant arms to individuals and
> corporations."
>
> Is the Russian college college accepted by English, Scottish, Canadian
> and Spanish authorities for quartering matriculation etc?
>
> Do the other monarchies in Europe have mechanisms for granting arms? Eg
> Sweden, Belgium, Holland, Denmark etc ?
>
From 1992 to 1997, I worked in Moscow and St. Petersburg. In this time period
I had some contact with the four main heraldic organisations in Russia. The
organisations are as follows:
1) The Military Heraldry and Symbolics Department of the Ministry of Defence.
The heralds here are the offical state heralds. They do not issue personal
arms.
2) The Heraldry Department of the Russian Nobility Society. The president of
the society is Prince Andrei K. Golitsyn, the secretary is Count Nicholas N.
Bobrinskoy. The patronne of the society is HIH Grand Duches Masria
Vladmirovna of Russia. The Society confirms the arms of the nobility and has
allowed strongly differenced arms to be used by the distaff lines of the
noble houses that were otherwise rendered extinct by the communist regime.
3) The Russian Heraldry Society. A national group formed to study heraldry.
Some of the leadership is involved with the CHR.
4) The Colligium Heraldicum Russiae (CHR). This is a private body that
registers and designs coats of arms. Their artists are very good. They claim
to have been established by the late HIH Grand Duke Vladimir Kyrilovich of
Russia. The arms that they devise are not recognised by any government
authorities. In 1996, I was informed by an Imperial famly descendant that the
CHR had issued a certificate to a Canadian citizen confirming his
historically nonexistent "Rurikid-like" princely title and arms and that I
should sever my contacts with the CHR.
I hope that this information will be of assistance to you.
Best Wishes,
David Pritcard
monke...@aol.com
hello there! ;)
could you expound on the offense in number four? also, ... do these
groups/departments have webistes or addresses? just curious.
peace,
steven
Jonas Kuschner
<snip, snip, snip>
>>
>> 4) The Colligium Heraldicum Russiae (CHR). This is a private body that
>> registers and designs coats of arms. Their artists are very good. They
>claim
>> to have been established by the late HIH Grand Duke Vladimir
>Kyrilovich of
>> Russia. The arms that they devise are not recognised by any government
>> authorities. In 1996, I was informed by an Imperial famly descendant
>that the
>> CHR had issued a certificate to a Canadian citizen confirming his
>> historically nonexistent "Rurikid-like" princely title and arms and
>that I
>> should sever my contacts with the CHR.
<snip>
And Steven Madewell asked:
>could you expound on the offense in number four? also, ... do these
>groups/departments have webistes or addresses? just curious.
You could try http://www.pgsa.org/russcoll.htm
-------------------
"The Russian College of Heraldry was re-established in April 1991 under the
High Patronage of His Imperial Highness, The Grand Duke of Russia Vladimir
Kirillovich in his capacity as Head of the Imperial House of Romanov. Up
until his death in 1992, the Grand Duke supported the aims of the College,
its' re-establishment as an Imperial College of Arms and as well the
renaissance of Russian heraldry."
-------------------
Died the next year? How convenient!
It is probably a safe bet that any entity involved in the "restoration" of
Imperial Russian traditions is allied with right-extremist, nationalist
Russian groups. The wording of one of the following paragraphs supports this
assumption:
----------------
"The CHR offers a number of heraldic services to honourable ***Christian***
[my emphasis] gentlemen/women, which include:
1. The registration and publication of legitimate grants of arms that have
been bestowed by an officially recognised Officer of Arms from any National
Heraldry Office.
2. The registration and publication of previously unregistered arms which
have been borne by families over an extended period of time.
3. The creation of a grant of arms to worthy individuals who are desirous of
obtaining a legitimate 'Coat of Arms', done in the ancient Russian style,
following the laws and traditions of Russian heraldry."
--------------------
Now, why would they want to limit their grants to Christians? Russia has
large Muslim and Jewish minorities, and among the descendants of emigrants
from Russia the latter are probably highly overrepresented. The only logical
reason for this stipulation, as far as I can see, is to exclude Jews (and
Muslims) from the possible recipients of Russian grants. This is
particularly striking when they offer grants to people with no Russian
connection whatsoever.
Money paid to the CHR likely goes to support political causes that no person
in America or Western Europe with a normal democratic mind would ever
consciously want to support.
Besides, it is most probably bogus.
Jonas Kuschner
monke...@aol.com
As Forest Gump might say, "Bogus is as bogus does." In other
words, ... one would have to judge this group on their merits, no?
Since I really don't know anything about them ... it's hard to tell.
I'm not going to get too bent out of shape about a "royal" connection
here. The implication of exclusivism is disturbing and should be
addressed and/or examined, but then ... exclusivism in not new to the
world of heraldry.
Sticky business this need for "official approval", but ... mankind is
sectarian by nature (or so it seems). so, ... i guess having a body
recognized by a bigger body is needful to avoid factionalization. Sort
of ironic that a govt that wants to put everyone on the same level
doesn't give the masses a chance to have their own coats of arms, which
formerly was only allowed to the upper crust.
As for Jewish and Muslim heraldry.... I guess the Zionist State of
Israel and the King of Jordan have other fish to fry and don't want to
be bothered with establishing a heraldic authority of their own. I see
no reason why they couldn't. Here again we'd probably be dealing with
more exclusivism. ::::sigh::::
Peace,
Steven
Mark E Sievert
Jonas Kuschner <jonas.k...@swipnet.se> wrote in message
news:lQ795.12126$rH5....@nntpserver.swip.net...
> David Pritchard wrote:
>
> <snip, snip, snip>
> >>
> >> 4) The Colligium Heraldicum Russiae (CHR). This is a private body that
> >> registers and designs coats of arms. Their artists are very good. They
> >claim
> >> to have been established by the late HIH Grand Duke Vladimir
> >Kyrilovich of
> >> Russia. The arms that they devise are not recognised by any government
> >> authorities. In 1996, I was informed by an Imperial famly descendant
> >that the
> >> CHR had issued a certificate to a Canadian citizen confirming his
> >> historically nonexistent "Rurikid-like" princely title and arms and
> >that I
> >> should sever my contacts with the CHR.
> <snip>
>
>
>
> And Steven Madewell asked:
>
> >could you expound on the offense in number four? also, ... do these
> >groups/departments have webistes or addresses? just curious.
I do know now that the CHR is working with the Russian Assembly of Nobility
in sharing office space.
And I've also heard a rumor that the State Heraldic Office has been closed.
>
>
>
>
> You could try http://www.pgsa.org/russcoll.htm
>
> -------------------
> "The Russian College of Heraldry was re-established in April 1991 under
the
> High Patronage of His Imperial Highness, The Grand Duke of Russia Vladimir
> Kirillovich in his capacity as Head of the Imperial House of Romanov. Up
> until his death in 1992, the Grand Duke supported the aims of the College,
> its' re-establishment as an Imperial College of Arms and as well the
> renaissance of Russian heraldry."
> -------------------
>
> Died the next year? How convenient!
I've corresponded regularly with Cmd. Valary Yegorov for the past three
years. What he would like, personally is a constitutional monarchy headed
by the Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna.
>
> It is probably a safe bet that any entity involved in the "restoration" of
> Imperial Russian traditions is allied with right-extremist, nationalist
> Russian groups. The wording of one of the following paragraphs supports
this
> assumption:
"wording" ? I only found one offensive word, ***Christian***. How sinful
to be a Christian these days.
Just as the KKK in America has adopted and desecrated the old honorable
battle flag of the Confederacy, turning it into a symbol of hate and
repression, has right wing extremist groups turned the following of Christ
into an order of hate, intollerance and bigotry. I should be more carefull
in concealing my faith in the future.
Anyone out there know of a more politically correct religion for me?
>
> ----------------
> "The CHR offers a number of heraldic services to honourable
***Christian***
> [my emphasis] gentlemen/women, which include:
>
> 1. The registration and publication of legitimate grants of arms that have
> been bestowed by an officially recognised Officer of Arms from any
National
> Heraldry Office.
> 2. The registration and publication of previously unregistered arms which
> have been borne by families over an extended period of time.
> 3. The creation of a grant of arms to worthy individuals who are desirous
of
> obtaining a legitimate 'Coat of Arms', done in the ancient Russian style,
> following the laws and traditions of Russian heraldry."
> --------------------
>
> Now, why would they want to limit their grants to Christians? Russia has
> large Muslim and Jewish minorities, and among the descendants of emigrants
> from Russia the latter are probably highly overrepresented. The only
logical
> reason for this stipulation, as far as I can see, is to exclude Jews (and
> Muslims) from the possible recipients of Russian grants. This is
> particularly striking when they offer grants to people with no Russian
> connection whatsoever.
To me, this looks like an attack from a safe distance. Lets narrow the
Christian arguement just a bit to Christian Orthodoxy. For centuries, the
family laws regarding succession for the Romanovs were very strict regarding
exclusion of ALL faiths, Catholic included, from the throne.
My, what bigots to exclude Muslims from the Russian throne.
>
> Money paid to the CHR likely goes to support political causes that no
person
> in America or Western Europe with a normal democratic mind would ever
> consciously want to support.
Actually, much of the money paid supports the families of the CHR. Not
unlike supporting the heralds and artists of the College of Arms in England.
>
> Besides, it is most probably bogus.
Then my advise to you is to stay away.
>
> Jonas Kuschner
>
In closing, and in fairness, I will say that I have had work done by the CHR
in 1997. Their work is very good in Western standards with the cost being
comparable to South Africa. The dollar buys a lot of rubles these days.
Why did I seek out the CHR? Because of my Prussian/Polish descent made an
English/Scottish/Irish/Spanish/South African grant seem a bit silly.
Besides, I wanted the artwork to be in the Germanic/ Eastern style rarely
seen in Western heraldry.
Below is a link to a poor scan of a copy of my arms. it is a poor example
of what proudly hangs in my library.
http://www.eswood.com/armiger/images/Mesarms1.gif
My apologies for ranting.
Mark E. Sievert, PNA (Polish Nobility Association)
Jonas Kuschner
Mark E Sievert wrote in message
<4ql95.10054$cR2.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
<snip>
>"wording" ? I only found one offensive word, ***Christian***. How sinful
>to be a Christian these days.
>
>Just as the KKK in America has adopted and desecrated the old honorable
>battle flag of the Confederacy, turning it into a symbol of hate and
>repression, has right wing extremist groups turned the following of Christ
>into an order of hate, intollerance and bigotry. I should be more carefull
>in concealing my faith in the future.
>
>Anyone out there know of a more politically correct religion for me?
>
You miss your target and evade the subject. I have said nothing against
Christianity or its adherents, but against the CHR.
The CHR takes an obviously discriminatory position versus important parts of
the Russian people, completely unworthy of a national heraldic office (or a
body claiming such a position) in a democracy, combined with a completely
indiscriminate "granting" of arms to foreigners. It may well be in
accordance with an old Russian tradition of discrimination and oppression,
but hardly with any kind of democratic position.
By "honorable" with reference to the confederacy, I hope that you merely
mean the position versus the union, not its defence of slavery?
<snip>
>To me, this looks like an attack from a safe distance. Lets narrow the
>Christian arguement just a bit to Christian Orthodoxy. For centuries, the
>family laws regarding succession for the Romanovs were very strict
regarding
>exclusion of ALL faiths, Catholic included, from the throne.
>
>My, what bigots to exclude Muslims from the Russian throne.
>
A lot could probably said of the way the Romanovs ruled Russia. But the
discussion here concerns neither the Russian monarchy nor the religion of
the incumbents of the Russian throne, but the CHR and its position versus
religious minorities in the republican Russian confederacy of today. The
fact is that the CHR does not limit its grants to members of the Russian
orthodox church, which would still be distasteful from a democratic point of
view, but still more understandable. As I stressed before, they discriminate
against Russians of other religions while inviting foreigners to apply for a
grant of arms.
Can you see any justice in granting arms -- if that is indeed what they
do -- to Americans of, let say, British or Irish origin, while
discriminating against people who have bled on the battlefields for Mother
Russia?
<snip>
>
>In closing, and in fairness, I will say that I have had work done by the
CHR
>in 1997. Their work is very good in Western standards with the cost being
>comparable to South Africa. <snip>
>Below is a link to a poor scan of a copy of my arms. it is a poor example
>of what proudly hangs in my library.
>
>http://www.eswood.com/armiger/images/Mesarms1.gif
>
Competent artwork. I have nothing against the Russian heraldic artists or
their families. My questioning of the CHR concerns its policies.
I may of course be wrong regarding the CHR, although nothing you have said
has convinced me otherwise. Maybe the wording on the website is merely a
lapsus. As you seem to maintain close contacts with the CHR, I am sure that
you can find out what the case is. Once they explain that their apparent
position is a mistake and once they have changed the wording of their
webpage, I am quite prepared to retract my accusation. (An entirely
different matter is whether they are to be regarded as an official heraldic
office, comparable to the CoA or LL, or just another private heraldry
society, but they are welcome to try to convince me.)
Jonas Kuschner
Larry Slight
> I may of course be wrong regarding the CHR, although nothing you have said
> has convinced me otherwise. Maybe the wording on the website is merely a
> lapsus. As you seem to maintain close contacts with the CHR, I am sure that
> you can find out what the case is. Once they explain that their apparent
> position is a mistake and once they have changed the wording of their
> webpage, I am quite prepared to retract my accusation. (An entirely
> different matter is whether they are to be regarded as an official heraldic
> office, comparable to the CoA or LL, or just another private heraldry
> society, but they are welcome to try to convince me.)
My heavens! Please explain to me why the CHR should care a wit for your
"accusation"! As is usual amoung some contributors to this NG, you seem to
think that someone out here in the ether cares if you accuse them of something
nafarious or not. I am sure that persons in Russia have a lot more things to
worry about than your condemnation.
--
Larry Slight
monke...@aol.com
"Mark E Sievert" <mark.e....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Jonas Kuschner <jonas.k...@swipnet.se> wrote in message
> news:lQ795.12126$rH5....@nntpserver.swip.net...
> > David Pritchard wrote:
> >
> > <snip, snip, snip>
> > >>
> > >> 4) The Colligium Heraldicum Russiae (CHR). This is a private body
that
> > >> registers and designs coats of arms. Their artists are very good.
>
>
> In closing, and in fairness, I will say that I have had work done by
the CHR
> in 1997. Their work is very good in Western standards with the cost
being
> comparable to South Africa. The dollar buys a lot of rubles these
days.
> Why did I seek out the CHR? Because of my Prussian/Polish descent
made an
> English/Scottish/Irish/Spanish/South African grant seem a bit silly.
> Besides, I wanted the artwork to be in the Germanic/ Eastern style
rarely
> seen in Western heraldry.
>
> Below is a link to a poor scan of a copy of my arms. it is a poor
example
> of what proudly hangs in my library.
>
> http://www.eswood.com/armiger/images/Mesarms1.gif
>
> My apologies for ranting.
>
> Mark E. Sievert, PNA (Polish Nobility Association)
WOW! If that's an example of a poor example ... what must the real
thing look like!? The proof is in the pudding. Whatever their status
or politics (et al) ... there's no denying their artwork is excellent!
I'm impressed.
Do I have your permission to include this on the rec.heraldry Roll of
Arms webpage?
http://freepages.family.rootsweb.com/~heraldry/page_rec_heraldry.html
If so, ... could you send me the blazon and the specifics regarding the
granting/registering authority and the date. Also, ... a brief word on
the symbolism (if any) in the arms would be nice. Thanks much! Would
love to see a photo of the whole thing. It really is striking. Love
the mantling! Be well....
Jonas Kuschner
Larry Slight wrote in message <3966394D...@erols.com>...
>My heavens! Please explain to me why the CHR should care a wit for your
>"accusation"! As is usual amoung some contributors to this NG, you seem to
>think that someone out here in the ether cares if you accuse them of
something
>nafarious or not. I am sure that persons in Russia have a lot more things
to
>worry about than your condemnation.
>
First of all, I must admit that I completely fail to see the point of your
post, except as a personal attack on me for posting on heraldic matters in a
forum for heraldry. In which way does your post add to any knowledge of the
CHR among the other rec.heraldry members?
My initial purpose was only to point out that the CHR appears to be a
politically rather repellent organisation, and more for the benefit of any
reader of rec.heraldry who may possibly be considering applying to them for
a "grant", than with any thought about the reaction of the CHR itself. But
Mr Mark E Sievert apparently cared enough for the CHR to march out to their
defense, without actually addressing the matter at hand.
Mr Sievert may perhaps not care very much whether the policies of the CHR
are fascist and antisemitic or not -- at least he didn't show any such
concern -- and maybe you don't, either. But I am sure there are some
rec.heraldry readers who are interested in knowing if that is the case. If
the CHR feel slandered, they may choose to reply. If they don't, I really
couldn't care less.
Jonas Kuschner
monke...@aol.com
here's a thought. why not write and ask them? they do have a website
and an email address....
peace,
steven
Murgobald
>government authority licensed to grant coats of arms. I have that it
>has been registered by the Russian ministry of justice "As the only
>authority legally entitled to grant arms to individuals and
>corporations."
With all respect:
I don't know. But why would this be of interest except to a citizen of the
Russian Federation? (I don't mean to object to your raising the issue here,
merely wondering why one would care if one were not Russian.
Murgobald P
Michael F. McCartney
> But why would this be of interest except to a citizen of the
>Russian Federation? (I don't mean to object to your raising the issue here,
>merely wondering why one would care if one were not Russian.
I assume because they solicit or accept registrations from abroad, no?
Michael Fannin McCartney
Fremont, California
Mark E Sievert
>
> Mark E Sievert wrote in message
> <4ql95.10054$cR2.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>
> <snip>
sinful
> >to be a Christian these days.
> >
> >Just as the KKK in America has adopted and desecrated the old honorable
> >battle flag of the Confederacy, turning it into a symbol of hate and
> >repression, has right wing extremist groups turned the following of
Christ
> >into an order of hate, intollerance and bigotry. I should be more
carefull
> >in concealing my faith in the future.
> >
> >Anyone out there know of a more politically correct religion for me?
> >
>
> Christianity or its adherents, but against the CHR.
But is not heraldry a science of importance chiefly in Europe and other
European colonized lands where the main religion is that of Christianity?
As we agree that the CHR is not a government body, what is the loss?
>
> The CHR takes an obviously discriminatory position versus important parts
of
> the Russian people, completely unworthy of a national heraldic office (or
a
> body claiming such a position) in a democracy, combined with a completely
> indiscriminate "granting" of arms to foreigners. It may well be in
> accordance with an old Russian tradition of discrimination and oppression,
> but hardly with any kind of democratic position.
Here you have padded your arguement on both sides. You fail to recogize the
CHR as a governmental body, and then you penalize it for failure to behave
as one.
>
> By "honorable" with reference to the confederacy, I hope that you merely
> mean the position versus the union, not its defence of slavery?
Because I try to be an honorable gentleman, I will forgive your asking this.
>
> <snip>
> >To me, this looks like an attack from a safe distance. Lets narrow the
> >Christian arguement just a bit to Christian Orthodoxy. For centuries,
the
> >family laws regarding succession for the Romanovs were very strict
> regarding
> >exclusion of ALL faiths, Catholic included, from the throne.
> >
> >My, what bigots to exclude Muslims from the Russian throne.
> >
>
> A lot could probably said of the way the Romanovs ruled Russia. But the
> discussion here concerns neither the Russian monarchy nor the religion of
> the incumbents of the Russian throne, but the CHR and its position versus
> religious minorities in the republican Russian confederacy of today. The
> fact is that the CHR does not limit its grants to members of the Russian
> orthodox church, which would still be distasteful from a democratic point
of
> view, but still more understandable. As I stressed before, they
discriminate
> against Russians of other religions while inviting foreigners to apply for
a
> grant of arms.
I dug out some old correspondence between Cmd. Yegorov and I, and in the
interviews prior to agreement for the registration, he_never_asked me if I
were a Christian.
So it probably isn't a great issue.
>
> Can you see any justice in granting arms -- if that is indeed what they
> do -- to Americans of, let say, British or Irish origin, while
> discriminating against people who have bled on the battlefields for Mother
> Russia?
>
> <snip>
> >
> >In closing, and in fairness, I will say that I have had work done by the
> CHR
> >in 1997. Their work is very good in Western standards with the cost
being
> >comparable to South Africa. <snip>
>
> >Below is a link to a poor scan of a copy of my arms. it is a poor
example
> >of what proudly hangs in my library.
> >
> >http://www.eswood.com/armiger/images/Mesarms1.gif
> >
>
> Competent artwork. I have nothing against the Russian heraldic artists or
> their families. My questioning of the CHR concerns its policies.
>
> I may of course be wrong regarding the CHR, although nothing you have said
> has convinced me otherwise. Maybe the wording on the website is merely a
> lapsus. As you seem to maintain close contacts with the CHR, I am sure
that
> you can find out what the case is. Once they explain that their apparent
> position is a mistake and once they have changed the wording of their
> webpage, I am quite prepared to retract my accusation. (An entirely
> different matter is whether they are to be regarded as an official
heraldic
> office, comparable to the CoA or LL, or just another private heraldry
> society, but they are welcome to try to convince me.)
I regard the CHR as similar to the American College of Arms, which has had
it's share of little problems, but it is still a worthy effort.
I am awaiting a reply from Cmd. Yegorov, from a letter I sent about a month
ago. The mail travels very slowly through to Moscow, taking 3-4 weeks and
about 2-3 weeks to return. (Addresses must be translated to Cyrilic) After
I recieve his reply, I will write to him regarding a Christian requirement
for registration. It will be a few months before I can report.
Until we hear from him, as gentlemen, we should dispence with fascist
accusations for the time being.
>
> Jonas Kuschner
>
>
Mark E. Sievert
Michael F. McCartney
context, what's to become of us?):
>I regard the CHR as similar to the American College of Arms, which has had
>it's share of little problems, but it is still a worthy effort.
Of course its inherently difficult/dangerous to compare institutions in vastly
different societies, but - AFAIR the ACH has never claimed that some high
claimant to the American throne spent the last year of his life promoting the
College etc... (IMO they came a bit closer than I'd have liked with the MM/NN
stuff, but they never actually crossed the line); and they have been
scrupulous, over the last 30+ years, NEVER to claim an official or
semi-official status for themselves or their registrations - rather their
website clearly disclaims any such claim, & not buried in the fine print
either. Can the same be said of the CHR? (But I do agree that the CHR's
artwork - or at least Mr. Sievert's arms as posted - are very nicely executed
by an obviously very competent artist.)
Personally - and strictly FWIW, since none of my documented or presumed roots
lead anywhere near the Rodina - if the CHR is viewed as no different than the
ACH, swell - its as good a place to register as any for those whose roots do
run in that direction. Claims of (ex)royal sponsorship are, to me at least,
more than a bit off-putting, but that's just me & my republican rant.
Mark E Sievert
Michael F. McCartney <dmccar...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20000710012246...@ng-fa1.news.cs.com...
> Mark Sievert (much snipped - after all, if you can't quote someone out of
> context, what's to become of us?):
had
> >it's share of little problems, but it is still a worthy effort.
>
vastly
> different societies, but - AFAIR the ACH has never claimed that some high
> claimant to the American throne spent the last year of his life promoting
the
> College etc... (IMO they came a bit closer than I'd have liked with the
MM/NN
> stuff, but they never actually crossed the line); and they have been
> scrupulous, over the last 30+ years, NEVER to claim an official or
> semi-official status for themselves or their registrations - rather their
> website clearly disclaims any such claim, & not buried in the fine print
> either. Can the same be said of the CHR? (But I do agree that the CHR's
> artwork - or at least Mr. Sievert's arms as posted - are very nicely
executed
> by an obviously very competent artist.)
>
> Personally - and strictly FWIW, since none of my documented or presumed
roots
> lead anywhere near the Rodina - if the CHR is viewed as no different than
the
> ACH, swell - its as good a place to register as any for those whose roots
do
> run in that direction. Claims of (ex)royal sponsorship are, to me at
least,
> more than a bit off-putting, but that's just me & my republican rant.
Here is a quote from a mission statement of the CHR
"The CHR is at present the sole legally recognized heraldic body that
incorporates most of the national leading scholars and experts in the field
of heraldry, genealogy, mediaeval history, chivalry, and allied subjects.
The CHR comprises also a team of the world-known heraldic artists.
Thus, for the last few years the CHR has been functioning as a public and
fully independent scientific organization absolutely legally registered with
the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation. And according to it's
Statutes, duly certified by said Ministry, the CHR is the sole legal body in
this country to be entitled; "to create, produce, register, and publish the
coats of arms for individuals and corporations.""
Now considering the translation problems here, I never had considered the
CHR to be a function of government. But rather that of a heraldry society
that has government recognition as the only one, *so far*.
There remains no impediment for the Ministry of Justice to charter further
organizations, or to withdraw what it has given. If the Russian government
decided tomorrow to regulate personal arms, I doubt the CHR would survive
the day, the role of state herald going instead to a political cronie. Such
is politics. Though Cmd. Yegorov did inform me that last year he designed
and registered regimental arms for the Russian Army, so that may be
indicative of some success he is having, public and privately.
So at the end of the day in Russia, if the police don't knock down your
door, you're in business tomorrow. ;-)
>
>
> Michael Fannin McCartney
> Fremont, California
Mark E. Sievert
j...@inr.net
their organization, and their completely unofficial character, it
should be observed that there is the greatest possible historical and
political incongruity in persons of Polish ancestry seeking heraldic
recognition or legitimation from (even questionable) Russian
authorities.
Russia is historically the invader and occupier of Poland, the
destroyer of the Polish state and the Polish nobility, and represents
the despotic antimony of the Polish liberatarian political tradition.
Russian imperial claims encompass the peoples and territories of the
Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania, and heraldic intercourse with
Russian legitimists must implicitly endorse the restoration of the
empire of the Muscovite self-styled Ceasars. From a Polish
perspective, this is in very questionable taste indeed, to say the
least.
Personally, I wouild argue that no Russian authority of any pedigree
can claim heraldic authority. The right to bear arms is a feature of
nobility and knighthood, and knighthood requires personal freedom
(Franchise, in the old French). Knighthood per se could never have
been considered to exist in the Muscovite despotism at all. Even
Russians subjects bearing titles were, in the final analysis, mere
slaves, and continued to style themselves as such in official
correspondence with their ruler until a very late date. Slaves are
not entitled to coats of arms from either a Polish or a European
perspective.
David Zincavage
.
pritch...@my-deja.com
> >in 1997. Their work is very good in Western standards with the cost being
> >comparable to South Africa. The dollar buys a lot of rubles these days.
> >Why did I seek out the CHR? Because of my Prussian/Polish descent made an
> >English/Scottish/Irish/Spanish/South African grant seem a bit silly.
> >Besides, I wanted the artwork to be in the Germanic/ Eastern style rarely
> >seen in Western heraldry.
> >
> >Below is a link to a poor scan of a copy of my arms. it is a poor example
> >of what proudly hangs in my library.
> >
> >http://www.eswood.com/armiger/images/Mesarms1.gif
> >
> >My apologies for ranting.
> >
> >Mark E. Sievert, PNA (Polish Nobility Association)
> >
> >
>
>
You might find it rather interesting to learn that the self proclaimed
"President-in-Exile of the Republic of Poland" (and repudiated by the elected
government of Poland) "Count" Juliusz Nowina Sokolnicki has his arms
registered with the CHR. A true Polish patriot no? Sokolnicki's arms reflect
his status as the self proclaimeed "Prince Grand Master of the Order of Saint
Stanislas". For more info on this "Order" see Mr. Sainty's postings on
alt.talk.royalty.
HIH Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia claims the Grand Mastership of
the Order of Saint Stanislas and as her father's heir, rightfully so. The
order while originally Polish, was later incorperated into the Russian
Imperial honours system. The independent Government of Poland never revived
this order after the revolution and thus belongs to the Head of the House of
Romanov.
The registration of Sokolnicki's arms with the CHR not only questions his
polish patriot claims but also brings into question the CHRs backing of the
Russian monarchy. How could a Russian society that seeks to re-establish the
Imperial Throne support the claim of a Polish poseur over the rightful claims
of the heir to that Throne? Remember that according to the CHR, HIH GD
Vladimir Kyrilovich backed this society at its inception. HIH GD Vladimir
Kyrilovich claimed the Order of St. Stanislas as his own during his lifetime
so does it not seem very out of place for the CHR to betray the "founder's"
daughter.
Regards,
David Pritchard
pritch...@my-deja.com
> >in 1997. Their work is very good in Western standards with the cost being
> >comparable to South Africa. The dollar buys a lot of rubles these days.
> >Why did I seek out the CHR? Because of my Prussian/Polish descent made an
> >English/Scottish/Irish/Spanish/South African grant seem a bit silly.
> >Besides, I wanted the artwork to be in the Germanic/ Eastern style rarely
> >seen in Western heraldry.
> >
> >Below is a link to a poor scan of a copy of my arms. it is a poor example
> >of what proudly hangs in my library.
> >
> >http://www.eswood.com/armiger/images/Mesarms1.gif
> >
> >My apologies for ranting.
> >
> >Mark E. Sievert, PNA (Polish Nobility Association)
> >
> >
>
>
Mark E Sievert
<j...@inr.net> wrote in message news:396b14ea...@news.inr.net...
> Apart from their dubious claims to include "foremost scholars" in
> their organization, and their completely unofficial character, it
> should be observed that there is the greatest possible historical and
> political incongruity in persons of Polish ancestry seeking heraldic
> recognition or legitimation from (even questionable) Russian
> authorities.
First off, I would like to repeat that i was looking for a good heraldic
artist well versed in the Germanic/Eastern style. My right to arms was
never an issue in obtaining services from the CHR. Some may note that I had
my arms scanned, not the accompaning "letters patent".
In any event, the first paragraph reads: "To all and singular by these
presents be it known that the Collegium Heraldicum Russiae has entered in
the Matricula Armorum the armorial bearing of Mark E. Sievert, (followed by
the blazon, no gongs to speak of...) Pretty boring stuff really, no claims
about all of Russia, legalities or whatever. The CHR has my arms recorded
in a book, period.
>
> Russia is historically the invader and occupier of Poland, the
> destroyer of the Polish state and the Polish nobility, and represents
> the despotic antimony of the Polish liberatarian political tradition.
> Russian imperial claims encompass the peoples and territories of the
> Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania, and heraldic intercourse with
> Russian legitimists must implicitly endorse the restoration of the
> empire of the Muscovite self-styled Ceasars. From a Polish
> perspective, this is in very questionable taste indeed, to say the
> least.
History is a see-saw, the 17th Century saw the borders of the Commonwealth
of the Two Nations stretch from Posen to Smolemsk, and spliting the Ukraine
with the Ottoman Empire.
In any event, my Polish ancestors were ethnic Germans who were indyginats
with ties to the herbs Rawicz and Prawdzic. The Germans themselves were apt
conquerers. The wars are over for now, and we can live in peace. For the
first time in so long, Germany, Poland, and Russia are free from each other,
and equal.
>
> Personally, I wouild argue that no Russian authority of any pedigree
> can claim heraldic authority. The right to bear arms is a feature of
> nobility and knighthood, and knighthood requires personal freedom
> (Franchise, in the old French). Knighthood per se could never have
> been considered to exist in the Muscovite despotism at all. Even
> Russians subjects bearing titles were, in the final analysis, mere
> slaves, and continued to style themselves as such in official
> correspondence with their ruler until a very late date. Slaves are
> not entitled to coats of arms from either a Polish or a European
> perspective.
Perhaps at one time, but Czar Peter (the Great) did found a College of Arms
called Geroldia in the year 1722. The heraldic sciences did arrive late
compared to Western Europe, but it did flourish afterwards.
The "slaves" became armigerous indeed.
>
> David Zincavage
> .
>
Mark E. Sievert
Elias Granqvist
>In article <lQ795.12126$rH5....@nntpserver.swip.net>,
> "Jonas Kuschner" <jonas.k...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>> David Pritchard wrote:
>>
>> <snip, snip, snip>
>> >>
>> >> 4) The Colligium Heraldicum Russiae (CHR). This is a private body
>that
>> >> registers and designs coats of arms. Their artists are very good.
>They
>> >claim
>> >> to have been established by the late HIH Grand Duke Vladimir
>> >Kyrilovich of
>> >> Russia. The arms that they devise are not recognised by any
>government
>> >> authorities. In 1996, I was informed by an Imperial famly
>descendant
>> >that the
>> >> CHR had issued a certificate to a Canadian citizen confirming his
>> >> historically nonexistent "Rurikid-like" princely title and arms and
>> >that I
>> >> should sever my contacts with the CHR.
>> <snip>
>>
>> And Steven Madewell asked:
>>
>> >could you expound on the offense in number four? also, ... do these
>> >groups/departments have webistes or addresses? just curious.
>>
The offense is of course to "confirm" something which is historically
non-existent. Or are you in favour of history-revisionism?
>
>Sticky business this need for "official approval", but ... mankind is
>sectarian by nature (or so it seems). so, ... i guess having a body
>recognized by a bigger body is needful to avoid factionalization. Sort
>of ironic that a govt that wants to put everyone on the same level
>doesn't give the masses a chance to have their own coats of arms, which
>formerly was only allowed to the upper crust.
There has never been any rules saying not everyone could have coats of
arms (at least not in Sweden). The only rules are, you can't have a
noble coronet unless you are a nobleman, etc., because you shouldn't
pass as something you are not.
In Sweden, there are no government established body which grand or
register arms. I find this unfortunate. Not because I would need that
kind of approval, but because I could need that kind of legal
protection - just as most countries have government bodies registering
trademarks and companies' names.
>As for Jewish and Muslim heraldry.... I guess the Zionist State of
>Israel and the King of Jordan have other fish to fry and don't want to
>be bothered with establishing a heraldic authority of their own. I see
>no reason why they couldn't. Here again we'd probably be dealing with
>more exclusivism. ::::sigh::::
>
The arabic countries, like Jordan, has no tradition of heraldry, so
the hope for a Jordan Heraldic Authority willl probably be in vain.
Israel has a somewhat more European influenced culture, due to many
immigrants from Europe, but I don't think the interest for heraldry is
very great there either. Israel has no heraldic state arms, e.g.
Elias Granqvist
http://www.users.wineasy.se/elias
Elias Granqvist
McCartney) wrote:
>Murgobald:
>> But why would this be of interest except to a citizen of the
>>Russian Federation? (I don't mean to object to your raising the issue here,
>>merely wondering why one would care if one were not Russian.
>
>I assume because they solicit or accept registrations from abroad, no?
>
Or maybe one would be interested just because one has an interest for
heraldry...
Elias Granqvist
http://www.users.wineasy.se/elias/
j...@inr.net
There are a number of heraldic artists practicing internationally,
many of whom do not pretend to artfully phrased quasi-governmental or
dynastic authority. Apart from their bogus role as a heraldic
authority, why would anyone pay these Russian individuals to enter
arms in their record books (Matricula Honorum)? If Mr. Jones of
Toledo, Ohio offered to preserve those arms in a leather-bound folio
in my library, would you send him a fee? He too could print up and
distribute "letters of patent" of equal pomposity with precisely the
same value.
The fact that Muscovy chose to mimic external forms of the practices
of the European knighthood did not in reality introduce either
knighthood or nobility in an authentic sense to that backward and
Oriental despotism. The practice of individuals using arms and titles
while knocking their foreheads on the floor, or being liable to
corporal punishment at the caprice of their ruler, is simply humorous
from the perspective of the European armigerous community.
Russian Colleges of Arms will always pretend to some form of
dynastical legitimation, however remote or implausible. The former
despotic dynasty of Muscovy has certainly not abandoned any of its of
territorial claims and pretensions which include all of the lands and
peoples of the former Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania. You
cannot seek heraldic recognition from such authorities without
implicitly recognizing the authority, past and present, of that
deplorable regime.
j...@inr.net
It is Zincavage, when not americanized: Zienkiewicz.
Yes, I am well aware of Sokolnicki's bad judgment in this, and other
areas. I once corresponded with him, advising him that I thought
representing himself as the successor of the usurpative Romanoff Grand
Masters of the illegally appropriated Polish Order of St, Stanislaw
was in very questionable taste, whatever the legitimacy of his own
claims to such authority. He replied that he thought my points were
well taken, but he has obviously failed to follow my advice.
The Polish "knightly twilight" as embodied in several currently active
private organizations is frequently guilty of embarrassing
associations, pretensions, and practices, deplored by more serious
people.
Regards,
David Zincavage
Mark E Sievert
At this point, I feel we should agree to disagree.
Best regards,
Mark E. Sievert
Derek Howard
>
> Apart from their dubious claims to include "foremost scholars" in
> their organization, and their completely unofficial character, it
> should be observed that there is the greatest possible historical and
> political incongruity in persons of Polish ancestry seeking heraldic
> recognition or legitimation from (even questionable) Russian
> authorities.
>
> destroyer of the Polish state and the Polish nobility, and represents
> the despotic antimony of the Polish liberatarian political tradition.
> Russian imperial claims encompass the peoples and territories of the
> Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania, and heraldic intercourse with
> Russian legitimists must implicitly endorse the restoration of the
> empire of the Muscovite self-styled Ceasars. From a Polish
> perspective, this is in very questionable taste indeed, to say the
> least.
All European countries havee changed their borders a number of times.
Most have been deliberately mperial at one time or another. The history
of any country therefore includes part of the history of another. It is
not possible to pretend that it did not exist. It is also not possible
to say that "occupied" territories never had willing colaborators.
Poland also at one time was an expansionist occupier of other lands. It
is absurd to say that "heraldic intercourse with Russian legitimists
must implicitly endorse the restoration of the empire of the Muscovite
self-styled Ceasars" any more than an American obtaining a grant of arms
from the College of Arms is seeking to implicitly endorse the
restoration of English-Hanoverian rule of the 13 states. If the Russians
do good artwork why not pay for it?
> Personally, I wouild argue that no Russian authority of any pedigree
> can claim heraldic authority. The right to bear arms is a feature of
> nobility and knighthood,
Is this exclusive to these classes?
>and knighthood requires personal freedom
> (Franchise, in the old French).
How come?
>Knighthood per se could never have
> been considered to exist in the Muscovite despotism at all. Even
> Russians subjects bearing titles were, in the final analysis, mere
> slaves, and continued to style themselves as such in official
> correspondence with their ruler until a very late date. Slaves are
> not entitled to coats of arms from either a Polish or a European
> perspective.
If coats of arms were good enough for Peter the Great and his nobles it
really does not matter whether they called themselves his slaves or not.
Derek Howard
Derek Howard
>
> There are a number of heraldic artists practicing internationally,
> many of whom do not pretend to artfully phrased quasi-governmental or
> dynastic authority. Apart from their bogus role as a heraldic
> authority, why would anyone pay these Russian individuals to enter
> arms in their record books (Matricula Honorum)? If Mr. Jones of
> Toledo, Ohio offered to preserve those arms in a leather-bound folio
> in my library, would you send him a fee? He too could print up and
> distribute "letters of patent" of equal pomposity with precisely the
> same value.
Anyone is free to send a fee to whomsoever they like. If the quality of
the artwork is worthy why do you object?
> The fact that Muscovy chose to mimic external forms of the practices
> of the European knighthood did not in reality introduce either
> knighthood or nobility in an authentic sense to that backward and
> Oriental despotism.
You do not like the idea that in Czarist times a Czar recognised the
need to modernise and westernise? His nobles had larger estates and more
power over larger numbers of peasants than most of their western
counterparts. What is your "authentic sense" for knighthood and
nobility?
>The practice of individuals using arms and titles
> while knocking their foreheads on the floor,
Did western nobles and other aristocrats never bow low before their
monarchs?
>or being liable to
> corporal punishment at the caprice of their ruler, is simply humorous
> from the perspective of the European armigerous community.
Did western European monarchs never cause corporal punishment to be
inflicted on their subjects? Is it humorous? Has it got anything to do
with being armigerous?
> Russian Colleges of Arms will always pretend to some form of
> dynastical legitimation, however remote or implausible. The former
> despotic dynasty of Muscovy has certainly not abandoned any of its of
> territorial claims and pretensions which include all of the lands and
> peoples of the former Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania.
Does the Russian Federation have any claims on Poland or Lithuania as
now defined though?
>You
> cannot seek heraldic recognition from such authorities without
> implicitly recognizing the authority, past and present, of that
> deplorable regime.
The CHR is not an authority. Seeking recognition from a regime in no way
implicitly recognises the authority in the past of a previous regime.
There may be other reasons for not dealing with the CHR (I would not)
and the present Russian government may not be to your taste (which
governments are?) but you are attempting to link too many independent
points.
Derek Howard
Derek Howard
<snip>
> The arabic countries, like Jordan, has no tradition of heraldry, so
Yet Jordan has a coat of arms, long standing and royal connections to
the west, and a cultural inheritance including the Muslim armigerous
symbols of the crusading period.
> Israel has a somewhat more European influenced culture, due to many
> immigrants from Europe, but I don't think the interest for heraldry is
> very great there either. Israel has no heraldic state arms, e.g.
Ah well, many Israelis will just have to look to a Russian registration
then. (Now that should spur a few into getting their own together).
Derek Howard
j...@inr.net
Mr.Howard,
>How come?
Being an armiger is usually associated with being a knight.
Knighthood is an honorable status, implying traditionally the
possession of a number of admirable characteristics, one of the most
important of those being Franchise (in Old French), i.e. the condition
of being a free man. Persons referring to themselves as _rab_ and
_kholop_ [both meaning "slave"] in addressing a sovereign, as Russian
armigers did prior to Catherine's decree of 1786, clearly do not
possess one of the most essential characteristics of knighthood at
all.
Armigers who practice _bit' chelom_ [the beating of the forehead on
the floor] before a sovereign, or who may be publicly flogged or
branded, as Russian armigers might before the time of Alexander I,
scarcely rise to the status of dignity associated _in Europe_ with
knighthood.
The pretension of the soi disant Russian nobility to knightly status
and the bearing of arms, while styling themselves slaves, beating
their foreheads upon the ground, and being subject to degrading
corporal punishments, is more than a little incongruous from the
conventional point of view of an authentic knightly estate.
>If coats of arms were good enough for Peter the Great and his nobles it
>really does not matter whether they called themselves his slaves or not.
Alas! Mr. Howard, you fail to enter into the spirit of the thing. If
some barbarian brigand chief ornaments his henchmen and followers with
badges, ribands, and decorations, and even tricks them out with
titles and coats of arms as well, this is not nobility or knighthood.
Knighthood isn't about controlling wealth or having a band of armed
henchmen willing to rob and killl other people at your orders. It is
about chivalry and honor. Absent chivalry, honor, and freedom, you
have merely a band of brigands aping the practices of their betters.
>Poland also at one time was an expansionist occupier of other lands.
And, pray, what lands exactly would those be in your view?
DZ
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 11:51:50 +0200, Derek Howard <dho...@skynet.be>
wrote:
j...@inr.net
18th century court: "How elegantly Prince X beats his forehead on the
floor!" "The new brand loves lovely on Countess Y."
Francois R. Velde
> Being an armiger is usually associated with being a knight.
But not exclusively. Peasants, burghers, Jews could be armigers.
> Knighthood is an honorable status, implying traditionally the
> possession of a number of admirable characteristics, one of the most
> important of those being Franchise (in Old French), i.e. the condition
> of being a free man. Persons referring to themselves as _rab_ and
> _kholop_ [both meaning "slave"] in addressing a sovereign, as Russian
> armigers did prior to Catherine's decree of 1786, clearly do not
> possess one of the most essential characteristics of knighthood at
> all.
You're arguing that only free men can be knights. That's not even
true (there are examples of knights belonging to the ministerial
class in Germany up to the 13th c.), but never mind. What does
that have to do with coats of arms?
>>Poland also at one time was an expansionist occupier of other lands.
> And, pray, what lands exactly would those be in your view?
You're going to tell us that Kiev is really a Polish city?
To cite the Britannica, " While Poland in the mid-16th century occupied an
area of about 100,000 square miles (260,000 square kilometres), with some
3.5 million inhabitants, the Commonwealth at its highest point in the early
17th century comprised nearly 400,000 square miles and some 11 million
inhabitants."
If that's not expansionism, I don't know what is. Or maybe it's a phenomenal
population growth that has escaped the notice of demographers.
--
François R. Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Larry Slight
> >Poland also at one time was an expansionist occupier of other lands.
>
> And, pray, what lands exactly would those be in your view?
>
> DZ
>
I don't know what lands Mr. Howard had in mind but an unbiased reading of
Polish and Russian history shows that the wars fought in that area prior to
1700 between those parties generally were caused by attempted Polish
expansion in to Russian territories. Territories such as the Ukraine,
Bylorussia, western Moskvy and other areas such as Carpathia, Sileasia and
(lately) East Prussia (please excuse the spelling). I am sure that the
Polish people have had recent (after 1720) bad experiences with the Russian
State but early on the shoe was on the other foot!
--
Larry Slight
j...@inr.net
<ve...@heraldica.nospam.org> wrote:
>
>>>Poland also at one time was an expansionist occupier of other lands.
>
>> And, pray, what lands exactly would those be in your view?
>
>You're going to tell us that Kiev is really a Polish city?
Kiev and the Ukraine became part of the multi-national Commonwealth of
Poland-Lithuania formed later by being liberated by Lithuania from
the Tartar yoke. Comparing Lithuania's (not Poland's) acquisition of
Kiev to the Partitions of Poland is like comparing a woman's marriage
to the man who rescued her from a rapist to a rape.
>To cite the Britannica, " While Poland in the mid-16th century occupied an
>area of about 100,000 square miles (260,000 square kilometres), with some
>3.5 million inhabitants, the Commonwealth at its highest point in the early
>17th century comprised nearly 400,000 square miles and some 11 million
>inhabitants."
>
>If that's not expansionism, I don't know what is. Or maybe it's a phenomenal
>population growth that has escaped the notice of demographers.
That Brittanica citation is terribly ill-phrased and misleading. All
they mean is that the former union of Poland and Lithuania created in
1386 was renewed by the Union of Lublin of 1569 which established a
single parliament in place of two. So, despite the continuation of
the country's name being Rzeszpospolita obojga narod polskiego i
litewskiego [The Commonwealth of Both Nations, the Polish and the
Lithuanian], and, despite Lithuania continuing to have a separate law,
administration, judiciary, and army, they count both countries
post-1569 as Poland. Poland did not conquer anybody between the
mid-16th and early 17th century. They are only referring confusingly
to the Union of Lublin.
Adam Mickiewicz specifically boasts in his BOOK OF THE POLISH NATION
AND THE POLISH PILGRIMAGE (1832) that "Poland's rulers and her men of
knightly rank never attacked any believing nation, but defended
Christianity against the pagans and barbarians who brought slavery....
And never did [Poland] seize any neighboring lands by force."
Mickiewicz is writing a panegyric to Partitioned Poland, but his
contention is not an outrageous untruth by any means.
DZ
Mark E Sievert
<j...@inr.net> wrote in message news:396f6714...@news.inr.net...
Then in 1410, all those Teutonic Knights perrished by falling off their
horses at Tannenberg. And in 1466 gracefully donated Ermland and West
Prussia to Poland, all the while bowing their heads out of peacefull
respect.
>
> Mickiewicz is writing a panegyric to Partitioned Poland, but his
> contention is not an outrageous untruth by any means.
His statement was wrong, history bears this out.
>
> DZ
Mark E. Sievert
monke...@aol.com
go over the main objections.
1) The CHR pamphlet states, "Every Solider of Christ is eligible to
proudly bear his coat of arms, a unique sign of honour and dignity."
Mr. Kuschner raised the objection that this smacks of Christian
exclusivism. Nevertheless, ... the CHR pamphlet continues with the
following:
"...the [CHR] is always willing to register and publish coats of arms
which have been previously granted, registered and certified by
legitimate and officially recognized Officers of Arms in any country.
The Collegium also registers and publishes the arms of persons who have
borne unregistered arms in their families for some extended period, and
now desire to have them duly registered and recognized by the heraldic
community. Numerous individuals have no coat of arms of their own and
desire to Collegium's assistance in the creation of a pleasing and
meaningful design which perfectly corresponds to the old laws and
traditions of heraldic arts."
This would seem to indicate that anyone, be they Christian, Jew, Muslim
or Pagan could ask the CHR to design a coat of arms for them.
Therefore, the "Solider of Christ" statement sounds more like a simple
statement of belief, rather than a restriction enforced by the CHR.
In other words, ... the CHR believes that every Christian, low born or
high, may bear arms and that arms need not be restricted to the royalty,
aristocracy or clergy, as was done in times past.
At any rate, ... the CHR doesn't ask to see one's baptismal certificate,
etc. I think this argument against the CHR can be set aside.
2) The CHR pamphlet states, "The [CHR] was reestablished in April 1991
under the high patronage of His Imperial Highness The Grand Duke of
Russia Vladimir Kirillovich, the then Head of the Imperial House of
Romanov. All the period from the very initial conception of the
heraldic renaissance in Russia (the then U.S.S.R.) and until his
untimely death in 1992, the Grand Duke supported whole-heartedly all our
tenacious efforts and endeavors aimed at the re-establishment of the
Imperial College of Arms, in particular, and at the revival of Russia's
heraldry, on the whole. And his high patronage was always most
encouraging, helpful, and sometimes even indispensable to our
Collegium."
Apparently, ... the CHR has had a falling out with the current Head(s)
of the Imperial House of Romanov. Why? The CHR simply wanted these
individuals to register their arms with the Collegium. The Romanov's
took offense at this, because their arms are well know and they felt
insulted that anyone would dare ask them (whatever the tone of the
request) to register their arms.
IMO, ... this is an internal squabble and the Russian royals ought to
cut the CHR some slack. Grant mercy, already! Whether the request was
made for historical purposes and/or to put money in the CHR's coffer is
irrelevant. Yes, ... the CHR could have been more tactful and the
royals could have been more gracious. They ought to shake hands and
make up.
At any rate, ... this internal squabble should not stop one from
supporting the CHR, unless of course one is going to seek knighthood or
something from the Romanov's. Further, the current relations between
these two parties does not detract from the CHR's assertion that the
late-Grand Duke gave them his support.
3) The CHR has been accused of giving a bogus title to someone who
sought to register a coat of arms with them. Did I ask to see Capt
Cook's military I.D. card, before I called him Capt Cook? No! Should
the Collegium be responsible to for conducting 100% I.D. checks and
security background checks, etc? No!
I could easily doctor the necessary paperwork to fool the College of
Arms in London into believing that I'm someone else and/or someone of
importance, etc.
Even if the CHR knew this individual wasn't entitled to the rank he
espoused or sought to espouse ... what does it matter? If I wanted the
College of Arms to put Grand Commander of the Association of Amateur
Heralds on my "honorary" grant of arms ... do you think they'd refuse?
The bottom line is that the Collegium is in the business of registering
arms and issuing Diploma Armorum. They are artists and archivists!
They are not a governmental body set up to investigate people's
backgrounds nor are they out to place restrictions how you want yourself
to be known by others.
4) The CHR has registered arms to people from bogus Orders and even
designed arms for bogus Orders. Once again, ... the CHR is comprised of
artists and archivists. If the Romanov's ever re-gain power and want to
regulate the CHR's activities, then ... so be it. Until then, ... the
CHR is FREE to register and design arms as they please per the authority
given to them by the Ministry of Justice in Russia.
5) The CHR's Valery Yegorov has no right to the title of Chevalier.
Again, ... who gives a flying flip!? WHO CARES!? BIG DEAL! SO WHAT!?
A chevalier is a member of the lowest rank of the French nobility or a
cadet of the French nobility. Since the old Imperial College of Arms
was based upon the French system, ... I strongly suspect that Valery
Yegorov uses "chevalier" nostalgically, as a part of his duty title or
as a result of his duty title as Commander of the CHR, rather than as an
indication of his noble birth and/or standing among the Russian nobles.
In short, ... this is a lame reason to distance one's self from the
CHR.
6) Some member's of the CHR have ties with political groups or
personalities in Russia which would give one pause.
Oh please.... Politics is politics. There's an expression.... "Don't
piss on my back and tell me it's rainy." Politics is politics no matter
how you cut it. Enough said.
Outside of snobbery, Russian or otherwise, ... I see no pressing reason
to avoid contact with the CHR.
peace,
steven
j...@inr.net
<mark.e....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
If you don't count the wars initiated by the Teutonic Order as
aggression, and the Lithuanian-Polish victory at Grunwald a victory in
a defensive war (Lithuania and Poland were both Christian in 1410, and
not legitimate objects of a crusade), your perspective is peculiar
indeed. It is true that continuing defeats cost the Order territorial
concessions, and eventually forced the Order to swear fealty to
Poland. But by these standards, you would have no problem condemning
Polish aggression in 1939 as well.
>Then in 1410, all those Teutonic Knights perrished by falling off their
>horses at Tannenberg. And in 1466 gracefully donated Ermland and West
>Prussia to Poland, all the while bowing their heads out of peacefull
>respect.
>Mark E. Sievert
>
j...@inr.net
Lithuania from the mid-13th century, when the Principalities of White
and Black Russia sought the protection of the Lithuanian rulers from
the Tartar horde. Ukraine was liberated by Lithuanian arms from
Tartar captivity in the course of the 13th and 14th century. it was
transferred to Polish administration by Sigismund Augustus in the
course of the negotiations leading to the 1569 Union of Lublin. The
grand duke of Moscow had no legitimate claim to any of these
territories whatever. The traditional Muscovite claim to "all the
Russias," as Norman Davies wittily remarked was like some Breton
nobleman advancing a claim to all the Celtic lands, including
Scotland, Ireland, and Cornwall.
The Teutonic Order had no right to the territories it acquired by
force beyond the right of conquest. When it pursued its aggressions
to far to the point of complete defeat, most historians think Jagiello
was far too moderate in failing to eradicate it altogether.
I have no idea what wars you think involved the Carpathian region much
of which was always part of Poland. Lithuanian and Polish armies
entered the territories of the grand dukes of Moscow on several
occasion, but alwayd in response to Muscovite aggression. No
permanent claims to Muscovite territory were ever made.
Silesia was originally Polish. Silesia was divided among a number of
Polish princes of the house of Piast, starting in 1138 with a division
into Upper and Lower Silesia, finally leading to 16 principalities by
the end of the 15th century. Familial disputes led to some of these
seeking the protection of Bohemia against their brothers & cousins.
An arbitration of one of these disputes in 1335, placed Silesia under
Bohemia within the Empire, but this was merely a change of feudal
authority. Silesia remained ruled by Polish Piast princes, the last
of which lines became extinct in 1675.
Silesia was ravaged by the Hussites wars between 1425 and 1435 between
Hussite Bohemia and the Empire. Hungary acquired Silesia between 1469
and 1490. The Habsburg's acquired a claim to Silesia in 1526 when
Ferdinand, later Emperor Ferdinand I, suceeded to the throne of
Bohemia. Silesia became Pritestant during the Reformation and
rebelled against the Catholic Habsburgs in the 30 years war. Frederick
II of Prussia wrested Silesia from Marie Teresa in the course of the
War of the Austrian Sucession 1740-1748.
There was a plebiscite following WWI, which the German side won, and
Silesian Poles staged an armed uprising in 1921 lasting for five
months. Silesia was consigned to Poland after 1945 to punish Germany
and to compensate Poland for Belarus and Galicia which were annexed by
the Soviet Union. Apart from the 1921 insurrection , and Poland's
involuntary exchange of her Eastern territories for Silesia in 1945,
you will look in vain for Polish efforts to annex Silesia. The
various German and Imperial claims to Silesia all proceed from the
former existence of a large German population, whose settlement was
actually encouraged by the Polish Piasts.
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 14:42:28 -0400, Larry Slight
<larry...@erols.com> wrote:
>j...@inr.net wrote:
>
>> >Poland also at one time was an expansionist occupier of other lands.
>>
>> And, pray, what lands exactly would those be in your view?
>>
Mark E Sievert
<j...@inr.net> wrote in message news:397072b0....@news.inr.net...
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 20:08:25 GMT, "Mark E Sievert"
> <mark.e....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> If you don't count the wars initiated by the Teutonic Order as
> aggression, and the Lithuanian-Polish victory at Grunwald a victory in
> a defensive war (Lithuania and Poland were both Christian in 1410, and
> not legitimate objects of a crusade), your perspective is peculiar
> indeed. It is true that continuing defeats cost the Order territorial
> concessions, and eventually forced the Order to swear fealty to
> Poland. But by these standards, you would have no problem condemning
> Polish aggression in 1939 as well.
Comparing Nazi Germany with the Tuetonic Order?
Your sence of history is compelling indeed.
Michael F. McCartney
centuries is essentially off-topic (not that that's ever stopped anyone!) -
nations, like people, are sometimes good, sometimes bad, sometimes (usually)
somewhere in-between. What's particularly relevant here, if not elsewhere, is
the heraldry on both sides.
j...@inr.net
with the Muscovite despotism is inappropriate for gentlemen and Poles.
Those falling in neither category will doubtless be unmoved.
On 16 Jul 2000 08:22:08 GMT, dmccar...@cs.com (Michael F.
j...@inr.net
contemporary modern era, most people do not identify personally in a
strong way with either traditional identity, and will consequently be
unmoved.
Francois R. Velde
suum:
>Who was the good guy & who was the bad guy in various European wars of past
>centuries is essentially off-topic (not that that's ever stopped anyone!) -
>nations, like people, are sometimes good, sometimes bad, sometimes (usually)
>somewhere in-between. What's particularly relevant here, if not elsewhere, is
>the heraldry on both sides.
Well, the (very bizarre) argument was made that Russians were unworthy of
heraldry, and it makes that particular discussion about good guys and bad guys
on-topic. Not that I think it is worth pursuing, or that it will get anywhere.
The person making those assertions seems to have some very strong ideas about
all Russians, and some very naive ideas about heraldry.
--
François Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Michael F. McCartney
>Even if the CHR knew this individual wasn't entitled to the rank he
>espoused or sought to espouse ... what does it matter? If I wanted the
>College of Arms to put Grand Commander of the Association of Amateur
>Heralds on my "honorary" grant of arms ... do you think they'd refuse
I would certainly hope so! - for their own sake (reputations are easier to
make, good or bad, than to repair...)
j...@inr.net
I'm afraid.
But let's put it in a different context. Suppose that you were Scots,
and wished to record a coat of arms. You find the head of the
heraldic office is a McCleod of Assynt. Do you proceed?
Or your family is MacDonald of Glencoe, the head of the heraldic
office is a Campbell Duke of Argyle, do you want his certification?
Or suppose you descend from a Roman Catholic British family, Scots or
English, and your forebears supported the Jacobite cause, and were
attainted, exiled, and executed by the house of Hanover. You have
been successsful in business, and are offered a place on this year's
honors list, do you want it?
Doubtless, many correspondents would take a modern positivistic view
that historical considerations are just that: historic, and irrelevant
to present times and persons. On the other hand, some persons might
also think differently.
DZ
Francois R. Velde
> I'm afraid.
Oh really? Here is what I wrote:
>>Well, the (very bizarre) argument was made that Russians were unworthy of
>>heraldry,
And here is what you wrote:
>Personally, I wouild argue that no Russian authority of any pedigree can claim
>heraldic authority. The right to bear arms is a feature of nobility and knighthood,
>and knighthood requires personal freedom (Franchise, in the old French). Knighthood
>per se could never have been considered to exist in the Muscovite despotism at all.
>Even Russians subjects bearing titles were, in the final analysis, mere slaves, and
>continued to style themselves as such in official correspondence with their ruler
>until a very late date. Slaves are not entitled to coats of arms from either a Polish
>or a European perspective.
So your argument is: all Russians were (are?) slaves, and slaves cannot have coats of arms.
Therefore Russians cannot (or could not have had) coats of arms. How is that different from
what I wrote?
This silly and incorrect argument betrays vehement anti-Russian feelings that you have already
vented several times on rec.heraldry, and there is not much sense in discussing it further,
because ethnic hatreds of this kind are not amenable to rational discussion.
I agree that it makes little sense for Poles to sollicit arms from a Russian college
of arms. I never disputed that.
In fact, someone informed me that the "order of St. Stanislas" had been recognized
by the Russian government, and it struck me as very bizarre for an alleged Polish
order to seek recognition in Moscow.
--
François R. Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Mark E Sievert
<j...@inr.net> wrote in message news:39732a7b....@news.inr.net...
> I don't think you are characterizing my views precisely accurately,
> I'm afraid.
>
> and wished to record a coat of arms. You find the head of the
> heraldic office is a McCleod of Assynt. Do you proceed?
>
> Or your family is MacDonald of Glencoe, the head of the heraldic
> office is a Campbell Duke of Argyle, do you want his certification?
>
> Or suppose you descend from a Roman Catholic British family, Scots or
> English, and your forebears supported the Jacobite cause, and were
> attainted, exiled, and executed by the house of Hanover. You have
> been successsful in business, and are offered a place on this year's
> honors list, do you want it?
Hmmm. Suppose I went to my state's Department of Motor Vehicles to renew my
driver's licence. Was my licence granted by Melba Spetner, a tired looking
divorced mother of three with 7 years of drudgery to go until retirement,
OR was my licence granted by the State of Missouri?
You are confusing the head with the hat.
>
> Doubtless, many correspondents would take a modern positivistic view
> that historical considerations are just that: historic, and irrelevant
> to present times and persons. On the other hand, some persons might
> also think differently.
>
> DZ
>
MES
Mark E Sievert
<j...@inr.net> wrote in message news:39723d69....@news.inr.net...
> I was attempting to elucidate the reasons why heraldic intercourse
> with the Muscovite despotism is inappropriate for gentlemen and Poles.
> Those falling in neither category will doubtless be unmoved.
>
>
I too am particularly unmoved by those who would denounce me as
ungentlemanly, without ever meeting me in person.
History is full of conflicting ties. Some of my ancestors left Southern
Germany to settle in Posen region of Poland, in the process they became
indyginats. Posen was annexed by Prussia, therefor the Bahrs became German
again. My g-g-grandfather Julius H. Bahr served as a captian in the
Prussian Army. He imigrated to America because of some difficulties
encountered after winning a duel in 1870.
My family was able to skip service in WWI, but in WWII, my Great-uncle
Vernon Sievert, who was Julius' grandson, served as a gunner on a bomber
that dropped incediary bombs over Dresden.
I consider myself an American, German and Pole. So Mr. Zincavage, how do
you suggest I resolve these deep conflicts of ancestery and wars?
On another note, Russian Armorials do contain a good deal of Polish arms,
Rawicz and Zaremba Herbs to be specific, so please do not paint me in the
light you've attempted.
Best regards,
Mark E. Sievert, PNA
j...@inr.net
that absent personal freedom, an essential quality of knighthood,
knighthood and nobility in the proper sense did not exist in Russia.
Whether or not individual subjects of the Muscovite despotism were or
were not worthy of heraldic achievements in other senses, in their
capacity as (self-avowed) slaves, they were not. In the Russian
context, heraldry is merely an artificial and anomalous incongruity.
Btw, the German ministeriales flourished a bit before both heraldry
and the development of the ideals of chivalry.
And my aversion to Muscovite despotism is a political and
philosophical and historical distaste, it has nothing to do with
ethnicity.
On 17 Jul 2000 16:29:04 GMT, "Francois R. Velde"
<ve...@heraldica.nospam.org> wrote:
>In medio rec.heraldry aperuit j...@inr.net os suum:
>> I don't think you are characterizing my views precisely accurately,
>> I'm afraid.
>
j...@inr.net
<mark.e....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I consider myself an American, German and Pole. So Mr. Zincavage, how do
>you suggest I resolve these deep conflicts of ancestery and wars?
With careful discrimination.
>On another note, Russian Armorials do contain a good deal of Polish arms,
>Rawicz and Zaremba Herbs to be specific, so please do not paint me in the
>light you've attempted.
Russian armorials contain the armorial bearings of families who served
the Muscovite regime. You can easily imagine what I think of the
families of Polish origin who did that.
Best regards,
David
Mark E Sievert
<j...@inr.net> wrote in message news:3974b0a4....@news.inr.net...
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 13:55:18 GMT, "Mark E Sievert"
> <mark.e....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >I consider myself an American, German and Pole. So Mr. Zincavage, how do
> >you suggest I resolve these deep conflicts of ancestery and wars?
>
> With careful discrimination.
Actually, I celebrate my ethnicity with great pride and gusto. My family's
ancient cabbage roll recipe is worth much more to me than changing political
borders of centuries past.
>
> >On another note, Russian Armorials do contain a good deal of Polish arms,
> >Rawicz and Zaremba Herbs to be specific, so please do not paint me in the
> >light you've attempted.
>
> Russian armorials contain the armorial bearings of families who served
> the Muscovite regime. You can easily imagine what I think of the
> families of Polish origin who did that.
While I cannot second guess why any Polish families stayed behind when
Russia annexed much of Eastern Poland and Lithuania, I imagine it may have
had to do with leaving a warm hearth in cold months. Not all families had
the luxury of packing up children and elderly parents.
>
> Best regards,
> David
>
MES
inquiro
rolls, I can taste them now as I think about them. Yummy.
I ate at a "Mom style" restaurant a while back that had a
cabbage roll soup, yes, I said soup. It was fabulous. I
don't know how they did it but the essence of everything
good about the cabbage rolls was in that soup. I was told
they only serve it a few times a year, and the recipe is
very secret (I had asked for the recipe, they laughed).
Cheers
Brian Jeffs
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Mark E Sievert
inquiro <jeffsbN...@state.mi.us.invalid> wrote in message
news:08b97bc2...@usw-ex0109-069.remarq.com...
> Off topic, oh well. My grandmother made the best cabbage
> rolls, I can taste them now as I think about them. Yummy.
> I ate at a "Mom style" restaurant a while back that had a
> cabbage roll soup, yes, I said soup. It was fabulous. I
> don't know how they did it but the essence of everything
> good about the cabbage rolls was in that soup. I was told
> they only serve it a few times a year, and the recipe is
> very secret (I had asked for the recipe, they laughed).
>
> Cheers
>
> Brian Jeffs
Great, now I'm getting hungry..............
MES