Bogus Heraldry in European Monarchies
Dieter Birk, P.Geol.
symbols of Sovereignty have been promoted at the highest levels
since Heraldry began:
1. The mantle worn at the coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor
as the champion of Christianity bore inscriptions in Arabic -
the language of the Infidel.
2. None of the three crowns of Charlemagne were actually used
in his coronation.
3. The Crown Jewels of Holland are fake. Used since William II,
the orb and sword is made of silver gilt and set with imitation
gems.
4. The leopards on Eric's XIV crown for his coronation as
King of Sweden (1560), were added as an insult to Denmark
because that country had dared to retain the three crowns
emblem of Sweden in the coat of arms of the Kings of Denmark.
Both countries had violated heraldic laws.
5. The "real" crown of St. Edward (made 200 years after his death)
which was used for coronations from Edward II to Charles I
was melted down by Oliver Cromwell.
The cheap copy made after the Restoration didn't get real gems
until George V.
The coronation of the British Monarch was therefor conducted with
the cheapest of all British crowns for many years.
6. The crown of the Holy Roman Emperor was "closed" with arches,
to symbolize world-wide domination, topped by an orb and cross.
During the reign of Emperor Charles V , the King of France,
Francis I decided to declare himself emperor and "closed" his
crown. After that date, all other Kings of Europe closed their
crowns in imitation - including on their coats of arms.
Every King decided he also qualified to rule the world.
Only the Polish King, an elected King, not hereditary, was forced
to keep an open crown - and thus be declared "second rate".
7. When Ivan IV the Terrible proclaimed himself first Tsar of
Russia in 1547, he faked his genealogy and dated his crown
retroactively to Vladimir Monomakh of the 10th Century, the
grandson of a Byzantine emperor.
8. The famouse Peregrina Pearl, worn by Mary Tutor, Queen of England
and successive Kings and Queens of Spain disappeared in 1808.
After Napoleon's fall, three pearls appeared - each claimed to
be the Peregrina.
The crown jewels of Europe, the emblems of these nations, are
a collection derived from bogus history, theft and
false claims of pious legends.
Should we expect better behaviour from the guy on the street
in preserving his "family coat of arms"?
--
)\& &/(
-----------------------oQQo-- (^) --oQQo-------------------------
Dr. Dieter Birk, P.Geol. U Oakville, Ontario, Canada
* db...@hookup.net * http://www.hookup.net/~dbirk *
>>>>* Armorial Heritage Foundation * Geofuel GeoScience BBS *<<<<
Simon Kershaw
>The following facts illustrate that Bogus Heraldry and fake
>symbols of Sovereignty have been promoted at the highest levels
>since Heraldry began:
This depends on your definition of "bogus" and "fake".
As far as "bogus" is concerned, a sovereign state defines its own
legitimacy. What it does is by definition not bogus.
..
>3. The Crown Jewels of Holland are fake. Used since William II,
> the orb and sword is made of silver gilt and set with imitation
> gems.
Why does that make them "fake"? Not as intrinsically valuable as they
might be, perhaps, but not "fake".
If the Redeemer of the world wore a Crown of Thorns rather than gold -
does that make it "fake"?
..
>5. The "real" crown of St. Edward (made 200 years after his death)
> which was used for coronations from Edward II to Charles I
> was melted down by Oliver Cromwell.
> The cheap copy made after the Restoration didn't get real gems
> until George V.
> The coronation of the British Monarch was therefor conducted with
> the cheapest of all British crowns for many years.
Little is known of St Edward's Crown. I thought it was first used at
the Coronation of Edward I. His father, Henry III, was devoteed to the
cult of the Confessor and had begun the rebuilding of Westminster Abbey
as his shrine. The body of the saint was translated to a new shrine
and the Confessor's crown and robes were removed from the tomb at this
time. Hence their availability for subsequent Coronations.
This Crown was sold very cheaply at the Commonwealth. There is no
evidence that it was consigned to the melting pot. If I recall
correctly there is some evidence that it was sold to a [r/l]oyalist
family (this was true of the Ampulla and Spoon, and I think true also
of the Crown) The Records of Robert Viner(?) who made the new Regalia
for Charles II contain very little money for the new "St Edward's
Crown", though they contain much detail about most of the other items.
It is by no means impossible that the original Crown, broken and
battered, and without its gems, was *remade* by Viner for Charles II.
Of course, this is mere conjecture, and one might have though that if
it really *was* a remake, then this fact would have been made known at
the time.
>6. The crown of the Holy Roman Emperor was "closed" with arches,
> to symbolize world-wide domination, topped by an orb and cross.
> During the reign of Emperor Charles V , the King of France,
> Francis I decided to declare himself emperor and "closed" his
> crown. After that date, all other Kings of Europe closed their
> crowns in imitation - including on their coats of arms.
> Every King decided he also qualified to rule the world.
> Only the Polish King, an elected King, not hereditary, was forced
> to keep an open crown - and thus be declared "second rate".
England was declared to be an Empire in the reign of Henry VIII, I
believe. This did not mean any claim to rule the world - it was simply
a declaration of independence from any remaining part of the Holy Roman
Empire.
..
>The crown jewels of Europe, the emblems of these nations, are
>a collection derived from bogus history, theft and
>false claims of pious legends.
>
>Should we expect better behaviour from the guy on the street
>in preserving his "family coat of arms"?
--
simon
Simon....@Smallworld.co.uk (work)
s...@kershaw.demon.co.uk (home)
Francois Velde
: Dieter Birk, P.Geol. <db...@hookup.net> writes:
: >6. The crown of the Holy Roman Emperor was "closed" with arches,
: > to symbolize world-wide domination, topped by an orb and cross.
: > During the reign of Emperor Charles V , the King of France,
: > Francis I decided to declare himself emperor and "closed" his
: > crown. After that date, all other Kings of Europe closed their
: > crowns in imitation - including on their coats of arms.
: > Every King decided he also qualified to rule the world.
: > Only the Polish King, an elected King, not hereditary, was forced
: > to keep an open crown - and thus be declared "second rate".
:
: England was declared to be an Empire in the reign of Henry VIII, I
: believe. This did not mean any claim to rule the world - it was simply
: a declaration of independence from any remaining part of the Holy Roman
: Empire.
Same for France: Francois I made the same move to a closed crown
(although his predecessor Louis XII (1498-1515) had used it on
occasion), but the intent was to show that the king of France
was "emperor within his own realm". Francois I also tried to
get elected Holy German Emperor and failed, but he did not make
any claim to rule the world. This is just a step in the progressive
acquisitions of the trappings of absolute monarchy, such as the
use of His Majesty which dates from the same time.
--
Francois Velde
Johns Hopkins University
ve...@jhu.edu
Thomas J. Sulyok
>6. The crown of the Holy Roman Emperor was "closed" with arches,
> to symbolize world-wide domination, topped by an orb and cross.
> During the reign of Emperor Charles V , the King of France,
> Francis I decided to declare himself emperor and "closed" his
> crown. After that date, all other Kings of Europe closed their
> crowns in imitation - including on their coats of arms.
> Every King decided he also qualified to rule the world.
> Only the Polish King, an elected King, not hereditary, was forced
> to keep an open crown - and thus be declared "second rate".
The Holy Crown of St. Stephen of Hungary was made by putting together
two existing crowns in the XIII. century, and so was a close crown
some 300 years before Charles V.
The Polish King was indeed a pariah among rulers; when Jan Sobieski
saved the skin of Leopold I buy defeating the Turks at Vienna in
1686, he was barely let in the main entrance of the Hofburg.
But snobism amoung royalty was still evident this century, when the
newly independent Norway elected a king, whose wife was Princess Maud
of GB, I think she was snubbed by her own father (???) the future
King Edward VII. I'm not sure of the relations.
Tom Sulyok
Louis Epstein
: But snobism amoung royalty was still evident this century, when the
: newly independent Norway elected a king, whose wife was Princess Maud
: of GB, I think she was snubbed by her own father (???) the future
: King Edward VII. I'm not sure of the relations.
: Tom Sulyok
Hmmm...??Hadn't heard of this.(By the time her husband became King,her
father was already King).
Jximenes
youngest daughter, Princess Maud, later Queen of Norway]
Like Louis, I've never heard this mentioned anywhere,
and if anything the opposite was probably true. One,
consummate womanizer that he was, this daughter was kindly
regarded as she was marginally better-looking than her
sisters; two, she was the only daughter to marry "well",
her first-cousin, Charles of Denmark, later elected King of
Norway. For a man so dynastically-minded, of incomparable
elan, and urbanity, Maud probably earned herself a warm
spot in his heart due to these factors.
Jacqueline