Armorial register puzzles:
Guy Stair Sainty
Looking at the information provided by Count Fani, for his entry on the Armorial
register, you might want to check the following:
According to all other published sources on the titles granted by King Umberto
II, the title of Count was granted to descend by male primogeniture; there is no
right to transmit this to all descendants, nor to adoptive issue. (Ref:
Bolletino Ufficiale del Corpo della Nobilta Italiana, Anni XXVI-XXX, October
1987, p. 66, year 1963, 15 September “Fani, Amedeo, concessione Conte (mpr)”, in
the chapter Provvedimenti Nobiliari di Sua Maesta Umberto II, re d’Italia;
confirmed in the entries on this family in the Libro d’Oro della Nobilta
Italiana, Vol XXV, 2000-2004, volume 1; and Annuario della Nobilta Italiana,
2000, Volume 2, part III, sec II, p. 686).
The entry for Counts Travaglini is also slightly puzzling as this family appears
to have been omitted from the Elenco Ufficiale della Nobilta Italiana, and is
ignored by the Libro d’Oro della Nobilta Italiana and the Annuario della
Nobilita Italian, although there is another family of the same name, with the
title Visconte.
I am also puzzled by the entry for the Wahl-Walther family, Counts of Trenewan;
its omission from the Starke may be inadvertent, but what is absolutely certain
is that the King of Spain did not grant a “recognition of the County (Earldom)
Titles in Spain by virtue of Royal court degree, Palacio de La Zárzuéla, 9th
June 2005”. At best he or a member of his household answered a letter using that
title. Neither is there any princely family recorded in the registers of the
Russian nobility with the title “Prince Yaropolcha-Volokolamsky-Nikitsky," nor
are there any "Princes Doroshenko" to be found in any of the usual reference
sources.
The inclusion of these titles in the Register, without verification, gives the
impression they are endorsed by the register. I do not believe this is the
impression you want to give. May I suggest that the use of nobiliary titles both
of the family registered and their relations listed in the genealogies be
checked with a competent source, or not used?
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Martin Goldstraw
I am sorry Guy, I must have missed your emails to me on these matters.
Have you sent this correspondence to me?
Martin
pritch...@hotmail.com
the
Russian nobility with the title "Prince
Yaropolcha-Volokolamsky-Nikitsky," nor
are there any "Princes Doroshenko" to be found in any of the usual
reference
sources.
Guy is absolutely correct, there are no such families listed amongst
the princely houses of the Russian Empire. The triple barreled surname
of Yaropolcha-Volokolamsky-Nikitsky is an invention and the surname
Doroshenko, while a real Ukrainian surname, is not listed amongst the
surnames of the Ukrainian nobility in the book "Malorossiiskii
Gerbovnik" which was published in 1914.
David
Joseph McMillan
Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
what is absolutely certain
> is that the King of Spain did not grant a "recognition of the County (Earldom)
> Titles in Spain by virtue of Royal court degree, Palacio de La Zárzuéla, 9th
> June 2005".
Not to mention the niggling point that no Spanish document--whether
"degree" or "decree"--would put two accent marks on one word, let alone
a word that is correctly spelled with no accent marks at all. Nor, for
that matter, would the definite article "la" be capitalized.
Acknowledging that these are trivial points compared to the main issue
at hand.
Joseph McMillan
Alex
this is my first time writing on this newsgroup and I should like to
begin by answering a few questions posed as "slightly puzzling" by
Mr Guy Stair Sainty.
1. My Count status is quite transparent as my family started its
records from 1498 in the Pope's State as Counts of Mazzano;
2. On March, 1 st 1720, my family was granted as Patricians of Ferrara
(see "Registri delle deliberazioni" in Archivio Storico Comunale di
Ferrara [Registers of deliberation Archives of the City of Ferrara]
Register HH, pages 104 - 106) and on August 24th, 1726 we were
granted Patricians of Spoleto (see State Archives of Spoleto
"Riformanze" pages 51 and 52);
3. On January 27th, 1754, the Counts Domenico, Cesare and Filippo were
recorded as Patricians of Spoleto (see State Central Archives in Rome,
Prime Ministers Council Archives, Dept. Heraldic Council of the Kingdom
of Italy, file n° 3655);
4. On December 27th, 1827 HH Pope Leo XII issued a Bull declaring all
Patricians in the Pope's State "Counts": the title was confirmed
with an official Despatch by the Apostolic Delegate addressed to the
Count Carlo Travaglini on March, 26th, 1855 (see State Central Archives
in Rome, Prime Ministers Council Archives, Dept. Heraldic Council of
the Kingdom of Italy, file n° 3655);
5. During the Kingdom of Italy my grandfather, the Count Alfredo
(1881-1936), was recorded and published on "Bollettino Ufficiale
della Consulta Araldica"("Official Bulletin of the Heraldic Royal
Office", Volume V, N° 21, August 1900 - Rome);
6. The family's genealogy, was also recorded by the Consulta Araldica
(see State Central Archives in Rome, Prime Ministers Council Archives,
Dept. Heraldic Council of the Kingdom of Italy, file n° 3655).
Concluding, therefore, the person in question (it's me) remains
recognized a Count by the Holy See, a Sovereign State where nobility is
still a right and titles are granted; and furthermore used to be a
Count under the former Kingdom of Italy.
I will answer to anybody interested in the public state archives where
the documents above mentioned are kept.
I do not accept to be insulted and defamed in a private and even more
in a public contest, for this reason I'll consider any legal
measures, as attorney at law, to defend my honour and the honour of my
Family.
Kind regards,
Alessandro Travaglini, attorney at law
Law firm Travaglini
www.studiolegaletravaglini.com
CRFÓB
> Looking at the information provided by Count Fani, for his entry on the Armorial
> register, you might want to check the following:
> According to all other published sources on the titles granted by King Umberto
> II, the title of Count was granted to descend by male primogeniture; there is no
> right to transmit this to all descendants, nor to adoptive issue. (Ref:
> Bolletino Ufficiale del Corpo della Nobilta Italiana, Anni XXVI-XXX, October
> 1987, p. 66, year 1963, 15 September "Fani, Amedeo, concessione Conte (mpr)", in
> the chapter Provvedimenti Nobiliari di Sua Maesta Umberto II, re d'Italia;
> confirmed in the entries on this family in the Libro d'Oro della Nobilta
> Italiana, Vol XXV, 2000-2004, volume 1; and Annuario della Nobilta Italiana,
> 2000, Volume 2, part III, sec II, p. 686).
> The inclusion of these titles in the Register, without verification, gives the
> impression they are endorsed by the register. I do not believe this is the
> impression you want to give. May I suggest that the use of nobiliary titles both
> of the family registered and their relations listed in the genealogies be
> checked with a competent source, or not used?
As an occasional follower of this newsgroup little did I expect to be
subject to the attention of the various, recent attempts at slander and
ridicule. Indeed, it was not my intention to respond to this post at
all but numerous friends have counseled me otherwise.
I have nothing to add to the page already on Burke's International
Register of Arms where all the relevant information regarding my family
and me personally is made plainly available.
The Vatican Court decree confirming all that is written on the above
page is, as clearly mentioned, dated 30 January 2006. In all honesty,
would it not have been more "puzzling" if this decree had been
included in the sources Mr Stair Sainty quotes as reference as all
these were published prior to said date?! Should he choose to buy the
soon to be published latest edition of the "Annuario della Nobiltà
Italiana" he will find me in the section dealing with Vatican titles.
If, on the other hand, the decree itself is in question, I must refer
Mr Stair Sainty to the authority of the Supreme Pontiff in Rome, the
Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus of 28 June 1988, the Apostolic
Constitution Sacrae Disciplinae Leges and the Code of Canon Law of 25
January 1983 and the tribunals of the Holy See; the powers and scope of
whom and which, in his various capacities within the Catholic
brotherhoods he adheres to, I trust he is acquainted with.
I too shall be taking into consideration legal measures to counter such
denigration.
Cillian Roberto Fani Ó Broin
The Man
is Guy wrong about??
Guy claimed the Papal titles & San Marino awards were bogus, yet no
independent confirmation has yet been posted regarding that "scheme".
Guy, please provide a more thorough explanation or admit the errors so
we can more forward.
George Lucki
news:1148208500.4...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
--------------
Clilan,
Thank you for joining the discussion. In your discussion with Guy about the
armorial register I am looking for some clarification -
Does the Italian title conferred by Umberto II almost twenty years after his
deposition actually specify all male and female heirs (as opposed to
primogeniture transmission) and does it specifically include transmission to
and through adpoted sons? If I read the register correctly you were adopted
by this gentleman as a young adult at around the age of 19-20 even though
your birth parents were still alive. Is the Ambassador Gearoid O Broin who
is currently Irish Ambassador to Finland
http://www.irelandnow.com/consulates.html your birth father? Is this way of
acquiring noble titles through (adult) adoption common in Italy? I've run
across the practice of adoption/marriage as a way of acquiring a 'noble'
name in Germany but of course that does not mean that someone has acquired
German nobility. I gather that in Italy it may. Can you describe the rules
around this.
I've recenly heard of the practice of having Vatican courts refer to
individuals by their noble titles (the Holy See still recognizing noble
titles - it is appropriate for their courts to refer to individuals by their
titles) but I have never seen such a court decree. Would it be too much
trouble to send or post a scan of the decree? I'm interested in reading such
a decree and in particular as to whether this is a matter dealt with within
a seperate matter brought before a Vatican court (and therefore only for
status within the specific matter) or whether it is a formal process of
recognition of foreign nobility for all purposes within the Vatican. The
armorial register uses a Vatican flag by your name to identify the source of
the arms/title. Should this in fact be Savoy (Italian royalist)?
Thanks for your clarifications.
Kind regards, George Lucki
The Man
of Rights" published by the Royal Eoghanacht Society.
Per page 56
"a letter (dated 12 June 1997) from H.E. Mr. Guy Stair Sainty, GCCN,
KJN, Vice-Chancellor of the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of St
George of Naples, an individual noted as an expert on the history of
chivalric Orders, addressed The MacCarthy Mor, Prince of Desmond, in
which the former (that's Guy) stated:"
"I fully and unreservedly accept that you have established your right
to the title of MacCarthy Mor, and the traditional style of Prince of
Desmond, as the representative of the ancient MacCarthy family, with
all the surviving rights that such a title implies...I also acknowledge
that the Niadh Nask is an honourable society of ancient Gaelic origin
and that you are it's Chief"
If Guy was wrong about the MacCarthy Mor, it stands to reason that his
assumptions about the individuals in the armorial register & the
Papal/San Marino honors alleged "scheme" can be wrong as well.
Andrew Chaplin
news:1148253612.5...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hmmm, how does this fit into the chronology of the whole affair? I
think I'd like to see Mr. Murphy to wade in on this.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
George Lucki
Absolutely. He is not infallible. It is even possible that I might make
mistakes. :)
The question though is in each case - what are the facts of the matter? I
would suggest correcting any errors you might see with specific information.
With the Papal/San Marino honours "scheme", I've looked at the group
archives and the only individual I found mentioned was a David Pozzi and a
junior military officer in Italy.
http://groups.google.ca/group/rec.heraldry/browse_frm/thread/54fb2892a149a1c7/60eb7e89ba47a3e7?q=papal+knighthoods+forgeries&rnum=3#60eb7e89ba47a3e7
Are these the individuals you are referring to?
In terms of independnet confirmation of an investigation, there was an
article in the Corriere della Sera quoted in
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.heraldry/browse_frm/thread/d3de6f6f2e992fc2/6ca01f17fc1944e9?tvc=1#6ca01f17fc1944e9
Kind regards, George Lucki
sjbm...@eircom.net
accepting Terence MacCarthy's claims:
> Hmmm, how does this fit into the chronology of the whole affair?
> I think I'd like to see Mr. Murphy to wade in on this.
Guy of course can reply for himself, but I was aware of this letter,
forced as I understand it by Terence MacCarthy under threat of legal
action for defamation or perhaps 'criminal libel'. In 1997 MacCarthy
was still backed up by a certificate of recognition signed in 1992 by
both Irish Chief Herald Begley and the then Deputy and now Chief Herald
Gillespie. I was just embarking on my work of exposing MacCarthy, and
had I been asked then I would have expressed doubts about some of
MacCarthy's claims, but would not yet have been in a position to
produce proof positive that he was a fake. Indeed, had a case come to
court at that stage, it is not unlikely that the Office of the Chief
Herald would have claimed itself legally obliged to confirm the
validity of MacCarthy's certificate, as it was apparently doing
privately in response to individual requests. Fortunately, to date I
myself have only been rather vaguely threatened with legal action, but
there is no guarantee that I will never be hauled into court by a
determined 'chief' or 'feudal baron'. Things have been difficult
enough, for example, 'Mac Sweeney Doe' has recently posted on the
internet a serious but entirely false charge that I am in breach of
companies legislation by failing to register the Centre for Irish
Genealogical and Historical Studies as a business, which of course it
is not (http://www.sweeneyclanchief.com/id27.htm).
Sean Murphy
'Twilight of the Chiefs' extracts
http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/chiefs/twilightextracts.html
PS Still having trouble posting from Mozilla, and Google Groups has
started to omit the text of the message to which reply is being made.
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> PS Still having trouble posting from Mozilla, and Google Groups has
> started to omit the text of the message to which reply is being made.
Not here when I tried it just now. Possibly Google has forgotten your
setting. Near the top of the page there is a tag <Show options>; click
on that and use the first tag <Reply> which, here at least, brings up a
properly quoted original note in your screen.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Andrew Chaplin
news:1148292340.2...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Andrew Chaplin wrote in reference to a 1997 letter of Guy Stair
Sainty
> accepting Terence MacCarthy's claims:
>
> > Hmmm, how does this fit into the chronology of the whole affair?
> > I think I'd like to see Mr. Murphy to wade in on this.
>
> Guy of course can reply for himself, but I was aware of this letter,
> forced as I understand it by Terence MacCarthy under threat of legal
> action for defamation or perhaps 'criminal libel'. In 1997 MacCarthy
> was still backed up by a certificate of recognition signed in 1992
by
> both Irish Chief Herald Begley and the then Deputy and now Chief
Herald
> Gillespie. I was just embarking on my work of exposing MacCarthy,
and
> had I been asked then I would have expressed doubts about some of
> MacCarthy's claims, but would not yet have been in a position to
> produce proof positive that he was a fake. Indeed, had a case come
to
> court at that stage, it is not unlikely that the Office of the Chief
> Herald would have claimed itself legally obliged to confirm the
> validity of MacCarthy's certificate, as it was apparently doing
> privately in response to individual requests.
I suspected as much. The letter does read like something one was
compelled to write for legal reasons, especially since it contains no
explanation for the belief--a "necessary and sufficient" statement of
the facts at issue.
> Fortunately, to date I
> myself have only been rather vaguely threatened with legal action,
but
> there is no guarantee that I will never be hauled into court by a
> determined 'chief' or 'feudal baron'. Things have been difficult
> enough, for example, 'Mac Sweeney Doe' has recently posted on the
> internet a serious but entirely false charge that I am in breach of
> companies legislation by failing to register the Centre for Irish
> Genealogical and Historical Studies as a business, which of course
it
> is not (http://www.sweeneyclanchief.com/id27.htm).
The O'Connor and O'Hara in me would urge me to say, "Bring it on, Doe
Boy!" but I have been known for intemperate speech on occasion. I wish
you good hunting.
Rules of Engagement for debunkers: Keep your powder dry and do not
fire until you see the whites of their eyes.
Dr
Try Firefox works excellent
Guy Stair Sainty
I have read the decree, which is made by an Ecclesiastical diocesan court and
not by a "Vatican" tribunal. It purports to alter the original remainder of a
title conferred by king Umberto II on the premise that the King also used the
titles of King of Jerusalem, Cyprus and Armenia etc, and that as these dignities
were originally vested in the house of Savoy by the Pope, that the Papacy
somehow had jurisdiction over the remainder of titles by King Umberto (and the
heirs of other titles granted by foreign sovereigns whose thrones were once upon
a time under papal authority). Furthermore, this premise was extended to state
that the remainder could be altered not only to extend the title (limited in the
original patent to male primogeniture heirs) to all heirs, male and female, but
to adoptive issue.
It is my view that this is absolute nonsense, and merely because King Umberto
included these ancient regnal dignities among his grand titles was never
considered any basis for the conferral of a title – before the acquisition of
the Kingdom first of Sicily and then Sardinia, the Dukes of Savoy were just
that, and Imperial Vicars, and did not confer titles as “King of Jerusalem and
Cyprus” even though using these styles. King Umberto’s conferrals of titles were
made as King of Italy and under the laws regulating the nobility established by
the Savoy Monarchy, not by the ancient Jerusalem Crown – indeed there is no
record as far as I know of the kings of Jerusalem when reigning conferring any
hereditary titles, even though they did confer certain feudal tenancies as
immediate fiefs in the Holy Land (but none of these were held for more than 3
generations). By what magic can a royal prerogative that never existed, be
converted into a reality in the 21st century? The Crown of Cyprus and its
prerogatives passed to Venice in 1489; if the Kings created any hereditary
titles they were certainly feudatory and territorial and not palatine.
I found this concept contradictory to every established principle of nobiliary
law and have therefore made some further inquiries. As a result of these
inquiries I am satisfied that no diocesan court has any jursidiction to vary the
original remainder of Papal titles, and certainly not foreign titles.
Furthermore, Italian noble titles specifically and unambiguously required that
titles pass only to legitimate and natural heirs; adoptive heirs are certainly
now legitimate but they are *not* natural. I have also determined that as
recently as 1992, and subsequent to the promulgation of the present Code of
Canon Law, the Holy See rejected a petition to vary a Papal title to a cognatic
heiress; in its response the Holy See confirmed that Papal titles continued to
be governed by the Papal Brief of Pius IX of 18 September 1876 which determined,
among other matters, that the succession to Pontifical titles must pass
exclusively through legitimate and natural male succession. This Brief does not
allow for the passage of titles by adoption, nor through females, nor does it
include any regulation regarding foreign titles.
If there is any doubt in this matter, then I suggest to correct it the recipient
of the court decree promptly refer to the Secretariat of State and ask if,
indeed, the Brief of 1876 has been superseded or amended to embrace succession
to adoptive issue.
>
>If, on the other hand, the decree itself is in question, I must refer
>Mr Stair Sainty to the authority of the Supreme Pontiff in Rome, the
>Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus of 28 June 1988, the Apostolic
>Constitution Sacrae Disciplinae Leges and the Code of Canon Law of 25
>January 1983 and the tribunals of the Holy See; the powers and scope of
>whom and which, in his various capacities within the Catholic
>brotherhoods he adheres to, I trust he is acquainted with.
None of this is anything to do with the conferral of titles, granted by the Pope
in his sovereign capapcity and subject to ecclesiastical supervision only in the
requirement that succession to such titles pass to Catholics, born of Catholic
marriage.
>
>I too shall be taking into consideration legal measures to counter such
>denigration.
Quite why this is denigration I do not know; but if you want to waste your time
and money on lawyers then I shall await their reaction with interest.
Guy Stair Sainty
says...
suit by Terence MacCarthy, brandishing the recognition by the Chief herald,
after I had specifically and publicly questioned his claims. In this same letter
I stated (and MacCarthy did not publish this portion) that I did not consider
the Niadh Nask to be an ancient and historic Order and that i did not consider
he had the right to confer baronial or any other titles. Until the forgeries and
falsifications he had clearly perpetrated (and which I had recognized, hence my
challenge) were exposed thanks to the researches of Sean Murphy, whereupon
MacCarthy retreated from the fray, it would have been an unnecessary financial
risk to go into court as long as it seemed likely the Chief herald would stand
by his recognition.
However, in the end I was proved right, as were others who had questioned
Terence MacCarthy's pretensions.
Guy Stair Sainty
=?iso-8859-1?B?Q1JG00I=?= says...
>
>Guy Stair Sainty ha scritto:
>rmorial
>> register, you might want to check the following:
>berto
>> II, the title of Count was granted to descend by male primogeniture; ther=
>e is no
>> right to transmit this to all descendants, nor to adoptive issue. (Ref:
>ber
>> 1987, p. 66, year 1963, 15 September "Fani, Amedeo, concessione Conte (mp=
>r)", in
>> the chapter Provvedimenti Nobiliari di Sua Maesta Umberto II, re d'Italia;
>> confirmed in the entries on this family in the Libro d'Oro della Nobilta
>na,
>> 2000, Volume 2, part III, sec II, p. 686).
>> The inclusion of these titles in the Register, without verification, give=
>s the
>> impression they are endorsed by the register. I do not believe this is the
>es both
>> of the family registered and their relations listed in the genealogies be
>> checked with a competent source, or not used?
>>
>denigration.
if you seriously believe that the above statement by me was somehow slanderous
then you really need to read it again, and again, and again. It is a polite
inquiry about the basis for a claim which runs in the face of every known
precedent for the succession of noble titles, bound by the remainder conferring
them and the general law regulating the nobility and titles. Hence, under the
French First Empire, certain types of titles could pass by adoption in certain
cirucmstances. This is not and never was the case with either Italian royal
titles or Papal titles.
I usually react badly to threats of suits for defamation, as Mr Poidimani (false
duke of Braganza) found, so I suggest you think this through carefully.
George Lucki
"Guy Stair Sainty" <g...@sainty.org> wrote in message
news:e4sv9...@drn.newsguy.com...
Thanks. The following is based on your description of the ruling. I trust
there is a seperate basis for the title because basing it on this ruling
apparently creates a rather weak and implausible basis. I think that the
ruling seems flawed but it does contain a fascinating logic.
The first issue is of juridiction. A diocesan court (it should be clarified
in the register that this was not a decision of the Holy See but that of a
local church)? Certainly the matters presented to this court appear on the
face of it to greatly exceed the competencies of the court. What is
particularly funny is that if one followed the implications, this court
would be asserting that any act of the Savoy monarchy has continued in the
eyes of the Church to be subject to Church law (rather than the laws and
decrees of the Italian Kingdom) and that the competent authority to alter
Umberto's decrees is not his heir but a diocesan church tribunal. The
tribunal by extension would seem to assert that nobillary grants of the
Savoy monarchy are in fact nobillary grants of the Church and so subject to
extension and ammendment by the Church.
Even were this the case (still chuckling) then it would also be the
assertion of the court that the titles of nobility conferred by the Italian
Savoy kings were within the jurisidction of the lowest church courts and
that these courts had the jurisidction to create in fact what amounted to
new nobility. No need for the Pope to create titles when the lowest courts
have taken on the power to create them directly. Perhaps they could be
extended further not only to all heirs male and female and adoptive issue -
why not everyone related in the 5th degree by marriage. Sheesh. I would be
pleased to see this ruling and read it myself. It seems based on your
description of it to be odd. While it is likely that no one would have had
the interest to challenge the ruling that it cannot have any effect much
like a court decision that would have altered the colour of the sky.
I would urge the interested party to seek confirmation from the Secretariat
of State of the Holy See directly that they have accepted the decision of
the tribunal and recognize the title. I would also be interested in knowing
what the Prince of Naples thinks of the alterations made to his father's
decrees by the dioscesan court. Has he been asked to extend the title to
Cesare Fani's adoptive son?
My bottom line would be that no diocesan court has the authority to extend
any foreign (including Savoy) ennoblements and even in terms of the Roman
Nobility - it would be only the Roman Pontiff who would have the authority
to alter a decree of one of his predecessors.
Or maybe I should see what the local diocesan court could do for me? Like
many thrones, the Polish crown was established with Papal permission. By the
same logic it would seem appropriate that a local church tribunal in
Edmonton or elsewhere to be the appropriate venue for such 'Papal' titles.
:)
Kind regards, George Lucki
Guy Stair Sainty
Here is the decree (I havce cut the older ancestry of the petitioner.
>"Guy Stair Sainty" <g...@sainty.org> wrote in message
>news:e4sv9...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <kW3cg.179358$7a.6434@pd7tw1no>, George Lucki says...
>>>
>>>"CRFÓB" <cil...@blu.it> wrote in message
>
>My bottom line would be that no diocesan court has the authority to extend
>any foreign (including Savoy) ennoblements and even in terms of the Roman
>Nobility - it would be only the Roman Pontiff who would have the authority
>to alter a decree of one of his predecessors.
TRIBUNAL ECCLESISTICUM DIOECESIANUM PERUSIAE
Decreto
Oggi 30 Gennaio 2006, visto il ricorso di accertamento di discendenza per
filiazione legittima patrilineare, ex can. 101, presentato da Cillian Roberto
FANI O’Broin, nato a Perugia il 12 Agosto 1976 ed ivi domiciliato in via XX
Settembre 67, rappresentato dall’avvocato rotale dott. Marco Canonico,
presenti: il Promotore di Giustizia, don Simone Sorbaioli;
il Cancelliere, Mon. Rino Valigi
il sottoscritto Pro-Vicario Giudiziale, Mons. Pierluigi Rosa, ha emesso il
seguente decreto:
Svolgimento del processo
Agli effetti del can. 102, questo tribunale diocesano di Perugina si dichiara
competente nella presente causa, essendo la parte istante residente in Perugina,
via XX Settembre 67.
Fattispecie
Il giorno 23 Novembre 2005, Cillian Roberto FANI O’BROIN, figlio adottivo del
conte Cesare Fani, ha presentato il ricorso di accertamento di discendenza per
filiazione legittima patrilineare, ex can. 101 e contestualmente ha designato
quale procuratore di fiducia l’avvocato dott. Marco Canonico.
Vista
L’istanza della parte richiedente di pronunciamento con sentenza di merito
riguardo alla acquisizione legittima di titolo comitale in quanto figlio
adottivo del conte Cesare FANI,
visto quanto disposto dal can. 101 e 108§ CIC;
valutate le addotte motivazioni;
visti i documenti allegati, sia canonici che statuali, tutti in forma di copia
autentica;
non avendo rilevato la necessità di richiedere aggiunte per integrare
l’istruttoria;
sentito il procuratore, Avv. Marco Canonico;
il tribunale procede per
-accertare l’affermata discendenza in linea diretta maschile, primigenia,
legittima, dell’istante dal capostipite, documentalmente certo,”Dominus”
Domenico Fani.
-accertare la legittima adozione di Cillian Roberto O’Broin da parte del conte
Cesare Fani e di Aurelia Cordero di Montezemolo.
-stabilire con sentenza – esplicitando tale condizione grado per grado così come
derivata dagli atti – la posizione di legittimità della agnazione.
-accertare il conferimento del titolo comitale da parte di Sua Maestà Umberto II
di Savoia, con lettere patenti del 15 Settembre 1963, con conseguente
titolazione trasmissibile in perpetuo a tutti i figli.
Espletata
L’istruttoria, gli atti furono posti a protocollo dalla cancelleria all’ordine
n. 1/2006
In fatto
a) La parte istante ha piena personalità giuridica, ciò appare espressamente ed
incontestabilmente dimostrato come in occasione della introduzione del Libello.
b) E’ dimostrato che sono state adempiute tutte le formalità essenziali previste
per la ricostruzione della linea diretta ed ininterrotta fino al capostipite
certo, “Dominus” Domenico Fani.
c) Infatti, agli atti canonici di battesimo, matrimonio e morte si aggiungono
gli atti statuali certificativi e le Regie lettere patenti che, stante
l’autorità emittente, costituiscono anche decreto formale di erezione canonica,
essendo la Fons Honorum Vicario temporale del Sommo Pontefice, infatti Umberto
II, quale Sovrano d’Italia e Duca di Savoia, esercitava la propria potestà anche
quale Re di Gerusalemme, Re di Cipro, Re di Armenia, Principe di Acaia e
Marchese Tarantasia, titoli concessi alla dinastia sabauda dai Sommi Pontefici.
d) Essendo certificata l’avvenuta adozione di Cillian Roberto O’Broin da parte
del conte Cesare e di Aurelia Cordero di Montezemolo,
e) Preso in esame e studiato attentamente il caso, non si sono rinvenute lacune
documentali, sia in ordine alla loro valenza, sia in ordine alla ricostruita
line di discendenza.
Tutto questo considerato in diritto ed in fatto, il sottoscritto Pro-Vicario
Giudiziale
DECRETA
1 CILLIAN ROBERTO FANI O’BROIN, nato il 12 Agosto 1976 a Perugia ed ivi
domiciliato in via XX Settembre 67, essere figlio legittimo di Sua Eccellenza
Geraoid Proinsias O’Broin (nato in Irlanda il 21 Maggio 1940), Ambasciatore
d’Irlanda e cavaliere di gran croce dell’ordine Piano e di Roberta Cordero di
Montezemolo (nata a Trieste il 29 Agosto 1941), coniugi in virtù di matrimonio
celebrato il 7 Febbraio 1967 nella Basilica di S. Pietro in Vaticano.
2 L’istante essere altresì figlio adottivo, e pertanto ex can 110, legittimo del
conte Cesare Fani (nato a Roma il 14 Novembre 1931) e di Aurelia Cordero di
Montezemolo (nata a Roma il 6 Maggio 1948), coniugi a seguito di matrimonio
celebrato il 4 Giugno 1994 nella cappella dell’Ambasciata d’Irlanda presso la
Santa Sede in territorio della Parrocchia di S. Maria in Trastevere in Roma.
3 Il Conte Cesare Fani è a sua volta figlio legittimo di Sua Eccellenza il Conte
Amedeo (nato il 9 Febbraio 1891 a Perugia ed ivi deceduto il 9 Settembre 1974),
Deputato al Parlamento, Sottosegretario di Stato al Ministero degli Affari
Esteri, Questore della Camera dei Deputati, e Cavaliere di Gran Croce
dell’Ordine di S. Gregorio Magno, e di Donna Elvira Biancardi (nata a Mantova il
12 Febbraio 1908, deceduta a Roma il 4 Novembre 1986), uniti con matrimonio
celebrato il 27 Luglio 1927 nella Basilica inferiore di San Francesco in Assisi.
{snip further ancestry]
La discendenza legittima del ricorrente in linea diretta maschile ininterrotta
dal Dominus Domenico Fani per sei generazioni è dunque attestata da quanto sopra
esposto e dimostrata dai documenti allegati al libello.
Il diritto al titolo comitale è stato attribuito alla famiglia Fani da Sua
Maestà Umberto II con Regie Lettere Patenti del 14 Settembre 1963, di cui è
stata allegata copia autentica.
Il titolo in capo alla famiglia Fani, ovvero Fani O’Broin, è quello indicato di
Conte, trasmissibile in perpetuo a tutti i discendenti, e di conseguenza
l’istante è legittimo successore di suddetto titolo comitale.
Così pronunziamo, dando mandato perché questa nostra sentenza venga notificata,
secondo le norme del diritto.
Dato in Perugina, 30 Gennaio 2006
L. + S. Mons. Luigi Rosa,
pro-vicario giudiziale
Don Simone Sorboli, promotore di giustizia
Mons. Rino Valigi, Cancelliere
Joseph McMillan
Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
>
> I usually react badly to threats of suits for defamation, as Mr Poidimani (false
> duke of Braganza) found, so I suggest you think this through carefully.
>
titles are so fond of citing legal proceedings in courts with
questionable jurisdiction to support their claims, I wonder when we
will see any mention of the 2003 South African court case concerning
another Burkes' registrant, described as follows in a recent edition of
the Port Elizabeth Herald, <www.theherald.co.za/herald/
2006/05/04/news/n13_04052006.htm>:
'In March, 2003, Agasim-Pereira was denied leave to appeal against
judgment in the R1-million defamation suit he lost against the Weekend
Post. Pereira had sued the newspaper after it published a
tongue-in-cheek article on Christmas gifts for celebrities in which he
was described as a "self-styled" baron.'
'He claimed the story implied he was not entitled to use his title. In
dismissing the claim, Judge Chris Jansen said the barony title which
Pereira had bought for some R300 000 in Scotland was "artificial"
and that he was indeed a "self-styled" baron.'
Joseph McMillan
Guy Stair Sainty
>
>
>
>many thrones, the Polish crown was established with Papal permission. By the
>same logic it would seem appropriate that a local church tribunal in
>Edmonton or elsewhere to be the appropriate venue for such 'Papal' titles.
Or just imagine the potential for corruption - not only every heir to a Papal
title, but every heir to any title conferred in the past or present by the heir
to a monarchy once invested by the Pope, will be able to adopt an heir
and pass to that heir the nobiliary rights to his title! It will put the German
business of adoption and name change into the shade. Can one imagine for one
moment that the Holy See would allow such an abuse.
In any case, the information I now have is that these matters are the exclusive
prerogative of the Supreme Pontiff, who if he was to act would do
so through the Secretary of State (formerly the Secretary for Briefs) who
for centuries has had the responsibility of producing Papal patents of
nobility. The 1876 Brief is still binding and this limits successions to
*Natural* and *Legitimate* issue.
George Lucki
news:1148329690....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Joseph,
No need to wonder when we'll see mention of that case.
You just mentioned it. :)
If you google his name you will find he is no stranger to legal difficulties
and is a colourful character to say the least. The www.burkes-peerage.com
(not related I understand to www.burkes-peerage.net which is the publisher
of the soon to be released Orders of Knighthood and Merit and the sponsor of
the Burkes armorial register) is his new website. I wonder what is in store
there. It seems to be his barony of Fulwood site for now.
Returning to his title. I think the point to be made is just because
Scotland recognizes these purchased titles does not mean that they will find
recognition elesewhere. You might be a baron to another Scottish baron but
that doesn;t make you one to a South African magistrate. Applying a South
African judge's perspective such a title may be in fact artificial. I think
it is ironic to see such ongoing interest in Scottish feudal titles at a
time when they have lost all of the former feudal meaning they had. I guess
it conveys what the titles are really about at present - a way of purchasing
and adding an impressive sounding handle to one's name and perhaps after
years of litigation obtaining some heraldic additiments. I guess it also
suggests that there are enough folks impressed with the titles that the
purchase price seems reasonable to some.
KInd regarrds,
George Lucki
George Lucki
> In article <4iocg.181538$P01.76530@pd7tw3no>, George Lucki says...
>
> Here is the decree (I havce cut the older ancestry of the petitioner.
>>"Guy Stair Sainty" <g...@sainty.org> wrote in message
>>news:e4sv9...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>> In article <kW3cg.179358$7a.6434@pd7tw1no>, George Lucki says...
>>>>
>>>>"CRFÓB" <cil...@blu.it> wrote in message
>
>>
>>My bottom line would be that no diocesan court has the authority to extend
>>any foreign (including Savoy) ennoblements and even in terms of the Roman
>>Nobility - it would be only the Roman Pontiff who would have the authority
>>to alter a decree of one of his predecessors.
Thanks for forwarding the judgement.
Fundamentally the matter seems to be one of establishing the filiation of
the adooptive son and father Canon Law establishing that children adopted in
civil law are also legitimately children in terms of canon law. Canon 101 -
Children who have been adopted according to the norm of civil law are
considered the children of the person or persons who have adopted them. This
follows unsurprisingly the sections dealing with consanguinity (as for the
purpose of marriage) as this is the primary canonical consequence. The issue
of the recognition of the title seems to have been tacked on. The competency
of the tribunal in Perugia is determined by the domicile of the applicant.
> -stabilire con sentenza - esplicitando tale condizione grado per grado
> così come
> derivata dagli atti - la posizione di legittimità della agnazione.
> -accertare il conferimento del titolo comitale da parte di Sua Maestà
> Umberto II
> di Savoia, con lettere patenti del 15 Settembre 1963, con conseguente
> titolazione trasmissibile in perpetuo a tutti i figli.
The first three points outline the materials reviewed to establish the
filiation while the last reviews the letters oatent of 15 September 1963
conferring the comital title with the transmissibility of the title *to all
sons* (not primogeniture) - if this document was read correctly (see below)
This is the silliness in the judgement - the argument being as Guy outlined
that the letters patent of the deposed Italian King in effect created a
Papal comital title as King Umberto exercised in the letters patent the
temporal jurisdiction granted him by the Pope as the titles King of
Jerusalem, etc. were granted by the Papacy. This certainly creative but this
part goes well beyond any question of filiation and if it were precedent
setting would apply to any concession by this monarchy and many others. This
would potentially open the door to a potential marketplace for Italian
adoptions with the intent of confering Papal noble titles. The Perugian
Dioscesan Tribunal though is beyond its jurisdiction here and I would be
greatly surprised if the Secretariat of State would act upon this judgement.
In the judgement the recounting of ancestry for the purposes of filiation
recounts his genealogy past the limits of consanguinity. It finds correctly
that he is the legitimate descendent of Domenic Fani by virtue of his
adoption.
> La discendenza legittima del ricorrente in linea diretta maschile
> ininterrotta
> dal Dominus Domenico Fani per sei generazioni è dunque attestata da quanto
> sopra
> esposto e dimostrata dai documenti allegati al libello.
> Il diritto al titolo comitale è stato attribuito alla famiglia Fani da Sua
> Maestà Umberto II con Regie Lettere Patenti del 14 Settembre 1963, di cui
> è
> stata allegata copia autentica.
> Il titolo in capo alla famiglia Fani, ovvero Fani O'Broin, è quello
> indicato di
> Conte, trasmissibile in perpetuo a tutti i discendenti, e di conseguenza
> l'istante è legittimo successore di suddetto titolo comitale.
The date of the Letters Patent is now 14 IX 1963 (a typo?) and the title of
count is attributed to Fani O'Broin based upon the perpetual transmission of
the title to *all the descendents*. I now wonder what the original letters
patent said in terms of the transmission of the title and whether the good
tribunal understood correctly its meaning (in the context of Savoy Italian
grants of nobility). The court might want to clarify and establish (for the
purposes of this proceeding) the rank of the individual it was dealing with
and so could conclude (correctly or incorrectly) that someone appearing
before it was or was not a nobleman. This would not be the same as
recognizing a title more generally in the Church or recognizing a title as
belonging to the temporal authority of the Church. The question of the
relationship between the Savoy dynasty and the Papacy would also be a
question quite clearly beyond the matter t hand. It seems to come down to
the LP - do they confer the title with a provision of transmission by
primogeniture, through all male descendents or implausibly through all
descendents. Along with this do the letters patent vary the Italian practice
of transmission through natural and legitimate lines. If they do then they
form an interesting innovation. The answers are not in this Tribunal's
ruling but in the Letters Patent and if these require interpretation this
would need come from the House of Savoy rather than any church tribunal in
Perugia. I am sure that Mr. Fani-O'Broin would disagree but I just don't see
this ruling as relevant. I would similarly see a matter brought before a
local Italian court as irrelevant - on the basis of jurisdiction. We've seen
other matters brought before local Italian or Church courts for the purpose
of getting a judgement that says some has a noble title. If that is the
purpose I see it as a misuse of those fora. The more competent authority in
my mind in this case is the head of the Savoy house. What does he say? Does
anyone know?
Kind regards, George Lucki
Andrew Chaplin
news:xErcg.183576$WI1.167629@pd7tw2no...
<snip>
> Does anyone know?
It is things like this that make me thankful for the Commons'
concurrence in the report of the committee chaired by Nickle in 1919.
WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
>
> Thanks. The following is based on your description of the ruling. I trust
> there is a seperate basis for the title because basing it on this ruling
> apparently creates a rather weak and implausible basis. I think that the
> ruling seems flawed but it does contain a fascinating logic.
>
> The first issue is of juridiction. A diocesan court (it should be
> clarified in the register that this was not a decision of the Holy See but
> that of a local church)? Certainly the matters presented to this court
> appear on the face of it to greatly exceed the competencies of the court.
Agreed so far....
What is
> particularly funny is that if one followed the implications, this court
> would be asserting that any act of the Savoy monarchy has continued in the
> eyes of the Church to be subject to Church law (rather than the laws and
> decrees of the Italian Kingdom) and that the competent authority to alter
> Umberto's decrees is not his heir but a diocesan church tribunal. The
> tribunal by extension would seem to assert that nobillary grants of the
> Savoy monarchy are in fact nobillary grants of the Church and so subject
> to extension and ammendment by the Church.
I know this is hair splitting, but I don't think that's the claim being
alleged. The original statement focused on the savoy claim to also be
sovereigns of Jerusalem. So basically he is claiming a title in the Nobility
and Peerage of the Kingdom of Jersulam, not Italy. (or the Jersalem portion
of the grant by a Italian/Jersusalem monarch...) Since the Pope has declared
the power to enthrone and depose Emperors, I suppose he can change
remainders granted by a mere King as well. Whether a local diocese can do so
on his behalf is a little more doubtful.....
George Lucki
news:5xscg.536$my...@fe04.lga...
But is the title one of the nobility of Jerusalem or Armenia or is it a
title of the Savoy Italian crown? I expect that it was an Italian title.
Just because King has several titles of pretense does not mean when he is
ennobling he ennobles to the nobilities of all those lands simultaneously.
The Vasa kings of Poland claimed the titles of the Swedish king and John
Casimir occasionally purported to ennoble to the Swedish nobility (which did
not require parliamentary approval) but this was seperate from any Polish
ennoblements. Closer to home the sovereigns of England and Scotland or the
UK ennobled at various times to the UK, English, Irish and Scottish
peerages - all seperate - just because he bore all of the titles it did not
mean that when creating an Irish peer the King was also automtically
creating an English one.
The Pope could simply extend the remainder by creating a new Papal comital
title that encompassed the original Savoy grant. Of course that did not
happen and no, a diocesan tribunal is not a fount of honour.
George Lucki
George Lucki
"Andrew Chaplin" <ab.ch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote in message
news:tdudnQgy6L1...@giganews.com...
Absolutely correct. The non-binding parliamentary resolution faithfully
followed Nickle's recommendations except where these were substantially
altered and this resolution has been faithfully adhered to by subsequent
governments, the numerous exceptions notwithstanding. But, I do get your
point.
George Lucki
Guy Stair Sainty
>
>"Guy Stair Sainty" <g...@sainty.org> wrote in message
>news:e4t5q...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <4iocg.181538$P01.76530@pd7tw3no>, George Lucki says...
>>
>> Here is the decree (I havce cut the older ancestry of the petitioner.
>>>"Guy Stair Sainty" <g...@sainty.org> wrote in message
>>>news:e4sv9...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>>> In article <kW3cg.179358$7a.6434@pd7tw1no>, George Lucki says...
I now wonder what the original letters
>patent said in terms of the transmission of the title and whether the good
>tribunal understood correctly its meaning (in the context of Savoy Italian
>grants of nobility).
Italian nobiliary law is absolutely clear on this point; that heirs must be
*natural* (i.e. born of a person through whom the claim is made) and
*legitimate* (i.e. born of a valid marriage). In the case of Papal titles and an
even narrower consideration is applied - that it must be a valid Catholic
marriage. That is why the registration of a descent with an ecclesiastical
tribunal is perfectly appropriate to establish the filiation of Papal titles,
because such a registratino would be necessary to prove the Catholic descent.
An adoptive heir is now put in the position of a legitimate child; but canon law
says nothing about putting him or her in the position of a *natural* child,
which it self-evidently cannot do.
>It seems to come down to
>the LP - do they confer the title with a provision of transmission by
>primogeniture, through all male descendents or implausibly through all
>descendents. Along with this do the letters patent vary the Italian practice
>of transmission through natural and legitimate lines.
The answer to the first is by male primogeniture, to the second no, the title
must pass according to the norms of Italian nobiliary law.
Guy Stair Sainty
>
>I know this is hair splitting, but I don't think that's the claim being
>alleged. The original statement focused on the savoy claim to also be
>sovereigns of Jerusalem. So basically he is claiming a title in the Nobility
>and Peerage of the Kingdom of Jersulam, not Italy. (or the Jersalem portion
>of the grant by a Italian/Jersusalem monarch...) Since the Pope has declared
>the power to enthrone and depose Emperors, I suppose he can change
>remainders granted by a mere King as well. Whether a local diocese can do so
>on his behalf is a little more doubtful.....
But the Savoy claim to be Kings of Jerusalem goes back logn before they were
also able to assume the regnal dynasty as Kings of sicily then Sardinia; in fact
they never pretended to enjoy any nobiliary jurisdiction as Kings of Jerusalem.
In fact the Kings of Jerusalem when reigning in the Holy Land never enjoyed any
nobiliary jurisdiction as we understand it. There werfe fiefs of the Kingdom,
erected by the Crown, or claimed as inferior feudatories of the Crown, but these
were based entirely on feudal tenure; the kings of Jerusalem never conferred
what would be called Palatine titles. Even if they had, the idea that the Pope
could alter amend them would be completely alien - no Pope ever claimed
jurisdiction over titles conferred by the Emperor, for example, even though for
centuries the Emperor had to be crowned by the Pope in Order to assume that
dignity.
What various Popes could and did do, was authorise the use of foreign titles in
their own states; a prerogative claimed by all sovereigns whose states had a
nobiliary jurisdiction. In Great Britian the sovereign even limited such titles,
by the terms of the royal license granted to authorise them (for example, by
limiting the use of titles that descended to all descendants in the male line,
to male primogeniture heirs only, when the license was granted to descendants as
well as the original petitioner, as in the de Salis case); but the British
Sovereign never attempted to extend the original remainder and his license
merely limited the use in the British Realm, it did not purport to change the
original remainder.
Martin Goldstraw
readers of this forum that the Armorial Register is not willing or able
to comment. This is not the case.
Mr Sainty has chosen to make public by use of this forum a number of
allegations and assertions some of which, by implication, bring the
name of Burke's Peerage into disrepute; the assertions made by Mr.
Sainty are that Burke's Peerage & Gentry Armorial Register takes
little or no care in who it accepts as registrants and that there
exists no procedures at all to vet any applicants. Mr Sainty has no
knowledge of the extensive vetting procedure taken in each case and his
assertions are unfounded and ill informed. A great deal of research,
care and forethought goes into the acceptance (or rejection) of
applicants and there have been a number of rejections since the
beginning of the project. We do not claim infallibility and where we
have been misled we will act.
Of the three persons so openly criticized by Mr. Sainty one had already
been identified by us as being somewhat suspect and was simply awaiting
removal by the web master at the time Mr Sainty made his post in public
- had he extended us a little courtesy and contacted us privately he
would have been told that this was so. We do not intend to defend the
temporary inclusion of this particular individual; proof of titles was
promised but never materialized. The entry was premature but whilst
waiting for proof of titles to be forwarded our own checks highlighted
the difficulties with the claims and the entry was subsequently
removed.
Mr. Sainty made further allegations that the register had included two
other gentlemen who purported to hold titles to which they had no
right. He is wrong to assert that we simply accepted their word without
any form of checks being undertaken. As with all our applicants, both
of these gentlemen had fulfilled the requirements and fully satisfied
us that they were entitled to use the styles and titles claimed.
Mr. Sainty was informed of all this by private correspondence and yet
continues to publicly challenge the rights of the persons concerned. He
is of the view that his opinion is worth more than the weight of a
properly convened Catholic ecclesiastical court. The Armorial Register
does not set itself above any court of law whatever the jurisdiction.
Any dispute between Burke's Peerage and the Armorial Register and Mr.
Sainty will be taken forward away from this thread and I am informed
that the gentlemen who have been so openly maligned will be taking
their own remedies in law.
Appended to this missive is an explanation of the Apostolic
Constitution and the Code of Canon Law but first readers of this thread
might appreciate a short quote from a Judge in the Catholic
Ecclesiastical Court - the very level of Court whose judgment Mr.
Sainty questions and criticises. I feel it is particularly appropriate
under the circumstances to relay it to the participants of this forum
as it fits perfectly with this particular thread and could almost be
addressed to Mr. Sainty himself who purports to be a good Catholic:
[quote]
The fundamental principle of every Catholic is obedience to the
universal precepts and laws laid out by His Holiness the Pope. The
universal law is the will of the Pope and is made manifest through
Apostolic succession by means of Their Excellencies the Bishops. The
application and execution of the universal law is made manifest through
three orders of justice. The Pope may at any time suspend and/or take
upon Himself any case before these orders of justice. Any verdict given
by any of these orders of justice, once given, is the will of the Pope
in accordance with the universal law (code of canon law). Not only is
not given to any Catholic to discuss the validity of such verdicts,
they are bound by obedience to observe their terms.
A decree, by its own intrinsic nature, in accordance with the universal
law (the code of canon law), is the most perfect expression of an
executive order (I shall not quote the appropriate canons as I am sure
you would not have the patience and time to read them). Up until now,
your insinuations have been merely malign and not supported by any
ecclesiastical juridical argument.
The Holy Roman Apostolic Church cannot be assimilated to ludicrous
examples of fake kings, princes, barons, etc. and fake orders of
chivalry well known to the present zealous "censors" who have come
to fame.
That which is here taking place at the expense of a gentleman who has
placed himself in the hands of the universal law of the Catholic Church
cannot be considered an act nobiliary climbing. That which I have read
insults the person, insults the institution, insults the universal law
and the Pope who regulates it. I am not interested if such actions come
from a Protestant but it is intolerable that this come to pass on the
part of a Catholic.
I hope that for the good and in defense of Catholicism, and for the
good and in defense of His Holiness the Pope and the laws of
promulgation, that the assertions made and undersigned in this space be
brought to the attention of the Apostolic Signatura.
[end quote]
Martin Goldstraw
For and on behalf of Burke's Peerage & Gentry
Point 1. Apostolic Constitution "Pastor Bonus" of 28 June 1988
IV Tribunals (art. 117 - 130)
Art. 126 - 130 The Roman Rota
Art. 126 - The Roman Rota is a court of higher instance at the
Apostolic See, usually at the appellate stage, with the purpose of
safeguarding rights within the Church; it fosters unity of
jurisprudence, and, by virtue of its own decisions, provid