Royal Order of Saint Michael of the Wing
Nenad M. Jovanovich
of Saint Michael of the Wing?
I see that it is still being awarded as a Dynastic Order, or am I
wrong?
So it's status might be simmilar to that of the Military Constantinian
Order of Saint George?
andor...@yahoo.com
"""Nenad M. Jovanovich писал(а):
It is not the same. The matter in establishing authority. This knightly
body was founded sevreal time, but the last time (present) by
non-ruling Head of the RH of Portugal. The COSG was founded in 1699 by
the Pope ( who always is ruling sovereign) for Duke of Parma
Franchesco Fernese, and now it is continue to be bestowed by several
lines of Farnese heritage inherited by Burbons ( RH of Two Sicilies, in
disput between franco-neapoletan and spanish-neapoletan lines, and DH
of Parma)
see the link
http://www.icocregister.org/list2004.htm
Other Institutions of Chivalric character
Ancient chivalric institutions, originally founded as orders,
subsequently revived by the dynastic successor of the founding
authority.
1. Portugal
House of Braganca (Catholic)
Saint Michael of the Wing
Founded: 1171/1848/1981[67]/2001 (Conferred since 1981)
Ribbon: Red.
Grand Master: H.R.H. Dom Duarte, Duke of Braganca (Duarte III, Titular
King of Portugal and the Algarves) (b. 1945).
Nenad M. Jovanovich
I have alredy seen this bit of information, but it's somewhat
ambigious.
For instance, the Montenegrene Order of Danilo I is listed as a
Dynastic Order despite the fact that it was recently reestablished by a
non-ruling Prince Nikola Petrovich-Njegosh (existed till 1918).
It seems to me that the Order of St. Michael of the Wing has as strong
a case as this one (if not even stronger).
How is it listed in the new book of Guy Stair Santy?
andor...@yahoo.com
"""Nenad M. Jovanovich писал(а):
Order of Danilo I was not reestablished, but HRH Nicola of Montenegro
just started (recently) its conferring. This Order is an Order of
Merit, but not an institution of chivalric character.It is different
things.
For example, the dynastical Order of St Joseph...
(in all classes conferred nobility, the third class- for life, the
second and the first classes - hereditary, of Tuscan GD House, it is
an surviving norm of its statute confirmed by Constitution of 1849,the
last major legal base for the Grand Ducal House of Tuscany,and
therefore may not be revoked any way)..
...was recently, in 1971 reconfirmed by grandfather of the present
Grand Duke Sigismondo, and was again started its conferring (after the
long period of non-using).The order was not reestablished, but just
reconfirmed.
For example, it is known that the Order of the Thistle exisied long
before the time of its reestablishment in present condition by the King
James VII of Scotland. James VII established the order when he was a
ruling sovereign. Dom Duarte of Portugal is not a ruling sovereign and
his recent establishing of the oredr of St. Michael of the Wing may not
be the same thing with an order established by ruling sovereign and
after reconfirmed by the heir of ruling sovereign.
George Lucki
news:1163866052.4...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It is a perfectly respectable order, but as I understand the status of this
order it is different than that of the Constantinian or St. Stephen of
Tuscany.
The first issue is its continuity. While its origin is ancient - it was
established in the 12th century its later history is quite obscure and it
likely had continued a nominal existence under the authority of the
Cistercian Order. There is some hidotrical documentation in this regard but
not a lot. It is clear that it was resurrected or reformed again in the
nineteenth century as a secret political-religious order opposed to
Portuguese anti-clerical, masonic, liberal movements. The Church put an end
to Catholic secret societies in the middle of the nineteenth century and it
continued as an opeb society for a time. Except for the head of the house of
Portugal who continued as a hereditary master there is no indication of
other knights being appointed. There was a private or unauthorized
rectivation of the order about 25 years ago in Portugal to which the Duke of
Braganca later assented but because of some difficulties the order was
reformed by the Duke and again reformed several years ago as a Catholic
Royal Confraternity (Royal Brotherhood of St. Michael of the Wing). The
Order itself exists as an order of honor within the confraternity. There
could be a case made for the continuity of the order - it was never
abolished and nominally continued, but such a case would be a bit tenuous
given the slim historical record, apparent discontinuities and the
significant changes in structure and purpose. The most conservative (and
most easily supported) interpretation would be to see it as the modern
revival of an ancient order of jbighthood by the successor of the founding
authority - in this it is differnt from modern orders created in exile by
non-reigning monarchs.
The second issue is its nature. In its most recent reformation it has been
restructured primarily as a royal brotherhood - a chivalric confraternity of
knights and this is the way in which Guy sainty listed it in Burke's - in
the section of "Nobillary, Chivalric and Royal Confraternities and
Institutions" which is a reflection of that structure, although a case could
be also made that there is within a chivalric order.
In any case both these issues make its character quite different than that
of other historic chivalric groups and differnt still than the Order of
Danilo I, which is a dynastic order of merit (more like the Portuguese Order
of Vila Vicosa). In terms of its standing - well that is also determined
really by the standing of the dynastic authority awarding the order and the
quality of its membership. I would not suggest that in this case you go by
only the foundation date of the order - as it is both ancient and really
quite new.
George Lucki
Nenad M. Jovanovich
But I still don't get it...
Regardless of the obvious difference between the Order for Merit and
Chivalric Order - why is it that we should consider Order of St.
Michael of the Wing to be - ''established'', and Order of Danilo I to
be ''reconfirmed''?
Both of the Princes are non-ruling heirs of the founding Rulers. Both
decorations were out of use for a perod of time...
Nenad M. Jovanovich
You've been helpfull as allways!
George Lucki је написао
pritch...@hotmail.com
The Royal Brotherhood of Saint Michael of the Wing is an active Roman
Catholic confraternity established by an ordinary according to Canon
Law with the Duke of Braganca as the hereditary Judge. The Royal Order
of Saint Michael of the Wing is an order (according to the Grand
Master, Dom Duarte Pio Duke of Braganca) and does nothing unto itself
as all activities are conducted through the Confraternity. In other
words, no one can be a member of the Royal Order of Saint Michael of
the Wing without first being a member of the Royal Brotherhood of Saint
Michael of the Wing. The changes in the Royal Order of Saint Michael of
the Wing from 1981 and 2001 are dramatic, the revived order of 1981 was
based upon the order founded by King Dom Miguel I of Portugal as a
political-military order to combat Socialism, Freemasonry and
anti-Clericalism in mid-ninteenth century Portugal. The colours of the
ribbon of this order, both 1848 and 1981, were red and blue which are
the colours of the House of Braganca while at war. The duke, wanting to
return the Royal Order of Saint Michael of the Wing to its origins as a
religious order of knighthood replaced the militant colours of red and
blue with a red ribbon which reflects the historic origins of the
Portuguese order as a former branch of the Spanish Religious Military
Order of Santiago.
As far as I know, the Order of Prince Danilo I is a straight forward
dynastic order. If an order has not been conferred for a very long
time, it is normal from time to time for the head of the royal house to
reconfirm that such an order still is within the gift of the head of a
house.
David
George Lucki
news:1163885050....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I would like to expand upon what George wrote about Sao Miguel da Ala.
> The Royal Brotherhood of Saint Michael of the Wing is an active Roman
> Catholic confraternity established by an ordinary according to Canon
> Law with the Duke of Braganca as the hereditary Judge.
David,
Are you sure about this?
I've looked at the statutes of the Order and it appears to fully conform to
the provisions of Canon Law in terms of private association of the faithful
(which is understandable given its historical roots as a Catholic chivalric
institution) but I'm not at all clear that it would have ever actually
required the approval of any ordinary because as a dynastic foundation it
would have not been under the jursdiction of the Royal House rather than any
diocesan ordinary. I also had understood that the authority establishing the
confraternity andcontinuing the order within the confraternity was the head
of the house of Portugal and not a local bishop. If it had been established
by a bishop it would be a wholly different foundation (an ecclesiastic body)
rather than a dynastic one. On the other hand it would not surprise me in
the least if the Duke of Braganca consulted the statutes with Church
officials given the Catholic roots of the order.
The Royal Order
> of Saint Michael of the Wing is an order (according to the Grand
> Master, Dom Duarte Pio Duke of Braganca) and does nothing unto itself
> as all activities are conducted through the Confraternity. In other
> words, no one can be a member of the Royal Order of Saint Michael of
> the Wing without first being a member of the Royal Brotherhood of Saint
> Michael of the Wing.
This makes sense - the confraternity would then be public or social
organization through which the order undertook whatever charitable or other
work and would be eligible to be registered as a private society in Portugal
or elsewhere.
The changes in the Royal Order of Saint Michael of
> the Wing from 1981 and 2001 are dramatic, the revived order of 1981 was
> based upon the order founded by King Dom Miguel I of Portugal as a
> political-military order to combat Socialism, Freemasonry and
> anti-Clericalism in mid-ninteenth century Portugal. The colours of the
> ribbon of this order, both 1848 and 1981, were red and blue which are
> the colours of the House of Braganca while at war. The duke, wanting to
> return the Royal Order of Saint Michael of the Wing to its origins as a
> religious order of knighthood replaced the militant colours of red and
> blue with a red ribbon which reflects the historic origins of the
> Portuguese order as a former branch of the Spanish Religious Military
> Order of Santiago.
I was not aware that the 1981 revival (renewal) of the order was as a
political-military order (Are the 1981 statutes published anywhere?), but
the choice of the colours would seem to be consistent with this. Who was
involved in this 1981 revival? In many ways such aims would have made sense
in Portugal where republican ideals have been heavily influenced by masonic
and anti-clerical perpectives.
George Lucki
George Lucki
news:JEM7h.340030$R63.46325@pd7urf1no...
> <pritch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1163885050....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>I would like to expand upon what George wrote about Sao Miguel da Ala.
>> The Royal Brotherhood of Saint Michael of the Wing is an active Roman
>> Catholic confraternity established by an ordinary according to Canon
>> Law with the Duke of Braganca as the hereditary Judge.
>
> David,
> Are you sure about this?
> I've looked at the statutes of the Order and it appears to fully conform
> to the provisions of Canon Law in terms of private association of the
> faithful (which is understandable given its historical roots as a Catholic
> chivalric institution) but I'm not at all clear that it would have ever
> actually required the approval of any ordinary because as a dynastic
> foundation it would have not been under the jursdiction of the Royal House
> rather than any diocesan ordinary.
Oooops.
That should have been...
I'm not at all clear that it would have ever actually
required the approval of any ordinary because as a dynastic foundation it
would have *been* under the jursdiction of the Royal House rather than any
diocesan ordinary.
Sorry. I should have caught that error before posting.
George Lucki
jsj...@fastmail.fm
orders, and comes under the control of the state - being the President
under the current regime.
The colour of the ribbon is red, so presumably the Wing order would not
be an official order in Portugal.
George Lucki
news:1163895686.2...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
No, it is not a state order. Portugal is after all a republic. Nonetheless
I've been given to understand that the rapprochment between the Duke of
Braganza and the Republic is such that he lives in Portugal, his status as
the head of the Royal House is officially recognized by the state and his
awards may be worn on uniform, etc. The dynastic orders of the former Royal
House include Vila Vicosa for merit, a ladies order and St. Michael. The
other orders of the former monarchy are now state orders and I understand
that the Duke of Braganca would not take any action to award them himself.
George
George Lucki
with another military order and now a Portuguese state order - St. James of
the Sword is also red and of course St. Michael of the Wing has an early
historic association with this originally Spanish order. The modern ribbon
is lilac I believe.
George Lucki
pritch...@hotmail.com
I did not phrase that properly, a number of ordinaries who are members
of the order who reviewed and approved the revised statutes of 2001as
conforming to Catholic Canon Law concerning the establishment of a
confraternity under Dom Duarte (rather than under an ordinary
directly). Nothing seems to slip your eye George. I shall have to
triple check my posts in the future.
David
On Nov 18, 6:26 pm, "George Lucki" <georgelu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <pritchard...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1163885050....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >I would like to expand upon what George wrote about Sao Miguel da Ala.
> > The Royal Brotherhood of Saint Michael of the Wing is an active Roman
> > Catholic confraternity established by an ordinary according to Canon
> > Law with the Duke of Braganca as the hereditary Judge
> David,
pritch...@hotmail.com
maroon.
David
On Nov 18, 9:57 pm, "George Lucki" <georgelu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <jsjo...@fastmail.fm> wrote in messagenews:1163895686.2...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...> In Portugal the Order of Christ is one of the three great and ancient
> > orders, and comes under the control of the state - being the President
> > under the current regime.
>
> > The colour of the ribbon is red, so presumably the Wing order would not
> > be an official order in Portugal.I'll just add one other thing to the mix - the historical colour associated
jsj...@fastmail.fm
are -
Order of Christ - red
Order of St James - purple (lilac)
Order of Avis - green.
The President of Portugal, as Grand Master of the three orders - wears
a sash known as Sash of the Three Orders - Christ (AD1317), St James
(AD 1320), Avis (AD 1140), with three equal stripes of the three
colours.
The breast star shows all three orders. Some dates are in dispute,
but give an indication of antiquity.
There are several other major orders - the Tower and the Sword, blue
ribbon (AD 1459), the Order of Prince Henry (the Navigator), and some
others.
John Jones
pritch...@hotmail.com
president awarded the Sash of the Three Orders to a Portuguese
celebrity. Evidently no one thought that the order could be granted to
a normal person but rather that it was part of the regalia of the
Portuguese Presidency and only to be conferred on foreign heads of
state.
David
Photograph: http://www.omsa.org/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=3416
David
Guy Stair Sainty
andor...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>"""Nenad M. Jovanovich писал(а):
>"""
>> Could anyone tell me more about the present status of the Royal Order
>> of Saint Michael of the Wing?
>>
>> I see that it is still being awarded as a Dynastic Order, or am I
>> wrong?
>>
>> So it's status might be simmilar to that of the Military Constantinian
>> Order of Saint George?
>
>It is not the same. The matter in establishing authority. This knightly
>body was founded sevreal time, but the last time (present) by
>non-ruling Head of the RH of Portugal. The COSG was founded in 1699 by
>the Pope ( who always is ruling sovereign) for Duke of Parma
>Franchesco Fernese, and now it is continue to be bestowed by several
>lines of Farnese heritage inherited by Burbons
Not founded in 1699; it was already existing by the mid-16th century with
numerous signs of papal recognition from the 1550s and Imperial and Spamnish
recognition during the 17th century. The Pope is not "ruling sovereign" of the
Order; it is nonetheless a subject of canon law and if the descendants of the
house of Bourbon-Farnese born of Catholic marriages became extinct in the male
line and there was no successor by nomination or election, the grand magistery
would revert to the Pope.
St Michael of the Wing is a confraternity, constructed like an Order, and the
successor of the traditions of the original Order but not directly linked to the
chivalric foundation.
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Guy Stair Sainty
Jovanovich says...
and his sueccssors as a dynastic order of Merit.
The original Order of St michael of the Wing was a religious-military Order,
founded as a subject of canon law, that ceased to exist as such as under canon
law such institutions become extinct 100 years after the death of the last
person canonically admitted. Its modern foundation is as a confraternity, and it
was never an Order of either the Portuguese state or the Portuguese reigning
dynasty.
Guy Stair Sainty
andor...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>> How is it listed in the new book of Guy Stair Santy?
>
>
>Order of Danilo I was not reestablished, but HRH Nicola of Montenegro
>just started (recently) its conferring. This Order is an Order of
>Merit, but not an institution of chivalric character.It is different
>things.
This was treated as a dynastic Order by the exiled king of Montenegro after
1918, and its recent revival was considered legitimate for that reason.
>
>For example, the dynastical Order of St Joseph...
>...was recently, in 1971 reconfirmed by grandfather of the present
>Grand Duke Sigismondo, and was again started its conferring (after the
>long period of non-using).The order was not reestablished, but just
>reconfirmed.
And it was awarded after exile and into the 1920s before its more recent
revival.
>
>For example, it is known that the Order of the Thistle exisied long
>before the time of its reestablishment in present condition by the King
>James VII of Scotland. James VII established the order when he was a
>ruling sovereign.
That "early existence" is pure mythology invented to give the new Order added
lustre.
Guy Stair Sainty
pritch...@hotmail.com says...
>
>I would like to expand upon what George wrote about Sao Miguel da Ala.
>The Royal Brotherhood of Saint Michael of the Wing is an active Roman
>Catholic confraternity established by an ordinary according to Canon
>Law with the Duke of Braganca as the hereditary Judge. The Royal Order
>of Saint Michael of the Wing is an order (according to the Grand
>Master, Dom Duarte Pio Duke of Braganca) and does nothing unto itself
>as all activities are conducted through the Confraternity. In other
>words, no one can be a member of the Royal Order of Saint Michael of
>the Wing without first being a member of the Royal Brotherhood of Saint
>Michael of the Wing. The changes in the Royal Order of Saint Michael of
>the Wing from 1981 and 2001 are dramatic, the revived order of 1981 was
>based upon the order founded by King Dom Miguel I of Portugal as a
>political-military order to combat Socialism, Freemasonry and
>anti-Clericalism in mid-ninteenth century Portugal. The colours of the
>ribbon of this order, both 1848 and 1981, were red and blue which are
>the colours of the House of Braganca while at war. The duke, wanting to
>return the Royal Order of Saint Michael of the Wing to its origins as a
>religious order of knighthood replaced the militant colours of red and
>blue with a red ribbon which reflects the historic origins of the
>Portuguese order as a former branch of the Spanish Religious Military
>Order of Santiago.
I believe one should look at this slightly differently. the use of the
Order as an award for legitimist loyalism by Dom Miguel was in no
way connected with the original canonical foundation. This was already
extinct under the norms of canon law.
The "order" that is part of the Brotherhood, like the latter is a new
foundation, and as far as I can see is essentially no different from it,
whatever the distinctions betweeb the ribbons. It is a different institution to
both the original religious-military foundation and the Miguelist award.
Guy Stair Sainty
>
><jsj...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>news:1163895686.2...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> In Portugal the Order of Christ is one of the three great and ancient
>> orders, and comes under the control of the state - being the President
>> under the current regime.
>>
>> The colour of the ribbon is red, so presumably the Wing order would not
>> be an official order in Portugal.
>>
>
>No, it is not a state order. Portugal is after all a republic. Nonetheless
>I've been given to understand that the rapprochment between the Duke of
>Braganza and the Republic is such that he lives in Portugal, his status as
>the head of the Royal House is officially recognized by the state and his
>awards may be worn on uniform, etc.
I think "officially" is probably the wrong word, since there is no provision of
Portuguese law which would allow the government to officially recognise any
claimant to the throne. That said, Dom Duarte is always treated by the
authorities of the public as the representative of the royual dynasty and
invitations extended to him to participate in official ceremonies accord him his
royal titles. Furthermore, he is the beneficiary of a foundation established by
the dowager Queen and a counter-claim made by the late Hilda
Toledano (aka Maria Pia Duchess of Braganza) was decisively rejected by a
Portuguese court. His awards may not, however, be worn officially on uniform
and while they are tolerated (i.e. not specifically prohibited) it would be
incorrect to say that any Portuguese citizen has received official permission to
wear them.
Guy Stair Sainty
jsj...@fastmail.fm says...
>
>The colours for the three ancient - but still used - Portuguese orders
>are -
>Order of Christ - red
>Order of St James - purple (lilac)
>Order of Avis - green.
>
>There are several other major orders - the Tower and the Sword, blue
>ribbon (AD 1459), the Order of Prince Henry (the Navigator), and some
>others.
The apocryphal date for the foundation of the Order of the Tower and Sword
has no historical basis; when the Order was invented (to reward non-Catholics,
in particular British officers serving on the peninsular in the war against
Napoleon) it was felt proper to invent an earlier date, to give it some kind
of parity in antiquity with the Orders of Christ, Avia and St James, all of
which were limited to catholics and whose status had been changed in 1780 from
autonomous military religious Orders under the hereditary grand magistery of
trhe crown to Catholic Orders of State merit conferring privileges (the use of
commanderies, etc) and requiring nobility. Since the Order of the Tower and
Sword outranks the other three, it needed more substance - hence the imaginary
foundation date (rather as with the Thistle, discussed elsewhere).
Guy Stair Sainty
pritch...@hotmail.com says...
>
>There was quite an uproar in Portugal a few years ago when the
>president awarded the Sash of the Three Orders to a Portuguese
>celebrity. Evidently no one thought that the order could be granted to
>a normal person but rather that it was part of the regalia of the
>Portuguese Presidency and only to be conferred on foreign heads of
>state.
I do not think this can be correct; Dr D. Jose-Vicente de Braganca wrote the
essays on the Portuguese Orders in Burke's Orders of Knighthood and Merit was
until March of this year Secretary-General of the presidency of the Republic and
respoinsible for the Orders. He was very clear in his text that subsequent to
the reforms of 1962-63 the riband of the three Orders had never
been awarded to anyone other than ex-officio the President of the Republic.
Prior to that date it was awarded exclusively to heads of State and there are
only two living holders of the Riband given it before that date, HM Queen
Elizabeth II (given it in 1955) and HM King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand given
it in 1960. It bis inconceivable that a President of the Republic would have
somehow attempted to have given it to someone other than a head of state, and
certainly not after 1963.
There was until 1963 also the Riband of the Two Orders (Christ and Avis) was
given to heads of states or heirs (the duke of Windsor received it in 1931).
This was abolished in the 1963 reforms.
pritch...@hotmail.com
I only recounted what was told to me by a Portuguese friend. It could
be that only the sash was presented by the president without the proper
doumentation and brevet or it could be that wiser persons prevailed
upon the president to nullify this conferral.
David
On Nov 19, 1:55 pm, Guy Stair Sainty <g...@sainty.org> wrote:
> In article <1163914700.013436.87...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> pritchard...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>
> >There was quite an uproar in Portugal a few years ago when the
> >president awarded the Sash of the Three Orders to a Portuguese
> >celebrity. Evidently no one thought that the order could be granted to
> >a normal person but rather that it was part of the regalia of the
> >Portuguese Presidency and only to be conferred on foreign heads of
> >state.I do not think this can be correct; Dr D. Jose-Vicente de Braganca wrote the
pritch...@hotmail.com
Michael of the Wing had no connection to the ancient canonical order of
the same name. It is interesting to note that a few years ago, HM Juan
Carlos I of Spain declared the long abbeyant Spanish branch of the
ancient Order of Saint Michael of the Wing to be officially extinct
(though it had long been extinct canonically) and that the only order
of that name presently extent in Iberia was the order of Dom Duarte
Pio, Duke of Braganca.
David
On Nov 19, 1:36 pm, Guy Stair Sainty <g...@sainty.org> wrote:
>I believe one should look at this slightly differently. the use of the
> Order as an award for legitimist loyalism by Dom Miguel was in no
> way connected with the original canonical foundation. This was already
> extinct under the norms of canon law.
> Guy Stair Saintywww.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
jsj...@fastmail.fm
to be worn on Portuguese uniforms.
What is worn in civilian dress, other than at official functions, is a
matter for individuals - at least in the British system. I have no
knowledge of what is done in the USA and Europe generally
On presenting of the Band of the Three Orders, I doubt if the President
of the Republic would do as was suggested, even in a rush of blood to
the head. But I haven't kept in touch with Portuguese politics.
John Jones
George Lucki
news:1163975611.6...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I didn't think it likely that Portugal would allow any "private" awards
> to be worn on Portuguese uniforms.
As I understood from previous discussions in 2003 on rec.heraldry the Duke
of Wellington holds a Grand Cross of St. Michael of the Wing and had
obtained a Royal License to wear the Order (the same discussion also
mentioned the issue of wearing such awards on Portuguese uniform) - so I
hope someone can check and clarify both these points.
> What is worn in civilian dress, other than at official functions, is a
> matter for individuals - at least in the British system. I have no
> knowledge of what is done in the USA and Europe generally
I understand this varies from state to state - and that in the UK to be
correct one absolutely needs official permission to wear foreign decorations
and this - although again there is going to be considerable tolerance the
less official the setting. In Europe it varies - with countries like Sweden
allowing all manner of self-styled decorations to be worn on military
uniform and others like Italy puvblishing lists of proscribed self-styled
decorations and establishing civil penalties for their use.
>
> On presenting of the Band of the Three Orders, I doubt if the President
> of the Republic would do as was suggested, even in a rush of blood to
> the head. But I haven't kept in touch with Portuguese politics.
I agree with you and Guy. I also checked. The Government of Portugal
publishes a list of those awarded state orders - I've looked over the list
for 1975-2005 and while there are a few Portuguese individuals who have been
awarded three Grand crosses - none have been awarded this particular
combination of orders (Christ, Avis and St. James) and of course since the
early sixties the Banda das Tres Ordens has not been awarded to foreign
heads of states - the law reserves it to the President alone ex-officio.
George Lucki
jsj...@fastmail.fm
awards" etc can be worn in the UK.
However this only covers official occasions and there are no sanctions
that I know of - other than social pressures - that prevent persons
wearing what they like on private occasions. Even official civil
ceremonies are hard to police - Lord St John Stevas wore his St Lazarus
regalia at an opening of Parliament some years ago, and the only
mention of it was a report in the Daily Telegraph, which noted the
bright green ribbon.
Military dress is quite another thing, and the normal military
sanctions apply to anyone contravening dress codes. But even in
military circles, the rules are less rigid for "mess" dinners or
"mixed" occasions. Miniature of medals and decorations were a private
matter until quite recently, and were purchased separately from the
main award.
In Australia, for Australian awards, miniatures are now part of what is
presented in a special box and even an undress ribbon is provided.
I imagine that the Duke of Wellington is unlikely to wear military
dress nowadays so the Grand Cross of the Wing order is unlikely to
raise any comments. I can't see him wearing such a thing at - for
example - a Coronation, but who knows what might happen. I would be
interested to know if anyone has actually seen him wearing the Wing
regalia at an official function, particularly in the presence of HM.
George Lucki
news:ejq87...@drn.newsguy.com...
This is an interesting point. I've been trying to sort this one out in my
own reading.
What makes it difficult to really evaluate is the skimpiness of the
historical record.
There is clear evidence for the brief early existence of the order as a
religious-military order under Portuguese royal authority and references are
made to Papal approbation - although the specific Papal Bull is appararntly
not to be found. Peter Bander van Duren in The Cross on the Sword provides a
rather difficult to follow discussion of the issue of whether there was
proof that the Order of St. Michael of the Wing was founded/authorized by
Papal Bull but points to several good sources of confirmation. At the same
time it appears clear that this was an order whose headship is hereditarily
linked to the Portuguese crown and whose rule has had its own meanderings.
Edward Potkowski in Rycerze w Habitach notes that the 12th century rule of
the Order of St. Michael of the Wing was already very different than that
other military-religious orders and had a strong confraternal and
socio-political rather than military-monastic character. In this way the
Order was more similar to later mediaeval orders than either its Iberian or
Crusading contemporaries. The serving knights were for example married, and
threy made only a solemn promise of fidelity to God, Pope and King. They
were required to periodically gather for common prayers but had no other
religious obligations. Potkowski notes that they were at the outset more
similar to the later mediaeval monarchical chivalric orders or aristocratic
fraternities than to the military-monastic orders of that period. A strong
monarchical political role is not surprising given the way in which the
early Portuguese kings also used the military-monastic Order of Avis as an
instrument not only for the Reconquista but also the consolidation of power
against regional foes.
At some point the actual authority is apparently transferred to the
Cistercians and became perhaps more religious in character but again the
historical record is skimpy as to how active an existence the order has
(uncertain in terms of primary sources), although I've seen a secondary
source list grand-masters of the order into the late seventeenth century -
and these are the Kings of Portugal as of course the grandmastership of the
order was hereditary in the Portuguese throne. I can't tell when the last
knights were admitted but there is indication lay brothers were admitted
well into the 18th century. The question would then be as to whether the
military aspect of the order had simply fallen into disuse or whetehr the
order had become extinct and whether it was primarily Canon Law or Royal
Will that had governed the Order (and governed its legal continuity). There
just seems to be too little material available to know. On balance though it
would appear that it continued at the very least through the continued
existence of the hereditary grandmastership vested in the King and whatever
role the Abbots of Alcobaca had in maintaining its corporate existence. The
ambiguity of its nominal existence appears to have carried over to 17th
century foreign commentators such as Ashmole or Abbot Guistinian who both
describe the order yet respectively indicate it is in disuse or raise doubts
about its continuity. At the same time there are the published 1630 revised
statutes of and Guistinian's 17th century listing of masters and past
knights which speaks to some continuity.
The first clearer indication of its modern reconfirmation/reestablishment is
the 19th century Miguelist military-political order. Now the question here
seems to be whether it is a reform of a long dormant or nominally existing
confraternal royal order or the creation of a new military-political order -
but certainly Miguel's rule was autocratic and he would have been free to
create, restore, reform or reestablish according to his lights. The
potential challenges to seeing his actions as a reform and reconfirmation
might be as to his rightful rule (whether he or Pedro of Brasil were the
intended heir) and whether the Order existed to be reformed (in which case
it was a new creation) if the original Order were solely dependent on the
Holy See. The 19th century order would have been a significant departure
from a military-monastic order but of course less so for monarchical
military-political order. It is nonetheless clear that Miguel saw it as his
right to lead the order by virtue of inherited perogative. The 1848 statutes
of the Order are from the period after his overthrow but of course he had
not abdicated but continued to act from Austrian exile.
Guy appears to see the 12th century order in similar terms to contemporary
monastic-military orders and sees its existence as ended 100 years after the
last of its military knights had passed away (whever that was) as it was
essentially an entity of Canon Law. I am open, following the difference in
its 12th century rule to the view that it had a monarchical character and a
Catholic character that presaged later European monarchical foundations and
may be seen as nominally existing even when the King of Portugal was the
only knight and at teh same time master of the Order.
But I'll take one more stab at a Canon Law based principle of extinction:
Foundation 1147 (or thereabouts) - active in reconquista
End of military role (after 1280 or therabouts) - political role diminishing
Continued under Cistercian administration with new statutes 1630 (with both
a military and religious wing)
Last knight admitted ? Last serving brothers admitted before 1789
Secularization of religious military orders 1789
Restoration of St. Michael by Miguel as secret military-political order 1848
(apparently with Papal approval)
Last knight admitted circa 1912
Restored 1981 with the newest statutes in 2001
In strictly canonical terms - if we accept that it nominally continued and
admitted or potentially admitted some knights (otherwise the 1630 statutes
would have not included this element) to consider the order to be extinct it
would have had to have been sometime after 1630 after the last knight was
appointed and counting 100 years from last surving knight. Except that in
terms of the 1630 statutes (looking strictly from the Canon Law norm) the
corporate existence continued although the chivalric wing may have been in
abeyance without the admission of new knights except for the status of the
King as knight and Grand Master. After all the Canon Law standard referred
to relates really to the corporate existence. In fact a case can be made
that the 1630 statutes strengthened the Canon Law corproate continuity of
the order by allowing its continued existence as a corporate entity in
Church law even as the admission fo new knights went into abeyance.
Notwithstanding any of this if we accept the truth of the Papal approval of
the restoration of the order in 1848 (it was not continued by the monarchy
in 1789 as a secularised order) then that act would seem to overide any
other canonical provision and be an affirmation of Miguel's authority to
revive the order and alter its purpose. If the Pope assented to the revival
than clearly it was by definition canonically revivable (even if it was like
the revival of Lazarus - the biblical Lazarus not the order :) - couldn't
resist). The Pope is free to override any administrative provision of his
own laws.
Arguments can be made that there was no canonical extinction fo the order
(although again there is a speculative element).
>
> The "order" that is part of the Brotherhood, like the latter is a new
> foundation, and as far as I can see is essentially no different from it,
> whatever the distinctions betweeb the ribbons. It is a different
> institution to
> both the original religious-military foundation and the Miguelist award.
>
I wonder how this squares with the decree of Dom Duarte (I've copied this
from an earlier thread on rec.heraldry with the participation of Guy Sainty,
Pier Felice degli Uberti and carlos Evaristo)
DECRETO DE APROVACAO DE ESTATUTOS
Declaro que os presentes Estatutos da Real Irmandade da Ordem de São
Miguel da Ala, que constam de quarto Capítulos com tres Artigos, foram
aprovados por minha expressa vontade a 8 de Maio de 2001 e substituem
pos Estatutos de 1630, 1848 e 1981, anteriormente utilizados pela
Ordem de São Miguel da Ala.
Festa do Anjo Custódio de Portugal, 10 de Junho de 2001.
Dom Duarte Pio de Bragança
Juiz da Real Irmandade de São Miguel da Ala
Grão-Mestre Nato da Ordem de São Miguel da Ala
- wherein he seems to imply that the new statutes replace the earlier
Miguelist statutes which replace the earlier Alcobaca statutes - all quite
different and all at the same time connected to the same order. He also
reconfirms his hereditary status as Grand-Master. I would also note that in
1986 when he reconfirmed his claim to the three dynastic orders he specified
that his claim to Vila Vicosa and St. Isabel flowed by succession from King
Manuel and his claim to St. Michael flowed from King Miguel (reflecting the
reunion of the Miguelist and Manuelist succession in his father Dom Duarte
Nuno). It would seem that Dom Duarte would disagree with both David's and
Guy's positions on this point. The new statutes describe a chivalric
confraternity and within that confraternity the renewed chivalric order. The
Order is within a confraternity is not the same as the order is the
confraternity,
The same dual formulation of Judge of the Brotherhood and Grand Master of
the Order appears on the official web-page of the Royal House -
"É Grão Mestre da Ordem de Nossa Senhora da Conceição de Vila Viçosa, Grão
Mestre da Real Ordem de São Miguel da Ala e Juiz da Real Irmandade de São
Miguel da Ala, Bailio Grã-Cruz de Honra e Devoção da Ordem Soberana Militar
de Malta e possui o Tosão de Ouro, com que foi agraciado pelo Arquiduque
Otão de Habsburgo, entre outras ordens com que foi agraciado."
Now, I am aware that the Duke of Braganca has received a variety of
different bits of advice as to how to reform the Order based on different
people's notions or suppositions as to whether the Order was a solely a
subject of Canon Law and had become extinct or whether it continued a
nominal existence through its hereditary grandmaster. I'm not surprised by
these various interpretations given the skimpiness of the historical record
and the differences simply reflect the notions of their authors, about the
nature of the 12th century order, as they read into the skimpy record. If
the authors are convinced it was juridicially like the Templars or St. John
then it would be reasonable to believe it had become extinct as a subject of
Canon Law. If it was a creature of the monarchy it may have continued a
nominal existence in its hereditary masters at the very least. There is in
my mind no clear way to determine which of these positions is historically
more defensible and so I compromise calling it old and new at the same time.
Perhaps the deciding voice should go to the Duke of Braganca who certainly
sees a distinction between the Order and the Confraternity of the same name
the Order is now contained within. He uses distinct titles to distinguish
the two roles he has vis a vis the Confraternity and the Order. The
Confraternity is certainly a new vehicle for the social aspects of the order
and distinguishes between the religious-social functions of the brotherhood
and the chivalric order itself. The structure is a unique one, but that is
Dom Duarte's current choice.
That would suggest that as far as our view of the Order itself we have four
possible choices - the first would be to recognize it as Dom Duarte's
renewal (within a new confraternity) of an ancient long disused order that
has been hereditary in the throne of Portugal (and perhaps also as a reform
of the Miguelist nineteenth century political order); second to deny the
historical continuity of the order and see it as the brand new creation of
a non-reigning pretender (akin to the Savoy Civil Order of Merit); third to
gloss over Dom Duarte's statements that there continues within the Order and
maintain that it is simply a new grade within a new chivalric confraternity;
or simply deny that the chivalric awards of Dom Duarte or any non-reigning
monarch have chivalric standing.
My preference is toward the first interpretation which seems to align with
that of the Duke of Braganca, David's view also appears to favour the first
except bypassing the Miguelist heritage, Guy's argument seems to follow the
third option of glossing over the existence Order and focusing only on the
confraternity (based on his belief that the order is long extinct) and I'm
guessing that John might prefer the fourth.
Now if anyone has some compelling other information or argument I'm open to
revising my view.
George Lucki
barrassie
On Nov 18, 3:22 pm, "Nenad M. Jovanovich" <c...@yubc.net> wrote:
> Could anyone tell me more about the present status of the Royal Order
> of SaintMichaelof theWing?
>
> I see that it is still being awarded as a Dynastic Order, or am I
> wrong?
>
> So it's status might be simmilar to that of the Military Constantinian
> Order of Saint George?
HISTORY OF THE ROYAL ORDER OF SAINT MICHAEL OF THE WING
As told by H.E. Dr. Carlos Evaristo, Vice-Chancellor and Delegate for
the Foreign Delegation of the Royal Brotherhood of the Order of Saint
Michael of the Wing[1]
You will find above history of the order via google if yu search
above.
CMcK Hillhouse
Guy Stair Sainty
>
><jsj...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>news:1163975611.6...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>I didn't think it likely that Portugal would allow any "private" awards
>> to be worn on Portuguese uniforms.
>
>As I understood from previous discussions in 2003 on rec.heraldry the Duke
>of Wellington holds a Grand Cross of St. Michael of the Wing and had
>obtained a Royal License to wear the Order (the same discussion also
>mentioned the issue of wearing such awards on Portuguese uniform) - so I
>hope someone can check and clarify both these points.
Such permissions are not granted by royal license; in any case while one has
heard this story, I believe that such permission was given in a purely private
form by HM, and only in the presence of the Duke of Braganza.
Guy Stair Sainty
pritch...@hotmail.com says...
It is interesting to note that a few years ago, HM Juan
>Carlos I of Spain declared the long abbeyant Spanish branch of the
>ancient Order of Saint Michael of the Wing to be officially extinct
>(though it had long been extinct canonically) and that the only order
>of that name presently extent in Iberia was the order of Dom Duarte
>Pio, Duke of Braganca.
How, where and in what form was this declaration made? GSS
Guy Stair Sainty
jsj...@fastmail.fm says...
>
>
>
>I imagine that the Duke of Wellington is unlikely to wear military
>dress nowadays so the Grand Cross of the Wing order is unlikely to
>raise any comments. I can't see him wearing such a thing at - for
>example - a Coronation, but who knows what might happen. I would be
>interested to know if anyone has actually seen him wearing the Wing
>regalia at an official function, particularly in the presence of HM.
>
Victorian Order, officer of the Order of the British Empire, decorated with the
Military Cross, Officer of the Legion of Honour, etc, may at such an occasion as
the Coronation prefer the collar and riband of the Garter.
Guy Stair Sainty
>
If the Pope assented to the revival
>than clearly it was by definition canonically revivable (even if it was like
>the revival of Lazarus - the biblical Lazarus not the order :) - couldn't
>resist). The Pope is free to override any administrative provision of his
>own laws.
>Arguments can be made that there was no canonical extinction fo the order
>(although again there is a speculative element).
But it was apparently authorised by placet, or viva voce, and not by an
instrument that would have restored it properly in canon law. How could this
have happened without the Order enjoying any kind of corporate existence, with
no properties or commanderies and with no professions and no possibility of
anyone making professions?
The present institution, also an Association of the Faithful, but not owing its
legitimacy to this, is a confraternity under the hereditary grand magistery of
the Head of the Royal House of Portugal. This is surely sufficient to justify
its present status and activities; it does not need a doubtful connection to the
medieval institution even though it may legitimately claim to have been founded
in memory of the traditions of that Order.
jsj...@fastmail.fm
pritch...@hotmail.com
I had heard through reliable sources that this favour from King Juan
Carlos was arranged by the Marques de la Floresta and possibly other
Spanish members of the RISMA. Since this declaration, the RISMA has
held an investiture at Santiago de Compostella. I know that you always
want specifics but I do not know anything more. I suppose that you will
have to do some detective work next time you are in Madrid to learn the
details, if you are that interested.
David
On Nov 21, 12:59 pm, Guy Stair Sainty <g...@sainty.org> wrote:
> In article <1163968670.722040.81...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> pritchard...@hotmail.com says...
>
> It is interesting to note that a few years ago, HM Juan
>
> >Carlos I of Spain declared the long abbeyant Spanish branch of the
> >ancient Order of Saint Michael of the Wing to be officially extinct
> >(though it had long been extinct canonically) and that the only order
> >of that name presently extent in Iberia was the order of Dom Duarte
> >Pio, Duke of Braganca.How, where and in what form was this declaration made? GSS
>
> --
> Guy Stair Saintywww.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
ele...@gnucnu.com
> Dear Guy,
>
> I had heard through reliable sources that this favour from King Juan
> Carlos was arranged by the Marques de la Floresta and possibly other
> Spanish members of the RISMA. Since this declaration, the RISMA has
> held an investiture at Santiago de Compostella. I know that you always
> want specifics but I do not know anything more. I suppose that you will
> have to do some detective work next time you are in Madrid to learn the
> details, if you are that interested.
I could ask His Grace's sister, who is my godmother, if he would be
willing to provide you with chapter and verse and any other details you
require, although there is nothing to stop anyone who wishes to do so
from writing to him directly.
With many regards
Eleanor
George Lucki
news:1164144316....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Eleanor,
It would be very kind of you to ask as it had been mentioned on rec.heraldry
three years ago that in fact His Grace had received a Royal License to
accept and wear the Royal Order of St. Michael of the Wing from the Duke of
Braganca. Guy Sainty had repeated this statement in his article about this
order in Burke's Peerage World Orders of Knighthood an Merit but in his
recent post he has softened this to, "Such permissions are not granted by
royal license; in any case while one has heard this story, I believe that
such permission was given in a purely private form by HM the Queen, and only
in the presence of the Duke of Braganza." Tim Powes-Lybbe mhad previously
written that he had run across other such permissions (for different awards)
made by Royal License but this of course is not the typical way.
As you know, it is alsways good to be able to get past suppositions and
conjecture and get the facts.
Kind regards,
George Lucki
George Lucki
> In article <jNc8h.344988$R63.234027@pd7urf1no>, George Lucki says...
>>
>
> If the Pope assented to the revival
>>than clearly it was by definition canonically revivable (even if it was
>>like
>>the revival of Lazarus - the biblical Lazarus not the order :) - couldn't
>>resist). The Pope is free to override any administrative provision of his
>>own laws.
>>Arguments can be made that there was no canonical extinction fo the order
>>(although again there is a speculative element).
>
> But it was apparently authorised by placet, or viva voce, and not by an
> instrument that would have restored it properly in canon law.
Guy,
Thank you for your letter. There are several underlying difficulties-
You appear to be simply assuming that Dom Miguel had actually required more
than what the Pope thought was necessary and provided - perhaps it was clear
to Dom Miguel and the Pontiff that the order had sufficient continuity and
Dom Miguel sufficient authority as King that Dom Miguel might simply make
new appointments (which he did with Papal approval) and that no further
'restoration' was required. If we accept that the Pope gave his support
(and this would be fully consistent with the Church's perceived needs of the
day) why would we assume he would provide his consent in insufficient form
to make it effective?
How could this
> have happened without the Order enjoying any kind of corporate existence,
> with
> no properties or commanderies and with no professions and no possibility
> of
> anyone making professions?
The second assumption here appears to be that the order was originally and
fundamentally a military-monastic order in the form of St. John and that
professed members (I assume you mean members in religious vows) were
required - and I'm not sure that this is consistent with even the early
history of this order or its 1630 statutes. It was not necessary in terms of
the 1848 statutes. (I'll add that it appears though that until 1789 (from
your article in WOKM) lay brothers were admitted into the religious
division.) Dom Miguel could (and certainly did) admit members as well - the
last admission in 1912 (again according to WOKM).
The question of the corporate existence of the order in 1848 appears to be
fundamentally in the person of Dom Miguel, now in exile, who consistent with
earlier statutes also had the role of Grão-Mestre Nato of the order. The
corporate existence of the order (as well as the corporate existence of the
Portuguese Monarchy) of course rested in the person of Dom Miguel as it had
his precedessors the administration having been previously delegated to the
Abbot of Alcobaca. (Just as by analogy the corporate existence of the Holy
See is in the person of the Pontiff and between Popes the custodian of the
Sede Vacante). The question of the order's properties (the properties of the
Portuguese knightly orders having been seized by the state in 1789) is a bit
of a red herring - this is not an essential attribute but rather a practical
tool of any order.
>
> The present institution, also an Association of the Faithful, but not
> owing its
> legitimacy to this, is a confraternity under the hereditary grand
> magistery of
> the Head of the Royal House of Portugal. This is surely sufficient to
> justify
> its present status and activities; it does not need a doubtful connection
> to the
> medieval institution even though it may legitimately claim to have been
> founded
> in memory of the traditions of that Order.
You make an excellent point and I am in agreement with you as far as your
post goes. Certainly the Duke of Braganza would not need to make this
historical connection to assure the legitimacy of his actions. The corporate
structure of the confraternity would be sufficient for its public purposes -
and in fact it appears from the statutes that the order is charged with
undertaking all of its public actions through confraternity. I am in
agreement with you to this point.
The question though is not merely a pragmatic one but goes to the nature of
the institution - is it an order within a confraternity as the statutes and
Duke appear to indicate; or is it a confraternity as you suggest? If it is
an order within a confraternity how should we regard it - as a new creation
of a non-regnant monarch or is there a basis for seeing a link to the
heritage of the 19th century Miguelist order (whose unfortunate statutes
have been happily replaced) and beyond that to the Cistercian administered
order (statutes of 1630 and earlier) and then the earlier military and later
political orders? Because of the skimpiness of the historical record
available to either of us there seems to be room for doubt both as to the
continuity and to the extinction of the order.
But, even following the timeline of your own article in WOKM it is hard to
find the point at which the order might have become canonically extinct or
more importantly had been repudiated unconditionally by its hereditary
grand-masters, the Kings of Portugal.
It might seem that in the absence of clear indication that it had become
extinct, it would be prudent to acknowledge the position Dom Duarte who has
claimed the hereditary grand-mastery in lineage from Dom Miguel (who
apparently had obtained Papal approval for his revival of appointments to
the order within new statutes of his creation) which claim is consistent
with the histoical record as we know it.
George Lucki
ele...@gnucnu.com
> It would be very kind of you to ask as it had been mentioned on rec.heraldry
> three years ago that in fact His Grace had received a Royal License to
> accept and wear the Royal Order of St. Michael of the Wing from the Duke of
> Braganca. Guy Sainty had repeated this statement in his article about this
> order in Burke's Peerage World Orders of Knighthood an Merit but in his
> recent post he has softened this to, "Such permissions are not granted by
> royal license; in any case while one has heard this story, I believe that
> such permission was given in a purely private form by HM the Queen, and only
> in the presence of the Duke of Braganza." Tim Powes-Lybbe mhad previously
> written that he had run across other such permissions (for different awards)
> made by Royal License but this of course is not the typical way.
> As you know, it is alsways good to be able to get past suppositions and
> conjecture and get the facts.
> Kind regards,
> George Lucki-
I will write to her but I can't promise anything and don't know how
long it might take her to find out and reply to me either. As you will
appreciate they are both very elderly. However, I am sure it would be
perfectly acceptable, if Mr Stair Sainty has mentioned this in an
article, for him to write to the Duke himself for corroboration
straight from the horse's mouth, as it were, which might be quicker too
and would also carry more weight than anything that I might quote here
from a private letter.
With many regards,
Eleanor
George Lucki
That would make good sense with one small quibble that it would it be polite
to wear any foreign decorations at an event such as a Coronation (unless one
were the national of a foreign state present in an official capacity).
George Lucki
jsj...@fastmail.fm
polite to wear any foreign decorations at an event such as a Coronation
(unless one were the national of a foreign state present in an official
capacity).George Lucki"
It would certainly occur. Many British people are granted permission
to wear "foreign" awards, both restricted and unrestricted.
One problem is space on one's person. Where someone has a large
number of awards, there comes a time when some are not worn, or at
least are not visible.
I hasten to state that this is not the case with me.
John Jones
Guy Stair Sainty
jsj...@fastmail.fm says...
>
>Not HRH I think. "His Grace" is the normal style for a Duke.
re-reading, alwasy dangerous online.
Guy Stair Sainty
pritch...@hotmail.com says...
>
>Dear Guy,
>
>I had heard through reliable sources that this favour from King Juan
>Carlos was arranged by the Marques de la Floresta and possibly other
>Spanish members of the RISMA. Since this declaration, the RISMA has
>held an investiture at Santiago de Compostella. I know that you always
>want specifics but I do not know anything more. I suppose that you will
>have to do some detective work next time you are in Madrid to learn the
>details, if you are that interested.
I shall ask the Marques de Floresta, but in the meanwhile remain rather dubious;
the king has very little interest in Orders, even his own, and
none at all in those of former reignign dynasties. He is also quite
protective of his own prerogatives and does not like the heads of non-reigning
houses to confer titles or recognise titles claimed by Spanish citizens.
Guy Stair Sainty
>
>Guy Sainty had repeated this statement in his article about this
>order in Burke's Peerage World Orders of Knighthood an Merit but in his
>recent post he has softened this to, "Such permissions are not granted by
>royal license; in any case while one has heard this story, I believe that
>such permission was given in a purely private form by HM the Queen, and only
>in the presence of the Duke of Braganza."
Actually I wrote in my book "...The Duke of Wellington, Duke of la Vittoria, in
Portugal, who has received special permission to wear this decoration by HM the
Queen, granted in the 19th century to his ancestor the 1st Duke..."
This is perfectly consistent with what I wrote earlier; I questioned in
particular the use of the word "royal license" which is a rather specific
type of royal act, and used the form "has received special permission" because
I think this is a more accurate description of the type of authorisation that
the Duke was granted.
It is worth noting that the Crown has tolerated in the past, to people with
particular connections to certain countries, certain license. In a recent
memorandum on the Constantinian Order (not published), the FCO stated that after
1861 "... there was probably no objection to Anglo-Neapolitans accepting the
Order provided they did so as Neapolitans and did not seek to wear it in the
British Realms...". I have earlier shown that the 5th Earl of Ashburnham was
given "private permission" to wear the Order of Malta, which was almost always
not allowed and in recent years has been limited to being allowed only at
Venerable Order ceremonies.
George Lucki
"Guy Stair Sainty" <g...@sainty.org> wrote in message
news:ek1nf...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <5nL8h.18813$gy2.3945@edtnps90>, George Lucki says...
>>
>>Guy Sainty had repeated this statement in his article about this
>>order in Burke's Peerage World Orders of Knighthood an Merit but in his
>>recent post he has softened this to, "Such permissions are not granted by
>>royal license; in any case while one has heard this story, I believe that
>>such permission was given in a purely private form by HM the Queen, and
>>only
>>in the presence of the Duke of Braganza."
>
> Actually I wrote in my book "...The Duke of Wellington, Duke of la
> Vittoria, in
> Portugal, who has received special permission to wear this decoration by
> HM the
> Queen, granted in the 19th century to his ancestor the 1st Duke..."
>
> This is perfectly consistent with what I wrote earlier; I questioned in
> particular the use of the word "royal license" which is a rather specific
> type of royal act, and used the form "has received special permission"
> because
> I think this is a more accurate description of the type of authorisation
> that
> the Duke was granted.
Guy,
It looks like I misstated your position on this. I stand corrected. Thanks.
George Lucki
Guy Stair Sainty
>
>Thank you for your letter. There are several underlying difficulties-
>You appear to be simply assuming that Dom Miguel had actually required more
>than what the Pope thought was necessary and provided - perhaps it was clear
>to Dom Miguel and the Pontiff that the order had sufficient continuity and
>Dom Miguel sufficient authority as King that Dom Miguel might simply make
>new appointments (which he did with Papal approval) and that no further
>'restoration' was required. If we accept that the Pope gave his support
>(and this would be fully consistent with the Church's perceived needs of the
>day) why would we assume he would provide his consent in insufficient form
>to make it effective?
The Order had had no knightly members received for well over 150 years at the
least; it had by the time of the constitutionalist revolution no properties, no
commanderies, no clergy and no church. I do not be;lieve for one moment the Pope
could have considered it an extant religious military Order. The papacy was not
so keen on these Orders anyway, because the laicisation of the Orders (as
happened with three religious military Orders of Christ, Aviz and St James in
1780) meant that with the loss of the clerical part of the Order, they were only
nominally tied to the Church. However the Papacy was keen to support Catholic
legitimism against Masonic liberalism (as it saw the conflicts in Spain and
Portugal) and I have no doubt at all that the Pope would have encouraged Dom
Miguel to do everything he could to sustain his claim. For Dom Miguel to have
sought permission made perfect sense; he was a guest of the Austrian Emperor and
would certainly have wanted to have claimed support for the revival or
institution of such an award to which he could have referred had he been
criticised by the Austrian authorities. The Order was canonically extinct; it
needed much more than the kind of viva voce support given it then to have
reinstituted it according to canon law.
>
>The second assumption here appears to be that the order was originally and
>fundamentally a military-monastic order in the form of St. John and that
>professed members (I assume you mean members in religious vows) were
>required - and I'm not sure that this is consistent with even the early
>history of this order or its 1630 statutes.
It was certainly a religious military Order originally, and its members would
have been received with a religious promise, probably similar to that of the
other Iberian Orders requiring more limited vows than the Order of St John. if
it had not been such, how could it have held ecclesiastical benefices? Later,
rather like the modern Teutonic Order, it was composed of priests and lay
brothers, and rather like the Teutonic Order had lay brothers who probably
resembled the familiares decorated with the Marianer cross. But rather like the
Teutonic Order it no longer had knightly members and the propsect of
ecclesiastical benefices being alienated by the further laicisation of such a
body would have been antithetical to the Church.
Dom Miguel could (and certainly did) admit members as well - the
>last admission in 1912 (again according to WOKM).
But it was simply a legitimist knightly award, not a canonical institution.
>The question of the corporate existence of the order in 1848 appears to be
>fundamentally in the person of Dom Miguel, now in exile, who consistent with
>earlier statutes also had the role of Grão-Mestre Nato of the order. The
>corporate existence of the order (as well as the corporate existence of the
>Portuguese Monarchy) of course rested in the person of Dom Miguel as it had
>his precedessors the administration having been previously delegated to the
>Abbot of Alcobaca. (Just as by analogy the corporate existence of the Holy
>See is in the person of the Pontiff and between Popes the custodian of the
>Sede Vacante).
I do not think there is a comparison. The hereditary heads of religious military
Orders were ipso facto holders of an ecclesiastical office, not embodying in
themselves any corporative nature. There is no comparison at all with the
Supreme Pontiff here. One sees with the four Military Orders of Santiago,
Calatrava, Alcantara and Montesa that their existence did not depend on the
Crown, but on canon law, and the abolition of the Crown (in Spanish law in 1931)
did not of itself affect the corporative existence of the four Military Orders
which the republic tried to abolish, but could not do so entirely and instead
had to resort to converting them to associations in Spanish law. This was
nothing to do with the King. In 1978 when the Holy See was asked to restore the
pre-1931 status of the four Orders (Oenever withdrawn, but changed by the
conversion of the priorato properties into those of a new diocese, because the
Church had feared the republic would otherwise seize them) it declined because
as the King was the head of a non-confessional state (since the 1978
constitution) he was not considered able by the Vatican to receive the vows of
profession [the Vatican then suggested that the grand mastership of the four
Orders be given to the Pope]. The four Orders, however, still own properties,
convents, and a hospital, even though they have lost most of their estates and
while there was a lag between admissions pre 1931 (four people were admitted in
the early 1940s in fact) and the late 1970s, there were still quite a few
survivors when the Orders started to regularly receive new members.
The question of the order's properties (the properties of the
>Portuguese knightly orders having been seized by the state in 1789) is a bit
>of a red herring - this is not an essential attribute but rather a practical
>tool of any order.
Possession of the properties is not the sole proof, of course, but the tenure of
ecclesiastical benefices or the right to such tenure is an essential element.
The Constantinian and St Stephen Orders, for example, under their statutes have
a right to hold ecclesiastical benefices even though these were confiscated and
given to Sts Maurice and Lazarus by the Savoy monarchy. No-one ever suggested
this of the Miguelist Order, and it was not (for example) granted a church,
unlike the Constantinian Order given several post-1860.
>
I see the aims and nature of the Miguelist Order as inconsistent with an
institution founded as a subject of canon law; papal approval can be given to
all kinds of bodies without conferring canon law status. While the Duke of
Braganza is the unquestioned heir and successor of Dom Miguel, the institution
of the Royal Brotherhood of St Michael of the Wing is better seen as a modern
memorial revival of the original institution than any kind of continuation of
the Miguelist award. The aims of the latter are totally unconnected with the
aims of the former.
George Lucki
> In article <QHL8h.18835$gy2.13713@edtnps90>, George Lucki says...
>
> the
> least;
Isn't there indication that it had under the authority of the 1630 statutes
continued to admit other members and continued to have one nominal knioght -
its grand-master by birth in the person of the Portuguese King?
it had by the time of the constitutionalist revolution no properties, no
> commanderies, no clergy and no church.
In 1789 the orders were secularized, an act that was not accepted by the
Church as legal, but until that time (59years earlier than 1848 not 150) -
in order for the extinction of a corporate entity to occur it must have been
suppressed (a part could also have been suppressed) by legitimate authority
(which suppression did not occur) or it must be dormant for an extended
period of time (this is where we quote 100 years after the death of its last
member). In this case neither criterion was met - the corporate existence of
the order continued and simply no new knights (beyond the grand-master by
birth and no new prelates beyond the Abbot of Alcobaca who had an ex-officio
position in the order) were appointed - but that in itself is not an
impediment to its legal continuity, if the lawful statutes express the
capacity to undertake actions and actions are undertaken.
Guy, you have clearly articulated the nominal existence of the order in the
18th century, and we are in agreement. It existed albeit in a nominal way
and so when admisisons were revived and new statutes developed it had simply
sprung into more active life, it was not yet extinct and so did not require
any formal restoration.
I do not be;lieve for one moment the Pope
> could have considered it an extant religious military Order.
This is certainly more a question of conjecture as to what was in the Pope's
mind than anything else. Rather than inferring what was in the mind of the
Pope why not simply follow from what on the face of it would appear to be an
act of recognition and permission.
The papacy was not
> so keen on these Orders anyway, because the laicisation of the Orders (as
> happened with three religious military Orders of Christ, Aviz and St James
> in
> 1780) meant that with the loss of the clerical part of the Order, they
> were only
> nominally tied to the Church.
The secularization of the Spanish orders in 1780 was followed by that of the
Portuguese orders nine years later. Are we then to suggest that the Spanish
secularization severed the Canon Law status of these orders? Their role has
substantially changed but they are still extant.
However the Papacy was keen to support Catholic
> legitimism against Masonic liberalism (as it saw the conflicts in Spain
> and
> Portugal) and I have no doubt at all that the Pope would have encouraged
> Dom
> Miguel to do everything he could to sustain his claim.
Including authorizing the renewal of knightly admissions to the Order and
the establishments of new 'secret' statutes?
For Dom Miguel to have
> sought permission made perfect sense; he was a guest of the Austrian
> Emperor and
> would certainly have wanted to have claimed support for the revival or
> institution of such an award to which he could have referred had he been
> criticised by the Austrian authorities.
I think Dom Miguel showed himself energetic in his efforts to further his
cause - unfortunately his rule was unpopular enough he could not have
succeeded.
> The Order was canonically extinct;
Do you know this, or is this an asumption? There is evidence that the
corporate existence of the Order of St. Michael of the Wing continued at
least through 1789
it
> needed much more than the kind of viva voce support given it then to have
> reinstituted it according to canon law.
You are assuming that the King and Pope were of a mind that the Order was
extinct in law. Neither seem to have acted in a way consistent with such a
view. Neither did Dom Miguel ask for a new creation of the order nor did the
Pope take any steps to do so. In fact both acted as you might expect if they
were of a mind that the Order was extant. Dom Miguel needing political
support approached the Pope and the Pope gave his support for Dom Miguel's
efforts. This seems by far the simplest explanation.
>
>>
>>The second assumption here appears to be that the order was originally and
>>fundamentally a military-monastic order in the form of St. John and that
>>professed members (I assume you mean members in religious vows) were
>>required - and I'm not sure that this is consistent with even the early
>>history of this order or its 1630 statutes.
>
> It was certainly a religious military Order originally, and its members
> would
> have been received with a religious promise, probably similar to that of
> the
> other Iberian Orders requiring more limited vows than the Order of St
> John. if
> it had not been such, how could it have held ecclesiastical benefices?
An excellent question, and the suggestion is that the promises were of the
most limited sort - to obey God, the Pope and the King and to meet for
common prayers - promises that far less obliging than those of other orders
of that day. In fact the hisotrical view seems to be that it was more of
Royal than a Church instrument - which is consistent also with the way in
which the King utilized the Order of Aviz (a more traditional
religious-military foundation)
Later,
> rather like the modern Teutonic Order, it was composed of priests and lay
> brothers, and rather like the Teutonic Order had lay brothers who probably
> resembled the familiares decorated with the Marianer cross. But rather
> like the
> Teutonic Order it no longer had knightly members and the propsect of
> ecclesiastical benefices being alienated by the further laicisation of
> such a
> body would have been antithetical to the Church.
Except that unlike the semi-independent Order of St. Mary of Bethlehem, the
Order of St. Michael of the Wing remained under the authority of the
Cistercian Abbey and these pressures would have been different (not that the
order possessed a great deal of property - it was the smallest of the
seven). The other difficulty here may be that we are applying a modern model
to an earlier period. The Teutonic Order of course continued to remain a
knightly order until modern times when it by its positive request had its
statutes amended to transform it into a purely religious order, although it
still mainatins a chivalric character despite the vagaries of the changes in
the purposes and organization of the Order from its sojourn in the Holy Land
through its return to Europe, development, rise and fall of the Teutonic
state, laicization of its state and Prussian properties, etc., etc.,
problems with Napoleon, etc., etc. - did not alter its corporate continuity.
What finally changed its nature was an act of the Papacy to alter its
character, made at the request of the order. If we use St. Mary (Teutonic)
as the example it would actually bolster the argument for the continued
corporate existence of St. Michael of the Wing.
>
> Dom Miguel could (and certainly did) admit members as well - the
>>last admission in 1912 (again according to WOKM).
>
> But it was simply a legitimist knightly award, not a canonical
> institution.
This simply returns us to the question of whether in 1848 admissions to the
Order of St. Michael of the Wing were admissions into a new order created by
Dom Miguel or into the continuing but reformed (into a militant order) St.
Michael of the Wing. The radical change in the statutes reflected the
changing times and changing practical ends of both Dom Miguel and the Pope.
Other orders have undergone radical revision of purpose and structure.
The significant difference being that I was drawing a comparison between the
corporate existence of he monarchy of Portugal and the monarchy of the Holy
See. The Portuguese king as hereditary grand-master (not administrator on
behalf of the Holy See) maintains a continuity here. The Spanish orders were
founded organized on the Templar model. It does not appear that ST. Michael
followed that model but rather may have presaged the later mediaeval
monarchical orders. The other problem that arose in Spain is that monarch
was no longer the monarch of a confessional Catholic state - but still
nonetheless has been able to act as administrator despite the ongoing
uncertainty about the standing of the orders in Canon Law (they themselves
must certainly be currently organized as Associations of the Faithful within
the Church).
> The question of the order's properties (the properties of the
>>Portuguese knightly orders having been seized by the state in 1789) is a
>>bit
>>of a red herring - this is not an essential attribute but rather a
>>practical
>>tool of any order.
>
> Possession of the properties is not the sole proof, of course, but the
> tenure of
> ecclesiastical benefices or the right to such tenure is an essential
> element.
> The Constantinian and St Stephen Orders, for example, under their statutes
> have
> a right to hold ecclesiastical benefices even though these were
> confiscated and
> given to Sts Maurice and Lazarus by the Savoy monarchy. No-one ever
> suggested
> this of the Miguelist Order, and it was not (for example) granted a
> church,
> unlike the Constantinian Order given several post-1860.
The situation of the Miguelist order was again different. It was in exile
but mainatined that the Miguelist monarchy should be rightfully restored.
Its 1848 mission was that of a militant secret order battling liberalism and
masonism. It could not during this period establish an open presence in
Portugal nor was it apparently interested in building any sort of
international institutional foundation. The situation of the orders of the
former Two-Sicilies in the united Italian state was different.
>
> I see the aims and nature of the Miguelist Order as inconsistent with an
> institution founded as a subject of canon law; papal approval can be given
> to
> all kinds of bodies without conferring canon law status.
The Miguelist statutes of the Order of St. Michael of the Wing were a
significant, radical departure from the 1630 statutes and certainly they
would find little support in the modern Church, but were they inconistent
with the sensibilititues of the Church of the day? I daresay they were not.
There was considerable sympathy among conservative elements in the Church
for the very sort of struggle that Dom Miguel was interested in orienting
his order toward. Similarly the military functions of the orders of
yesteryear have been replaced largely with charitable ones.
While the Duke of
> Braganza is the unquestioned heir and successor of Dom Miguel, the
> institution
> of the Royal Brotherhood of St Michael of the Wing is better seen as a
> modern
> memorial revival of the original institution than any kind of continuation
> of
> the Miguelist award. The aims of the latter are totally unconnected with
> the
> aims of the former.
I am in agreement that the aims of the current statutes are dramatically
different from those of the Miguelist era (as they should be!) but that does
not make the new statutes those of a new institution when there is a
corporate continuity. Any group surviving near a millenium will undergo
significant change through that time. The Order of Malta was pushed out of
the Holy Land, lost the Sovereignty of Rhodes and Malta, appeared lost after
Napoleon, illegally elected the Russian Imperator as grand-master, was in
protracted stand-off with the Holy See, has created huge cohorts of lay
non-noble members in hithertofore unknown categories of grace and grace and
devotion, etc.; the Spanish orders have undergone different vicissitudes;
and there are three seperate Constantinian orders referencing the same
shared early patrimony - yet no one would claim that they should be
considered new institutions in memorial revival of the former, because they
have maintained a simple corporate continuity. Why should there be a
different preferred way of seeing Dom Duarte's new statutes? I understand
that it is your own personal view that you would prefer to see the order as
a confraternity rather than order and that you would hope to see it as a
memorial revival rather than a continuing royal order - but there appears to
be good contrary evidence supporting Dom Duarte's position that it is an
order currently lodged within a confraternity and that there is a continuity
of the existence of the order, albeit nominal at times and with statutes
that have changed over the centuries (in particular Dom Miguel for a time
took the order in an idiosyncratic direction and Dom Duarte appears to have
set it back on course).
George Lucki
jsj...@fastmail.fm
Michael of the Wing seems to have the following status (mostly culled
from the responses of Guy Stair Sainty, with some points of difference
with George Lucki)
The original Order of St Michael of the Wing was a religious-military
Order, founded as a subject of canon law and that ceased to exist as
such as under canon law. Such institutions become extinct 100 years
after the death of the last person canonically admitted.
Its modern foundation is as a confraternity, and it was never an Order
of either the Portuguese state or the Portuguese reigning dynasty.
The modern order or brotherhood is not a continuation of the Dom Miguel
award, but is a different institution from both the original
religious-military foundation and the Dom Miguel award.
The present institution is an Association of the Faithful, but not
owing its legitimacy to this.
It is a confraternity under the hereditary grand magistery of the Head
of the Royal House of Portugal. This is sufficient to justify its
present status and activities and it does not need an arguable
connection to the former medieval institution even though it may
legitimately claim to have been founded in memory of the traditions of
that Order.
The Duke of Braganza is the unquestioned heir and successor of Dom
Miguel.
He does not need to make a historical connection to assure the
legitimacy of his actions.
The current institution of the Royal Brotherhood of St Michael of the
Wing can be seen as a modern memorial revival of the original
institution of the Dom Miguel Order of Saint Michael of the Wing.
The aims of the modern Royal Order of Saint Michael of the Wing are
unconnected with the aims of the Dom Miguel order.
The corporate structure of the confraternity is sufficient for its
public purposes and it appears from the statutes that the members of
the Brotherhood and of the Order are charged with undertaking all of
its public actions through confraternity.
The Order is a different thing from the Brotherhood but stems from the
Brotherhood.
The Order and its membership, grades etc are controlled by the
Brotherhood,
It is an order within a confraternity.
The Order that is part of the Brotherhood is a new foundation
The Order does nothing itself, as all activities are conducted through
the Confraternity - in other words, no one can be a member of the Order
without first being a member of the Brotherhood.
Whether or not it is a "chivalric" order now probably depends on
how the members conduct themselves.
The statutes of the Order appear to conform to a private association of
the faithful (with its historical roots as a Catholic chivalric
institution)
The confraternity is a public or social organization through which the
order undertakes charitable or other work and is eligible to be
registered as a private society in Portugal or elsewhere.
The Duke of Wellington (Duque de Vittoria, in Portugal) might well have
received special permission to wear the Grand Cross of the Order of St
Michael of the Wing from HM the Queen, but it is likely that this was
because of his Portuguese connection - or at least the Portuguese
connection of the first Duke. The circumstances of the royal
permission (restricted or non-restricted) are unclear but hardly seem
to matter as the occasions when the insignia might be worn are probably
limited.
Guy Stair Sainty
>
>"Guy Stair Sainty" <g...@sainty.org> wrote in message
>news:ek1r...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <QHL8h.18835$gy2.13713@edtnps90>, George Lucki says...
>>
>> The Order had had no knightly members received for well over 150 years at
>> the
>> least;
>
>Isn't there indication that it had under the authority of the 1630 statutes
>continued to admit other members and continued to have one nominal knioght -
>its grand-master by birth in the person of the Portuguese King?
Abolsutely not; the admission of lay brothers - something like tertiaries - is
quite different to profession made by knights. Furthermore not even a grand
master of a religious-military Order was automatically a knight. We see this
with the last Medici Grand Duke of Tuscany, Gian Gastone, who throughout his
life had shown little respect for the Church and had never been received into
the Order. It was not until in the days preceding his death that he made his
confession, took communion and only then was received as a knight of the Order
of Saint Stephen.
>
> it had by the time of the constitutionalist revolution no properties, no
>> commanderies, no clergy and no church.
>
>In 1789 the orders were secularized, an act that was not accepted by the
>Church as legal, but until that time (59years earlier than 1848 not 150) -
That is incorrect; the changed status of 1789 was authorised in the Brief
Qualqunque a majoribus of 18 August 1789, which confirmed the Grand Magisteries
of the Orders [of Christ, Aviz and St James] for the Portuguese Crown and
allowed the Queen to reform the Military Order of Christ. In actuality the
reforms were never completed and their status remained unchanged for the time
being.
I quote then from J-V de Braganca, in Burkes World Orders, "With the advent of
liberalism – the constitution of 1822, the Carta Constitucional of 1826 and the
reforms of Mouzinho da Silveira in the 1830s – the Orders suffered a cataclysm.
Their patrimony was confiscated and all their properties were given to the
public treasury to be sold in public auctions for the benefit of the state. As
religious Orders they were suppressed like all the other regular Orders and the
brethren who were priests were forced to abandon the Orders’ convents, which had
become public property. The secularisation of the Orders continued with their
adaptation to the new political and social realities. Admission to the Orders
was now regarded as a reward of individual merit in the service of the state and
society and not anymore a function of status and influence at court. The Carta
Constitucional given by Prince Dom Pedro, proclaimed Emperor of Brazil 22
October 1822, under British inspiration, declared the equality of all citizens
before the law and the end of privileges of birth, putting an end to one of the
pillars of the ancien régime. The Orders thus became honorary distinctions
without any privileges or revenues, ending the tenças and commanderies."
But none of this was anything to do with St Michael of the Wing. There is no
evidence that any knights were received into this Order after 1630, and as there
were no knights the Crown did not seek any claims over its grand magistery in
1789. The reason that its name was revived by Dom Miguel was precisely because
for the purpose he now intended this award it would not be confused with what
had become de facto state Orders (the three military Orders).
>in order for the extinction of a corporate entity to occur it must have been
>suppressed (a part could also have been suppressed) by legitimate authority
>(which suppression did not occur) or it must be dormant for an extended
>period of time (this is where we quote 100 years after the death of its last
>member). In this case neither criterion was met - the corporate existence of
>the order continued and simply no new knights (beyond the grand-master by
>birth and no new prelates beyond the Abbot of Alcobaca who had an ex-officio
>position in the order) were appointed
As I have said before, no-one, not even the grand master, was a knight without
being received. The Abbot certainly was not a knight. No knights had been
received for so long that this aspect of the old religious institution, governed
in practice as part of the Cistercian Order, must have been considered extinct.
If there were still knights, Queen Maria would have claimed the grand magistery
in 1789.
>
>This is certainly more a question of conjecture as to what was in the Pope's
>mind than anything else. Rather than inferring what was in the mind of the
>Pope why not simply follow from what on the face of it would appear to be an
>act of recognition and permission.
It is simply that without any document, what may or may not have been in the
Pope's mind does not matter. Rather as with cardinals in petto, they cease to be
even that on the death of the Pope.
>
>The papacy was not
>> so keen on these Orders anyway, because the laicisation of the Orders (as
>> happened with three religious military Orders of Christ, Aviz and St James
>> in
>> 1780) meant that with the loss of the clerical part of the Order, they
>> were only
>> nominally tied to the Church.
>
>The secularization of the Spanish orders in 1780 was followed by that of the
>Portuguese orders nine years later. Are we then to suggest that the Spanish
>secularization severed the Canon Law status of these orders? Their role has
>substantially changed but they are still extant.
No, and I was not referring to the Spanish orders, but miswrote the date 1789 as
1780 and was referring to the Portuguese. In actuality the reforms authorised by
the Pope were not proceeded with and the Order's canonical status remained
unchanged. I agree that as long as knights were received according to the proper
forms and for 100 years after death of the last one so received the Order still
has a canonical being. In the case of the Portuguese military Orders I suppose
the last knights of the three Portuguese Orders properly received must have been
shortly before 1838; let us say the last one of these died some 50 years later,
that makes for canonical extinction in the late 1980s. This is rather like St
Lazarus and mont Carmel, the last knight canonically received (in 1788) died
very aged in 1856; the Order became canonically extinct in 1956. But in the case
of St Michael of the Wing, there is no evidence of the reception of knights for
some centuries, and none that the Crown in exercise of whatever functions it had
under the original statutes (and these have not been located) actually attempted
to exercise them by receiving knights. Either they were received properly or
their receptions were void.
>
>However the Papacy was keen to support Catholic
>> legitimism against Masonic liberalism (as it saw the conflicts in Spain
>> and
>> Portugal) and I have no doubt at all that the Pope would have encouraged
>> Dom
>> Miguel to do everything he could to sustain his claim.
>
>Including authorizing the renewal of knightly admissions to the Order and
>the establishments of new 'secret' statutes?
No, in supporting the foundation of a legitimist bulwark that memorialised an
ancient name.
>
>For Dom Miguel to have
>> sought permission made perfect sense; he was a guest of the Austrian
>> Emperor and
>> would certainly have wanted to have claimed support for the revival or
>> institution of such an award to which he could have referred had he been
>> criticised by the Austrian authorities.
>
>I think Dom Miguel showed himself energetic in his efforts to further his
>cause - unfortunately his rule was unpopular enough he could not have
>succeeded.
Not at all; Dom Miguel was immensely popular with the majority of the people!
That was why it was so easy for him to overthrow his child bride. Dom Pedro
(ex-Emperor of Brazil) could never have succeeded in imposing his daughter on
the throne without British and French assistance! The liberal elites who sought
the establishment of a constitutional monarchy were a minority.
>> needed much more than the kind of viva voce support given it then to have
>> reinstituted it according to canon law.
>
>You are assuming that the King and Pope were of a mind that the Order was
>extinct in law. Neither seem to have acted in a way consistent with such a
>view. Neither did Dom Miguel ask for a new creation of the order nor did the
>Pope take any steps to do so. In fact both acted as you might expect if they
>were of a mind that the Order was extant. Dom Miguel needing political
>support approached the Pope and the Pope gave his support for Dom Miguel's
>efforts. This seems by far the simplest explanation.
No, I disagree. The Pope was never going to come out openly for Dom Miguel as
his greater priority was preserving the church from further liberal assault in
portugal.
>>>The second assumption here appears to be that the order was originally and
>>>fundamentally a military-monastic order in the form of St. John and that
>>>professed members (I assume you mean members in religious vows) were
>>>required - and I'm not sure that this is consistent with even the early
>>>history of this order or its 1630 statutes.
I disagree; the Order was possessed of ecclesiastical benefices and was exempt
from diocesan oversee; the knights could not have enjoyed such benefices unless
it was a subject of canon law and they were received as professed members, or
properly dispensed from such.
>>
>> It was certainly a religious military Order originally, and its members
>> would
>> have been received with a religious promise, probably similar to that of
>> the
>> other Iberian Orders requiring more limited vows than the Order of St
>> John. if
>> it had not been such, how could it have held ecclesiastical benefices?
>
>An excellent question, and the suggestion is that the promises were of the
>most limited sort - to obey God, the Pope and the King and to meet for
>common prayers - promises that far less obliging than those of other orders
>of that day. In fact the hisotrical view seems to be that it was more of
>Royal than a Church instrument - which is consistent also with the way in
>which the King utilized the Order of Aviz (a more traditional
>religious-military foundation)
Right; but Aviz was also a canonical instititution. The vows common to all the
Iberian Orders were also later required of Constantinian and St Stephen knights
making profession; these vows were an essential part of entry to the Order so
that the knights were then under canonical authority and could hold benefices.
>
>Later,
>> rather like the modern Teutonic Order, it was composed of priests and lay
>> brothers, and rather like the Teutonic Order had lay brothers who probably
>> resembled the familiares decorated with the Marianer cross.
>
>Except that unlike the semi-independent Order of St. Mary of Bethlehem, the
>Order of St. Michael of the Wing remained under the authority of the
>Cistercian Abbey and these pressures would have been different (not that the
>order possessed a great deal of property - it was the smallest of the
>seven).
Which was it then, in your view, part of the Cistercian order or independent and
under the Cistercian rule? Who was its head? Surely not the king since there is
no evidence at all that the Kings of Portugal or someone appointed by them for
the purpose received any knights for some centuries. There is a vast wealth of
documents regarding the three Portuguese military Orders concernign every aspect
of their affairs. Does it not seem odd that there are no records at all for the
reception of knights of St Michael?
Pre 1922 the Teutonic Order received knights and conferred the Marian cross on
lay donors; St michael of the wing did the latter without the former.
>
>The significant difference being that I was drawing a comparison between the
>corporate existence of he monarchy of Portugal and the monarchy of the Holy
>See. The Portuguese king as hereditary grand-master (not administrator on
>behalf of the Holy See) maintains a continuity here. The Spanish orders were
>founded organized on the Templar model. It does not appear that ST. Michael
>followed that model but rather may have presaged the later mediaeval
>monarchical orders.
Not one of whose privielges granted by various popes included a right to enjoy
ecclesiastical benefices. This was only possible for someone received according
to the requirements of canon law; this is only possible in an institution that
is regulated by canon law. There was no real half way - even St lazarus & Mount
Carmel was subject to canon law, although it functioned with only two of its
grand masters ever receiving Papal confirmation of their office, and the
promises made on profession were very limited.
>
>The Miguelist statutes of the Order of St. Michael of the Wing were a
>significant, radical departure from the 1630 statutes and certainly they
>would find little support in the modern Church, but were they inconistent
>with the sensibilititues of the Church of the day? I daresay they were not.
>There was considerable sympathy among conservative elements in the Church
>for the very sort of struggle that Dom Miguel was interested in orienting
>his order toward. Similarly the military functions of the orders of
>yesteryear have been replaced largely with charitable ones.
Undeniably, but this was a matter of political sensibilities, not canon law
requirements.
>
>I am in agreement that the aims of the current statutes are dramatically
>different from those of the Miguelist era (as they should be!) but that does
>not make the new statutes those of a new institution when there is a
>corporate continuity. Any group surviving near a millenium will undergo
>significant change through that time. The Order of Malta was pushed out of
>the Holy Land, lost the Sovereignty of Rhodes and Malta, appeared lost after
>Napoleon, illegally elected the Russian Imperator as grand-master, was in
>protracted stand-off with the Holy See, has created huge cohorts of lay
>non-noble members in hithertofore unknown categories of grace and grace and
>devotion, etc.;
Actually the cross of Devotion was given from at least the early 16th century;
the Order's name has never changed, nor its status in canon law (since 1113),
nor the requirements for profession (only to the extent that all religious
Orders have modified these, with different requirements for the length of
novitiates etc), and it has never ceased to enjoy the tenure of ecclesiastical
benefices in one or more of its priories.
the Spanish orders have undergone different vicissitudes;
>and there are three seperate Constantinian orders referencing the same
>shared early patrimony - yet no one would claim that they should be
>considered new institutions in memorial revival of the former, because they
>have maintained a simple corporate continuity.
Because they did continually receive members. They consistently maintained their
spiritual mission. [the Parma Constantinian was never a canonical institution,
so it is irrelevant here, and the claims to continuity with the original Order
never taken seriously]. They consistently had churches and prelates, the last
canonical profession in the Constantinian and St Stephen Orders was early in the
20th centuries.
George Lucki
Guy,
My point has not been as to when the last admissions of military knights
was - we are largely in agreement here. The issue is the corporate
continuity of the order - and the evidence as to whether or not that
corporate continuity was maintained. In order to assess this you must look
beyond the last admisisons of knights. The roll of grand-masters by birth
does not highlight any exceptions such as that of Gian Gastone.\
> That is incorrect; the changed status of 1789 was authorised in the Brief
> Qualqunque a majoribus of 18 August 1789, which confirmed the Grand
> Magisteries
> of the Orders [of Christ, Aviz and St James] for the Portuguese Crown and
> allowed the Queen to reform the Military Order of Christ. In actuality the
> reforms were never completed and their status remained unchanged for the
> time
> being.
>
> I quote then from J-V de Braganca, in Burkes World Orders, "With the
> advent of
> liberalism - the constitution of 1822, the Carta Constitucional of 1826
> and the
> reforms of Mouzinho da Silveira in the 1830s - the Orders suffered a
I agree that the reason for Dom Miguel's choice of this order as the one he
would continue was influenced not only by its catchy name but because it had
been left aside by the reforms of some decades earlier and was available for
use by Dom Miguel.
>
>>in order for the extinction of a corporate entity to occur it must have
>>been
>>suppressed (a part could also have been suppressed) by legitimate
>>authority
>>(which suppression did not occur) or it must be dormant for an extended
>>period of time (this is where we quote 100 years after the death of its
>>last
>>member). In this case neither criterion was met - the corporate existence
>>of
>>the order continued and simply no new knights (beyond the grand-master by
>>birth and no new prelates beyond the Abbot of Alcobaca who had an
>>ex-officio
>>position in the order) were appointed
>
> As I have said before, no-one, not even the grand master, was a knight
> without
> being received. The Abbot certainly was not a knight. No knights had been
> received for so long that this aspect of the old religious institution,
> governed
> in practice as part of the Cistercian Order, must have been considered
> extinct.
> If there were still knights, Queen Maria would have claimed the grand
> magistery
> in 1789.
Guy you are ignoring the argument - it is not about whether knights had been
admitted but whether the order continued to enjoy a legal continuity as a
dynastic and as a canonical entity (The order could exist and no knights be
admitted if there continued to be other members in other categories). Dom
Miguel was not bound by the earlier decision to secularize the orders nor
was the Church bound by the unilateral action of state authority - so the
question is about the continuity of the corporate existence.
>>
>>This is certainly more a question of conjecture as to what was in the
>>Pope's
>>mind than anything else. Rather than inferring what was in the mind of the
>>Pope why not simply follow from what on the face of it would appear to be
>>an
>>act of recognition and permission.
>
> It is simply that without any document, what may or may not have been in
> the
> Pope's mind does not matter. Rather as with cardinals in petto, they cease
> to be
> even that on the death of the Pope.
This is a cute response. The issue has nothing to do with Cardinals in
pectore which is a completely different matter. You had no difficulty
reading into the Pope's mind earlier in the thread, you are reluctant though
to accept his actions at face value.
The question as to members (of whatever category) were received in the
proper form is straightforward to answer. If there was question as to form
in the absence of challenge it was moot. The issue of extinction arises in
two periods. The first is pre 1789 - and whether the order had become
canonically extinct. We are both in agreement that there were lay brothers
admitted by the Abbot and we are both in agreement as to the roll of
grand-masters (I'm setting aside the question as to whether there was a
seperate need of reception for grand masters in this case as I do not know -
It is insufficient to point simply to the Spanish orders as the exemplar).
The issue is different than for St. Lazarus and Mt. Carmel in that the
Frnech King had chosen not to revive it. We might have a different
discussion if Louis XVIII or another French sovereign had written new
statutes for it in the 19th century, gained Papal approval for his efforts
and appointed new knights. None of this happened for St. Lazarus and Mt.
Carmel but did occur for St. Michael. The 19th century revival of admissions
is important in this case. The other Portuguese orders have become extinct
in Canon Law and have continued only as state orders (Christ, Aviz, St.
James)
>>
>>However the Papacy was keen to support Catholic
>>> legitimism against Masonic liberalism (as it saw the conflicts in Spain
>>> and
>>> Portugal) and I have no doubt at all that the Pope would have encouraged
>>> Dom
>>> Miguel to do everything he could to sustain his claim.
>>
>>Including authorizing the renewal of knightly admissions to the Order and
>>the establishments of new 'secret' statutes?
>
> No, in supporting the foundation of a legitimist bulwark that memorialised
> an
> ancient name.
And the evidence that it is the latter rther than the former?
>>> needed much more than the kind of viva voce support given it then to
>>> have
>>> reinstituted it according to canon law.
>>
>>You are assuming that the King and Pope were of a mind that the Order was
>>extinct in law. Neither seem to have acted in a way consistent with such a
>>view. Neither did Dom Miguel ask for a new creation of the order nor did
>>the
>>Pope take any steps to do so. In fact both acted as you might expect if
>>they
>>were of a mind that the Order was extant. Dom Miguel needing political
>>support approached the Pope and the Pope gave his support for Dom Miguel's
>>efforts. This seems by far the simplest explanation.
>
> No, I disagree. The Pope was never going to come out openly for Dom Miguel
> as
> his greater priority was preserving the church from further liberal
> assault in
> portugal.
Guy, This unfortunately does not address itself to the point of Papal
approval (and we seem to have both accepted that it was asked for and
given - the difference being that I am suggesting it was what it was on face
value and you are suggesting it was not - as though the Pope was crossing
his fingers and not really giveing approval to the secret statutes of Dom
Miguel and the admisison of new members.)
>>An excellent question, and the suggestion is that the promises were of the
>>most limited sort - to obey God, the Pope and the King and to meet for
>>common prayers - promises that far less obliging than those of other
>>orders
>>of that day. In fact the hisotrical view seems to be that it was more of
>>Royal than a Church instrument - which is consistent also with the way in
>>which the King utilized the Order of Aviz (a more traditional
>>religious-military foundation)
>
> Right; but Aviz was also a canonical instititution. The vows common to all
> the
> Iberian Orders were also later required of Constantinian and St Stephen
> knights
> making profession; these vows were an essential part of entry to the Order
> so
> that the knights were then under canonical authority and could hold
> benefices.
The promises made by knights of Aviz were different. They followed the
Cistercian rule with the additional promise of fidelity to the KIng. There
were significnat differences in the rule as far back as the 12th century.
> Which was it then, in your view, part of the Cistercian order or
> independent and
> under the Cistercian rule? Who was its head? Surely not the king since
> there is
> no evidence at all that the Kings of Portugal or someone appointed by them
> for
> the purpose received any knights for some centuries. There is a vast
> wealth of
> documents regarding the three Portuguese military Orders concernign every
> aspect
> of their affairs. Does it not seem odd that there are no records at all
> for the
> reception of knights of St Michael?
This is an excellent question. My own view is taht since the second half of
the 13th century when its military role was clearly ending the order started
progressively languishing. It was the least well endowed of the orders and
its mission had been the most clearly secular. The order having been placed
under Cistercian control was increasingly the object of disinterest on the
part of the King (the nominal head of the order) and was not of paramount
importance to the Abbot of Alcobaca as the religious nature of the other
orders allowed for greater scope for the Church. Nonetheless as it
languished it continued a nominal and unimportant existence and there was an
attempt to reform it in the 17th century with new statutes. I am not
surpirsed by the paucity of historical records given its relative lack of
importance and its nominal existence through the centuries. The ambiguity of
some of the foreign accounts is consistent with its nominal existence.
Writers were aware of it but could not say much. Were it not for the
Miguelist revival of admissions I am convinced that it would have become
extinct after the 1789 period as it lost its Church role and as you say
without any knights or properties it would have been of no use to the
liberal monarchy. But its existence such as it was did give Dom Miguel a
tool in his revival of admisisons to the order.
> Not one of whose privielges granted by various popes included a right to
> enjoy
> ecclesiastical benefices. This was only possible for someone received
> according
> to the requirements of canon law; this is only possible in an institution
> that
> is regulated by canon law. There was no real half way - even St lazarus &
> Mount
> Carmel was subject to canon law, although it functioned with only two of
> its
> grand masters ever receiving Papal confirmation of their office, and the
> promises made on profession were very limited.
Up until 1789 the abbey in Alcobaca administered the order and the order was
certainly in a position to enjoy benefices (not that it was a wealthy order
by any means). The Miguelist revival did not lead to any new benefices
having been assigned to the order. The issue of enjoyment of benefices is
one of marginal note.
>>
>>The Miguelist statutes of the Order of St. Michael of the Wing were a
>>significant, radical departure from the 1630 statutes and certainly they
>>would find little support in the modern Church, but were they inconistent
>>with the sensibilititues of the Church of the day? I daresay they were
>>not.
>>There was considerable sympathy among conservative elements in the Church
>>for the very sort of struggle that Dom Miguel was interested in orienting
>>his order toward. Similarly the military functions of the orders of
>>yesteryear have been replaced largely with charitable ones.
>
> Undeniably, but this was a matter of political sensibilities, not canon
> law
> requirements.
Exactly! The Canon Law continuity was not at issue in such practical
reorientations.
I will offer that the Miguelist reforms and the current statutes make this
certainly more clearly a Catholic dynastic order than a religious-military
order. That theoretical capacity has fallen into disuse and unless something
happens within the Church it will likely disappear - and for the Spanish
orders and for the Constantinian, etc. It is more a part of their patrimony.
I would not argue strongly that any of these orders can remain truly
military-religious into the next century. (I know you may disagree with me
as far as the Constantinian goes and I would wait another several decades
before raising the question - there were still recently, that is a century
ago professed members.
The most interesting questions about the current status have been snipped in
your response. I won't infer anything into this except that we have focused
on the points of disagreement rather tahn where we may agree. The discussion
though is winding down. Neither of us will likely have much new to add
except by analogy and elaboration of argument. The history of this order is
such as it is, and the paucity fo records is a barrier to a fuller
understanding but it does seem that the alternative (to the discussion here
several years ago) position arguing for the continuity really really is
sustainable and consistent with what records remain. Dom Duarte has asserted
that there is a dynastic order of St. Michael now within, but seperate from
a confraternity fo the same name and has asserted that it continues with the
new statutes 2001 replacing 1981, 1848 and 1630. If the argument were not
sustainable and there was proof that order's corporate structure had become
fully extinct then there would be only two ways to approach the status pf
the order - solely as a modern confraternity or as a newly created order.
This is unlikely to be without controversy - because of the gaps in the
records (hopefully there will be more interest in looking for this
information) but it is hard to deny on the basis of what we know (and even
what is in your article on the subject) that there is merit to Dom Duarte's
assertion of his inheritance of the magistry of the dynastic order of St.
Michael through the Miguelist line. Frankly the more difficult part of the
argument to sustain is the one that suggests that it remains a
military-religious order - and frankly the changes in its status from 1789,
1848, 1981 and 2001 in particular appear to have fully transformed St.
Michael into a dynastic chivalric order with religious motivations. I would
agree with you on this. In 1848 the tranistion had not yet been complete,
but with the secularization of 1789 too much time has passed to maintain
that this faculty continues unaltered. Perhaps there is additional
information in the 19th century order to the contrary but I don't know this.
As always I appreciate your intelligent and spirited participation in this
discussion and of course will continue to respond to points that may arise.
George Lucki