Constantinian dispute
Sean J Murphy
Military Constantian Order of St George to President Mary McAleese,
Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, and Dublin Lord Mayor Royston Brady. I am trying to
get a handle on the two opposing branches of the Order: Is it the case that
the larger but not the legitimate branch is that headed by Prince Ferdinand,
Duke of Castro, UK website http://www.constantinian.org.uk/main.htm? And is
it generally agreed that the smaller but legitimate branch is that headed by
Don Carlos of Bourbon-Two Sicilies, which has a lower public profile and no
apparent website?
Interesting to see that the many photographs in the 'Irish Activities'
section of the above website feature a face from the MacCarthy Mór campaign,
Scott MacMillan 'of Rathdown' - a reference to a baronial title? And what is
the current status of Cardinal Pompedda?
Sean Murphy
Sean J Murphy
May, in which Anthony Bailey of the Castroists attemtps to field criticisms
from Guy Stair Sainty and others:
http://www.rte.ie/radio1/afternoon/liveline/ (click Friday link). The
consensus is that President McAleese, Taoiseach Ahern and Lord Mayor Brady
have in effect been duped into publicising a group they assumed was merely a
charitable organisation.
Sean Murphy
"Sean J Murphy" <seanj...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:D9Rtc.813$Z14...@news.indigo.ie...
Klaas Padberg Evenboer
Being 75-years he resigned as Cardinal.
His status within the Constantinian Order of St. George is unknown to me.
Klaas Padberg Evenboer
Andrew Chaplin
>
> There is an audio feed of an interesting discussion on RTE's Liveline on 28
> May, in which Anthony Bailey of the Castroists attemtps to field criticisms
> from Guy Stair Sainty and others:
> http://www.rte.ie/radio1/afternoon/liveline/ (click Friday link). The
> consensus is that President McAleese, Taoiseach Ahern and Lord Mayor Brady
> have in effect been duped into publicising a group they assumed was merely a
> charitable organisation.
With what sort of player is the *.smil file compatible? (None of mine
recognized it.)
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Francois R. Velde
<academi...@planet.nl> os suum:
>Sean J. Murphy wrote: "And what is the current status of Cardinal Pompedda?"
>
>Being 75-years he resigned as Cardinal.
There is no age limit for cardinals (there is one to be an elector, but it is
80). What he resigned at age 75 was the prefecture of the Supreme Tribunal of
the Apostolic Signature: see
http://www.fiu.edu/~mirandas/bios-p.htm#Pompedda
--
François Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
siabair ~^~
> With what sort of player is the *.smil file compatible? (None of mine
> recognized it.)
I have just listened to it on RealPlayer.
Good on you Guy.
--
siabair (Old Irish) /shabba/ = 'ghost', 'phantom', 'spectre'
siabair ~^~
> Quite a bit of fuss is developing here over awards by the (Castroist)
> Sacred Military Constantian Order of St George
It makes you wonder what is the point of having a Chief Herald/Deputy Chief
Herald.
Guy Stair Sainty
>
>Sean J. Murphy wrote: "And what is the current status of Cardinal Pompedda?"
>
>Being 75-years he resigned as Cardinal.
>His status within the Constantinian Order of St. George is unknown to me.
Cardinal Pompedda has been employed by the Castro Constantinian for
the last 2+ years, and during this time has travelled widely on behalf of
the interests of the Order, and its effective proprietor, Mme Edouarda
Crociani, whose daughter is married to Charles de Bourbon, "Duke of Calabria".
He is a recent Cardinal (2000) and was Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the
Apostolic Segnatura; at 75 years of age like all Prefects he was required to
offer his resignation, which (unlike most of the recent prefects) was accepted
immediately. His antic have caused many problems for the Holy See in the last 2
years as he has gone around representing that this Order and its activities were
approved of by the Holy See. On this basis the Cardinal Archhbishops of
Westminster and Dublin accepted the Bailiff's Cross in this Order.
Last year, the Libreria Editrice Vaticana published "Il legittimo esercizio
del Gran Magistero del Sacro Militare Ordine Costantinian di San Giorgio";
this work concluded that the legitimate Grand Master is HRH the Infante
D. Carlos, Duke of Calabria. It is interesting to note that the Foreword to
this publicatino was written by Cardinal Agustoni, who happened to be and
still is Prefect Emeritus of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apsotolic Segnatura.
The delegate of the British and Irish delegation of this "Order" is a Mr
Anthony Bailey, who has long been interested in Arab matters (there was
a controversy surrounding him in 1995 when he was arrested on a charge of
blackmail on a complaint by a Libyan prince - the prosecution was later
dropped). Mr Bailey is a PR representative for the King Feisal foundation
and has many other Arab connections and clients of his PR business. Earlier
this year, to the astonishment of many, he organized the awartd of the
Gold Benemerenti medal of the Constantinian Order to the Presidents of
Syria, the Lebanon and Yemen - he himself received the Grand Cross of the
principal orders of these states in return and he then paid for announcements
in the London Times so the world could know of his good fortune.
Mr Bailey was asked to appear on the phone in program of Joe Duffy, but was
perhaps surprised when the singer Dana called in to protests at the
inappropriety of giving a Catholic Order to the Lord Mayor of Dublin
(who is now standing for the European parliament) and the Prime Minister,
who is not a Catholic in good standing. A second caller, who pointed out
that there were in fact two Constantinian Orders and that Mr Bailey did not
represent the legitimate one, was Mr John Bellingham, Official Representative of
the Order of Malta to France and Ambassador of the SMOM to the Middle East;
Mr Bailey chose to make an astonishing ad hominem attack on Mr Bellingham (who
is not a member of either Constantinian Order).
The programme continued the next day; Joe Duffy asked Mr Bailey what he thought
of the strong attack on the Order made by former Italian President and now
Senator for life Francesco Cossiga, in which the former president said that when
he heard the news that he was no longer a member that he "rejoiced"
and it was one of his happiest days; that accepting this was one of the worst
mistakes of his presidency and that he was always friendly to Spain. {President
Cossiga has also since asked a formal question of the Italian government in the
Senate]. Mr Bailey then made a highly defamatory remark about Senator Cossiga. I
was called on but I must confess had a little difficulty explaining the
differences between the two claims;
however I did explain the difference between the royal status of the two
Princes and expressed my amazement that Mr Bailey could be privy to what
would be private information concerning Senator Cossiga that could only have
come from Cardinal Pompedda - I stated that since it was inconceivable that
the Cardinal could have released confidential information to Mr Bailey, and
that Bailey's statement was extremely defamatory and must have been invented.
When Mr Bailey claimed that his order did not admit divorced persons (Prime
Minister Ahearn is indeed not divorced, but he had left his legal and
canonically married wife for another women with whom he lives openly as his
hostess in the prime minister's residence), I pointed out that Charles de
Bourbon and Cardinal Pompedda had presented the specially invented (first for
Cossiga) "Collar of Merit" to Prime Minister Berlusconi who is divorced and
civilly remarried.
Mr Duffy then asked Mr Bailey about the several Irish charities which the
"Order" claimed to support, and after Mr Bailey listed them, he called on
representatives of these charities. It turned out that only one of these
had received any money (₤ 5000) and that the others were still hoping but
had not had much more than a visit from the "duke of Calabria" and Cardinal
Pompedda. Mr Bailey then went on to make the astonishing claim that the
130 members of his delegation had contributed more than ₤ 1,000,000 to
British charities last year - since the delegation provides no accounts
it is impossible to substantiate this incredible claim.
Mr Duffy insisted on the question as to whether the President, Prime Minister
and Lord Mayor had been made fools of. Duffy pointed out that despite the
imputation in the publicity that these awards were somehow sanctified by
the Holy See, he had inquired directly of the Nuncio who had stated to him
that Cardinal Pompedda was acting purely in his private capacity. While
Mr Bailey claimed that the three Irish politicians all knew of the dispute,
it was obvious that if they knew anything it was only the sketchiest
knowledge and had "bought" the Castro Constantinian case hook, line and
sinker.
Regarding the dispute itself, Mr Duffy had called on Mr Peter Beresford-
Ellis to give the historical background; unfortunately it was apparent that
this gentleman knew virtually nothing about the dispute and got bogged
down in some irrelevant point about hoping for a Two Sicilies restoration -
even the duke of Castro, depsite his wide distribution of the state merit
Order of Francis I does not harbour that dream.
The matter may be taken up in an Irish newspaper, Ireland on Sunday.
GSS
For the legitimate Constantinian Order, see www.constantinianorder.org (this
site has been redesisgned and will be relaunched within the next couple of
months.
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Sean J Murphy
news:40B8D870...@yourfinger.rogers.com...
> Sean J Murphy wrote:
> >
> > There is an audio feed of an interesting discussion on RTE's Liveline on
28
> > May, in which Anthony Bailey of the Castroists attemtps to field
criticisms
> > from Guy Stair Sainty and others:
> > http://www.rte.ie/radio1/afternoon/liveline/ (click Friday link). The
> > consensus is that President McAleese, Taoiseach Ahern and Lord Mayor
Brady
> > have in effect been duped into publicising a group they assumed was
merely a
> > charitable organisation.
>
> With what sort of player is the *.smil file compatible? (None of mine
> recognized it.)
RealPlayer worked fine for me. But see Guy's summary of the radio discussion
below.
Sean Murphy
Sean J Murphy
news:c9an7m$1si$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Sean J Murphy wrote:
> > Quite a bit of fuss is developing here over awards by the (Castroist)
> > Sacred Military Constantian Order of St George
>
> It makes you wonder what is the point of having a Chief Herald/Deputy
Chief
> Herald.
>
Indeed, as long as the Chief Herald's Office exists, it should be part of
its duties to keep an eye out for purveyors of bogus and questionable orders
as well as titles - and certainly to protect Presidents and Taoiseachs from
same! Yet the infamous photograph of Terence MacCarthy among a group of
Chiefs being introduced to President Robinson in 1991 by the then Chief
Herald, and the equally infamous certificate of recognition signed by both
the Chief Herald and the Deputy Chief Herald, in my opinion beg the question
as to whether the Office is not irretrievably compromised. Remember also
that the post of Chief Herald remains vacant, and it would appear that only
legislation could solve the problem of legal status newly identified by the
Attorney General, which we discussed some time ago.
Sean Murphy http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/irhismys/maccarthy.htm
farme
Government, etc. don't have anyone to advise them on whether a foreign order
is 'kosher' or not! However, I admit I may have a slight bias - being a
monarchist! <grin>
--
Douglas Anderson
Glasgow
"Andrew Chaplin" <abch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote in message
news:40B8D870...@yourfinger.rogers.com...
Sean J Murphy
news:c9iln2$10$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> Now, that's the problem with republics - their Heads of State, Heads of
> Government, etc. don't have anyone to advise them on whether a foreign
order
> is 'kosher' or not! However, I admit I may have a slight bias - being a
> monarchist! <grin>
>
>
> --
> Douglas Anderson
> Glasgow
>
The Republic of Ireland in fact has an heraldic establishment, the Office of
the Chief Herald, whose staff should be well versed not only in matters
armorial, but with regard to titles, pedigrees and orders. The said Office
was of course compromised by entanglement in the Mac Carthy Mór and allied
scandals, and the post of Chief Herald has now been left vacant for nine
months. The problem, as I have indicated before, is not necessarily lack of
expertise, but cynical refusal to put it into practice.
Thus President Robinson was allowed to associate with Terence MacCarthy even
though it was known that he was a fake. In the same way President McAleese
and Taoiseach Ahern were obviously not forewarned about the Castro
Constantinians. Or to put it another way, the problem is that few in Ireland
realise that there is a problem!
Sean Murphy http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/irhismys/maccarthy.htm
Derek Howard
<snip>
> The Republic of Ireland in fact has an heraldic establishment, the Office of
> the Chief Herald, whose staff should be well versed not only in matters
> armorial, but with regard to titles, pedigrees and orders. The said Office
> was of course compromised by entanglement in the Mac Carthy Mór and allied
> scandals, and the post of Chief Herald has now been left vacant for nine
> months. The problem, as I have indicated before, is not necessarily lack of
> expertise, but cynical refusal to put it into practice.
> Thus President Robinson was allowed to associate with Terence MacCarthy even
> though it was known that he was a fake. In the same way President McAleese
> and Taoiseach Ahern were obviously not forewarned about the Castro
> Constantinians. Or to put it another way, the problem is that few in Ireland
> realise that there is a problem!
The last comment may possibly apply to the President's and Taoiseach's
office. I would not find it surprising that they are not versed in
the complex dispute over the Constantinian dispute. It is certainly
conceivable that they or the Protocol Division of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs never thought to consult with the OCH prior to
accepting these awards (perhaps some revised desk instructions are in
order?). However, what evidence is there that the OCH knew in advance
of these awards and had the opportunity to comment? And even then,
where is it given that the OCH should be well versed in overseas
orders, especially ones that are not state awards? (the Constantinian
case is rather complex). I would not be quick to use this case to
knock the OCH.
Derek Howard
Sean J Murphy
> . . . . . what evidence is there that the OCH knew in advance
> of these awards and had the opportunity to comment? And even then,
> where is it given that the OCH should be well versed in overseas
> orders, especially ones that are not state awards? (the Constantinian
> case is rather complex). I would not be quick to use this case to
> knock the OCH.
I note the presence at the Castro Constantinian ceremonies of a former
Consultant Herald to the OCHI and a number of grantees of Irish arms (and in
once case at least, supporters) - http://www.constantinian.org.uk/main.htm,
click 'Irish Activities'. I would be very surprised if the Office and its
consultant(s) were completely uninformed about the Constantinian visitation.
If it is the case that they know nowt about overseas orders and their
divisions, then I can only apologise profusely, and recommend that they
study rec.heraldry postings more closely.
Sean Murphy
Alessando Roselli
The only recongised constantinian order is that recognised by the
Italian Republic and is therefore the legitmate one headed by The Duke
of Castro, Prince Ferdinando. The Spanish 'order' is not recongised
in italy and indeed in many parts of the world and cannot be seen in
any way as legitmate. I find it interesting also that the bogus
spanish order devotes most of its website to attacking someone who is
a senior member of the bourbon two sicilies family and attacking his
order, whereas the legitmate order does not even mention them and
instead talks about what they do and not what as in the case of he
spanish they hope to attain - namely recognition by Italy. This wont
come no matter what Mr Sainty hopes. The Italian Order has an
Ecclesicial Counsellor appointed by Pope John Paul II and the spanish
dont. in fact they dont even have a spiritugal ahead at the moment.
Alessando Roselli
I have looked into this matter and Cardinal Pompedda is the
Ecclesicial Counsellor to the Constantinian Order by appointment of
the Pope John Paul II. A copy of the appointment letter by the
Cardinal Secretary of State can be found at
http://www.constantinian.org.uk/main.htm. Interestng to note that the
Secretary of State was clear that this high appointment is only for
the Constantinian Order headed by Prince Ferdinando and that no such
appointment has been made concerning the unrecognised order based in
spain.
for a biography of the Cardinal, who last month stepped down as
Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the apostolic segnitura, retains
numerous other senior posts including that of President of the Court
of Cassation of the Vatican City.
for a biography I found the following:
His Eminence Mario Francesco, Cardinal Pompedda was born in Ozieri in
the province of Sassari in Sardinia in 1929 and later studied to
become a priest at the Capranica College in Rome.
Cardinal Pompedda was ordained priest in December 1951. In January
1998 His Eminence was consecrated Archbishop at St Peter's in the
Vatican City by His Holiness Pope John Paul II. In February 2001 His
Eminence was promoted to the rank of Cardinal and assigned to the
Deaconate of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Via
Ardeatina, Rome. His Eminence is currently Prefect Emeritus of the
Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Segnatura and President of the Court
of Cassation of the Vatican City State.
In May 2001, during a ceremony at the Church of Saint George of
Velabro in central Rome, His Eminence was appointed by HRH The Duke of
Castro as Grand Prior of the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of
Saint George.
In November 2003, Cardinal Pompedda was officially appointed
Ecclesiastical Counsellor to the Constantinian Order of St George of
the Duke of Castro by His Holiness Pope John Paul II. One month later,
the Order's Grand Master, HRH The Duke of Castro, promoted His
Eminence to the degree of Bailiff Grand Cross of Justice with Collar
of the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of St. George. In addition
Cardinal Pompedda was appointed as a Knight of the Distinguished Royal
Order of Saint Januarius, the highest award which the Royal House of
Bourbon Two Sicilies can bestow.
Alessando Roselli
> In article <c9ahtq$7c7$1...@reader11.wxs.nl>, Klaas Padberg Evenboer says...
> >
> >Sean J. Murphy wrote: "And what is the current status of Cardinal Pompedda?"
> >
> >Being 75-years he resigned as Cardinal.
> >His status within the Constantinian Order of St. George is unknown to me.
>
> Cardinal Pompedda has been employed by the Castro Constantinian for
> the last 2+ years, and during this time has travelled widely on behalf of
> the interests of the Order, and its effective proprietor, Mme Edouarda
> Crociani, whose daughter is married to Charles de Bourbon, "Duke of Calabria".
>
> He is a recent Cardinal (2000) and was Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the
> Apostolic Segnatura; at 75 years of age like all Prefects he was required to
> offer his resignation, which (unlike most of the recent prefects) was accepted
> immediately. His antic have caused many problems for the Holy See in the last 2
> years as he has gone around representing that this Order and its activities were
> approved of by the Holy See. On this basis the Cardinal Archhbishops of
> Westminster and Dublin accepted the Bailiff's Cross in this Order.
This is quite wrong. Cardinal Pompedda is a senior vatican cardinal
and having as is required of all cardinals to tender their resignation
at 75 maintains numerous other high posts within the vatican
heirarchy. that is according to the vatican secretariat of state whom
i spoke with this morning to check your 'facts'. they were very
surprised to learn of Mr Sainty's comments and i was asked to ignore
them completely. As to the Cardinal's in Dublin and Westminster their
attendance at so many of the Order's events and their warm comments
concerning the legitmate order are well publicised on their website at
www.constantinian.com
>
> Last year, the Libreria Editrice Vaticana published "Il legittimo esercizio
> del Gran Magistero del Sacro Militare Ordine Costantinian di San Giorgio";
> this work concluded that the legitimate Grand Master is HRH the Infante
> D. Carlos, Duke of Calabria. It is interesting to note that the Foreword to
> this publicatino was written by Cardinal Agustoni, who happened to be and
> still is Prefect Emeritus of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apsotolic Segnatura.
>
The Vatican library confirmed that this was a paid for book and in no
way should be seen as a Vatican approved publiction. they were upset
to learn that Mr Sainty was through this site was indirectly proposing
that his 'prince' is legit on the basis of a paid for book published
by the Libreria Editrice Vaticana
> The delegate of the British and Irish delegation of this "Order" is a Mr
> Anthony Bailey, who has long been interested in Arab matters (there was
> a controversy surrounding him in 1995 when he was arrested on a charge of
> blackmail on a complaint by a Libyan prince - the prosecution was later
> dropped). Mr Bailey is a PR representative for the King Feisal foundation
> and has many other Arab connections and clients of his PR business. Earlier
> this year, to the astonishment of many, he organized the awartd of the
> Gold Benemerenti medal of the Constantinian Order to the Presidents of
> Syria, the Lebanon and Yemen - he himself received the Grand Cross of the
> principal orders of these states in return and he then paid for announcements
> in the London Times so the world could know of his good fortune.
Having checked on their website at www.constantinian.com it is clear
that bailey is a well respected businessman with activities across the
world (i visited www.eligo.net) and not just in the arab world. its a
bit cheap and ungentlemanly to refer to his dropped case and therefore
his innocence. seems Mr Sainty should be careful about such matters as
it only makes him out to be a little cheap, dirty, and damaging to his
own cause. see also the queen granted him unrestricted permission to
wear his gongs which is very unusual so good on him. at least their
from legitmate leaders and not from those like Mr Sainty and his bogus
order.
>
> Mr Bailey was asked to appear on the phone in program of Joe Duffy, but was
> perhaps surprised when the singer Dana called in to protests at the
> inappropriety of giving a Catholic Order to the Lord Mayor of Dublin
> (who is now standing for the European parliament) and the Prime Minister,
> who is not a Catholic in good standing. A second caller, who pointed out
> that there were in fact two Constantinian Orders and that Mr Bailey did not
> represent the legitimate one, was Mr John Bellingham, Official Representative of
> the Order of Malta to France and Ambassador of the SMOM to the Middle East;
> Mr Bailey chose to make an astonishing ad hominem attack on Mr Bellingham (who
> is not a member of either Constantinian Order).
Having listened to the programme and seems that he handled Mr
Bellingham well and pointed out that what he was saying was not the
view of the Order of Malta where every grand master since 1878
including the current one and almost all of the current and former
sovireign council are members of the legitmate constantinian order of
italy. so why bellingham brought disrepute on the order of malta by
going on such a low class show should be noted by those in Rome. To
be frank he made both orders look ridicious and unnecessary so.
interested to note also that Bellingham was ousted by the Irish
Assocation of Malta last year as vice president and that his successor
as vice president Pat White, the Assocation Chancellor, Kevin Cunnane
and Treasurer John Igoe were invested into the legitmate constantinian
order. seems the irish association of the order of malta knows which
order is correct and no doubt this is following approval by their own
orders hq in rome.
>
> The programme continued the next day; Joe Duffy asked Mr Bailey what he thought
> of the strong attack on the Order made by former Italian President and now
> Senator for life Francesco Cossiga, in which the former president said that when
> he heard the news that he was no longer a member that he "rejoiced"
> and it was one of his happiest days; that accepting this was one of the worst
> mistakes of his presidency and that he was always friendly to Spain. {President
> Cossiga has also since asked a formal question of the Italian government in the
> Senate]. Mr Bailey then made a highly defamatory remark about Senator Cossiga. I
> was called on but I must confess had a little difficulty explaining the
> differences between the two claims;
> however I did explain the difference between the royal status of the two
> Princes and expressed my amazement that Mr Bailey could be privy to what
> would be private information concerning Senator Cossiga that could only have
> come from Cardinal Pompedda - I stated that since it was inconceivable that
> the Cardinal could have released confidential information to Mr Bailey, and
> that Bailey's statement was extremely defamatory and must have been invented.
> When Mr Bailey claimed that his order did not admit divorced persons (Prime
> Minister Ahearn is indeed not divorced, but he had left his legal and
> canonically married wife for another women with whom he lives openly as his
> hostess in the prime minister's residence), I pointed out that Charles de
> Bourbon and Cardinal Pompedda had presented the specially invented (first for
> Cossiga) "Collar of Merit" to Prime Minister Berlusconi who is divorced and
> civilly remarried.
Doesnt change the fact that the constantinian order is recognised by
the italian republic and not the pretensions of the spanish. what a
former president does in office is surely more relevant than what he
does years after leaving office. he accepted the legitmate order
whilst head of state and so have so many senior italian statesmen.
>
> Mr Duffy then asked Mr Bailey about the several Irish charities which the
> "Order" claimed to support, and after Mr Bailey listed them, he called on
> representatives of these charities. It turned out that only one of these
> had received any money (₤ 5000) and that the others were still hoping but
> had not had much more than a visit from the "duke of Calabria" and Cardinal
> Pompedda. Mr Bailey then went on to make the astonishing claim that the
> 130 members of his delegation had contributed more than ₤ 1,000,000 to
> British charities last year - since the delegation provides no accounts
> it is impossible to substantiate this incredible claim.
Its clear from their website where the money has gone and I doubt that
pictures and texts and the presence of senior officials at each can be
impossible to substantiiate. Mr Bailey also went out of his way to
explain that the purpose of the cardinal's visit was to meet charities
and then to adopt them. he was also clear that the monies raised are
indeed correct and that it relate to his delegation as a whole which
consists of Britain and Ireland.
>
> Mr Duffy insisted on the question as to whether the President, Prime Minister
> and Lord Mayor had been made fools of. Duffy pointed out that despite the
> imputation in the publicity that these awards were somehow sanctified by
> the Holy See, he had inquired directly of the Nuncio who had stated to him
> that Cardinal Pompedda was acting purely in his private capacity. While
> Mr Bailey claimed that the three Irish politicians all knew of the dispute,
> it was obvious that if they knew anything it was only the sketchiest
> knowledge and had "bought" the Castro Constantinian case hook, line and
> sinker.
I dont believe that that the Irish Head of State, Head of Government
or Lord Mayor accept decorations without checking especially since it
is not really the custom to do so in ireland. Interesting that despite
Mr Sainty's attacks that none of them have returned them. Surely this
is the best indication of what the irish government really feels and
all have expressed their delight at receiving them. As there is an
election on in ireland most people accept that the attacks on the
three officials receivinig the high awards were political attacks or
attacks on the church in ireland which has taken a battering over
recent years. interesting also that the several ambassadors also
attended including the italian and the nuncio attended their dinner.
i really feel that Mr Sainty does his own 'order' a disservice in
attacking the other one as both parties lose in the end. bailey also
said he hoped that the spanish group will one day unite with the
other. surely this is the only correct option and sainty should tone
down a bit and look at the future objectives and not attack the name
of the order as a whole.
>
> Regarding the dispute itself, Mr Duffy had called on Mr Peter Beresford-
> Ellis to give the historical background; unfortunately it was apparent that
> this gentleman knew virtually nothing about the dispute and got bogged
> down in some irrelevant point about hoping for a Two Sicilies restoration -
> even the duke of Castro, depsite his wide distribution of the state merit
> Order of Francis I does not harbour that dream.
>
> The matter may be taken up in an Irish newspaper, Ireland on Sunday.
>
> GSS
>
> For the legitimate Constantinian Order, see www.constantinianorder.org (this
> site has been redesisgned and will be relaunched within the next couple of
> months.
only hope this site is not full of the usual attack rubbish on the
italian order as it serves no purpose in promoting either order.
interesting that the www.constantinian.com site does not even have a
word of attack on the spanish. this is really how such groups should
be.
>
> Guy Stair Sainty
> www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Pierre Aronax
"Alessando Roselli" <gree...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:68f757fa.04061...@posting.google.com...
<...>
> The only recongised constantinian order is that recognised by the
> Italian Republic and is therefore the legitmate one headed by The Duke
> of Castro, Prince Ferdinando.
Even if the Italian Republic recognized the Castro Constantinian (and that
is doubtful), who cares? The Constantinian is a papal order, its existence
is based on papal documents. The opinion of the Italian authorities about it
is exactly as important as the opinion of the king of Lesotho.
Pierre
George Lucki
relative merits of the claims of both the 'Italian' and 'Spanish' (neutral
terms I hope) Constantinian Orders. I have my own personal favourite
claimant, but at best the relative strength of the argument I could mount
relative to the other would be on balance rather weak compared to the
strength of claim necessary to unambigiously resolve such a dispute to the
satisfaction of other disinterested but informed observors. The more I have
read the more I have reached the conclusion that this dispute is
UNRESOLVABLE. Totally and absolutely unresolvable. My prediction would be
that if in 300 years there are still people who care about such things (and
I hope there are) they are likely to remain split on the issue of the Two
Sicilies succession as it applies to the grand-mastership of this order.
So... if anyone were to ever ask my opinion, which regretably is unlikely,
the only resolution (short of having to award one or the other Constantinian
Order to every worthy and his brother (whether Syrian, Irish, Italian or
Spanish) in order to keep the balance of recognition) would be for the two
claimants to kiss and make up and recognize that each is entitled (let's not
try to resolve the paradox of this one) to continue to grant their award
with the blessing of the other and that each Order will grudgingly and with
appropriate reservations and grumbling recognize the awards of the other as
legitmate but different. The two claimants and their retinues could accept a
gift of the award (never intending to wear it) from each other and then...
Then both could work to restore the elitism, exclusivity and Catholic
chivalric character of this great order. In the absence of competition the
award could be spared the likes of politicians and petty potentates of
little substance and return to its Catholic roots. A single Constantian with
two agreeable fons would certainly be more palatable to a Catholic Church
that is unlikely appreciative of the conflict it is thrust into by the
apologists for both claimants (even the one I favour :)). This is only
pragmatic solution. Having provided the only sensible answer I will now step
back and wait for the officers of both groups (who are avid rec.heraldry and
alt.talk.royalty readers) to see the wisdom of my suggestion - work towards
a rapprochment and eventually say, good idea George.
With Solomonic humility, George Lucki :)
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40ca3120$0$31486$79c1...@nan-newsreader-06.noos.net...
edespalais
écrit le 12/06/04 1:44 :
>> "Alessando Roselli" <gree...@yahoo.com> a ?crit dans le message de
>> news:68f757fa.04061...@posting.google.com...
>>> "Sean J Murphy" <seanj...@eircom.net> wrote in message
>> news:<D9Rtc.813$Z14...@news.indigo.ie>...
>>
>> <...>
>>> The only recongised constantinian order is that recognised by the
>>> Italian Republic and is therefore the legitmate one headed by The Duke
>>> of Castro, Prince Ferdinando.
>>
>> Even if the Italian Republic recognized the Castro Constantinian (and that
>> is doubtful), who cares? The Constantinian is a papal order, its existence
>> is based on papal documents. The opinion of the Italian authorities about
> it
>> is exactly as important as the opinion of the king of Lesotho.
>>
>> Pierre
>>
>>
>
>
The whole business, not your post, is indeed sheer vain nonsense. Perhaps
even not good enough for a gossip site
Harry
Mr Murphy,
You couldn't be much wronger! The True Constantinian Order does have
a web site and have had one for a few years now. The address is:
www.constantinianorder.org It is a very beautiful site containing
all the historial documents in this 'dispute' along with a history of
the Order and beautiful photos too and much more too.
Harry
Guy Stair Sainty
>
>I ave a modest proposal... I have followed this discussion about the
>relative merits of the claims of both the 'Italian' and 'Spanish' (neutral
>terms I hope) Constantinian Orders.
Not neutral terms. The designation "Spanish" is based on the nationality of
the senior line claimant; that is why we prefer the term "French" when
referring to the junior line claimant. Both Orders have a substantial majority
of Italian members (even though the "French" Order is three times larger).
Of course authorization will be given to Spanish applicants to wear the
Order; awards of the "French" Order are subject to criminal penalties in
France.
Such a solution was at one time possible; indeed we suggested discussions on
the basis of a co-Grand Mastership with a single deputation (governing body)
and membership - i.e. like Andorra, or Russia with Peter the Great and his
half-brother. Two things have changed; one, neither the senior nor the
junior Gabriele line will accept Charles de B's marriage as equal in any
circumstances. Two, the awards to people completely unsuitable and dis-
qualified from membership (the Presidents of Syria and the Yemen and the
Prime Ministers of Italy and Ireland, for example), make it impossible to
recognize these admissions which conflict directly with canon law (that
governs the succession) and the statutes of the Order.
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
George Lucki
> In article <dtryc.9$eA.7@clgrps13>, George Lucki says...
> >
> >I ave a modest proposal... I have followed this discussion about the
> >relative merits of the claims of both the 'Italian' and 'Spanish'
(neutral
> >terms I hope) Constantinian Orders.
>
> Not neutral terms. The designation "Spanish" is based on the nationality
of
> the senior line claimant; that is why we prefer the term "French" when
> referring to the junior line claimant. Both Orders have a substantial
majority
> of Italian members (even though the "French" Order is three times larger).
> Of course authorization will be given to Spanish applicants to wear the
> Order; awards of the "French" Order are subject to criminal penalties in
> France.
I will thus hitherto refer to them as Constantinian U and V (Spanish and
French respectively) as U and V are relatively rcent distinctions.
>
>
> I have my own personal favourite
> >claimant, but at best the relative strength of the argument I could mount
> >relative to the other would be on balance rather weak compared to the
> >strength of claim necessary to unambigiously resolve such a dispute to
the
> >satisfaction of other disinterested but informed observors. The more I
have
> >read the more I have reached the conclusion that this dispute is
> >UNRESOLVABLE. Totally and absolutely unresolvable. ...
>
> Such a solution was at one time possible; indeed we suggested discussions
on
> the basis of a co-Grand Mastership with a single deputation (governing
body)
> and membership - i.e. like Andorra, or Russia with Peter the Great and his
> half-brother. Two things have changed; one, neither the senior nor the
> junior Gabriele line will accept Charles de B's marriage as equal in any
> circumstances. Two, the awards to people completely unsuitable and dis-
> qualified from membership (the Presidents of Syria and the Yemen and the
> Prime Ministers of Italy and Ireland, for example), make it impossible to
> recognize these admissions which conflict directly with canon law (that
> governs the succession) and the statutes of the Order.
>
> Guy Stair Sainty
> www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
>
I will accept all that you say is true and offer that I do believe that the
Spanish - sorry the Constantian U claim is somewhat stronger.
Notwithstanding that I believe it would still be desirable to allow one's
vision to blur a little so as not to notice certain obstacles and
difficulties and to simply ignore certain irregularities so that a rift
might be healed to the general benefit of the standing of this order with
the Church. Browsing through the history of SMOM one could find difficulty
in the grand-mastership of an Orthodox Russian Tsar, or the Alliance between
SMOM and the (small detail) Protestant successor organizations of certain
priories or commanderies. Were it not for our possibility to overlook
paradoxes and impediments few organizations could ever survive their own
contradictions and incorrectness.
The alternative is that we may continue to see in the future other worthies
inducted into Constantinian U similar to the Irish or Syrian knights and the
general lowering of the reputation of the order based upon the ongoing and
acrimonious conflict.
After all, despite the generally reputable (exceptions notwithstanding)
membership of each group and its influential protectors the order faces a
challenge in explaining rather convoluted issue of dynastic and
grand-magisterial succession to a disinterested and confused and eventually
turned-off audience that will IMHO eventually include the central
authorities and influential prelates of the Catholic Church itself - and the
service of the Church is the central mission of the order after all.
Canonical impediments (such as those you cite) notwithstanding I fear the
Constantinian U and V alike are risking losing much of their remaining
support within the Church if the rift and squabbling continue.
So notwithstanding Guy's excellent points, my suggestion still stands -
gentlemen, hold your noses, close your eyes and make up with one another. If
the real issue is one of serving the Church - heal the rifts and move on.
The eighteenth and nineteenth century was brutal to the survival of dynastic
and religious-military orders. We can't afford to lose or diminish any of
the remaining ones as they are carriers of a unique cultual-religious
heritage and of certain values and traditions that still have something to
offer our modern world.
Kind regards, George Lucki
PS If there is any interest in these two groups overcoming their awkward
historical legacy to restore a necessary unity I'll even put on a pot of
coffee or tea, find some snacks and offer my own living room as a place
where folks can thrash out their differences and make up. :)
Now, there is a practical offer and not just posturing. Any takers?
Francois R. Velde
>> He is a recent Cardinal (2000) and was Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the
>> Apostolic Segnatura; at 75 years of age like all Prefects he was required to
>> offer his resignation, which (unlike most of the recent prefects) was accepted
>> immediately. His antic have caused many problems for the Holy See in the last 2
>> years as he has gone around representing that this Order and its activities were
>> approved of by the Holy See. On this basis the Cardinal Archhbishops of
>> Westminster and Dublin accepted the Bailiff's Cross in this Order.
>
>This is quite wrong. Cardinal Pompedda is a senior vatican cardinal
>and having as is required of all cardinals to tender their resignation
>at 75 maintains numerous other high posts within the vatican
>heirarchy.
Of the 22 cardinals that I have found at
http://www.fiu.edu/~mirandas/cardinals.htm
who resigned a prefecture during the pontificate of John Paul II at age 75 or
older, only one resigned at a younger age than Cardinal Pompedda: Cardinal Neves
resigned on his 75th birthday in 2000 (and died two years later). Cardinal
Pompedda resigned 39 days after his 75th birthday. The average for the
remaining 20 cardinals, is a resignation 492 days (about sixteen months) after
their 75th birthday. Cardinal Garrone served the longest as prefect after
reaching the age limit, since he resigned at age 78 in 1980.
Another 5 cardinals resigned their prefecture long before their 75th birthday
(including 3 on the same day!).
I don't know what significance to attach to the fact, but it is a fact.
Name birth resignation days after 75th birthday
NEVES 16-Sep-1925 16-Sep-2000 0
POMPEDDA 18-Apr-1929 27-May-2004 39
ODDI 14-Nov-1910 9-Jan-1986 56
PHILIPPE 16-Apr-1905 27-Jun-1980 72
HAMER 1-Jun-1916 21-Jan-1992 234
SABATTANI 18-Oct-1912 1-Jul-1988 257
MEDINA ESTEVEZ 23-Dec-1926 1-Oct-2002 282
INNOCENTI 23-Aug-1915 1-Jul-1991 312
FELICI 26-Jul-1919 13-Jun-1995 322
CASAROLI 24-Nov-1914 1-Dec-1990 372
PALAZZINI 19-May-1912 1-Jul-1988 409
GANTIN 8-May-1922 25-Jun-1998 413
ŠEPER 2-Oct-1905 25-Nov-1981 419
AGUSTONI 26-Jul-1922 5-Oct-1998 436
SÁNCHEZ 17-Mar-1920 15-Jun-1996 456
MARTÍNEZ SOMALO 31-Mar-1927 11-Feb-2004 682
BAFILE 4-Jul-1903 27-Jun-1980 724
TOMKO 11-Mar-1924 9-Apr-2001 760
SILVESTRINI 25-Oct-1923 25-Nov-2000 762
MAYER 23-May-1911 1-Jul-1988 770
LAGHI 21-May-1922 15-Nov-1999 908
GARRONE 12-Oct-1901 15-Jan-1980 1190
PIRONIO 3-Dec-1920 8-Apr-1984 -4256
LOURDUSAMY 5-Feb-1924 24-May-1991 -2814
RUBIN 20-Sep-1917 30-Oct-1985 -2517
BAGGIO 16-May-1913 8-Apr-1984 -1499
ROSSI 4-May-1913 8-Apr-1984 -1487
--
François Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Dr
Since when that make him Catholic only?
Catholicisam didn't existed yet.
"George Lucki" <lu...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<ZTMyc.742852$Ig.661072@pd7tw2no>...
edespalais
he was holding several ROYAL titles, king of Bohemia, et cetera) - was
(heraldic) seen a a king with the title łarchduke".
Pierre Aronax
"Dr" <m99...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:cf4ee05e.04061...@posting.google.com...
> IIRC constantinian order claims to be founded 324 yr.
This claim is not serious: I hope nobody believe it today.
> Since when that make him Catholic only?
> Catholicisam didn't existed yet.
According to your logic, the papacy isn't catholic since it existed before
Catholicism and Orthodoxy split.
Pierre
Ole Andersen
> Another 5 cardinals resigned their prefecture long before their 75th birthday
> (including 3 on the same day!).
>
...
> PIRONIO 3-Dec-1920 8-Apr-1984 -4256
> BAGGIO 16-May-1913 8-Apr-1984 -1499
> ROSSI 4-May-1913 8-Apr-1984 -1487
Why did these three cardinals resign?
--
Ole Andersen, Copenhagen, Denmark * http://palnatoke.org
As a Jefferson deist four days a week and a Thoreau pantheist the
remaining three, I go to church nearly every morning. My church is a
secret live oak in Brackenridge Park.
- Maury Maverick, Jr., 1921-2003
edespalais
Aronax à pierre...@hotmail.com a écrit le 13/06/04 10:57 :
>
> "Dr" <m99...@hotmail.com> a ?crit dans le message de
> news:cf4ee05e.04061...@posting.google.com...
>> IIRC constantinian order claims to be founded 324 yr.
>
> ..I hope nobody believe
at the whole business today.
Guy Stair Sainty
>
>
>"Guy Stair Sainty" <g...@sainty.org> wrote in message
>news:cafrm...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <dtryc.9$eA.7@clgrps13>, George Lucki says...
>> >
>So notwithstanding Guy's excellent points, my suggestion still stands -
>gentlemen, hold your noses, close your eyes and make up with one another. If
>the real issue is one of serving the Church - heal the rifts and move on.
>The eighteenth and nineteenth century was brutal to the survival of dynastic
>and religious-military orders. We can't afford to lose or diminish any of
>the remaining ones as they are carriers of a unique cultual-religious
>heritage and of certain values and traditions that still have something to
>offer our modern world.
>
>Kind regards, George Lucki
>
>PS If there is any interest in these two groups overcoming their awkward
>historical legacy to restore a necessary unity I'll even put on a pot of
>coffee or tea, find some snacks and offer my own living room as a place
>where folks can thrash out their differences and make up. :)
>Now, there is a practical offer and not just posturing. Any takers?
Please understand we would be delighted to find a solution; we have three
times approached the junior line and three times been rejected. The problems
have become more acute with time - not only are completely unacceptable
members being admitted, but we are completely opposed to the practice of
collecting large sums of money for which no accounts are provided, either
for the source of these funds nor how they are disposed of. Recently the
"delegate" for Great britain and ireland of the junior line group, announced on
the radio that his UK group had given "millions of euros" to charity; then
he modified this to 2 million euros and in the same program "more than
Euros 1 million". After stating on the same programme that his members did
not have to give money to join, he then said that each member of his delegation
had averaged donations of approximately 9000 euros. The only members of this
delegation to whom I have spoken laughed at this and said that a few hundred
each would be the highest figure and most much less. This group is not
registered as a charity, which suggests that either the donors do not need the
tax advantage to be obtained from giving to a registered charity, or the
charity itself cannot benefit from the tax advantages because the donors in
reality (if they exist at all) are not in fact UK taxpayers.
Where does this money come from, where does it go, and who benefits? We would
be extrenely imprudent to become embroiled with a body that has such
dealings.
Our members are asked to give 100 euros when they join, to cover the expenses
of their diploma, and half that amount annually - many do not and it is not
required. What is required is that our members demonstrate their active
support of other appropriate Catholic charities - hence the donations to
the independent National Committee for the Holy Family Hospital in Bethlehem,
a registered not for profit coproration, which produces accounts, is in
good standing and has given over $400,000 to the Holy Family Hospital through
the Irish Association of the SMOM.
To give you another example; our Roman members celebrate a monthly Mass at
the church of the Order in Rome; similar Masses are celebrated in other
regions - I just attended one in Milan, where our members are planning a
pilgrimage to Santiago later this year. The junior line group have big dinners
and receptions, with a lot of photographers from the hired press; but
function as a kind of promotional group for the interests and image of the
delegate in Great Britain and the Crociani family.
The change in mind-set would have to be so profound it is hard to see how
it can be brought about. In fact, our overtures have been rejected because
the last thing the junior line wants is to have to account for its funds
publicly, or to actually dedicate itself to the aims of the Order as stated
in the statutes.
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Guy Stair Sainty
>
>IIRC constantinian order claims to be founded 324 yr.
>Since when that make him Catholic only?
>Catholicisam didn't existed yet.
>
foundation may be noted in the 1520s, but the Grand Master was from a
different family to that which successfulyl claimed it from the 1550s. The
patronage of the Popes - also accorded to other Orders founded or refounded
at this date - was both because of a hope that a restored Byzantine imperial
dynasty would return the Eastern Church to Rome supremacy, and because the
Pope was keen to encourage military orders that could contribute to rebutting
the continued threat of Moslem incursions into Western Europe.
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Michael Andrews-Reading
> It seems AT seas THE archduke - it est the HEAD of the Domus Austriaca (note
> he was holding several ROYAL titles, king of Bohemia, et cetera) - was
> (heraldic) seen a a king with the title łarchduke".
Indeed; thank you for confirming what I had long suspected.
edespalais
Andrews-Reading à mj...@btinternet.com a écrit le 13/06/04 19:38 :
> edespalais <edesp...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> news:<BCF1C637.EDF0%edesp...@wanadoo.fr>...
>> It seems AT seas THE archduke - it est the HEAD of the Domus Austriaca (note
>> he was holding several ROYAL titles, king of Bohemia, et cetera) - was
>> (heraldic) seen a a king with the title ³archduke".
>
> Indeed; thank you for confirming what I had long suspected.
seen is perhaps not correct, showed himself as king. If THE archduke was
seen as such depends on the views of the other sovereigns (their navy
commanders).
Note ³seems² was said, you confirm .., what certainly was not a statement!
Bryan J. Maloney
news:caht0...@drn.newsguy.com:
> 1550s. The patronage of the Popes - also accorded to other Orders
> founded or refounded at this date - was both because of a hope that a
> restored Byzantine imperial dynasty would return the Eastern Church to
> Rome supremacy
Wow, talk about clueless and out-of-touch.
Pierre Aronax
"Guy Stair Sainty" <g...@sainty.org> a écrit dans le message de
news:caht0...@drn.newsguy.com...
It is difficult to consider the Constantinian order as having any legitimacy
before its recognition by the popes, and so the order "emerged", or began to
be washed of its spurious origins in the late 16th century and not in early
16th century.
Pierre
Guy Stair Sainty
says...
I think one can reasonably say that at this date (early 16th century) the
concept of a "false" order had not really developed. What really counted
was whether the recipient of the honour was actually treated as a "knight"
by the religious or secular authorities. Marini Dettina has found the statutes
of 1522, issued by "Prince D. Giovanni II Caesar of the Slavonians and
the Romans" whose cousins, the dukes of Montenegro and Santa Sabba were
given a position in the Order. This prince was actually the head of the
family of Kosaca of Santa Sava (a dynasty which became extinct in 1612) and
bequeathed his succession to his Cernovichi cousin, titular duke of Montenegro
(extinct in 1660), and was otherwise known as Czar Giovanni the Black of the
Serbs. These statutes attributed the headship of the Order then
to Nemagna Paleologo, whose genealogy, whether true or false, attributed
his descent to an alliance between Simeone Nemanja Paleologo, in 1350, with
Tommasa Angela Comnena Dukas. At this stage these statutes allowed for
a Grand Master, a Vicar general, and various local Masters and Vicars, all
of whom were vaguely connected genealogically. The Angeli Flavii were originally
one of the lesser regional masters, who managed to obtain Papal
recognition as supreme head of the Order. There is a surviving crisobolla
of 19th february 1500 issued by Despot Andrea Paleologo, brother of Zoe
Palelogo who married Ivan III, to a nobile Maltesta, of Viterbo. There is
also a tomb of a Sr de Boera, in Barcelona, who was made a Constantinian
Knight in the 1520s. In the Corsie Sistine of the Hospital of Santo Spirita
in Sassia, there is an early 16th century fresco illustrating the scene of
teh gift of the Papal dowry granted to Zoe at her marriage, with an inscription
noting that among those present were Andrea Paleolog and Leonardo Tocco,
and those being recevied by the Pope are wearing blue mantles sewen with
golden lilies and gold collars, similar to those described in the first
statutes.
The Angeli grand masters in 1571 and 1575 actually recognized the positions of
D. Viatico Cossazza (Kosaca) and D. Pietro
Cernovichio - the former, rather than continuing to claim to be grand
master appears to have been content with a subordinate role.
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Dr
Do you claim that there is non knight order if not catholic?
Please read Guys answers. Almost every family mentioned in his post
was/are orthodox christians.
Rgds.
PS. Tnx Guy for shearing you great knowlege (U did nor surrender
before the battle of the vodka and kaviar I hope :))
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<40cc163e$0$19844$79c1...@nan-newsreader-05.noos.net>...
George Lucki
I do understand that you would like to find a solution.
The arguments you raise are valid ones but they are unfortunately lost in
'the bigger picture'. I heard your recent radio interview and I was left
with the impression that even well educated by-standers would be lost in the
arcana of the dynastic dispute. They would also be immediately suspicious of
the acrimony between two rival groups - one of whom (not you) was rather
impolitic in some of his remarks. For many well educated and influential
individuals this sort of dispute sours their taste for both Contantinian U
and V. In all likelihood most individuals invited to join either group is
unaware of the other or easily presuaded that the other group is not quit up
to snuff - why - because the nature of the dispute is not easily
communicated or easily understandable.
Over time both groups will suffer.
It is interesting for me that no one of the many apologists for the other
Constantinian has weighed in to our discussion. I hope they do. They have
been quick to jump into other discussions.
Guy, I appreciate that your remarks leave the door slightly ajar to a
potential reconciliation should the obstacles to it be removed. I have been
impressed to hear that the group you represent has been in the past open to
a range of potential reunification scenarios on reasonably generous terms,
and that even today the concerns that you raise as obstacles to be overcome
in a potential reunification would be largely pragmatic ones such as those
of statuatory requirements for members to be practicing Catholics committed
to serving their Church within this confraternity, and a call for financial
transparency and acountability (necessary for any organization!). In the
past weeks I have been pleased to hear representatives of the other
Constantinian allow for the value of having a spiritual protector and the
imprtance of commitment by members to good works. This is an excellent start
and a sound basis for further discussion. Between the two groups there is
still mistrust and much bickering and diminishment of the other. This is
understandable - a matter of human nature - competition, and ... There are
also obstacles to overcome in terms of the relationship between the two
collateral branches and their own ambitions and claims as well as the
legitimate defense of their real and perceived rights. Quite different from
the rather silly claim of Poidamani to Braganca being discussed in a
another thread both branches of this family have some basis for their claim
(albeit one somewhat stronger than the other).
I would be interested in hearing the response from the other Constantinian
in terms of their interest in a reconciliation for the good of the whole
order.
If there is as much openness, in prinicple, to the suggestion as has been
shown by Guy Sainty, I believe there is a good basis for further exploration
of the possibility of some agreement.
Kind regards, George Lucki
"Guy Stair Sainty" <g...@sainty.org> wrote in message
news:cahr0...@drn.newsguy.com...
George Lucki
> Our members are asked to give 100 euros when they join, to cover the
expenses
> of their diploma, and half that amount annually - many do not and it is
not
> required. What is required is that our members demonstrate their active
> support of other appropriate Catholic charities
Guy,
As an aside from the other discussion, I have to say that this is a
refreshing approach to passage fees and annual oblations. It appears you are
choosing your members based on other criteria than the size of the annual
oblations you could potentially extract from them. Bravo.
In looking at the roots of chivalric orders they are elites of Christian
service - personal commitment and personal effort and not merely societies
of honour. Membership in a chivalric order should not be so much a reward
for past service and an entree into a society of the accomplished, but
rather a call issued to those who have shown their mettle through either
their prior service or the traditions of their family's service over
generations - a call to enter an elite fraternity dedicated to further
Christian service.
This is perhaps my greatest objection to the induction of some polticians
and their ilk into an order like this if there is no expectation of ongoing
service - that is to treat a chivalric order as if it were an order of merit
rather than an order of service - and service is more than paying high
annual oblations. Common prayer, spiritual exercises, fraternal gatherings
are all a part of creating community and community is central to the notion
of a chivalric order. In one order I am aware of the annual oblations are
placed anonymously in cash in sealed envelopes into the hands of the Questor
at the annual retreat, with the words, "I have given what I can, brother". I
find this commendable and much more in the spirit of the value of the
widow's pence.
I will pose perhaps an impolitic question. What are the typical passage fees
and annual oblations in the other Costantinian Order - are they similar to
the ones Guy describes?
Kind regards, George Lucki
Pierre Aronax
> Do you claim that there is non knight order if not catholic?
No. You claimed that the Constantinian order was not Catholic since he
existed before the split of the two churches, so it means that everything
which existed before the split of the two churches can not be said Catholic
or Orthodox, including the papacy. Your argument is void.
> Please read Guys answers. Almost every family mentioned in his post
> was/are orthodox christians.
Which one exactly is supposed to have been orthodox in the 16th century?
Uwe
> ... (snip) ... My prediction would be
> that if in 300 years there are still people who care about such things (and
> I hope there are) they are likely to remain split on the issue of the Two
> Sicilies succession as it applies to the grand-mastership of this order.
> So... if anyone were to ever ask my opinion, which regretably is unlikely,
> the only resolution ... (snip) ...
If you are thinking in centuries, then it is enterly possible that there
is a very simple resolution: one line could become extinct whereas the
other line could survive. One would not have to take any action then ...
Dr
Orthodox church is called orthodox becouse she remain as it was before shisam.
You may of course belive that God create papacy if you like.
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<40cc163e$0$19844$79c1...@nan-newsreader-05.noos.net>...
Sean J Murphy
. . . . .
> Having listened to the programme and seems that he handled Mr
> Bellingham well and pointed out that what he was saying was not the
> view of the Order of Malta where every grand master since 1878
> including the current one and almost all of the current and former
> sovireign council are members of the legitmate constantinian order of
> italy. so why bellingham brought disrepute on the order of malta by
> going on such a low class show should be noted by those in Rome. To
> be frank he made both orders look ridicious and unnecessary so.
> interested to note also that Bellingham was ousted by the Irish
> Assocation of Malta last year as vice president and that his successor
> as vice president Pat White, the Assocation Chancellor, Kevin Cunnane
> and Treasurer John Igoe were invested into the legitmate constantinian
> order. seems the irish association of the order of malta knows which
> order is correct and no doubt this is following approval by their own
> orders hq in rome.
. . . . .
The personal attacks and description of the RTE Joe Duffy Liveline programme
as 'a low class show' do not advance the argument. As anyone who knows
anything about Irish politics would be aware, Lord Mayor Royston Brady is
going through rather a rough patch just now, and the Constantinian
investiture was bound to attract publicity, not necessarily of the benign
variety.
Sean Murphy
George Lucki
news:cajom7$egl$1...@isis.hrz.uni-giessen.de...
There is also the possibility that both lines will survive with numerous
representatives, that the lines of one or both senior representatives will
fail in fututre generations and be succeeded by representatives of cadet
lines, that future centuries bring further controversy in either branch as
to the dynastic and canonical validity of marriages, etc. Far from fewer
complications there could be more - and the issues could magnify ... while
become less understandable and relevant to many.
Kind regards, George Lucki
Francois R. Velde
> Francois R. Velde wrote:
>> Another 5 cardinals resigned their prefecture long before their 75th birthday
>> (including 3 on the same day!).
>>
> ...
>> PIRONIO 3-Dec-1920 8-Apr-1984 -4256
>> BAGGIO 16-May-1913 8-Apr-1984 -1499
>> ROSSI 4-May-1913 8-Apr-1984 -1487
> Why did these three cardinals resign?
This was apparently part of a major reshuffle of posts in the Vatican.
--
François R. Velde
ve...@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Pierre Aronax
church.
> Orthodox church is called orthodox becouse she remain as it was before
shisam.
> You may of course belive that God create papacy if you like.
Hmm... where did I say that? You may adress arguments rather than inventing
others if you like.
Guy Stair Sainty
>I will pose perhaps an impolitic question. What are the typical passage fees
>and annual oblations in the other Costantinian Order - are they similar to
>the ones Guy describes?
>
Theoretically on joinging members are asked to give $2000; and then pay quite a
hefty annual fee. But these amounts are usually paid by the 'cannon fodder' who
are attracted by the 'big name' adherents who often just receivce a letter in
the mail. They recently dished it out to the Irish president and PM, and the
Lord Mayor of Dublin - to the incredultiy of Irish Catholic commentators. When
challenged on the radio the singer Dana got on the phone incredulous that a
Catholic order should have been given to the Mayor - when challenged, Bailey,
the delegate, responded that it was an 'honour' for the city of Dublin, which
seems a strange criteria for entry to a religious confraternity. The Pm - who
had first issued a delighted press statement, thinking this came from the Pope
(an impression they were keen to cultivate, having their paid Cardinal in tow -
without revelaing that his days at the Vatican were numbered), then said that he
had accepted it as a 'courtesy'. Berty Ahern has for years lived open with his
'partner', having separated from his wife, and issued invitations in their joint
names to official receptions. Having just broken up with her, he presumably
thought that the Church was suddenly offering him a prize. He was very
disappointed when the Nuncio issued a statement denying any connection between
the Holy See and this 'order' and stated that the Cardinal, Pompedda, had come
purely in his private capacity. A recent article in Il Messaggero by a favorite
Vatican journalist (who works mainly for a Vatican owned TV station) stated that
Pompedda's resignation as Prefect of the Apostolic Segnatura had been accepted
without the usual extension because of his involvement with the 'Constantinian
Order' ... 'not recognized by the Holy See or by the Borboni di Spagna'.
None of these politicos would have given a penny, and no-one asked any questions
about their humanitarian work. Remember that every political connection is worth
gold - Charles de Bourbon's mother-in-law owns a company whose business -
selling radar and high tech aircraft equipment - depends on government
contracts.
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
wrote:
>In article <uZazc.751655$oR5.453367@pd7tw3no>, George Lucki says...
>>
>>
>>"Guy Stair Sainty" <g...@sainty.org> wrote in message
>>news:cahr0...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>
>
>
>>I will pose perhaps an impolitic question. What are the typical passage fees
>>and annual oblations in the other Costantinian Order - are they similar to
>>the ones Guy describes?
>>
>Theoretically on joinging members are asked to give $2000; and then pay quite a
>hefty annual fee. But these amounts are usually paid by the 'cannon fodder' who
>are attracted by the 'big name' adherents who often just receivce a letter in
>the mail. They recently dished it out to the Irish president and PM, and the
>Lord Mayor of Dublin - to the incredultiy of Irish Catholic commentators. When
>challenged on the radio the singer Dana got on the phone incredulous that a
>Catholic order should have been given to the Mayor - when challenged, Bailey,
>the delegate,
This wouldn't happen to be Antony Bailey, would it, who seems to be
popping up everywhere these days collecting this Order and that Order?
I remember him when he first joined the OLJ - a fresh faced young
student, keen to be of assistance to all and sundry!!
>responded that it was an 'honour' for the city of Dublin, which
>seems a strange criteria for entry to a religious confraternity. The Pm - who
>had first issued a delighted press statement, thinking this came from the Pope
>(an impression they were keen to cultivate, having their paid Cardinal in tow -
>without revelaing that his days at the Vatican were numbered), then said that he
>had accepted it as a 'courtesy'. Berty Ahern has for years lived open with his
>'partner', having separated from his wife, and issued invitations in their joint
>names to official receptions. Having just broken up with her, he presumably
>thought that the Church was suddenly offering him a prize. He was very
>disappointed when the Nuncio issued a statement denying any connection between
>the Holy See and this 'order' and stated that the Cardinal, Pompedda, had come
>purely in his private capacity. A recent article in Il Messaggero by a favorite
>Vatican journalist (who works mainly for a Vatican owned TV station) stated that
>Pompedda's resignation as Prefect of the Apostolic Segnatura had been accepted
>without the usual extension because of his involvement with the 'Constantinian
>Order' ... 'not recognized by the Holy See or by the Borboni di Spagna'.
>
>None of these politicos would have given a penny, and no-one asked any questions
>about their humanitarian work. Remember that every political connection is worth
>gold - Charles de Bourbon's mother-in-law owns a company whose business -
>selling radar and high tech aircraft equipment - depends on government
>contracts.
>
>Guy Stair Sainty
>www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan FCA HonFHS
Director - Heraldic Media Limited
Publishers of "Cracroft's Peerage"
The complete guide to the British Peerage
http://www.heraldicmedia.com
Dr
m99...@hotmail.com (Dr) wrote in message news:<cf4ee05e.04061...@posting.google.com>...
Dr
Rgds.
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<40cddf75$0$30249$79c1...@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net>...
Dr
I am wondering if your Constantinian branch have web site?
Rgds.
Guy Stair Sainty <g...@sainty.org> wrote in message news:<cakkk...@drn.newsguy.com>...
Pierre Aronax
Since it exists, that is since the 16th century.
Pierre
Stephen J Plowman
1) Cardinal Pompedda was officially appointed Ecclesiastical
Counsellor to the Constantinian Order of St George of the Duke of
Castro by His Holiness Pope John Paul II.
2) The Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, head of the Catholic Church
in England and Wales, is the Prior of the British Delegation.
George Lucki
These are the sorts of "facts" that could persuade many, but don't address
the issue of which branch (one or both) is legitimate or more/less entitled
to make the award. As both groups try to make the persuasive case that thery
are the true order more and more individuals will be lined up to persuade
others of the claims of one group. Unfortunately these are not arguments.
Both groups have some impressive adherents.
Ultimately for the good of their Order the two factions must reconcile.
Kind regards, George Lucki
"Stephen J Plowman" <plo...@uk2.net> wrote in message
news:2180e8c1.04061...@posting.google.com...
Guy Stair Sainty
Cracroft-Brennan says...
>
>On 14 Jun 2004 09:43:58 -0700, Guy Stair Sainty <g...@sainty.org>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <uZazc.751655$oR5.453367@pd7tw3no>, George Lucki says...
>>>
>>>
>>>"Guy Stair Sainty" <g...@sainty.org> wrote in message
>>>news:cahr0...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>>
>>
>>
>>>I will pose perhaps an impolitic question. What are the typical passage fees
>>>and annual oblations in the other Costantinian Order - are they similar to
>>>the ones Guy describes?
>>>
>>Theoretically on joinging members are asked to give $2000; and then pay quite a
>>hefty annual fee. But these amounts are usually paid by the 'cannon fodder' who
>>are attracted by the 'big name' adherents who often just receivce a letter in
>>the mail. They recently dished it out to the Irish president and PM, and the
>>Lord Mayor of Dublin - to the incredultiy of Irish Catholic commentators. When
>>challenged on the radio the singer Dana got on the phone incredulous that a
>>Catholic order should have been given to the Mayor - when challenged, Bailey,
>>the delegate,
>
>This wouldn't happen to be Antony Bailey, would it, who seems to be
>popping up everywhere these days collecting this Order and that Order?
>
>I remember him when he first joined the OLJ - a fresh faced young
>student, keen to be of assistance to all and sundry!!
It would of course be the same; I did not know he had once been a Lazarite.
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Guy Power
> Guy,
> I am wondering if your Constantinian branch have web site?
> Rgds.
http://www.constantinianorder.org/main2.htm
Regards,
Guy2
Guy Stair Sainty
>
>Guy,
>I am wondering if your Constantinian branch have web site?
>Rgds.
www.constantinianorder.org being revised
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Francois R. Velde
> A recent article in Il Messaggero by a favorite
> Vatican journalist (who works mainly for a Vatican owned TV station) stated that
> Pompedda's resignation as Prefect of the Apostolic Segnatura had been accepted
> without the usual extension because of his involvement with the 'Constantinian
> Order' ... 'not recognized by the Holy See or by the Borboni di Spagna'.
Another theory is that cardinal Pompedda's intervention at a consistory in May 2001
on the subject of the appointment of bishops (he wanted to diminish the role of
nuncios and increase that of local churches) was ill-received by the secretariate
of State.
Guy Stair Sainty
>
>Stephen,
>These are the sorts of "facts" that could persuade many, but don't address
>the issue of which branch (one or both) is legitimate or more/less entitled
>to make the award. As both groups try to make the persuasive case that thery
>are the true order more and more individuals will be lined up to persuade
>others of the claims of one group. Unfortunately these are not arguments.
>Both groups have some impressive adherents.
>Ultimately for the good of their Order the two factions must reconcile.
>Kind regards, George Lucki
>
>"Stephen J Plowman" <plo...@uk2.net> wrote in message
>news:2180e8c1.04061...@posting.google.com...
>> For English Catholics two "facts" could carry a lot of weight;
>>
>> 1) Cardinal Pompedda was officially appointed Ecclesiastical
>> Counsellor to the Constantinian Order of St George of the Duke of
>> Castro by His Holiness Pope John Paul II.
Actually the text reads as follows (in the relevant portions):
On various occasions [i.e. you ahve aske dmnay times and we have said no] Your
Most Reverend Eminence has referred to His Holiness John Paul II the necessity
of better spiritual assistance for those Members of the Constantinian Order of
Saint George, for whom You have accepted to be Grand Prior, by decision of
Prince Don Ferdinando Maria of Bourbon of the Two Sicilies [i.e. nothing to do
with us].
I fulfill now the venerated duty of notifying You that His Holiness, out of His
pastoral solicitude, has nominated for five years Your Eminence as
Ecclesiastical Councillor to the Deputation of the Constantinian Order that
recognizes the Grand Magistery of Prince Don Ferdinando Maria of Bourbon of the
Two Sicilies [i.e. there is another Constantinian Deputation which recognizes
another Grand Master; note the absence of the title of royal highness].
You may also note that neither Prince Ferdinando nor his son have been received
in privatve audience by the Pope in the last 20 years [the photos they have
published were taken at general audiences, or at prviate group receptions at
general audiences, neither of which take place in the
Apostolic Palace. Recently the Infante D. Carlos, his wife and family were
received in private audience with His Holiness, in the Apostolic Palace,
as royal highnesses, etc (27th februry).
>> 2) The Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, head of the Catholic Church
>> in England and Wales, is the Prior of the British Delegation.
>
He knew nothing of the dispute, nor did the Cardinal Archbishop of
Dublin, nor most of the big name members. I think you will find that
both will from henceforward be keeping a susbtantial distance from
this organization.
Perhaps English Catholics might look at the publication by the Libreria
Editrice Vaticana, with a foreword by the Prefect Emeritus of the
Apostolic Segnatura (a title not accorded to Pompedda), on the succession
to the Grand Magistery.
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Dr
just read Guys post bellow.
Rgds.
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<40ce9fd5$0$5940$79c1...@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net>...
Pierre Aronax
> just read Guys post bellow.
> Rgds.
On what do you not agree? On the fact that the order exists only since the
16th century? You believe that it was created in the 4th century? Then I can
nothing for you: see a doctor Dr.
Pierre
Pierre Aronax
"Guy Stair Sainty" <g...@sainty.org> a écrit dans le message de
news:caiac...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <40cca2a8$0$30905$79c1...@nan-newsreader-04.noos.net>, Pierre
Aronax
> says...
<...>
> There is a surviving crisobolla
> of 19th february 1500 issued by Despot Andrea Paleologo, brother of Zoe
> Palelogo who married Ivan III, to a nobile Maltesta, of Viterbo.
We can take that as an example of the kind of confusing method used by
apologists of the Constantinian. You already made use of this argument, and
didn't answer to my query for explanations. Andréas Palaiologs, who was,
hom, a real Byzantine prince, indeed created Malatesta dei Malatesti
(probably a relative of his late aunt) a knight: that is not an isolated
example, since he also created in 1483 the Spanish Don Pedro Manrique, count
of Osorno, a knight, with the power to create notaries and counts palatines.
But how on earth has this anything to do with the Constantinian order?
Andréas was not related to the Angeli who forged the Constantinian order,
neither did he confer such non-existing order. Your logic is to say: "The
Order of Saint Lazarus is legitimate, because the French President created
knights of the Legion of Honour".
Pierre
Pierre Aronax
"Guy Stair Sainty" <g...@sainty.org> a écrit dans le message de
news:caiac...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <40cca2a8$0$30905$79c1...@nan-newsreader-04.noos.net>, Pierre
Aronax
> says...
<...>
> >It is difficult to consider the Constantinian order as having any
legitimacy
> >before its recognition by the popes, and so the order "emerged", or began
to
> >be washed of its spurious origins in the late 16th century and not in
early
> >16th century.
>
> I think one can reasonably say that at this date (early 16th century) the
> concept of a "false" order had not really developed.
I mean by false order an order which claims to be a sovereign fundation, by
somebody enjoying a sovereign right, when it is in fact simply a private
fundation. This kind of falshood certainly apply to the early 16th century
and even before.
> What really counted
> was whether the recipient of the honour was actually treated as a "knight"
> by the religious or secular authorities. Marini Dettina has found the
statutes
> of 1522,
He has not. I have now Dettina's book at end. I think the juridical part is
indeed interesting, and he has done interesting research in the archives,
founding a list (p. 27 et sqq.) of people coming from the Byzantine area
(although he is unable to connect them between each others and to the
Constantinian order) which will be helpful for scholars looking for new
materials on that argument. Nevertheless, the part of the book on the origin
of the order is simply risible. Pages 15-20 are surrealistic, although the
author prudently repeats what others have said (only others favourable to
the antiquity of the order of course) without explicitly stating what is his
opinion. In the same way, in what follows many facts not only wrong but
absurd are reported from the abundant literature about the Order without a
word of comment. Rarely has the author a point of criticism: for example,
Dettina has two pages on the "Statutes of 1190" where he seems to ask
seriously if they were issued by emperor Isaakios II Angélos, an hypothesis
which will probably let any Byzantinist dead of laugh, before noting that
"per Nasalli Roccak lo stile di questa prima Regola completa dell'Ordine
denuncia una stesura assai posteriore"! Indeed, and, one can add, much more
posterior, somewhere during the 17th century: in brief that is a blatant
forgery, but Dettina is not able to say it clearly. Other fantastic and
purely invented diplomas of the Byzantine emperors, evidently forged post
factum to give some poor legitimacy to something that was never more than an
imposture are reported from very late publications without a single word of
caution. Only one example (there are many), at page 21 : "Dalla fine del
secolo XVI troviamo esibito un Diploma dell'Imperatore Michele del 25 aprile
1293 indirizzato a Michele Angelo ed Andrea suo figlio, di Drivasto: in
quanto legittimi successori e discendenti dell'Imperator Costantino conferma
loro la facoltà di crear milites 'seu equites aureatos' con tutti i
privilegi già goduti". The reigning emperor in 1293 was named Andronikos and
not Michael, but Dettina decides that the author of the diploma is his son
Michael IX (15 years old at that time!). Too bad that he does not ask rather
the fundamental question: was a Byzantine emperor, even of 15 years old,
likely to have given a diploma worded in such manner. The answer is
obviously: 'no'. In brief, that is not a work of history and I don't
recommend it to anybody who wants to learn something about the late
Byzantium and the flight of the Eastern aristocracy to Italy, since the
legends are here absolutely confused with the facts.
But, for what is of the 1522 Statutes, Dettina doesn't claim to have "found"
them. He relies entirely here on the opinion of previous authors,
unfortunately only "Constantinianist" authors which form the greater part of
his bibliography, mostly on F. Rodriguez "La Milizia Aureata Costantiniana",
Rivista Araldica, 8(1938) (I have not read this but it does not seem to be a
scholarly work). Has Dettina ever consulted those Statutes himself? He does
not seem to have, since he quotes them from second hand, and he says in a
footnote p. 25 that "gli statuti del 1522 sono inediti". This information
given "an passant" needs further investigation: where are they preserved (if
they are)? I can not find them in Dettina's list of sources. If they were
never published, how do we know that they were indeed genuinely from 1522,
and not a later forgery between other numerous forgeries? What Dettina says
of the wording of this Statutes shows that they makes the same kind of
absurd grandiloquent claims we find in all that kind of literature: for
example, the Grand Master can appoint a General Vicar with the title of Duke
of Cyprus (nothing less!).
> issued by "Prince D. Giovanni II Caesar of the Slavonians and
> the Romans"
Of course this titles are risible: they suffice to denounce the forgery.
> whose cousins, the dukes of Montenegro and Santa Sabba were
> given a position in the Order. This prince was actually the head of the
> family of Kosaca of Santa Sava (a dynasty which became extinct in 1612)
and
> bequeathed his succession to his Cernovichi cousin, titular duke of
Montenegro
> (extinct in 1660), and was otherwise known as Czar Giovanni the Black of
the
> Serbs.
But the Duke of Saint Sabas did NOT found the Constantinian order. According
to what you say, it was his cousin, nothing more (although it is more
probable that all this is simply a forgery: the only source for this
cousinship seems to be the Statutes themselves!). Do you claim that, because
he is the cousin of Elizabeth the Second, Mr Howard-Bulmer can found an
order of chivalry which will be equal in dignity to the Garter, although a
little more recent? Well, Mr Howard-Bulmer can always pay somebody to write
some diploma signed by King John and he will have a pretty new Most Ancient
Order.
Beside, I challenge you to prove that their his a filiation between that
Order and your Constantinian order (which is the heir of the forgery of the
Angeli, not of the forgery of "15322). Even admitting that a funny titled
cousin of the duke of Saint Sabas "refounded" a fantastic order with
ridiculous pretensions in 1522, how does it happen to fall in the hands of
the Angeli? To explain that, Dettina only repeats the assertions of
Rodriguez: we need facts and documents rather than this "alternative
history" which reminds more "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" than the last centuries
of Byzantium.
> These statutes attributed the headship of the Order then
> to Nemagna Paleologo, whose genealogy, whether true or false, attributed
> his descent to an alliance between Simeone Nemanja Paleologo, in 1350,
with
> Tommasa Angela Comnena Dukas.
Then how did the headship comes to the Angeli who, even if you don't like
that, were a minor untitle lineage of Drivasto without any importance? For
the historians, the Nemanjides ended in male line Syméôn's sons.
> At this stage these statutes allowed for
> a Grand Master, a Vicar general, and various local Masters and Vicars, all
> of whom were vaguely connected genealogically. The Angeli Flavii were
originally
> one of the lesser regional masters, who managed to obtain Papal
> recognition as supreme head of the Order.
The Angeli, later self-styled Flavii, were nothing of that. They were a very
minor lineage from Drivasto who began to make fantastic claims long after
they had fled in exile to Italy.
<other point adressed in separate message>
> In the Corsie Sistine of the Hospital of Santo
Spirita
> in Sassia, there is an early 16th century fresco illustrating the scene of
> teh gift of the Papal dowry granted to Zoe at her marriage, with an
inscription
> noting that among those present were Andrea Paleolog and Leonardo Tocco,
> and those being recevied by the Pope are wearing blue mantles sewen with
> golden lilies and gold collars, similar to those described in the first
> statutes.
Do you consider the possibility that the forgers of the Statutes had seen
the fresco?
> The Angeli grand masters in 1571 and 1575 actually recognized the
positions of
> D. Viatico Cossazza (Kosaca) and D. Pietro
> Cernovichio - the former, rather than continuing to claim to be grand
> master appears to have been content with a subordinate role.
And perhaps were not even aware of anything of that. Michel Lafosse can also
recognize the position of Queen Elizabeth as second after him in the Order
of the Thistle. Anyway, they were perhaps aware of that: the Angeli managed
to assume a position in the exiled society of the former noble families of
the Balkans which was much higher than their original position, and to
obtain recognition of parentage from real former ruling dynasties, abusing
them whith their forged diplomas.
I can not understand why somebody like you prefers to maintain absurd
unhistorical claims rather than to recognize that the Constantinian Order
was simply what it was: a late forgery created by exiled Albanian gentlemen
who managed to abuse the Papacy and to make money with their self-styled
order, as self-styled order-makers have always and will always do. What the
Constantinian Order is now become can change nothing to its origins: you can
not change the past by repeating pious lies with the excuse that you reject
the two or three most absurd of them, like Dettina tries to do. It would be
better to accept historical criticism. I, at least, refuse to take that
institution for what it is not.
Pierre
Guy Stair Sainty
says...
Perhaps you missed where I explained the earlier connection and that the
statutes drawn up in 1522 were drawn up by the Vicar General, Giovanni
Nemagna-Paleologo, of the Tsars of Serbia, descendant of Simonda Palelogo
(1294-1336), and referred therein to the Paleologo as having been grand
masters and to regional masters - of whom one was the Angeli. There was
clearly some kind of connection - not necessarily familial - between these
groups and Marini Dettina (whom you mock without having read, and whose
work was a doctoral thesis at the Lateran University) has documented this
very carefully, while not trying to prove anything. Your suggestion that
the above is my "logic" is simply another infantile insult which you so
like to pepper your posts. The relief I cited shows what several scholars
have interpreted as being some kind of robes that conformed closely to the
early robes of the Constantinian Knights, in the early 16th century when
first documentary mention is made of the Order. This relief dates from
the 1490s.
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Guy Stair Sainty
Perhaps [snip]
Sorry I should have said fresco, not relief.
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Guy Stair Sainty
says...
It is not intended to be a work of history, but in this section compiles
the various different views of the purported history so that they are given
a full airing; he felt this approach more interesting and complete than
simply dismissing them without mention. He makes it extremely clear that
the legitimate historical record does not begin until the 16th century.
>
>But, for what is of the 1522 Statutes, Dettina doesn't claim to have "found"
>them. He relies entirely here on the opinion of previous authors,
>unfortunately only "Constantinianist" authors which form the greater part of
>his bibliography, mostly on F. Rodriguez "La Milizia Aureata Costantiniana",
>Rivista Araldica, 8(1938) (I have not read this but it does not seem to be a
>scholarly work). Has Dettina ever consulted those Statutes himself? He does
>not seem to have, since he quotes them from second hand, and he says in a
>footnote p. 25 that "gli statuti del 1522 sono inediti". This information
>given "an passant" needs further investigation: where are they preserved (if
>they are)? I can not find them in Dettina's list of sources. If they were
>never published, how do we know that they were indeed genuinely from 1522,
>and not a later forgery between other numerous forgeries? What Dettina says
>of the wording of this Statutes shows that they makes the same kind of
>absurd grandiloquent claims we find in all that kind of literature: for
>example, the Grand Master can appoint a General Vicar with the title of Duke
>of Cyprus (nothing less!).
17th century statutes and even the Farnese statutes of 1705 tie the different
ranks to apocryphal historical places. The 17th century histories of most
of the great Orders are replete with such claims.
>
>[snip]
>we need facts and documents rather than this "alternative
>history" which reminds more "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" than the last centuries
>of Byzantium.
I think you are missing the point entirely. The issue is did the Order exist in
any form, legitimate (in your eyes) or otherwise, prior to the mid-16th century;
there seems to be some evidence that it did. What you are apparently
unaware of in your fevered ranting is that one finds extraordinary lacunae
in the histories of many such institutions at this time - including, for
example, early records of knights of the Holy Sepulchre, the Papal nominations
as knights of Christ,
>
>
>> These statutes attributed the headship of the Order then
>> to Nemagna Paleologo, whose genealogy, whether true or false, attributed
>> his descent to an alliance between Simeone Nemanja Paleologo, in 1350,
>with
>> Tommasa Angela Comnena Dukas.
>
>Then how did the headship comes to the Angeli who, even if you don't like
>that, were a minor untitle lineage of Drivasto without any importance? For
>the historians, the Nemanjides ended in male line Syméôn's sons.
I assure you I do not care in the slighest where they come from; you persist
(with the irritating superiority that charcaterises your argument on every
subject you approach) in believing that I want something that does not exist.
I would suggest, however, that when pontificating upon this you misunderstand
the origins of chivalric institutions at this time, which did not necessarily
require sovereign foundations, but did need ultimately Papal (or some other
legitimation) for their membership and ranks to be treated as legally
conferring knighthoods. This is true of the Holy Sepulcher, for example,
and many other such institutions. If they did not receive such approval, then
they disappeared, but with it they became legal. The statuts of the founder
in the 16th century was not the sole criteria of legitimacy, neither was it
earlier (the Spanish Military Orders for example).
I do not want to disabuse you of the evident enjoyment you get from imposing
upon me views that I neither hold not endorse, however, I think you are
trying to view this from a perspective that has no application in the 16th
century. Numerous European dynasties and noble families dreamt up fabulous
origins which were endorsed often by heralds, genealogists and sovereigns
but were without merit (right up to the time of Napoleon). This did not
invalidate the legality of institutions they founded which were duly
recognized by the secular authorities or the Papacy. I have not pretended
that the Angeli Flavii were Byzantine heirs, neither does Marini Dettina;
we are both interested in the origins of the Order and its conversion into
a subject of canon law. I do not see any reason not to credit the existence
of the statutes of 1522, whatever the nature of the titles they invented,
because the Order did not need to invent something from the previous
half-century; the inventions were the histories in Byzantine times and
Constantine the Great. I see no reason to doubt that in 1522 there were
other Byzantine would-be claimants who saw opportunity in founding or
perhaps even perpatuating something founded in imitation of the many
short-lived chivalric institutions founded across Europe between 1450
and 1650. Many minor princes and nobles founded such bodies, most disappeared,
but this particular institution were able to survive.
However to make such exchanges interesting or worthwhile, I would suggest
that you try and curb your pleasure in insulting anyone who places
a different nuance on whatever collections of facts, docuements, or claims
are in dispute.
It is of course a relief to learn that after so many pronouncements you
have actually bothered to read the work in question -whose purpose is
not to give credibility to earlier claims, but to recite them in the
context of the recognition accorded them as being factual (whether or not
they were based on fact), and then to show how these claims were given
credence and legitimacy - there are many examples in history of such
assumptions, often disproved later, but nonetheless real.
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Dr
mj...@btinternet.com (Michael Andrews-Reading) wrote in message news:<d3c078ef.04061...@posting.google.com>...
> edespalais <edesp...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:<BCF1C637.EDF0%edesp...@wanadoo.fr>...
> > It seems AT seas THE archduke - it est the HEAD of the Domus Austriaca (note
> > he was holding several ROYAL titles, king of Bohemia, et cetera) - was
> > (heraldic) seen a a king with the title łarchduke".
>
> Indeed; thank you for confirming what I had long suspected.
Pierre Aronax
<...>
That is absolutely fascinating since Simonis died childless: her husband
children were from an other marriage (if not simply illegitimate).
> and referred therein to the Paleologo as having been grand
> masters and to regional masters - of whom one was the Angeli.
Perhaps you missed that this claim is absurd and that, at the time when they
had a regional power, the Palaiologoi were certainly not grandmaster of a
chivalric order, a notion that, as the notion of Crusade, is absolutely
alien to the Byzantine world. Perhaps you missed also that the male line of
the Nemanja were extinct in the late 14th-early 15th century and that, in
1522, Andréas Palaiologos himself was died since a good time. So please,
don't enrol him in that fraud.
> There was
> clearly some kind of connection - not necessarily familial - between these
> groups
Oh yes? Then which kind of link please? Andréas Palaiologos was the grandson
of an emperor and himself a de jure emperor. He was a monarch in exile, who
did what a monarch was supposed to do in the West: create knights. But he
didn't found an order of any kind. The Angéloi from Drivasto who forged the
Constantian orders decades if not more than half a century after his death
were petty notable of a minor town of Albania whose ancestors could not have
dreamed to marry in the imperial family: there is much more distance between
them than between the present duke of Braganza and "Dom Rosario". If this
connection is so clear, perhaps it is possible to state it in a less
ineffable manner?
> and Marini Dettina (whom you mock without having read,
Pardon me, I read the chapter which was related with my own interests.
> and whose
> work was a doctoral thesis at the Lateran University) has documented this
> very carefully, while not trying to prove anything.
He has not documented anything of that kind. From an historical point of
view, his work is much under what can be call serious and would seem
laughable to anybody who has read even only a little about the Byzantine
Empire.
> Your suggestion that
> the above is my "logic" is simply another infantile insult which you so
> like to pepper your posts.
I didn't know the word "logic" was an insult. I apologize to have use it in
connection with your opinions about the Constantinian order.
Pierre
Pierre Aronax
<...>
> The relief I cited shows what several scholars
I suspect many of this "scholars" were themselves knight of the
Constantinian order... But what is their name actually?
> have interpreted as being some kind of robes that conformed closely to the
> early robes of the Constantinian Knights, in the early 16th century when
> first documentary mention is made of the Order. This relief dates from
> the 1490s.
>
> Perhaps [snip]
> Sorry I should have said fresco, not relief.
Then the fact that the robes used by the pseudo knights of S. Lazarus
conforms closely to the robes used by the actual knights of S. Lazarus is a
proof that their order is genuine.
I don't believe court robes are enough to make an order, and certainly not
to connect it to a pseudo order attested for the first time in the second
half of the 16th century (and not "in the early" 16th century).
Pierre
Pierre Aronax
> > Only one example (there are many), at page 21 : "Dalla fine del
> >secolo XVI troviamo esibito un Diploma dell'Imperatore Michele del 25
aprile
> >1293 indirizzato a Michele Angelo ed Andrea suo figlio, di Drivasto: in
> >quanto legittimi successori e discendenti dell'Imperator Costantino
conferma
> >loro la facoltà di crear milites 'seu equites aureatos' con tutti i
> >privilegi già goduti". The reigning emperor in 1293 was named Andronikos
and
> >not Michael, but Dettina decides that the author of the diploma is his
son
> >Michael IX (15 years old at that time!). Too bad that he does not ask
rather
> >the fundamental question: was a Byzantine emperor, even of 15 years old,
> >likely to have given a diploma worded in such manner. The answer is
> >obviously: 'no'. In brief, that is not a work of history and I don't
> >recommend it to anybody who wants to learn something about the late
> >Byzantium and the flight of the Eastern aristocracy to Italy, since the
> >legends are here absolutely confused with the facts.
>
> It is not intended to be a work of history
Then I suggest to refrain from using it as a work of history.
>, but in this section compiles
> the various different views of the purported history so that they are
given
> a full airing;
No: in the first section, there is given a very biased view of the
"antiquity" of the order, where only the most fabulous legends are
questioned, and not even always dismissed
> he felt this approach more interesting and complete than
> simply dismissing them without mention.
It would have been of better method to mention them TO dismiss them, since
that is what they deserve. Simply repeating them without comment is
propagating diplomatically the fraud.
> He makes it extremely clear that
> the legitimate historical record does not begin until the 16th century.
I think it is what you would call a "mis-representation" of the book. Since
it can induce in error people who have not read it, I find useful to go a
little more into the details.
Alfonso Marini Dettina' book, "Il legittimo esercizio del gran magistero del
Sacro militare Ordine costantiniano di San Giorgio" (Città del Vaticano
2003) is a dissertation in Canon law is honoured by a "Presentazione" of
Cardinale Gilberto Agustoni, who happens to be himself a member of the
present order (from the "Spanish" obedience). In the first chapter are
reported facts, which would be best described as factoids, and which have
been used in the Constantinian literature to assert the antiquity of the
order. Although the tune pretend to be neutral and scientific, what is
proposed in fact is a modernized rehash of the same fables. For example,
Dettina (page 16) recall a relief which is supposed to have been preserved
in Rome in the 16th century and which would have carried the following
legend: "Constantinus Max. Imperator, postquam mundatus a lepra per medium
Baptismatis, Milites sive Equites Deauratos creat in tutelam Cristiani
niminis". Dettina does not even point that is supposed antic relief is not
preserved, but known only by one of the numerous publications of the
Constantinian polygraphs... A minimum would be to note for the lector's
benefit that this inscription is a blatant forgery. On the contrary, the
author goes then into an amphigoric sentence which says more less than, even
if all those legends are false, they are true. See yourself: "Se Costantino
non fondò un Ordine cavalleresco nel senso medievale e moderno del termine,
tuttavia, avverte la storiografia, 'il legame, quanto meno ideale,
dell'Ordine col primo imperatore cristiano ha un alto significo etico e
religioso' basato su alcuni dati di fatto storicamente certi, integrando
tale richiamo un collegamento, unico tra gli Ordini cavallereschi esistenti,
alle istituzioni cavalleresche romane". It is at least a good example of the
unbearably pedantic style of the Constantinian thuriferiers.
The author "clarifies" this strange declaration by explaining then (page 17)
that, although the Roman equestrian order (of which he seems to have a very
vague idea) disappeared in the West with the fall of the Roman Empire, "it
is possible, on the contrary, that in the Eastern Roman Empire existed a
form of historical continuity between the ancient 'ordo equester' and the
more recent chivalric institutions" ("è possibile, invece, che nell'Impero
Romano d'Oriente vi sia stata una certa continuità storica fra l'antico
'ordo equester' e le più tarde istituzioni cavalleresche"). One is amazed by
such an unhistorical discourse: to what exactly Mr Dettina is thinking, he
probably does not know it himself. It seems that, for him, the Byzantine
Empire is some kind of absolutely unknown period during which some
mysterious institutions can have existed of which nothing is now but which
can nevertheless give a "continuity" between the antiquity and the forgeries
of the 16th century. The problem is of course that such institutions never
existed in Byzantium, which had nothing close of the Western chivalry (not
to speak of the Roman 'ordo equester' which I really don't see what he has
to do with that).
Nevertheless, for Dettina, the conclusion is clear: "essendo ben più antico
degli altri Ordini Cavallereschi sorti nel secolo XII [I wonder which
Chivalric order is supposed to have been born in the 12th century, except
perhaps the Hospitallers], l'Ordine Costantiniano di San Giorgio sorse e
crebbe per molti secoli come Ordine militare per poi acquisire anche la
natura di Ordine religioso". An astonishing declaration which shows clearly
that, despite what Mr Sainty assure, the purpose of Dettina is indeed to
reassert the fiction of the ancient origin of the Constantinian order.
Then follows a lecture about monachism and Saint Basile, absolutely
irrelevant to the subject (p. 17-18), but where can learn, for example, that
St Martin was a knight of the Constantinian Order! I don't invent: Dettina
really wrote such nonsense and it was really printed in a book which, Mr
Sainty wants us to believe, is the must of the scholarship about the origin
of the Constantinian. Here is the quotation (a little too long but that is
so incredible that otherwise Mr Sainty will say I have "misrepresent" it), I
hope you are all seated: "In Occidente, il monachesimo diviene popolare fra
i nobili convertiti alla fede di Cristo presentandosi come qualcosa di nuovo
e allo stesso tempo in continuità con il passato, commesurabile su
precedenti classici quali l'ascetismo filosofico in genere e pitagorico in
particolare. Annoverato tra i più illustri Cavalieri dell'Ordine
Costantiniano troviamo San Martino (316 ca.-397). Egli, già membro della
guardia imperiale a cavallo, poi Vescovo di Tours, girava a piedi per le
campagne della Gallia vestito semplicemente, evangelizzando, fondando centri
monastici nel segno della 'militia Christi' [of course 'miles' at the time
of Martin means simply soldier and not at all knight] parte integrante
dell'ideale monastico."
Dettina does not only present the tradition of the ancient origin of the
Constantinian: he believes it. After the amazing information of St Martin,
we are informed that "documents proving the millenarian tradition of the
Constantinian Order have been published since the beginning of the 16th
century, but at the beginning of the 18th century Marquis Scipione Maffei,
famous erudite from Verona, considered them apocryphal; other scholars
nevertheless have presented elements in favour of their authenticity"
("Documenti attestanti la tradizione millenaria dell'Ordine Costantiniano
vennero pubblicati a partire dal secolo XVI, ma al principio del '700 il
Marchese Scipione Maffei, celebre erudito veronese, li ritenne apocrifi;
altri studiosi portarono invece ragioni a sostegno della loro autenticità).
The judgement is not neutral and it is clear that Dettina sides with the
"other scholars" (which, he omits to precise, were all stipended by the
Farnese), those who consider the documents as genuine, so that he considers
he can make use of the "documents". That is a bad choice, since Maffei is
the one of the first Italian scholars to have attacked with scholarly
arguments the mountain of forgeries on which was built the Constantinian.
Nevertheless, others in foreign countries had already expressed more than
doubts, like, in France, Du Cange, which can be considered as the founder of
Byzantinology.
Since he has chosen his faction, Dettina has no complex to make use of the
false documents published by the "other scholars": thanks to this precious
documents, we so learn that "sources published by Malvezzi (17th century)
and Musenga (18th century) attest that, put under the protection of St
George Martyr, the Constantinian Order, at the request of Emperor Marcian
(450-457), was approved by His Holiness Pope St Leon the Great in 456, who
confirmed the Rule written by St Basil at Constantine's request... ("Le
fonti pubblicate da Malvezzi (sec. XVII) e Musenga (sec. XVIII) attestano
che, messo sotto la protezione di San Giorgio Martire, l'Ordine
Costantiniano, ad instanza dell'Imperatore Marciano (450-457), fu approvato
da S. S. Papa San Leone Magno nel 456, che confermò la Regola scritta da San
Basilio a petizione di Costantino...). Again, that is Dettina who speaks,
not his "sources", that is him who uses the verb "attest" (certainly not a
neutral one) for such insanities. I can not see how somebody can pretend
honestly that "he makes it extremely clear that the legitimate historical
record does not begin until the 16th century". If he has any doubt about
this document, as Mr Sainty claims he does, the lector has no way to suspect
it. In fact, he is not even informed that Constantine died in 337, when St
Basile, to which he is supposed to have commissioned the Rule of the alleged
Constantinian order, was perhaps seven years old. That is the kind of
"sources" for which "scholars" others than Maffei have found "elements in
favour of [the] authenticity", so that Dettina considers himself entitled to
use them...
It would be tedious to note all the purported "facts" of the Order's
"history" who follows on no less than four pages, with the same deferential
lack of criticism (and sincerely, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" must be more
serious).
I will adress other aspects in an other post.
Pierre
Pierre Aronax
<...>
So your point is?
> >we need facts and documents rather than this "alternative
> >history" which reminds more "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" than the last
centuries
> >of Byzantium.
>
> I think you are missing the point entirely. The issue is did the Order
exist in
> any form, legitimate (in your eyes) or otherwise, prior to the mid-16th
century;
> there seems to be some evidence that it did.
Which evidences please? Except Statutes allegedly written by an
unidentifiable Serbian prince, that nobody seems to have seen and that were
never published, and the fact that collars on a fresco look more or less
like Constantinian collars (as if it was a proof of anything!), no such
evidence have been produced.
> What you are apparently
> unaware of in your fevered ranting is that one finds extraordinary lacunae
> in the histories of many such institutions at this time - including, for
> example, early records of knights of the Holy Sepulchre, the Papal
nominations
> as knights of Christ,
For an order of chivalry, not being attested *at all* during more than the
12 first centuries of his existence is not a lacuna, it is a fraud. Again,
for your information, that is exactly as if I began to distribute the collar
of an order created by Charlemagne, you criticize me on your website and I
discard your criticism by pointing that all orders have lacunae in their
history.
> >> These statutes attributed the headship of the Order then
> >> to Nemagna Paleologo, whose genealogy, whether true or false,
attributed
> >> his descent to an alliance between Simeone Nemanja Paleologo, in 1350,
> >with
> >> Tommasa Angela Comnena Dukas.
> >
> >Then how did the headship comes to the Angeli who, even if you don't like
> >that, were a minor untitle lineage of Drivasto without any importance?
For
> >the historians, the Nemanjides ended in male line Syméôn's sons.
>
> I assure you I do not care in the slighest where they come from;
Then stop to try to pretend it was not simply a fraud by which the Popes
were abused, and later the Farnese when they disbursed an heavy price for a
pure and simple chimera. But I know, it is always difficult to say "The
emperor is naked" and more simple to prise the beauty of his dress.
> you persist
> (with the irritating superiority that charcaterises your argument on every
> subject you approach) in believing that I want something that does not
exist.
And you persist to try desperately to add some decades of antiquity to your
order, when it would be so simple to recognise that it acquires some
beginning of legitimacy by being recognised by the popes at the end of the
16th century, but did not became a dynasty order before being bought by the
Farnese. To put the Constantinian on the same stage than Malta is, from an
historical point of view, absurd.
> I would suggest, however, that when pontificating upon this you
misunderstand
> the origins of chivalric institutions at this time, which did not
necessarily
> require sovereign foundations, but did need ultimately Papal (or some
other
> legitimation) for their membership and ranks to be treated as legally
> conferring knighthoods.
I am sorry but, despite what Dettina seems to think, the Constantinian did
not received such legitimation at the time of Leon the Great. And you would
have a hard time to find a still existing order with origins as spurious as
the origins of the Constantinian order: other orders were indeed created
with an invented past, but by sovereign and princes and not by self-styled
Byzantine heirs.
> This is true of the Holy Sepulcher, for example,
> and many other such institutions. If they did not receive such approval,
then
> they disappeared, but with it they became legal. The statuts of the
founder
> in the 16th century was not the sole criteria of legitimacy, neither was
it
> earlier (the Spanish Military Orders for example).
Please! The Spanish Military Orders were military orders, they played a part
in the Reconquista, they felt in Royal patronage at the end of the Middle
Ages. Their history has nothing to do with the Constantinian, created by
buffoons in funny costumes who abused dupes, as buffoons in funny costumes
have always done and still do. Why are you so prompt to denounce them today
but do you refuse to see them in the past of your own order?
I know that perfectly well. But we don't try to defend them today: we knows
when the order of the Bath was founded for real. The sole exception seems to
be the Constantinian.
> This did not
> invalidate the legality of institutions they founded which were duly
> recognized by the secular authorities or the Papacy.
Of course. But when a 16th century prince pretended to be a descendant of
Julius Caesar, even if we know that was wrong, he stays nevertheless a 16th
century prince. When a 16th century nobody pretended to be the heir of the
Byzantine Empire and we see today that it is blatantly wrong, he stays
simply a nobody. The Order founded by the 16th century prince was
interesting and still makes sense because it was founded by a prince, not
because it was founded by a descendant of Julius Caesar. The Order founded
by the nobody is simply uninteresting and makes not sense, at least as an
Order of chivalry: it stays interesting as a fraud of course, and I like
frauds, but to take interest in them we have first to call them for what
they are.
> I have not pretended
> that the Angeli Flavii were Byzantine heirs, neither does Marini Dettina;
In fact, he does: cf. page 23, note 26. Here silence is approbation. Anyway,
the problem is not only that the Angeli were not Byzantine heirs, the
problem is that the Constantinian order, contrary to what pretend Dettina,
did not existed before they invented it and has nothing to do with the
Byzantine past in which he pretends to take its legitimacy.
> we are both interested in the origins of the Order and its conversion into
> a subject of canon law.
If you are interested in the real origins of the Order, as opposed to the
absurd legends invented around it, I suggest you to read the book of Paolo
Petta I already pointed to your attention, rather than the compilation of
lunacies put together without analysis by A. Marini Dettina. You will learn
a lot about the milieu of refugees in which it was invented. But perhaps the
pages of the book which are specifically about the Angeli and their order
will not be pleasant for you.
> I do not see any reason not to credit the existence
> of the statutes of 1522,
If you don't see the reason to question the existence of the document which
is attested only in this Constantinian literature overfull of the most
incredible forgeries, your suspicion is not easily stimulated.
> whatever the nature of the titles they invented,
> because the Order did not need to invent something from the previous
> half-century; the inventions were the histories in Byzantine times and
> Constantine the Great.
So, according to your logic, the more ancient documents are false, but the
more recent are genuine. Unfortunately, that is not true and the Angeli made
also contemporary forgeries, including some papal bulls. So your argument
here equals to nothing.
> I see no reason to doubt that in 1522 there were
> other Byzantine would-be claimants who saw opportunity in founding
Oh, there were certainly. The question is rather: did they found that
particular order, and is there a filiation with the order of the Angeli. We
have only the testimony of the Angeli and of their followers to believe so,
and they are not truthful.
> or
> perhaps even perpatuating something founded in imitation of the many
> short-lived chivalric institutions founded across Europe between 1450
> and 1650.
Except that no foundation of that kind never existed in the Byzantine world.
You continue to delude yourself.
> Many minor princes and nobles founded such bodies, most disappeared,
> but this particular institution were able to survive.
>
> However to make such exchanges interesting or worthwhile, I would suggest
> that you try and curb your pleasure in insulting anyone who places
> a different nuance on whatever collections of facts, docuements, or claims
> are in dispute.
It is not a "nuance". It is romance vs history.
Pierre
Pierre Aronax
<...>
> It is of course a relief to learn that after so many pronouncements you
> have actually bothered to read the work in question -whose purpose is
> not to give credibility to earlier claims, but to recite them in the
> context of the recognition accorded them as being factual (whether or not
> they were based on fact), and then to show how these claims were given
> credence and legitimacy - there are many examples in history of such
> assumptions, often disproved later, but nonetheless real.
I can really not see what you mean by this acerb statement. I have
"pronounced" about elements taken from Dettina's book because you put them
into the discussion, that's all. For what is of the book itself, I have
ordered it almost as soon as I have learned its existence, and I think now
it was certainly not worth the price I paid it. If the purpose of its first
chapter is only to "recite" earlier claims without giving them credibility,
that is nowhere said clearly and that is certainly not deductible from its
style. The author obviously needs some courses in Byzantine history, and in
fact also in general history. Even if its purpose was not historical (but
what is the use to touch such maters without any historical purpose?), about
this subject it would have been logical to consult at least some books
written by trained Byzantinists. He quotes some in his bibliography, between
others Ostrogorsky's "History of the Byzantine Empire", but I seriously
doubt he even opened it.
For what is of the juridical part of the book, I have no opinion neither
competence but, as an ordinary lector, I would be reluctant to give credence
in any field to somebody able to write such historical absurdities without a
word of scepticism or criticism (even if that was not his purpose).
Pierre
Bryan J. Maloney
news:40d1d93c$0$7448$79c1...@nan-newsreader-06.noos.net:
> Perhaps you missed that this claim is absurd and that, at the time
> when they had a regional power, the Palaiologoi were certainly not
> grandmaster of a chivalric order, a notion that, as the notion of
> Crusade, is absolutely alien to the Byzantine world. Perhaps you
> missed also that the male line of the Nemanja were extinct in the late
> 14th-early 15th century and that, in 1522, Andréas Palaiologos himself
> was died since a good time. So please, don't enrol him in that fraud.
Why, it's no more absurd than the claims of the "Orthodox Orders of St.
John" and the Lazarites, so Guy obviously would support such claims, since
he's happy to support the daft and daffy hallucination of a "Byzantine
Crusading Order" led by the Palaiologoi. Perhaps Guy has decided to
acknowledge Mr. LaFosse as the King of England, as well. It's no less
daffy than the "Crusading Byzantine Order" fantasy, after all.
> Pierre
>
>
>
Bryan J. Maloney
> "Guy Stair Sainty" <g...@sainty.org> a écrit dans le message de
> news:caqke...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
>> have interpreted as being some kind of robes that conformed closely
>> to the early robes of the Constantinian Knights, in the early 16th
>> century when first documentary mention is made of the Order. This
>> relief dates from the 1490s.
>>
>> Perhaps [snip]
>> Sorry I should have said fresco, not relief.
>
> Then the fact that the robes used by the pseudo knights of S. Lazarus
> conforms closely to the robes used by the actual knights of S. Lazarus
> is a proof that their order is genuine.
Hey! You're learning the game. In no time at all you'll be ready to hail
King Michael LaFosse!
Guy Stair Sainty
says...
>
>
>"Guy Stair Sainty" <g...@sainty.org> a écrit dans le message de
>news:caqke...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <40d05732$0$25797$79c1...@nan-newsreader-05.noos.net>, Pierre
>Aronax
>> says...
>
>>
>> Perhaps you missed where I explained the earlier connection and that the
>> statutes drawn up in 1522 were drawn up by the Vicar General, Giovanni
>> Nemagna-Paleologo, of the Tsars of Serbia, descendant of Simonda Palelogo
>> (1294-1336),
>
>That is absolutely fascinating since Simonis died childless: her husband
>children were from an other marriage (if not simply illegitimate).
Does it matter; the point is that these people for better or worse claimed
these pseudo descents as did numerous European princes and nobles, and pretend
nobles, and often obtained recognition of them and their pseudo titles. Once
these were sanctified by a sovereign, their origins no longer really mattered.
Rather as with the title of Prince de Faucigny-Lucinge, a pseudo title that
has now become genuine.
>
>> and referred therein to the Paleologo as having been grand
>> masters and to regional masters - of whom one was the Angeli.
>
>Perhaps you missed that this claim is absurd and that, at the time when they
>had a regional power, the Palaiologoi were certainly not grandmaster of a
>chivalric order, a notion that, as the notion of Crusade, is absolutely
>alien to the Byzantine world. Perhaps you missed also that the male line of
>the Nemanja were extinct in the late 14th-early 15th century and that, in
>1522, Andréas Palaiologos himself was died since a good time. So please,
>don't enrol him in that fraud.
I have never claimed that this was factual, but that this is what was
pretended and then accepted as genuine by contemporary authorities. Once
recognized as genuine, the fact that these claims and titles were based
on fantasy no longer mattered - they obained wide recognition. Andrea
Paoloeogo was dead (1504, I think), but that did not mean that those drawing
up these statutes could not invoke him as their source of authority.
>
>
>
>> There was
>> clearly some kind of connection - not necessarily familial - between these
>> groups
>
>Oh yes? Then which kind of link please? Andréas Palaiologos was the grandson
>of an emperor and himself a de jure emperor. He was a monarch in exile, who
>did what a monarch was supposed to do in the West: create knights. But he
>didn't found an order of any kind. The Angéloi from Drivasto who forged the
>Constantian orders decades if not more than half a century after his death
>were petty notable of a minor town of Albania whose ancestors could not have
>dreamed to marry in the imperial family: there is much more distance between
>them than between the present duke of Braganza and "Dom Rosario". If this
>connection is so clear, perhaps it is possible to state it in a less
>ineffable manner?
Andrea Anghelo was married to a sister of Constantin Arianiti; another
sister was married to George Castriota, Scanderbeg. The latter's son, John,
was married to Irena Paleologuina (Brankovic), daughter of Lazar Brankovic,
Despot of Serbia; a sister of Castriota was married to a Cernovichi. A daughter
of John Castriota was married to Camila de Cosazza. These are the very same
families cited in this 1522 statutes. These seem to me to be familial
relationships. Perhaps you do not consider them such?
>
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Guy Stair Sainty
says...
If the robes date from the 1490s, and the statutes if genuine from 1522 (and
why should they not have been if those of the 1570s are genuine, in the
sense of dating from that time), then why should this fresco not record
some kind of court dress. Not necessarily attributed to an order of
Knighthood (again I have to suppose your incomprehension of what I write is
due either to a lack of care in reading my text), but perhaps similar to
the robes worn by such, a little later. Perhaps, indeed, in imitatrion of
what was worn in this fresco.
I do not see what relevance this is to your comparison with St Lazarus. As
you evidently rejoice in deliberate misrepresentation, it is necessary for
me to again refer you to whatI havw written - nothing to suggest that in
the 1490s there was such an order in existence, simply that there was some
kind of court dress, that shared some characteristics with the constantinian
robes as later described.
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Pierre Aronax
> In article <40d1d93c$0$7448$79c1...@nan-newsreader-06.noos.net>, Pierre
Aronax
> says...
> >
> >
> >"Guy Stair Sainty" <g...@sainty.org> a écrit dans le message de
> >news:caqke...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >> In article <40d05732$0$25797$79c1...@nan-newsreader-05.noos.net>,
Pierre
> >Aronax
> >> says...
> >
>
> >>
> >> Perhaps you missed where I explained the earlier connection and that
the
> >> statutes drawn up in 1522 were drawn up by the Vicar General, Giovanni
> >> Nemagna-Paleologo, of the Tsars of Serbia, descendant of Simonda
Palelogo
> >> (1294-1336),
> >
> >That is absolutely fascinating since Simonis died childless: her husband
> >children were from an other marriage (if not simply illegitimate).
>
> Does it matter;
It don't know: that's you who used that argument. It seems that all your
historical arguments don't matter as soon as they appear to be wrong.
> the point is that these people
Who exactly?
> for better or worse claimed
> these pseudo descents as did numerous European princes and nobles, and
pretend
> nobles, and often obtained recognition of them and their pseudo titles.
Once
> these were sanctified by a sovereign, their origins no longer really
mattered.
> Rather as with the title of Prince de Faucigny-Lucinge, a pseudo title
that
> has now become genuine.
You explained me some time ago that it was not genuine and I must confess I
was rather convinced. As an aside, the title is "prince de Lucinge":
Faucigny-Lucinge is the family name. But, as you would say, does that
matter? The question is not if the Constantinian order is genuine *today*,
as the title of prince of Lucinge: certainly it is. The question is about
its origins: it was not simply a princely order to which is founders gave a
mythical source for decorum, it was a pure fraud, made by ordinary citizens
who pretended to be what they were not: this was denounced during the next
centuries by scholars. If a recognition was later obtained from the popes,
it was fraudulently, because they were deceived by forged documents. If we
discuss of the origins of the order, and not of its legitimacy today, that
is a question that can not be avoided.
Pierre
Pierre Aronax
> In article <40d1d93c$0$7448$79c1...@nan-newsreader-06.noos.net>, Pierre
Aronax
> says...
> >
> >
> >"Guy Stair Sainty" <g...@sainty.org> a écrit dans le message de
> >news:caqke...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >> In article <40d05732$0$25797$79c1...@nan-newsreader-05.noos.net>,
Pierre
> >Aronax
> >> says...
> >
>
> >>
> >> Perhaps you missed where I explained the earlier connection and that
the
> >> statutes drawn up in 1522 were drawn up by the Vicar General, Giovanni
> >> Nemagna-Paleologo, of the Tsars of Serbia, descendant of Simonda
Palelogo
> >> (1294-1336),
> >
> >That is absolutely fascinating since Simonis died childless: her husband
> >children were from an other marriage (if not simply illegitimate).
> >> and referred therein to the Paleologo as having been grand
> >> masters and to regional masters - of whom one was the Angeli.
> >
> >Perhaps you missed that this claim is absurd and that, at the time when
they
> >had a regional power, the Palaiologoi were certainly not grandmaster of a
> >chivalric order, a notion that, as the notion of Crusade, is absolutely
> >alien to the Byzantine world. Perhaps you missed also that the male line
of
> >the Nemanja were extinct in the late 14th-early 15th century and that, in
> >1522, Andréas Palaiologos himself was died since a good time. So please,
> >don't enrol him in that fraud.
>
> I have never claimed that this was factual, but that this is what was
> pretended and then accepted as genuine by contemporary authorities.
Really? I am puzzled then. Somebody pretended in the 1560' that an order
already existed in the previous century and that the Byzantine dynasty was
part of it. Then you come and says: "see, there is a surviving chrysobulla
of 19th february 1500 issued by Despot Andrea Paleologo, brother of Zoe
Palelogo who married Ivan III, to a nobile Maltesta, of Viterbo": what is it
supposed to prove? Clearly, it is not intended to prove that in 1560' the
Angeli pretended to be connected to the Palaiologos and that it was (later)
accepted as genuine by contemporary authorities, it is intended on the
contrary to prove that it was factual and that the order *indeed* existed in
1500 and that Andréas Palaiologos was one of their members (which is
patently wrong). Or have I missed something in your argumentation.
> Once
> recognized as genuine, the fact that these claims and titles were based
> on fantasy no longer mattered - they obained wide recognition. Andrea
> Paoloeogo was dead (1504, I think),
June 1502.
> but that did not mean that those drawing
> up these statutes could not invoke him as their source of authority.
You mean certainly: like Dom Rosario can invoke Maria II as the source of
his authority? Because I don't see any difference. Somebody claiming 50
years after the death of somebody else that he holds his authority from him,
and that without being related to him in any way, is not a connection, it is
an invention and a fraud.
Or at least we are said they are cited here, since nobody alive has seen
this purpoted "1522" Statutes, unfortunately unpublished...
> These seem to me to be familial
> relationships. Perhaps you do not consider them such?
You must be cautious with Constantinian propaganda. These connections are
more or less exact and relatively well attested, except but one of course,
which is not mentioned in modern publications about medieval Albania: the
purported sister of Kônstantinos Arianitès who you say to have been married
to Andréas Angélos seems to be undocumented...
The Byzantine connection suggested here would be anyway extremely remote: An
Angélos is said to have been (wrongly it seems) the brother-in-law of the
brother-in-law of the father of the daughter of the son of a lady who was
perhaps the great granddaughter of a Byzantine emperor!
That being said, the Angeli indeed obtained some kind of recognition (with
the help of their falsified documentation) in the exiled Albanian society in
Italy during the 16th century. But if the point is only to say that the
Constantinian order was forged by Albanian émigrés in Italy, I never doubted
it was. Simply, they were not connected with any kind of imperial Byzantine
tradition, except in documents they created themselves.
Pierre
Pierre Aronax
I don't see the connection: the Statutes (which are perhaps not so early as
1522, despite what you say) can have invented their robes from the robes of
the fresco, assuming that the similitude is so great as you say, which seems
difficult to sustain without having read the "1522" Statutes, something
difficult since they seem to be kept somewhere in a cave, hidden with the
Lost Ark and the original manuscript of the Nekronomikon.
> (and
> why should they not have been if those of the 1570s are genuine, in the
> sense of dating from that time),
Because the 1570s Statutes were *published* in the 1570s, and it is not easy
to falsify a date of publication on a printed book (although that is
possible). The "1522" Statutes have not been published and in fact nobody
seems to know were they are: we are only said they are from 1522 by somebody
who have read somebody who said to have seen them. Considering the liking to
imposture in all what is related to the Constantinian order, that needs some
caveat.
> then why should this fresco not record
> some kind of court dress.
Why not? And so what?
> Not necessarily attributed to an order of
> Knighthood (again I have to suppose your incomprehension of what I write
is
> due either to a lack of care in reading my text),
Or perhaps to your proclivity to say something and its contrary: in brief,
the order did not exist in the 15th century, but it nevertheless existed in
some way. Sorry, I don't take that: it didn't exist at that time, that is a
late 16th century invention built on forged documents, and so it is an
historical fraud.
> but perhaps similar to
> the robes worn by such, a little later. Perhaps, indeed, in imitatrion of
> what was worn in this fresco.
>
> I do not see what relevance this is to your comparison with St Lazarus. As
> you evidently rejoice in deliberate misrepresentation, it is necessary for
> me to again refer you to whatI havw written - nothing to suggest that in
> the 1490s there was such an order in existence, simply that there was some
> kind of court dress, that shared some characteristics with the
constantinian
> robes as later described.
And probably with a lot of court dress which were not related to the
Byzantine Empire in any way. If your point is only to say that the
Constantinian forgers chose to imitate ceremony dress used by other orders
of chivalry, with the maximum of kitsch which was possible, I certainly give
it you. I don't think what it has to do with the question of the spurious
origins of the said Order: they can have chosen Roman togas or Egyptian
loinclothes, that would not have make it less an imposture.
Pierre
Guy Stair Sainty
says...
>
>
>"Guy Stair Sainty" <g...@sainty.org> a écrit dans le message de
>news:caqlp...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <40d059ca$0$25696$79c1...@nan-newsreader-06.noos.net>, Pierre
>Aronax
>> says...
><...>
[snip]
It is a pity that Mr Aronax has expended such energy in typing out large swathes
from Marini Dettina’s book. I would remind him first of its title, “Il legittimo
esercizio del gran magistero del Sacro Militare Ordine Costantiniano di San
Giorgio”, and the author’s introduction where he states that his concerns are
with two fundamental elements, the juridical nature of the Constantinian Order
and of the Grand Magistery. Nowhere does he himself give credibility to the
early legends, indeed in the first sentence of his introduction he states that
“Il Sacro Militare Ordine Costantiniano di San Giorgio è un Ordine religioso
cavalleresco che si vuole fondato nel secolo IV dall’Imperatore Costantino il
Grande” (the … Constantinian Order is a religious chivalric Order that wishes to
have been founded in the 4th century by Emperor Constantine the Great). The
first chapter, from which Mr Aronax quotes so copiously is titled: “La
fondazione volute dall’Imperatore Costantino il Grande” (the foundation wished
for by the Emperor Constantine the Great). This then begins: “Le origini del
Sacro Militare Ordine Costantiniano di San Giorgio sono leggendarie…” (the
origins of the … Constantinian Order are legendary).
Dr Marini Dettina has chosen to give a recitation of the early history, both
apocryphal and, by the end of the 16th century, historical, as cited by the
earlier writers not because he believes it or wants us to believe it, but
because this was what was claimed by the institution in its early days and
indeed repeated well into the latter half of the eighteenth century. Since the
vast majority of those who have recorded the history of this Order have accepted
these legends as fact, he considered they warranted restating. This is a
doctoral thesis in canon law, not an historical text as such, and the
recognition accorded this Order at the end of the 16th century was based on a
certain measure of acceptance of these legends, perhaps in part for political
reasons. Of course he does not believe that Saint Martin was a member of the
Order, but he has included a summary of all the claims of Giustiniani, Malvezzi,
Musenga, etc, just as he correctly states that the Angeli were minor nobles from
Drivasto, and not imperial scions, contradicting these claims. When he states
that the purported statutes of 1190 were considered authentic by the “vast
majority of studies” this is indeed a fact – but he does not suggest that
history should be guided by majority vote and carefully states next that Maffei
considered them apocryphal and that the more recent scholar, Nasalli Rocca (who
of course Mr Aronax would not in any case give credibility to since he was a
member of the Order), dismissed them as stylistically much later.
He has carefully cited the sources for these legends but has also cited the many
documents which he has himself examined, that date from the 16th century and
later but which make claims to titles and descents that are apocryphal. He does
this to show that at the time there was widespread acceptance of the claims of
the Angeli, whether or not they were genuine. He notes very specifically that
both the Venetian Republic and the Holy See, despite the contrary arguments made
by Maffei and Du Cange doubting the imperial origins of the Angeli, nonetheless
chose to accept the legendary version of history. In the context of the legal
standing of the Order as a subject of canon law, its earlier history is
completely and totally irrelevant – even if it had been founded by Constantine
the Great this would not have been what made it a subject of canon law; it is
relevant as providing an explanation of why this Order was given credibility.
This work is not intended to be an historical examination of the merits of the
case for a foundation by either Constantine the Great or Isaac II, but does seek
to give some context to the fantastic claims that it was indeed such so the
reader may see how these claims were so generally accepted. I am sorry that when
reading it Mr Aronax found such trouble in separating the legend from what is
evidently the reality.
Even though Marini Dettina does not himself seek to ascribe greater merit to the
claim that the statutes of 1522 dated from that year, I do not find it requires
a leap of faith to accept that their may have been an earlier foundation, dating
from or perhaps slightly earlier than 1522, which was promoted by another
would-be imperial relation and claimed the support of the deceased Paleologui
heir. That this body, whatever one may seek to style it, either did not survive
or was taken over by the Angeli (this seems more likely, since we see later in
the 16th century the heirs of one of the founders of the 1522 body being ordered
to stop awarding the Order), but existed in some form at that time seems very
possible. This work being concerned with law, rather than historical analysis,
it presents all the material and then synthesizes what is important in reaching
some conclusion about the status of the Order and the Grand Magistery in law
today. No more, no less.
It is for others to address the issue as to when or whether there is real
historical evidence as to any existence of this Order before the late 16th
century. I find no contradiction in accepting that the Angeli, whatever the
reality of their familial origins, in fact persuaded a willing audience that
they enjoyed some claim to imperial status and that this acceptance became more
widespread with those who discounted it (Maffei, Du Cange) being ignored whether
for political reasons or because there was a substantial institutional
investment in accepting the pseudo historical claims.
One may see parallel claims with the Order of the Holy Sepulchre, with
publications from the 16th through the 20th century giving broad acceptance to
the claims to a foundation in the Holy Land in 1099 or so, to the existence of
statutes or approvals given by early French Kings, and even in the 18th century
to purported royal governance in diplomas which record the supposed role of the
current French monarch in the affairs of the Order. These claims were even
briefly accepted by the restoration government in the period 1815-20 when the
duke of Angoulême was persuaded to accept an important role in the governance of
this Order, in reality at best a religious fraternity (style
“Archconfraternity”). That these claims were spurious did not mean that there
were no knights of the Holy Sepulchre, indeed there is ample historical evidence
to show that such knighthoods were conferred at the Tomb of Our Lord from the
early 14th century.
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Dr
I didn't regarded you as those people on this forum who when whitout
arguments comments others health.
I see doctors every day I work with my collegues ...
I do not know what to belive it is writen on Constantinians web page
that they existe since 312 yr IIRC.
Guy talks about robes from 14xx yr.
Families mentioned in his post are/was orthodox.
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<40d040d4$0$20120$79c1...@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net>...
Guy Stair Sainty
says...
>
>
>"Guy Stair Sainty" <g...@sainty.org> a écrit dans le message de
>news:cat9g...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <40d1d93c$0$7448$79c1...@nan-newsreader-06.noos.net>, Pierre
>Aronax
>The question is about
>its origins: it was not simply a princely order to which is founders gave a
>mythical source for decorum, it was a pure fraud, made by ordinary citizens
>who pretended to be what they were not: this was denounced during the next
>centuries by scholars. If a recognition was later obtained from the popes,
>it was fraudulently, because they were deceived by forged documents. If we
>discuss of the origins of the order, and not of its legitimacy today, that
>is a question that can not be avoided.
I have never disputed that the claims to imperial descent were fraudulent,
but I do not really believe that the Holy See was entirely or even at all
deceived. As we see repeatedly in statutes of Orders - even the greatest -
the invention of a mythical origin was a sine qua non; consider the Order
of the Elephant, or the Order of the Thistle, both supposedly the successors
of apocryphal foundations. Historical study as we understand it did not
really exist, and the authors of publications which repeated unlikely
claims (such as those 17th century historians pretending that the Order
of St Lazarus was founded in the 1st century), would not have been considered
in the same light as the author of such preposterous claims today. I believe
that it probably suited the Holy See to have a Byzantine "claimant" dependent
on Papal favour and that there were plenty of people prepared to look aside when
the titles and pretensions of these psuedo princes were given recognition.
I think it is unlikely that Charles X was wholly taken in by the claims of
the Count of Lucinge to the titles of Prince de Lucinge and Cysteria,
but it suited him to have a princely husband for his granddaughter. In the
18th century, somewhat bizarrely, the Earl of Denbigh's preposterous
claim to be the male line descendant of a branch of the Habsburgs, and
the consequent "recognition" accorded by Emperor Joseph II of the title of
Count of Habsburg for the 6th Earl of Denbigh (dismissed by the eminent
historian of the Peerage, J. H. Round and sensibly omitted in recent editions
of Burke's), received some currency and he called himself Count of Habsburg-
Lauffenburg pretending the Feildings were descended from a Geoffrey, son
of Geoffrey Count of Habsburg, who entered the service of Henry III. One may
see in old editions of the Peerage claims such as that of the Russells to
be descended from an 10th century warrior, Odo the Sharpeyed, and numerous
other pretended descents.
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Guy Stair Sainty
Yes; the only relevance of this is that there seem to have been some byzantine
potentates in exile wearing robes that resembled the later descriptions of
the Constantinian Order robes. This suggests that the Order's robes were
intended to imitate some kind of genuine Byzantine imperial court dress; just
as the the Cross chosen by the Order was used on coins and other representations
peculiar to Byzantium.
My source for this is Sturdza; he cites Arianiti as the source for the marriage
of his sister. The genealogical connections between Castriota, Cosazza and
Cernovich are real and the latter two atre cited in these 1522 statutes.
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Pierre Aronax
> In article <40d213f7$0$9436$79c1...@nan-newsreader-06.noos.net>, Pierre
Aronax
> says...
> >
> >
> >"Guy Stair Sainty" <g...@sainty.org> a écrit dans le message de
> >news:caqlp...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >> In article <40d059ca$0$25696$79c1...@nan-newsreader-06.noos.net>,
Pierre
> >Aronax
> >> says...
> ><...>
>
> [snip]
>
> It is a pity that Mr Aronax has expended such energy in typing out large
swathes
> from Marini Dettina's book. I would remind him first of its title, "Il
legittimo
> esercizio del gran magistero del Sacro Militare Ordine Costantiniano di
San
> Giorgio",
Which I also typed...
> and the author's introduction where he states that his concerns are
> with two fundamental elements, the juridical nature of the Constantinian
Order
> and of the Grand Magistery. Nowhere does he himself give credibility to
the
> early legends,
I have made quotation who speak by themselves. You didn't answer this
points, and prefer to stay in more comfortable generalities. I think anybody
can now make his one opinion.
> indeed in the first sentence of his introduction he states that
> "Il Sacro Militare Ordine Costantiniano di San Giorgio è un Ordine
religioso
> cavalleresco che si vuole fondato nel secolo IV dall'Imperatore Costantino
il
> Grande" (the . Constantinian Order is a religious chivalric Order that
wishes to
> have been founded in the 4th century by Emperor Constantine the Great).
The
> first chapter, from which Mr Aronax quotes so copiously is titled: "La
> fondazione volute dall'Imperatore Costantino il Grande" (the foundation
wished
> for by the Emperor Constantine the Great). This then begins: "Le origini
del
> Sacro Militare Ordine Costantiniano di San Giorgio sono leggendarie." (the
> origins of the . Constantinian Order are legendary).
Yes, but the text does not follow in the next pages this prudent general
declaration: when it comes to more specific points, the tune changes
entirely. When Dettina writtes: "Le fonti pubblicate da Malvezzi (sec. XVII)
e Musenga (sec. XVIII) attestano che, messo sotto la protezione di San
Giorgio Martire, l'Ordine Costantiniano, ad instanza dell'Imperatore
Marciano (450-457), fu approvato
da S. S. Papa San Leone Magno nel 456, che confermò la Regola scritta da San
Basilio a petizione di Costantino..."
he makes a statement about the validity of the sources he uses and clearly
doesn't consider them at all as legendary.
> Dr Marini Dettina has chosen to give a recitation of the early history,
both
> apocryphal and, by the end of the 16th century, historical,
He does not only recite it, he also gives his opinion of the validity of the
sources. Or are also his opinions about that also part of the legend? Any
lector will be unable to see any change of tune or of method when the story
goes from the legend to the History.
> as cited by the
> earlier writers not because he believes it or wants us to believe it,
The words he uses show that he believes it (or at least acts as if he
believes it): one does not say that a document "attests" something if one
firmly believe that this document is false (or one is a schizophrenic).
> but
> because this was what was claimed by the institution in its early days and
> indeed repeated well into the latter half of the eighteenth century. Since
the
> vast majority of those who have recorded the history of this Order have
accepted
> these legends as fact, he considered they warranted restating. This is a
> doctoral thesis in canon law, not an historical text as such,
Then don't pretend it is something else and stop to use it to assert
historical facts. Beside, as I already said, that is not because one is
writting a thesis in canon law that one is obliged to be absolutely
inconsistent from an historical point of view. I don't understand well why
good canon law has to be so bad history.
> and the
> recognition accorded this Order at the end of the 16th century was based
on a
> certain measure of acceptance of these legends, perhaps in part for
political
> reasons. Of course he does not believe that Saint Martin was a member of
the
> Order,
Then why does it write it in that way? They are other way to speak ("the
legen forged later says that...", "the authors who wrote in favour of the
Constantinian Order imagined..."), that is at the last confusing and
certainly not of good method.
> but he has included a summary of all the claims of Giustiniani, Malvezzi,
> Musenga, etc,
He doesn't present them all as claims: I have already made the relevent
quotations. The criticism of Maffei and of later authors is simply ignored
and discarded in a single sentence, which I recall for the second time (my
own translation): "documents attesting [*to attest*: that means to
authenticate, to establish the truth of, to be proof of something, to
establish its existence, or its validity, here by evidences] the millenarian
tradition of the Constantinian Order have been published since the beginning
of the 16th century, but at the beginning of the 18th century Marquis
Scipione Maffei, famous erudite from Verona, considered them apocryphal [=
he is alone of this opinion (which is not true)]; other scholars [=they are
numerous] nevertheless have presented elements [here my translation is
feeble: "ragioni", which means reasons, proofs rather than only "element"]
in favour of their authenticity [and so that is the last position of the
research, which again is not true]" And now the better "That is way [=
because scholars have considered them as authentic] I will quote them in the
following, trying to read them [and so they will be the heart of my
discourse, not because they are legendary but because they are authentic] at
the light of other unpublished documents of archive I have found"
> just as he correctly states that the Angeli were minor nobles from
> Drivasto, and not imperial scions,
He does nothing of that kind, you are simply inventing. On page 21, he
states, without comment "Dal predetto Principe Don Andrea Angelo [purported
beneficiary of a forged diploma of the Byzantine emperor in 1293] nacque il
Principe Don Michele, avo del Principe Don Andrea e proavo dei Principi
Pietro e Paolo Angelo". On page 24, it is said that the Angeli were from
Drivasto, but not at all that they were petty noble: on the contrary, their
"succession" to (in reality: invention of) the mastership of the order is
justified by their imperial parentage. On page 25, Dettina records (with
approbation it seems) the opinion of an other author about the parentage of
the Angeli with the Nemanja of Serbia. Page 27, it is said that "Il Principe
Gran Maestro Don Andrea Angelo Flavio ed i figli Pietro e Palolo
(quest'ultimo divenne Vescovo di Durazzo, Arcivescovo di Drivasto, e poi
Cardinale [one can admit that Dettina confuses Drivasto, which was a
bishopric, and Durazzo, which was the Archbishopric, less than, in a book
published by the Vatican, the dignity of Cardinal is given to somebody who
never enjoyed it]) si ritirarono nelle proprie Città di Drivasto, Durazzo ed
altre Piazze albanesi" [only slight problem: that were not at all the Angeli
"own" ("proprie") cities, since the family never enjoyed any kind of
sovereignty. And of course the title of prince given to them is totally
bogus].
More important, on page 22, he records in less than two lines the opinions
of some (nobody less than Maffei and Du Cange!) according to which the order
was founded in the 16th century, but immediately add "Bascapè osserva che
seppure il Maffei ed il Ducange dubitino dell'origine imperiale della
famiglia delli Angeli, la maggior parte degli autori, dals secolo XVI ad
oggi, la ritiene tale, e la stessa Repubblica di Venezia, sempre
perfettamente informata in tali argomenti, la riconosceva [in fact, this
alleged recognition is attested only by documents published in the
Constantinian literature: in the real world, the Angeli had judiciary
difficulties with the Venetian authorities, as other false nobles and medal
sellers, and manages only to obtain, as lately as 1667, the recognition of
their nobility, but nothing more, and not as Venetian noble as is sometimes
claimed], mentre la Santa Sede a metà del Cinquecento aveva approvato
l'Ordine. Se dunque gli Angeli discendevano da stirpe imperiale, continua
Bascapé, non si poteva contestar loro almeno la facoltà di creare Cavalieri
Aurati, facoltà che a quel tempo era riconosciuta achei ai sovrani
spodestati [etc. other insanities snipped]. Questa questione [here it is
Dettina again who speaks and no more a summary of Bascapè] questione
andrebbe approfondita, perché mentre alcuni diplomi della seconda metà del
secolo XVI paiono confermare che Don Andrea [...] nominava Militi ovvero
Cavalieri Aurati..."
It is true that the greater absurdities are put under the name of Bascapè
and that Dettina takes refuge behind his opinion, but if he disagree with
him in anything, he keeps that absolutely secret: the scholarly opinions of
Du Cange and Maffei are not at all analysed and are noted as quickly as
possible when the chivalric logomachia is paraphrased in a paragraph of 14
lines. Not only that, but Dettina does not simply quote him, he builds on
him since the reasoning of Bascapè is used to explained a document and to
justify the capacity of the Angeli to create knight.
> contradicting these claims. When he states
> that the purported statutes of 1190 were considered authentic by the "vast
> majority of studies" this is indeed a fact
That is not: the purported statutes of 1190 are considered authentic by the
vast majority of pseudo-historical books produces in the Constantinian
milieu. It has been discared long ago by Byzantinists and never taken
seriously since that time.
> - but he does not suggest that
> history should be guided by majority vote and carefully states next that
Maffei
> considered them apocryphal and that the more recent scholar, Nasalli Rocca
(who
> of course Mr Aronax would not in any case give credibility to since he was
a
> member of the Order), dismissed them as stylistically much later.
"Much later"? That is an other example of the way by which Constantinian
propagandist try to adopt criticism when they can no more do otherwise! They
are not "much later" than the 12th century: they are bogus and have nothing
to do with Byzantium. Beside, Maffei is not quoted carefully: he is
mentionned as quickly as possible and much more space is given to any other
opinion which can contribute to save the unsalvable Constantinian tradition.
> He has carefully cited the sources for these legends but has also cited
the many
> documents which he has himself examined, that date from the 16th century
and
> later but which make claims to titles and descents that are apocryphal. He
does
> this to show that at the time there was widespread acceptance of the
claims of
> the Angeli, whether or not they were genuine.
That is exactly like a French noble who would believe he is a count because
one of his ancestors was called so in a 18th century document. The fact that
the forgers themselves used absurd titles and gave one to the other
recognition does not prove at all that they were recognized by the sovereign
authorities.
> He notes very specifically that
> both the Venetian Republic and the Holy See, despite the contrary
arguments made
> by Maffei and Du Cange doubting the imperial origins of the Angeli,
nonetheless
> chose to accept the legendary version of history.
For what is of Venice, Dettina is perhaps specificall, but he is wrong:
Venice never recognized such fraud, except in the forged documents which can
be found only in books published by the Angeli themselves. On the contrary,
Venice was reluctant to recognize even simple nobility to them and do that
very lately (and it was not Venetian nobility).
> In the context of the legal
> standing of the Order as a subject of canon law, its earlier history is
> completely and totally irrelevant -
Then stop to defend it. Anyway, I am not sure it is as irrelevant as that,
since Dettina himself takes arguments from that part of the "history" of the
order.
> even if it had been founded by Constantine
> the Great this would not have been what made it a subject of canon law;
But remember: it claims also the recognitions of Popes St Sylvester and St
Leon the Great :)
> it is
> relevant as providing an explanation of why this Order was given
credibility.
> This work is not intended to be an historical examination
Thanks God! But I suggest to print a caution page: "This book contains grave
historical insanities: it is not recommended to people with cardiac
problems"
> of the merits of the
> case for a foundation by either Constantine the Great or Isaac II, but
does seek
> to give some context to the fantastic claims that it was indeed such so
the
> reader may see how these claims were so generally accepted.
If it really wanted to do that, it failled: there is a style to recall
legends, and that is not the same style than to recite history.
> I am sorry that when
> reading it Mr Aronax found such trouble in separating the legend from what
is
> evidently the reality.
I have no such trouble: you and Mr Dettina have.
<...>
> It is for others to address the issue as to when or whether there is real
> historical evidence as to any existence of this Order before the late 16th
> century.
It is not only that it was a late 16th century fondation: it is a late 16th
century fraud, a familial agency created to sell medals.
> I find no contradiction in accepting that the Angeli, whatever the
> reality of their familial origins, in fact persuaded a willing audience
that
> they enjoyed some claim to imperial status and that this acceptance became
more
> widespread with those who discounted it (Maffei, Du Cange) being ignored
whether
> for political reasons or because there was a substantial institutional
> investment in accepting the pseudo historical claims.
Indeed, that is what happened.
> One may see parallel claims with the Order of the Holy Sepulchre, with
> publications from the 16th through the 20th century giving broad
acceptance to
> the claims to a foundation in the Holy Land in 1099 or so, to the
existence of
> statutes or approvals given by early French Kings, and even in the 18th
century
> to purported royal governance in diplomas which record the supposed role
of the
> current French monarch in the affairs of the Order.
Except that the Holy Sepulchre was not created by a family to make money.
> These claims were even
> briefly accepted by the restoration government in the period 1815-20 when
the
> duke of Angoulême was persuaded to accept an important role in the
governance of
> this Order, in reality at best a religious fraternity (style
> "Archconfraternity"). That these claims were spurious did not mean that
there
> were no knights of the Holy Sepulchre, indeed there is ample historical
evidence
> to show that such knighthoods were conferred at the Tomb of Our Lord from
the
> early 14th century.
This has, of course, nothing to do: the knights of the HS were not an order
of chivalry, but people who were knighted in the Church of the Holy
Sepulchre. There was no Order of the HS, but there was knights of the HS.
There was neither an order neither knights of the Constantinian order of St
George.
Pierre
Pierre Aronax
> I didn't regarded you as those people on this forum who when whitout
> arguments comments others health.
Excuse me. It was for the pleasure to put Dr/doctor in the same sentence.
> I see doctors every day I work with my collegues ...
> I do not know what to belive it is writen on Constantinians web page
> that they existe since 312 yr IIRC.
Then that is them who need a doctor.
> Guy talks about robes from 14xx yr.
> Families mentioned in his post are/was orthodox.
For what is of the family of the Albanian aristocrats, they were probably
all catholics of Latin rite. For what is of the Byzantine dynasts, they were
catholics of Greek rite since the council of Florence: both the two last
Emperors of Byzantium died catholic, as did their grandfather John V and,
before him, Michael VIII.
Pierre
Pierre Aronax
Although it is precious for the late modern and contemporary periods,
Sturdza's book on the "Grandes familles" of Greece, Albania and
Constantinople must be used with caution for early modern and medieval
times: his use of the bibliography is uncritical.
> he cites Arianiti as the source for the
marriage
> of his sister. The genealogical connections between Castriota, Cosazza and
> Cernovich are real and the latter two atre cited in these 1522 statutes.
How exactly is Arianiti himself the "source" for the marriage of his sister
with an Angélos (of Drivasto or of an other specie)? This marriage is
ignored both by Petta in his book on Albanian émigrés in Italy, which has an
entire chapter (more than 50 pages with notes) about the Arianitai, and on
the other hand by Schmitt in his exhaustive study about archbishop Paolo
Angelo.
Pierre
Bryan J. Maloney
news:cav1f...@drn.newsguy.com:
> Yes; the only relevance of this is that there seem to have been some
> byzantine potentates in exile wearing robes that resembled the later
> descriptions of the Constantinian Order robes. This suggests that the
> Order's robes were intended to imitate some kind of genuine Byzantine
> imperial court dress; just as the the Cross chosen by the Order was
> used on coins and other representations peculiar to Byzantium.
So what? Wouldn't a pack of frauds try to dress up nice? Or are you now
saying that everybody who wears a Maltese Cross is a legitimate member of
the Order of St. John?
Dr
14 cent.
But even if thay was not it is fakt that in Constantinians there was
orthodox as well as catholics which was my point. Alas it is not
reserved for Catholics only.
Rgds.
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<40d31ee5$0$13364$79c1...@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net>...
George Lucki
I've been following this arcane and fascinating discussion and I'm wondering
if (outside of the discussion about the merits of Dettina's history of the
Constantinian Order and how to interpret some of the scraps of the early
history and attributions of the Constantinian Order and several other
issues) there isn't a considerable agreement between the two of you. If I
understand the situation in substantial oversimplification -
1, the Constantinian Order like many others has a fabulous and completely
spurious 'pre-history' who intention is to tell the story of what some folks
thought should have been the glorious and ancient history of the order.
2. The actual origins and inspiration of the order are rather murky and from
the 15th century we have scraps of information suggesting that the order or
the notion of the order was tied into the ambitions and intrigues of some
colourful families of Italy of that period and that the early statutes and
traditions of the order were either actually linked or fancifully/casually
borrowed from eastern traditions, but that little survives to give a
coherent and credible story of legitimacy at that point.
3. That the order was what it was through the seventeenth century and was
gaining in de facto recognition and a legitimacy of sorts among its
adherents and their patrons and that as a result over time it acquired
additional Church and other privilieges until by the early eighteenth
century it was certainly a rather mature and legitimate order of chivalry
that fit into the political ambitions of the Popes of the day and the
dynastic politics of its then patrons.
4. That this is a 'perfectly normal' sort of history for this sort of
institution.
5. That Dettina's book is worth reading critically.
Kind regards,
George Luckinews:40d33b4b$0$14373$79c1...@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net...
Pierre Aronax
> 14 cent.
That was 2 centuries before the Constantinian was invented.
> But even if thay was not it is fakt that in Constantinians there was
> orthodox as well as catholics which was my point.
Which orthodoxes are supposed to have been in the Constantinian?
> Alas it is not
> reserved for Catholics only.
It is.
Pierre
Guy Stair Sainty
their Order, these exiles - who were Catholic Albanians, and possibly /
probably related closely to the Albanian leader against the Turks George
Castriota, whose family had some distant connections to the imperial
family - imitated a Byzantine court dress. The question that is interesting
is whether this court dress had any significance. Did it represent some
rank granted by the Emperor? Did the Byzantine Emperors give their close
adherents some kind of livery badge, as in Western Europe (the collar of
SS, for example, given by English Kings), as extensively discussed by
Professor D'Arcy Boulton?
You and Mr Aronax are also consistently missing the point that the concept of
private citizens starting an Order was not viewed in the early
16th century as we would view it today. A number of Orders began in this
fashion and were then given some kind of status by the secular or temporal
authorities. Meanwhile at this time, the commandery of Boigny of the Order
of St Lazarus continued to resist Papal commands that it was in fact dissolved
and this rump body, which was acting illegally in canon law, managed to
occasionally get royal support. This body was not then considered a "false"
Order, even though it was arguably such by our understanding of what this
means, and in fact it eventually managed to hang on long enough to be
perpetuated by unification with a newly founded Order of Our Lady of Mount
Carmel in 1608. Only then did it have a legal existence as an Order, but in
the preceding 119 years it had been acting in complete disobedience to the
Pope. Similarly the Priory of Capua of the same Order had been suppressed
(the whole Order of St lazarus was suppressed and its properties granted
to the Order of St john in 1489), but the knights resisted and in the 1520s
were reinstated and then, in 1572, combined with a newly founded (or rather
refounded) Order of Saint Maurice. Mr Aronax objects with near hysterical
vehemence at the fact that the progenitors of the Constantinian Order claimed a
fantastic descent from Byzantine Emperors. These kind of claims, however, were
given wide currency at the time and many families - some notable and others less
so - claimed extraordinary genealogical connections and illustrious ancestors.
In England the Spencers, a wealthy sheep owning family that had become enriched
at the end of the 15th and early 16th century, within a century had claimed (and
had accepted by a gullible or corrupt herald) descent from the Norman Le
Despencer family with a confirmation of this family's arms. Almost every
European reigning dynasty had invented genealogies taking them back generations
before their actual known origins. While the
Angheli or Angeli never did achieve sovereign status, their titles and
the Constantinian Order were recognized by the Emperor (and before Mr Aronax
comnes huffing and puffing in protest, I have obtained a copy of the Imperial
Patent from the Archives in Vienna, and does indeed use the titles of
Prince and authorize the Order), by Elector of Bavaria and the King of Poland,
while the King of Spain authorized certain subjects to accept the Order.
Early chivalric confraternal foundations were usually, if not always, founded
by groups of individuals who dedicated themselves and their property to
a military and religious purpose; they then typically sought the support of
the Pope and (as, for example, in the case of the Teutonic knights, the
Spanish Order of Santiago, Calatrava, etc) received a Papal Bull confirming
their statutes. There were also Orders whose purpose did not include religious
profession, such as the Noble Order of St George of Rougemont, or Miolans, in
Burgundy which was founded around 1440 and managed to survive until the
early 19th (it was revived as a false Order by people with no connection with
the original in the late 19th). In the late 14th century the Vicomte de
Thouars and 17 barons founded the "Corps" and "Order of the Tiercelet" (Young
Male Falcon), while 44 knights and squires in the Bar region founded in 1416
the Alliance and Company of the Hound, converted in 1422 into the Order of
Saint Hubert of Bar, finally suppressed in 1824. There were many other such
chivalric foundations which were not at the time considered bogus or false,
but which simply did not enjoy the status (nor did they aspite to it) of the
monarchical collar Orders. Thus Orders not founded by reigning sovereigns were
not of themselves such an extraordinary concept in the 16th century as to
excite the objections we make today to such privately founded bodies. Indeed,
perhaps the most prominent promoter of a pseudo Order was Admiral Lord
Nelson, elected Grand Master of the Order of Saint Joachim, an Order that
had probably been founded in the second half of the 18th century by a minor
German Count.
Neither was the appearance of pseudo-claimants so extraordinary or unusual;
Perkin Warbeck and Lambert Simnel both appearred as rivals to the Tudors
with the support of those who hoped to return the Plantagenet dynasty to
power (one may wodner what would have happened if either rising had been
successful and one or other of these pseudo-claimants had been established
as King); there were two false Dmitri's whose rise led to major uprising.
Numerous families turned up in Italy at the end of the Byzantine era claiming
much more illustrious descent than the reality and in many cases managed to
make matrimonial alliances with prominent noble families. Perhaps the Angeli
had believed themselves, or persuaded themselves much earlier that they
were somehow descended from a branch of the Angeli Emperors - there would be
nothing particularly surprising in that. One may see that at the end of the
18th centuty the penultimate duke of Bouillon persuading himself that a
penniless British Navy Lieutenant with the name d'Auvergne was somehow the
representative of a long lost (and previously unrecorded) branch of the
La Tour family, and adopted him as his eventual heir - and this adoption,
succession and title even being recognized by the British government which
in 1814 sent troops to enforce his claim. The Pope was persuaded to confer
the title of Prince on another La Tour, whose family had no connection at
all with the Bouillon dynasty or its more distant branches that also assumed
the princely style in the 19th century, in the 1860s and the heirs of this
family are now widely acknowledged as Princes (mf), despite the fact that
the title was granted for primogeniture descent - yet the family history
pretends that this is justified because of the connection to the Bouillon
family. Numerous editions of Burke's peerage included entirely spurious early
ancestries well into the 20th century.
In the case of the British Peerage it was the scholarship of J. H. Round and
the authors of the Complete Peerage who imposed a higher historical standard;
19th century historians chipped away at these legends and today modern
historians and genealogists have imposed a much more exemplary standard of
scholarship in an area that was for centuries open to the acceptance of all
kinds of pseudo-claims.
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Guy Stair Sainty
I think that is a fair assessment, except I woudl say 16th century; there is
no evidence of the Order's existence in the 15th. Marini Dettina's book
is a study of the position of the Order and the Grand Magistery in canon
law, and then in Italian law (he is a doctor of canon law and civil law),
it is not intended to be a critical history of the Order. As a study of the
law it is extremely interesting and authoritative; and the early history,
fact or fable, is in the end irrelevant to the legal issues.
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Guy Stair Sainty
says...
Despite the exclusively Catholic character, there were two or three foreign
protestants admitted (perhaps misunderstanding their faith) in the early
19th century. The present Grand Master has authorized an amendment to the
statutes allowing for the grant of the Cross (but not admission to the
Order) of non-Catholic Christians; the beneficiaries of this have been
Kings Paul and Constantine of Greece, Queen Frederika of Greece, King Simeon of
the Bulgarians, Crown Prince and Crown Princess Alexander of Serbia and
Montenegro, Princess Irene of Greece and Denmark, M. Dmitri Levidi, Grand
Marshal of the Greek Court, and Lady Charlotte Fraser (widow of the Hon Andrew
Fraser, a member of the Order, and daughter of the Earl of Warwick).
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Pierre Aronax
"Guy Stair Sainty" <g...@sainty.org> a écrit dans le message de
news:cb1n8...@drn.newsguy.com...
<...>.
> >
> >It is.
>
> Despite the exclusively Catholic character, there were two or three
foreign
> protestants admitted (perhaps misunderstanding their faith) in the early
> 19th century. The present Grand Master has authorized an amendment to the
> statutes allowing for the grant of the Cross (but not admission to the
> Order) of non-Catholic Christians; the beneficiaries of this have been
> Kings Paul and Constantine of Greece, Queen Frederika of Greece, King
Simeon of
> the Bulgarians, Crown Prince and Crown Princess Alexander of Serbia and
> Montenegro, Princess Irene of Greece and Denmark, M. Dmitri Levidi, Grand
> Marshal of the Greek Court, and Lady Charlotte Fraser (widow of the Hon
Andrew
> Fraser, a member of the Order, and daughter of the Earl of Warwick).
Strange novelity (not that I dislike it at all for myself): how is that
compatible with the fact that the Constantinian is a Catholic order?
Pierre
Pierre Aronax
<...>
> >So what? Wouldn't a pack of frauds try to dress up nice? Or are you now
> >saying that everybody who wears a Maltese Cross is a legitimate member of
> >the Order of St. John?
> >
> This is so stupid. No, the only relevance is that in devising robes for
> their Order, these exiles - who were Catholic Albanians, and possibly /
> probably related closely to the Albanian leader against the Turks George
> Castriota,
As far as I can tell, they were not related to Skanderbeg by blood.
> whose family had some distant connections to the imperial
> family
What do you mean exactly by "connections"? If you mean familial
relationship, the Castriota had no relation of that kind with the imperial
family. If you mean non-familial relationship, which kind exactly?
As far as we can tell, the Byzantine inheritance of the Constaninian order
goes through the unexistant relationship of his founders with a family who
had herself no relationship with the imperial dynasty.
Pierre
Bryan J. Maloney
Therefore, it's perfectly and 100% good and right to be a fraud and bogus
so long as one manages to eventually hoodwink appropriate muck-a-mucks.
Bryan J. Maloney
> authoritative; and the early history, fact or fable, is in the end
> irrelevant to the legal issues.
In general, for any matter dealing with lawyers, fact or fable is in the
end irrelevant.
Pierre Aronax
>...>
> You and Mr Aronax are also consistently missing the point that the concept
of
> private citizens starting an Order was not viewed in the early
> 16th century as we would view it today. A number of Orders began in this
> fashion and were then given some kind of status by the secular or temporal
> authorities. Meanwhile at this time, the commandery of Boigny of the Order
> of St Lazarus continued to resist Papal commands that it was in fact
dissolved
> and this rump body, which was acting illegally in canon law, managed to
> occasionally get royal support. This body was not then considered a
"false"
> Order, even though it was arguably such by our understanding of what this
> means, and in fact it eventually managed to hang on long enough to be
> perpetuated by unification with a newly founded Order of Our Lady of Mount
> Carmel in 1608. Only then did it have a legal existence as an Order, but
in
> the preceding 119 years it had been acting in complete disobedience to the
> Pope. Similarly the Priory of Capua of the same Order had been suppressed
> (the whole Order of St lazarus was suppressed and its properties granted
> to the Order of St john in 1489), but the knights resisted and in the
1520s
> were reinstated and then, in 1572, combined with a newly founded (or
rather
> refounded) Order of Saint Maurice.
Although it was not an order of chivalry, the order of St Lazarus did exist
in the Middle Ages and was not invented in the 16th century.
> Mr Aronax objects with near hysterical
> vehemence at the fact that the progenitors of the Constantinian Order
claimed a
> fantastic descent from Byzantine Emperors. These kind of claims, however,
were
> given wide currency at the time and many families - some notable and
others less
> so - claimed extraordinary genealogical connections and illustrious
ancestors.
They didn't create an order and sell medals for that. It is not to pretend
to be a descendant of Constantine which is a problem, it is to open a shop
with that and make money which makes a fraud a swinding. That was seen as
such at the time, as in all times.
> In England the Spencers, a wealthy sheep owning family that had become
enriched
> at the end of the 15th and early 16th century, within a century had
claimed (and
> had accepted by a gullible or corrupt herald) descent from the Norman Le
> Despencer family with a confirmation of this family's arms.
Nothing to do with the question: they did not create an order, it stays, if
one can say, a private fraud.
> Almost every
> European reigning dynasty had invented genealogies taking them back
generations
> before their actual known origins.
They were nevertheless reigning dynasties: we do not give credency today to
the order they founded because of their legendary origins, but because they
were founded by reigning dynasties. The Angeli were not at all a reigning
dynasty, far from that.
> While the
> Angheli or Angeli never did achieve sovereign status,
This sentence is certainly the kind of things which are called euphemisms!
> their titles and
> the Constantinian Order were recognized by the Emperor (and before Mr
Aronax
> comnes huffing and puffing in protest, I have obtained a copy of the
Imperial
> Patent from the Archives in Vienna, and does indeed use the titles of
> Prince and authorize the Order),
Which archivical reference, which date and in favour of whom? What does it
say exactly?
> by Elector of Bavaria and the King of Poland,
> while the King of Spain authorized certain subjects to accept the Order.
>
> Early chivalric confraternal foundations were usually, if not always,
founded
> by groups of individuals who dedicated themselves and their property to
> a military and religious purpose; they then typically sought the support
of
> the Pope and (as, for example, in the case of the Teutonic knights, the
> Spanish Order of Santiago, Calatrava, etc) received a Papal Bull
confirming
> their statutes.
That was no more how the orders were founded in the late 16th century, when
it had become a sovereign prerogative: hence the importance of the forgeries
and of the invention of a creation in a remote past.
> There were also Orders whose purpose did not include religious
> profession, such as the Noble Order of St George of Rougemont, or Miolans,
in
> Burgundy which was founded around 1440 and managed to survive until the
> early 19th (it was revived as a false Order by people with no connection
with
> the original in the late 19th).
I really wonder how one can make the difference between false and true then.
> In the late 14th century the Vicomte de
> Thouars and 17 barons founded the "Corps" and "Order of the Tiercelet"
(Young
> Male Falcon), while 44 knights and squires in the Bar region founded in
1416
> the Alliance and Company of the Hound, converted in 1422 into the Order of
> Saint Hubert of Bar, finally suppressed in 1824. There were many other
such
> chivalric foundations which were not at the time considered bogus or
false,
At the time = early 15th century, some 150 before the invention of the
Constantinian order, in a very different context. Anyway, I would *not*
compare the viscount of Thouars with the Angeli. And, last but not least,
the order was put under the patronage of King René of Anjou, who was a
sovereign prince.
> but which simply did not enjoy the status (nor did they aspite to it) of
the
> monarchical collar Orders. Thus Orders not founded by reigning sovereigns
were
> not of themselves such an extraordinary concept in the 16th century
Except all the exemples you have quoted, which, for some, are dabattable,
are of the 15th and not of the late 16th century...
> as to
> excite the objections we make today to such privately founded bodies.
Indeed,
> perhaps the most prominent promoter of a pseudo Order was Admiral Lord
> Nelson, elected Grand Master of the Order of Saint Joachim, an Order that
> had probably been founded in the second half of the 18th century by a
minor
> German Count.
I hope you give to that order the same consideration you have for the early
Constantinian, if not more since at least its founder was a count.
> Neither was the appearance of pseudo-claimants so extraordinary or
unusual;
> Perkin Warbeck and Lambert Simnel both appearred as rivals to the Tudors
> with the support of those who hoped to return the Plantagenet dynasty to
> power (one may wodner what would have happened if either rising had been
> successful and one or other of these pseudo-claimants had been established
> as King); there were two false Dmitri's whose rise led to major uprising.
Of course, if you put the Constantinian in the same category than the false
Dimitri and Naundorff, we can arrive to an agreement. By the same logic, I
hope you consider knights of the Saint-Esprit created by the Naundorffist
claimants as perfectly genuine.
> Numerous families turned up in Italy at the end of the Byzantine era
claiming
> much more illustrious descent than the reality and in many cases managed
to
> make matrimonial alliances with prominent noble families. Perhaps the
Angeli
> had believed themselves, or persuaded themselves much earlier that they
> were somehow descended from a branch of the Angeli Emperors
I don't know if they believed themselves (did Naundorff believe himself?),
but they certainly produced a great number of false documents, knowing
perfectly that they were false.
If I follow you well, there is no use to be critical about such delirious
genealogies since they have been recognized by the Pope (or anybody else
with any form of authority). So, if Mr Lafosse obtains such a recognition,
would you consider him as a perfectly genuine claimant and fons honorum? Or,
now that we have "higher standards", is the game closed and are those who
have still not managed to obtain patents sanctifying their forgeries
excluded from it? I don't see it like that: there were always people with
"higher standards", like Maffei and Du Cange, to denounce all this
Constantinian lunacies, and people to belive them, or who had interest to
believe them, that's all. You have chosen to side with the Lafosses of the
16th century: that's your problem. I will not: the Constantinian order is a
forgery, lately legitimized by the Popes and for the interest of the Farnese
family, against scientific evidences which were known at the time.
Pierre
Bryan J. Maloney
> If I follow you well, there is no use to be critical about such
> delirious genealogies since they have been recognized by the Pope
Actually, that's what it all boils down to. So long as his favorite
heresiarch gives it the okay, then that back-dates it to Creation as
legitimate.
Dr
of 1522, issued by "Prince D. Giovanni II Caesar of the Slavonians and
the Romans" whose cousins, the dukes of Montenegro and Santa Sabba were
given a position in the Order. This prince was actually the head of the
family of Kosaca of Santa Sava (a dynasty which became extinct in 1612) and
bequeathed his succession to his Cernovichi cousin, titular duke of Montenegro
(extinct in 1660), and was otherwise known as Czar Giovanni the Black of the
Serbs. These statutes attributed the headship of the Order then
to Nemagna Paleologo, whose genealogy, whether true or false, attributed
his descent to an alliance between Simeone Nemanja Paleologo, in 1350, with
Tommasa Angela Comnena Dukas."
all of them and it isn't
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<40d3fb11$0$29201$79c1...@nan-newsreader-04.noos.net>...