More on Bogus/Holy Sepulchre, etc.
Cosmaigne
On 18 April, Peter Cawley <pca...@island.net> wrote (re prior
posting by Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <her...@londwill.demon.co.uk>):
>there is no clear consistent guideline to
>be drawn between the groups you recognise and those you don't.
<snip>
>If there are objective criteria for the validity of chivalric orders,
>then they should be applied to all orders equitably.
Some organizations claiming to be "Orders" (of Chivalry or otherwise)
insist there is no unbiased, internationally-recognized authority capable
of determining which Orders are "legitimate" and which are not. This
position, then, would exclude (perhaps rightfully) the International
Commission for Orders of Chivalry (ICOC) as being such an authority.
This position usually also dismisses the Roman Catholic Holy See as
being such an authority, although most of the relevant world accepts its
well-researched and documented positions and opinions regarding which
Orders are "legitimate," and which (that are known about) are not. On
these subjects, the (unbiased) reader is directed to the works of Peter
Bander van Duren -- "Orders of Knighthood, Awards and the Holy See," Van
Duren Publishers,1983, and the recent, "Orders of Knighthood and of Merit:
The Pontifical, Religious and Secularised Catholic-founded Orders and
Their Relationship to the Apostolic See," published by Colin Smythe, 1995.
(As an aside, the terms used in van Duren's works --and by the Vatican --
that would correspond to the more colloquial term "bogus," are
"self-styled" and "autonomous.")
Now, again, because there are those whose self-interest is
best-served by insisting that neither of the above-mentioned (or any
other) organizations constitutes a "final word" authority (and, again,
perhaps because this is true), I would submit that the "real world"
ultimately decides the issue of validity and recognition of Orders.
As cited in other postings, in nations (be they monarchies or
republics) where Orders, titles and decorations are taken more seriously
than, say, in the U.S., there are restrictions and sanctions regarding the
wearing of insignia/decorations. Thus, the "validity" of any given "Order"
is, in effect, regulated by "recognition" of that Order within any given
jurisdiction.
For example, in both the U.K. and France (monarchy and republic),
permission must be obtained to wear decorations of any Order not conferred
by the respective State. In the U.K., this applies to any Order other than
one of the British Orders of Chivalry (Garter, Bath, British Empire,
Venerable St. John, etc.) although, in practice, a certain few "foreign"
Orders (such as SMOM) have such recognition and permission. In France, the
same applies to Orders not conferred within the purview of the Legion of
Honour, with certain notable and singular exceptions (that include the
SMOM and VATICAN Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem).
Thus, if -- completely hypothetically, of course -- one such as Dr
Worley were invited to a formal reception at Buckingham Palace, the Palais
Royale, or even the Vatican Embassy in Washington, DC, he would be DENIED
the wearing of his "Order's" decorations/insignia. Why...? NOT (and
this is the key point) because any individual or any organization
arbitrarily decided his Order is "bogus" (or self-styled/autonomous, if
one prefers), but because it is simply not recognised by those who know
and who matter.
Moving away from such hypothetical situations, in the "real world" of
the U.K., France, Italy, the Vatican, Sweden, the Republic of Ireland,
Morocco, Spain, the Republic of San Marino and elsewhere (again, among
those who know and who matter), self-styled claims are usually simply
ignored as gauche (if no legal sanction applies). However, in the "real
world" of the U.S., where no such social or legal regulations/sanctions
pertain, the bogus "Order" can obfuscate and quibble ad infinitum about
its legitimacy. It can usually depend on the specific ignorance, among
otherwise informed individuals, about issues of fons honorum, eccliastical
protection, etc. This is what makes such self-styled creations so
insidious here in the U.S. -- and why a worldwide forum as unique as
rec.heraldry perhaps has the burden to examine and form opinions about, if
possible, issues such as the validity of "Orders."
It is because of the difficulty in reaching concensus from multiple
opinions on such an esoteric subject, that I attempt to re-focus the
definition of the validity or "bogus-ness" of any particular Order (for
those who care at all about such things):
to avoid the mire of never-to-be-conceded discussions of fons honorum, or
the intricacies of what can or cannot be done by commissions, republics,
sovereigns, or Western-rite clerics, versus a "...Syrian-Jacobite (East
Indian) Orthodox Abbot-Bishop allied with the Patriarch of the Coptic
Orthodox Church." Rather, those who claim "validity" for a particular
Order (such as the good Dr Worley) might simply communicate, to those of
us who wish to consider the "real world" of Chivalry in the late-20th
century, which of the sovereign entities mentioned above (or others not
mentioned) recognize the "Order" to be, in fact, an Order of Chivalry,
with the national members entitled to the wearing of the Order's
decorations within the sovereignty?
Now, specifically referring to Dr Worley's "Religious and Military
Order of Knights of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem," In the original
posting of Dr Worley's testament, he stated:
>...I promise...that this will be my last word about this, no matter how
supercilious or nasty
>any others have become."
I find this a rather odd position in that this was the FIRST and ONLY
"word" he has communicated directly about his "Order." Since this posting,
much discussion has been generated, save for the conspicuous absence of
any further comments by Dr Worley himself. In the hope that he will find
this posting NOT to be either suprcilious or nasty, I will respectfully
request his response via rec.heraldry (even if he must post through a
surrogate).
Sincerely, ~ James Turner of Cosmaigne, KHS
Erik White
On 22 Apr 1996, Cosmaigne wrote:
>
> On 18 April, Peter Cawley <pca...@island.net> wrote (re prior
> posting by Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <her...@londwill.demon.co.uk>):
>
> >there is no clear consistent guideline to
> >be drawn between the groups you recognise and those you don't.
> <snip>
> >If there are objective criteria for the validity of chivalric orders,
> >then they should be applied to all orders equitably.
>
> Some organizations claiming to be "Orders" (of Chivalry or otherwise)
> insist there is no unbiased, internationally-recognized authority capable
> of determining which Orders are "legitimate" and which are not. This
> position, then, would exclude (perhaps rightfully) the International
> Commission for Orders of Chivalry (ICOC) as being such an authority.
>
> This position usually also dismisses the Roman Catholic Holy See as
> being such an authority, although most of the relevant world accepts its
> well-researched and documented positions and opinions regarding which
> Orders are "legitimate," and which (that are known about) are not.
I would have to check again, but I do not believe that the United States
recognises the opinion of the Vatican in this matter. However the Office
of Protocol at the US State Department used to maintain a list of Foreign
Orders which the United States "recognizes," and last time I checked, only
those Orders and decorations issued by recognized governments were
considered to be "real" which leaves out a lot of Orders issued by
formerly ruling houses. I was also led to believe that the UK only
recognizes those Orders listed by the Central Chancery of Orders of
Knighthood and I somehow doubt that they consult with the Vatican on this
not does the UK (this is my recollection as I cannot find the list of
recognized Orders right now) recognize many Orders which other sources do.
On
> these subjects, the (unbiased) reader is directed to the works of Peter
> Bander van Duren -- "Orders of Knighthood, Awards and the Holy See," Van
> Duren Publishers,1983, and the recent, "Orders of Knighthood and of Merit:
> The Pontifical, Religious and Secularised Catholic-founded Orders and
> Their Relationship to the Apostolic See," published by Colin Smythe, 1995.
> (As an aside, the terms used in van Duren's works --and by the Vatican --
> that would correspond to the more colloquial term "bogus," are
> "self-styled" and "autonomous.")
> Now, again, because there are those whose self-interest is
> best-served by insisting that neither of the above-mentioned (or any
> other) organizations constitutes a "final word" authority (and, again,
> perhaps because this is true), I would submit that the "real world"
> ultimately decides the issue of validity and recognition of Orders.
True, I would submit that the only organizations that constitue a "final
word authority" in the United States are the State Department's Office of
Protocol and maybe the Internal Revenue Service (this however opens up
another line of debate altogether).
>
> As cited in other postings, in nations (be they monarchies or
> republics) where Orders, titles and decorations are taken more seriously
> than, say, in the U.S., there are restrictions and sanctions regarding the
> wearing of insignia/decorations. Thus, the "validity" of any given "Order"
> is, in effect, regulated by "recognition" of that Order within any given
> jurisdiction.
>
[passage about France snipped]
>
> Thus, if -- completely hypothetically, of course -- one such as Dr
> Worley were invited to a formal reception at Buckingham Palace, the Palais
> Royale, or even the Vatican Embassy in Washington, DC, he would be DENIED
> the wearing of his "Order's" decorations/insignia. Why...? NOT (and
> this is the key point) because any individual or any organization
> arbitrarily decided his Order is "bogus" (or self-styled/autonomous, if
> one prefers), but because it is simply not recognised by those who know
> and who matter.
It is questionable if Dr. Worley wold be prohibited from wearing the
decorations of his Order at the Apostolic Nunciature (not an actual
Embassy, as the Vatican's representative is not an Ambassador) in
Washington, it is possible that this would happen but in my experience not
all that likely, although my personal experience does not extend to the
Nunciature but to an Embassy function where I mistakenly wore a medal that
I had recieved from a country several years earlier who was at the time
hostile to the government hosting the party. Nobody even mentioned the
social faux pas let alone required me to remove it.
>
> Moving away from such hypothetical situations, in the "real world" of
> the U.K., France, Italy, the Vatican, Sweden, the Republic of Ireland,
> Morocco, Spain, the Republic of San Marino and elsewhere (again, among
> those who know and who matter), self-styled claims are usually simply
> ignored as gauche (if no legal sanction applies). However, in the "real
> world" of the U.S., where no such social or legal regulations/sanctions
> pertain, the bogus "Order" can obfuscate and quibble ad infinitum about
> its legitimacy. It can usually depend on the specific ignorance, among
> otherwise informed individuals, about issues of fons honorum, eccliastical
> protection, etc. This is what makes such self-styled creations so
> insidious here in the U.S. -- and why a worldwide forum as unique as
> rec.heraldry perhaps has the burden to examine and form opinions about, if
> possible, issues such as the validity of "Orders."
Actually, even self-styled Orders can get a type of "recognition" from the
US government merely by being recognized by the Internal Revenue Service
as a 501(c)(3) non-profit group, which as Francois pointed out earlier is
what the Venerable Order did in France.
>
> It is because of the difficulty in reaching concensus from multiple
> opinions on such an esoteric subject, that I attempt to re-focus the
> definition of the validity or "bogus-ness" of any particular Order (for
> those who care at all about such things):
> to avoid the mire of never-to-be-conceded discussions of fons honorum, or
> the intricacies of what can or cannot be done by commissions, republics,
> sovereigns, or Western-rite clerics, versus a "...Syrian-Jacobite (East
> Indian) Orthodox Abbot-Bishop allied with the Patriarch of the Coptic
> Orthodox Church." Rather, those who claim "validity" for a particular
> Order (such as the good Dr Worley) might simply communicate, to those of
> us who wish to consider the "real world" of Chivalry in the late-20th
> century, which of the sovereign entities mentioned above (or others not
> mentioned) recognize the "Order" to be, in fact, an Order of Chivalry,
> with the national members entitled to the wearing of the Order's
> decorations within the sovereignty?
This is not really that hard, the only opinions which in the end really
matter are those of the sovereign governments of which we are all citizens
or subjects. A sovereign government can do anything it pleases and what
ever it does is always completely correct, so long as the government
remains sovereign (this is the key phrase). Private commissions have no
real power or authority so decisions made by them can be accepted or
rejected as one sees fit since they have absolutely no force of law. As
to the power of prelates of all types, the discussion is one of the most
difficult as it would be difficult to get at what powers these men (and
women) really do possess in the 20th Century. I for one, as I am not a
Catholic, do not accord the Pope any special power or rights, as a side
note between 1867 and 1984 the government of the United States did not
recognize the Vatican either, my personal opinion would be that if the
Pope can create titles and Orders so can the Head of ANY recognized
church.
> Sincerely, ~ James Turner of Cosmaigne, KHS
>
>
>
Erik White
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Erik White <ewh...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
For the sake of the record, the SMOM is "recognized" by the
US State Department
> I was also led to believe that the UK only
>recognizes those Orders listed by the Central Chancery of Orders of
>Knighthood and I somehow doubt that they consult with the Vatican on this
>not does the UK (this is my recollection as I cannot find the list of
>recognized Orders right now) recognize many Orders which other sources do.
In the UK you need to get permission to wear "foreign"
orders......the three Pontifical Orders are (or at least
were until realtively recently) recognised and the
recipients can apply for permission to wear them in public
I think we can discount "recognition" from the IRS......
--
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
The British Heraldic Archive
Tel & Fax: +44 181 563 2500
E-mail: her...@londwill.demon.co.uk
URL: http://www.kwtelecom.com/heraldry/
Erik White
On Fri, 26 Apr 1996, Patrick Cracroft-Brennan wrote:
> Erik White <ewh...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 22 Apr 1996, Cosmaigne wrote:
>
> >>
> >> On 18 April, Peter Cawley <pca...@island.net> wrote (re prior
> >> posting by Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <her...@londwill.demon.co.uk>):
> >>
> >> This position usually also dismisses the Roman Catholic Holy See as
> >> being such an authority, although most of the relevant world accepts its
> >> well-researched and documented positions and opinions regarding which
> >> Orders are "legitimate," and which (that are known about) are not.
>
> >I would have to check again, but I do not believe that the United States
> >recognises the opinion of the Vatican in this matter. However the Office
> >of Protocol at the US State Department used to maintain a list of Foreign
> >Orders which the United States "recognizes," and last time I checked, only
> >those Orders and decorations issued by recognized governments were
> >considered to be "real" which leaves out a lot of Orders issued by
> >formerly ruling houses.
>
> For the sake of the record, the SMOM is "recognized" by the
> US State Department
In this Patrick is correct, the SMOM is recognized as a legitimate and
sovereign Order by the Office of Protocol, this is not because it is
recognized by the Vatican however, but because the US chooses to recognize
the "sovereignty" of the "territory" controled by the Order.
>
> > I was also led to believe that the UK only
> >recognizes those Orders listed by the Central Chancery of Orders of
> >Knighthood and I somehow doubt that they consult with the Vatican on this
> >not does the UK (this is my recollection as I cannot find the list of
> >recognized Orders right now) recognize many Orders which other sources do.
>
> In the UK you need to get permission to wear "foreign"
> orders......the three Pontifical Orders are (or at least
> were until realtively recently) recognised and the
> recipients can apply for permission to wear them in public
>
In the above quote, I was refering to Orders awarded by former ruling
Houses such as Bavaria, Anhaly, etc. not the Orders granted by the Holy
See. BTW, I found my list from the Central Chancery and found six Orders
awarded by the Vatican as being recognized. The six on my list are:
1) Order of Christ
2) Order of the Golden Spur
3) Order of Pius
4) Order of St. Gregory
5) Order of St. Silvester
6) Order of the Holy Sepulchre
I will admit that this is not the most current list of recognized Orders.
>
> >Actually, even self-styled Orders can get a type of "recognition" from the
> >US government merely by being recognized by the Internal Revenue Service
> >as a 501(c)(3) non-profit group, which as Francois pointed out earlier is
> >what the Venerable Order did in France.
>
> I think we can discount "recognition" from the IRS......
>
Why should we discount this, the IRS is the government body responsible
for determining many issues of "legitimaticy" in the US. In fact, ALL
churches must have recognition from the IRS as a 501(c)(3) non-profit
agency in order to be properly constituted. Of course, as Francois
pointed out, the Venerable Order sought the same sort of "recogition
from the French government.
So I am wondering what makes "recognition" from a French Government Agency
in any way superior to the same type of recognition from an Official Agency
of the United States Government?
Erik
TMargelony
Erik White writes:
This thread has become so long and and fractured.
The IRS just collects taxes. It doesn't "legitimate" anything. For
example, income from prostitution must still be reported: Does that make
it legal?
IMHO, the issue of legitmacy today rests on an accurate definition of the
term, not a figural one. Are/were these titles and orders legal entities
in their countries of origin? In the Whorley/Sepulcre case as in many
others, recognition or pseudo-recognition in one country or another is
irrelevent. It is sovereign power that makes and enforces law, nobilary
law included, within its territory.
Even the United States constitution recognizes this fact. The American
government is prevented from creating nobility because, as a sovereign
power, it could have. New American citizens are required to renounce their
titles because they represent allegiance to another sovereign. Papal
titles derived from the pope's status as a temporal ruler in the Vatican
States. Queen Elizabeth I of England was concerned with her "sheep"
following another "shepherd" because it infringed on her sovereignty. The
Golden Bull of 1356 expressly restricted the power of enoblement to the
Holy Roman Emperor (The Elector of Brandenburg-Prussia only acquired the
legal right in 1660 because his new realm of East Prussia was outside the
Empire.) And so on. And so on.
Also, a distinction needs to be drawn between the between the ancient
crusading orders and the courtly orders of chivilry/merit. The founders of
the crusading orders were _already_ knights who banded together and won
their recognition from society through their hard service and crusading
fervor. What people like Whorley get backwards is that the service orders
didn't arrive on the scene ready made with fancy ribbons and titles: They
earned their status in time through dangerous and dedicated work.
Theo Margelony
Erik White
On 27 Apr 1996, TMargelony wrote:
>
> The IRS just collects taxes. It doesn't "legitimate" anything. For
> example, income from prostitution must still be reported: Does that make
> it legal?
Not entirely true, no organization can legitimately claim to be a
non-profit organization without recognition of this from both their State
government and from the IRS.
>
> Even the United States constitution recognizes this fact. The American
> government is prevented from creating nobility because, as a sovereign
> power, it could have.
And in point of fact, did. In the 19th Century, the President of the
United States in a letter of credence to the Emperor of China made Caleb
Cushing a Count. This designation which under the terms of the
Constitution was illegal, was however, never challenged by Congress or the
Courts and was never repudiated. One could argue that this title was
created as a matter of expedience to enhance Mr. Cushing's prestige with
the Emperor's Court, but it was signed by the President of the United
States making it the de facto Law.
If anyone is interested in a complete and accurate transcription of this
most interesting document, let me know and I will post it.
Erik
Erik White
On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, Louis Epstein wrote:
> Erik White (ewh...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
> :
> :
> : On Fri, 26 Apr 1996, Patrick Cracroft-Brennan wrote:
> :
> : > Erik White <ewh...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> : >
> : > >On 22 Apr 1996, Cosmaigne wrote:
> : >
> : > >> On 18 April, Peter Cawley <pca...@island.net> wrote (re prior
> : > >> posting by Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <her...@londwill.demon.co.uk>):
> : > >>
> : > >> This position usually also dismisses the Roman Catholic Holy See as
> : > >> being such an authority, although most of the relevant world accepts its
> : > >> well-researched and documented positions and opinions regarding which
> : > >> Orders are "legitimate," and which (that are known about) are not.
> : >
> : > >I would have to check again, but I do not believe that the United States
> : > >recognises the opinion of the Vatican in this matter. However the Office
> : > >of Protocol at the US State Department used to maintain a list of Foreign
> : > >Orders which the United States "recognizes," and last time I checked, only
> : > >those Orders and decorations issued by recognized governments were
> : > >considered to be "real" which leaves out a lot of Orders issued by
> : > >formerly ruling houses.
> : >
> : > For the sake of the record, the SMOM is "recognized" by the
> : > US State Department
> :
> : In this Patrick is correct, the SMOM is recognized as a legitimate and
> : sovereign Order by the Office of Protocol, this is not because it is
> : recognized by the Vatican however, but because the US chooses to recognize
> : the "sovereignty" of the "territory" controled by the Order.
>
> To what extent does the USA do so?I am not aware of there being any
> diplomatic representation extended between the USA and the SMOM.
To a limited extent. There is no formal diplomatic representation between
the SMOM and the US, However, the US has in the past allowed members of
the government, ex-CIA Director William Casey for example, to be members
of the Order while in the Service of the US Government. Of course, the
Official position of the US governmemnt as regards the SMOM may have
changed under the Clinton Administration, I don't really know as I have
not been in-the-loop so to speak since George Bush left Office.
Erik
Louis Epstein
Erik White (ewh...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
:
:
: On Fri, 26 Apr 1996, Patrick Cracroft-Brennan wrote:
:
: >
: > >On 22 Apr 1996, Cosmaigne wrote:
: >
: > >> On 18 April, Peter Cawley <pca...@island.net> wrote (re prior
: > >> posting by Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <her...@londwill.demon.co.uk>):
: > >> This position usually also dismisses the Roman Catholic Holy See as
: > >> being such an authority, although most of the relevant world accepts its
: > >> well-researched and documented positions and opinions regarding which
: > >> Orders are "legitimate," and which (that are known about) are not.
: >
: > >I would have to check again, but I do not believe that the United States
: > >recognises the opinion of the Vatican in this matter. However the Office
: > >of Protocol at the US State Department used to maintain a list of Foreign
: > >Orders which the United States "recognizes," and last time I checked, only
: > >those Orders and decorations issued by recognized governments were
: > >considered to be "real" which leaves out a lot of Orders issued by
: > >formerly ruling houses.
: >
: > For the sake of the record, the SMOM is "recognized" by the
: > US State Department
Francois R. Velde
tmarg...@aol.com (TMargelony) wrote:
> In the Whorley/Sepulcre case as in many
>others, recognition or pseudo-recognition in one country or another is
>irrelevent. It is sovereign power that makes and enforces law, nobilary
>law included, within its territory.
It does not follow that nobiliary law can only exist on a territorial
basis.
>Papal
>titles derived from the pope's status as a temporal ruler in the Vatican
>States.
I don't think that's right. For one thing, the Pope created papal titles
even when he had no territory (and expressly recognized that he had no
territory) between 1870 and 1929. For another, the texts creating these
titles make it clear that the Pope is acting as head of the Catholic
Church, not as sovereign of the papal states. These texts impose
restrictions on the transmission of the titles and nobiliary status which
have nothing to do with territory, and everything to do with the Catholic
church (e.g. the title cannot pass to non-Catholics). A large number of
these titles were created for people who were not citizens of the Papal
States.
As this example shows, it is not the case that titles are valid only if
there is a sovereign territorial power which has created them. I think the
same point can be made about orders of chivalry as well, and that
recognition in various countries is far from irrelevant: some orders
(including Malta, the Holy Sepulchre) were not created by any sovereign in
the way that, say, the English Saint-John order was created. And the
"legitimacy" of those orders rests on something more than the laws which
holds sway over 109 acres of downtown Rome.
--
Francois Velde
Johns Hopkins University
ve...@jhu.edu
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Erik White <ewh...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
[snipping of various comments]
>>
>In the above quote, I was refering to Orders awarded by former ruling
>Houses such as Bavaria, Anhaly, etc. not the Orders granted by the Holy
>See. BTW, I found my list from the Central Chancery and found six Orders
>awarded by the Vatican as being recognized. The six on my list are:
> 1) Order of Christ
> 2) Order of the Golden Spur
> 3) Order of Pius
> 4) Order of St. Gregory
> 5) Order of St. Silvester
> 6) Order of the Holy Sepulchre
>I will admit that this is not the most current list of recognized Orders.
When you are taling about "the Vatican" you have to be very
careful to define whether you mean the Apostolic See (ie the
Pope himself) or the Holy See (in essence, the Vatican
State). The Holy See is bound by international law only to
recognise on an internationally mutual basis the Orders of
Knighthood and of Merit of other sovereign states with which
it entertains diplomatic relations.
It is much more difficult to define the criteria upon which
the Apostolic See recognises Orders of Knighthood other than
its own, the two Religious Orders and those of sovereign
states. The recognition of the chivalric status of some of
the dynastic Orders goes obviously beyond their
particiaption in ceremonial and liturgical activities. The
Apostolic See's recognition of these Orders of Knighthood is
based ontheir history and legitimacy. All but two of the
dynastic Orders - the Catholic Order of the Golden Fleece of
the House of Habsburg-Lorraine and the Sacred Military
Constantinian Order of St George of the House of the Two
Sicilies (disregarding the internal family dispute) - have
become totally secularised, though several Orders have
retained remnants of theirformer strictly Catholic
character; some require that those admitted to the Order
mist profess the Christian religion though not necessarilly
the Catholic faith.
>>
>> >Actually, even self-styled Orders can get a type of "recognition" from the
>> >US government merely by being recognized by the Internal Revenue Service
>> >as a 501(c)(3) non-profit group, which as Francois pointed out earlier is
>> >what the Venerable Order did in France.
>>
>> I think we can discount "recognition" from the IRS......
>>
>Why should we discount this, the IRS is the government body responsible
>for determining many issues of "legitimaticy" in the US. In fact, ALL
>churches must have recognition from the IRS as a 501(c)(3) non-profit
>agency in order to be properly constituted.
Surely, this is just a question of tax status. Here in the
UK, like in many other countries, there are considerable
advantages to having charitable status. In the UK
charitable status is very much self-defined......if you say
you are a charity, then you are taken to be so at face
value. However, all charities over a certain size have ti
be registered with the Charity Commissioners and they will
check that the objects of the charity are in accord with the
accepted "charitable purposes" (first set down in a Statute
of Elizabeth I). The Inland Revenue normally accepts the
fact of registration and allows the charity tax exemption on
its income. This is a matter of tax status and cannot be
taken as a value judgement on the claims of any charity to
antecedents or status.
Here in the UK the Order of St Lazarus is a registered
charity. In no way can that be taken to be a form of
recognition by HM Government of any of the Order's claims to
legitimacy. It merely recognises the charitable aims of the
organisation.
> Of course, as Francois
>pointed out, the Venerable Order sought the same sort of "recogition
>from the French government.
I am sure Francois was referring to the Order of St Lazarus
here, not the Most Venerable Order of St John!!!!
>So I am wondering what makes "recognition" from a French Government Agency
>in any way superior to the same type of recognition from an Official Agency
>of the United States Government?
See above!
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Erik White <ewh...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, Louis Epstein wrote:
>> Erik White (ewh...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
>> :
>> :
>> : On Fri, 26 Apr 1996, Patrick Cracroft-Brennan wrote:
>> :
>> : > Erik White <ewh...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> : >
>> : > >On 22 Apr 1996, Cosmaigne wrote:
>> : >
>> : > >> On 18 April, Peter Cawley <pca...@island.net> wrote (re prior
>> : > >> posting by Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <her...@londwill.demon.co.uk>):
>> : > >>
>> : > >> This position usually also dismisses the Roman Catholic Holy See as
>> : > >> being such an authority, although most of the relevant world accepts its
>> : > >> well-researched and documented positions and opinions regarding which
>> : > >> Orders are "legitimate," and which (that are known about) are not.
>> : >
>> : > >I would have to check again, but I do not believe that the United States
>> : > >recognises the opinion of the Vatican in this matter. However the Office
>> : > >of Protocol at the US State Department used to maintain a list of Foreign
>> : > >Orders which the United States "recognizes," and last time I checked, only
>> : > >those Orders and decorations issued by recognized governments were
>> : > >considered to be "real" which leaves out a lot of Orders issued by
>> : > >formerly ruling houses.
>> : >
>> : > For the sake of the record, the SMOM is "recognized" by the
>> : > US State Department
>> :
>> : In this Patrick is correct, the SMOM is recognized as a legitimate and
>> : sovereign Order by the Office of Protocol, this is not because it is
>> : recognized by the Vatican however, but because the US chooses to recognize
>> : the "sovereignty" of the "territory" controled by the Order.
>>
>> To what extent does the USA do so?I am not aware of there being any
>> diplomatic representation extended between the USA and the SMOM.
>To a limited extent. There is no formal diplomatic representation between
>the SMOM and the US, However, the US has in the past allowed members of
>the government, ex-CIA Director William Casey for example, to be members
>of the Order while in the Service of the US Government. Of course, the
>Official position of the US governmemnt as regards the SMOM may have
>changed under the Clinton Administration, I don't really know as I have
>not been in-the-loop so to speak since George Bush left Office.
President Regan was awarded (and accepted) the Order of
Merit of the SMOM whilst in office
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
tmarg...@aol.com (TMargelony) wrote:
[snip]
>Also, a distinction needs to be drawn between the between the ancient
>crusading orders and the courtly orders of chivilry/merit. The founders of
>the crusading orders were _already_ knights who banded together and won
>their recognition from society through their hard service and crusading
>fervor. What people like Whorley get backwards is that the service orders
>didn't arrive on the scene ready made with fancy ribbons and titles: They
>earned their status in time through dangerous and dedicated work.
Thank you for saying this, Theo. Dr Worley epitomises this
"backwards" attitude by dismissing the Venerable Order of St
John (which runs the St John Ambulance in many countries and
the St John Ophthalmic Hospital in Jerusalem) as "bed pan
knights" (to use his own words). He seems to have forgotten
that the whole raison d'etre of the Hospitaller Order of St
John was the protection and care of "Our Lords the Sick".
Louis Epstein
Erik White (ewh...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
:
:
:
: > Erik White (ewh...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
: > :
: > :
: > : On Fri, 26 Apr 1996, Patrick Cracroft-Brennan wrote:
: > :
: > : >
: > : > >On 22 Apr 1996, Cosmaigne wrote:
: > : >
: > : > >> On 18 April, Peter Cawley <pca...@island.net> wrote (re prior
: > : > >> posting by Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <her...@londwill.demon.co.uk>):
: > : > >> This position usually also dismisses the Roman Catholic Holy See as
: > : > >> being such an authority, although most of the relevant world accepts its
: > : > >> well-researched and documented positions and opinions regarding which
: > : > >> Orders are "legitimate," and which (that are known about) are not.
: > : >
: > : > >I would have to check again, but I do not believe that the United States
: > : > >recognises the opinion of the Vatican in this matter. However the Office
: > : > >of Protocol at the US State Department used to maintain a list of Foreign
: > : > >Orders which the United States "recognizes," and last time I checked, only
: > : > >those Orders and decorations issued by recognized governments were
: > : > >considered to be "real" which leaves out a lot of Orders issued by
: > : > >formerly ruling houses.
: > : >
: > : > For the sake of the record, the SMOM is "recognized" by the
: > : > US State Department
: > : In this Patrick is correct, the SMOM is recognized as a legitimate and
: > : sovereign Order by the Office of Protocol, this is not because it is
: > : recognized by the Vatican however, but because the US chooses to recognize
: > : the "sovereignty" of the "territory" controled by the Order.
: >
: > To what extent does the USA do so?I am not aware of there being any
: > diplomatic representation extended between the USA and the SMOM.
:
: To a limited extent. There is no formal diplomatic representation between
: the SMOM and the US, However, the US has in the past allowed members of
: the government, ex-CIA Director William Casey for example, to be members
: of the Order while in the Service of the US Government.
Hmmm...this doesn't necessarily mean the USA recognizes the order as
sovereign,it might be taken to mean the opposite,as its knights are thought
of as belonging to some association rather than holding office under a
foreign power.
Erik White
It could be that this is indeed the case, to reslove this issue, I sent a
Fax to the Office of Protocol to get an Official Statement of Position
form the US Government, we'll have to wait and see what develops.
Erik
TMargelony
Francois Velde wrote:
>>tmarg...@aol.com (TMargelony) wrote:
> In the Whorley/Sepulcre case as in many
>others, recognition or pseudo-recognition in one country or another is
>irrelevent. It is sovereign power that makes and enforces law, nobilary
>law included, within its territory.
It does not follow that nobiliary law can only exist on a territorial
basis.<<
I can't agree. I'm not just talking about ownership of some land, but
sovereignty and the ability to create law. It was a prince's sovereign
status that gave him the power to create titles. In state after state, the
granting of titles only begins after independence.
>>Papal
>titles derived from the pope's status as a temporal ruler in the Vatican
>States.
I don't think that's right. For one thing, the Pope created papal titles
even when he had no territory (and expressly recognized that he had no
territory) between 1870 and 1929. For another, the texts creating these
titles make it clear that the Pope is acting as head of the Catholic
Church, not as sovereign of the papal states. These texts impose
restrictions on the transmission of the titles and nobiliary status which
have nothing to do with territory, and everything to do with the Catholic
church (e.g. the title cannot pass to non-Catholics). A large number of
these titles were created for people who were not citizens of the Papal
States.<<
Titles are secular. They have nothing to do with religion. It was only
when the Popes acquired the status of a territorial sovereign that they
could begin to give them out. The wording of some patents doesn't change
the development that made Papal titles possible. Of course, like any
sovereign, the Popes didn't readily stop what they had become accustomed
to. Also, I didn't say that citizenship was a requirement. Sovereigns
often gave out titles to non-subjects. It's just that they had to be
sovereigns before they could.
>>As this example shows, it is not the case that titles are valid only if
there is a sovereign territorial power which has created them. I think
the
same point can be made about orders of chivalry as well, and that
recognition in various countries is far from irrelevant: some orders
(including Malta, the Holy Sepulchre) were not created by any sovereign in
the way that, say, the English Saint-John order was created. And the
"legitimacy" of those orders rests on something more than the laws which
holds sway over 109 acres of downtown Rome.<<
To reiterate, the service orders are different from the courtly orders of
chivalry and developed seperately. The two should not be treated as the
same thing.
Theo Margelony
Louis Epstein
TMargelony (tmarg...@aol.com) wrote:
: Francois Velde wrote:
:
: >>tmarg...@aol.com (TMargelony) wrote:
: > In the Whorley/Sepulcre case as in many
: >others, recognition or pseudo-recognition in one country or another is
: >irrelevent. It is sovereign power that makes and enforces law, nobilary
: >law included, within its territory.
:
: It does not follow that nobiliary law can only exist on a territorial
: basis.<<
:
: I can't agree. I'm not just talking about ownership of some land, but
: sovereignty and the ability to create law. It was a prince's sovereign
: status that gave him the power to create titles. In state after state, the
: granting of titles only begins after independence.
Mediaeval non-sovereign lords certainly had the power to knight their
vassals,even if these knights were not members of orders.
Francois R. Velde
tmarg...@aol.com (TMargelony) wrote:
>Francois Velde wrote:
>
>>>tmarg...@aol.com (TMargelony) wrote:
>> In the Whorley/Sepulcre case as in many
>>others, recognition or pseudo-recognition in one country or another is
>>irrelevent. It is sovereign power that makes and enforces law, nobilary
>>law included, within its territory.
>
>It does not follow that nobiliary law can only exist on a territorial
>basis.<<
>
>I can't agree. I'm not just talking about ownership of some land, but
>sovereignty and the ability to create law. It was a prince's sovereign
>status that gave him the power to create titles.
But in the case of the pope, the sovereign status is not a necessary
condition, since he could go on granting titles out of habit, even when he
was not a sovereign anymore?
>In state after state, the
>granting of titles only begins after independence.
I don't see what historical phenomenon you are referring to here. Titles
were created and granted long before sovereigns had anything to do with it,
i.e., during the emergence of feudalism. There were dukes and counts long
before any king ever issued letters patent creating a duke of a count, and
most of these original dukes and counts did not ask any king's permission.
And, by the process of sub-infeodation, dukes and counts were in turn
"granting titles" of their own movement, without being sovereigns (unless,
like James Algrant, you want to argue that everybody was sovereign).
It is true that, over the course of time, sovereigns have reserved for
themselves the right to create titles and alter nobiliary law. But one
cannot argue on a historical basis, as you seem to be doing, that
sovereignty is a prerequisite for the creation of titles. Undoubtedly, it
*has* become that way, especially since the whole social structure in which
titles served a purpose has disappeared, and titles subsist in some
countries with an entirely different purpose.
The same goes for orders of chivalry. I agree with you that courtly orders
must be created by sovereigns: in fact, that is a tautology, since I would
define courtly orders as those created by sovereigns; and I find it easy to
agree with tautologies. But I see nothing in the concept of orders of
chivalry which requires a sovereign power at the origin: again,
historically, no such necessity has been manifested, even if, over the
course of time, sovereigns have taken over the business of creating orders
for themselves (although private individuals went on creating orders of
chivalry on their own, e.g. in France into the 18th century, in Italy at
least until the 16th c., etc).
The only way I could see such a necessity is if one considered that orders
of chivalry today have only one purpose, a purely honorific one; and that
they can be honorific only when awarded by a sovereign, like titles. (In
principle, anyone can honor anyone else; asociations and institutions
routinely honor individuals with awards, titles, medals, honorary diplomas,
"employee of the month", etc. There are many fontes honorum in society, of
varying prestige to be sure.) But that is certainly not what Patrick, for
example, has in mind when he thinks of orders of chivalry, since he
mentions (a bit vaguely) adherence to the Christian concepts of chivalry.
>To reiterate, the service orders are different from the courtly orders of
>chivalry and developed seperately. The two should not be treated as the
>same thing.
Fine, but why do you want to treat all other orders of chivalry like
courtly orders? In other words, why allow only the ancient service orders
and the modern, sovereign-created courtly orders? What do we do with the
Knights of Columbus, for example?
In the eyes of French law, and probably in the eyes of the European
Community, Patrick's order of Saint-Lazarus is just a charitable
institution. Why can charitable institutions not be thought of as orders
of chivalry when they also display a number of characteristics? I'm not
saying that the Red Cross of Doctors without Borders are orders, but
charitable institutions which also had, say, nobiliary membership
requirements, imposed religious duties on their members, required oaths of
loyalty, or whatever else distinguishes an order from any association.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
All that I am thinking of here, Francois, is the distinction
bertween membership of the SMOM, EOHS, OStJ and OStL, where
membership entails the taking of solemn vows to defend the
Church, protect the poor and sick and, in the case of the
first two, a specific Oath of Loyalty to the Pope, and, say,
membership of the Order of the British Empire, where one is
being honoured by the Crown for what one has achieved or
done.
>>To reiterate, the service orders are different from the courtly orders of
>>chivalry and developed seperately. The two should not be treated as the
>>same thing.
>Fine, but why do you want to treat all other orders of chivalry like
>courtly orders? In other words, why allow only the ancient service orders
>and the modern, sovereign-created courtly orders? What do we do with the
>Knights of Columbus, for example?
They are a knightly fraternity....much esteemed in the
Catholic Church....but not an "Order of Chivalry" in the
accepted sense of the term.
>In the eyes of French law, and probably in the eyes of the European
>Community, Patrick's order of Saint-Lazarus is just a charitable
>institution. Why can charitable institutions not be thought of as orders
>of chivalry when they also display a number of characteristics? I'm not
>saying that the Red Cross of Doctors without Borders are orders, but
>charitable institutions which also had, say, nobiliary membership
>requirements, imposed religious duties on their members, required oaths of
>loyalty, or whatever else distinguishes an order from any association.
I think I see what you're saying here, Francois. I think
the distinction between, say, the OStL and, say, the Red
Cross, is the solemn commitment before God which a member of
the OStL makes when he is admiitted to the Order. That is
not, of course, to imply that members of the Red Cross are
any less committed to their work than, say, members of the
OStL.
If I've misinterpreted you, no doubt you'll let me know :-)