This article explores the complexities surrounding the dynastic succession of the former Brazilian Empire (1822-1889). The question of who would have inherited the throne if the monarchy had continued remains a topic of interest and debate. The article answers the question who can be considered the legitimate heir to this historical lineage. It uses the former legislation of the Empire as a guideline.
“Discovery of Brazil”
Uniquely, the Portuguese Empire holds the distinction of being the first global empire in history. Established during a period of exploration, it stretched across continents, encompassing territories in South America, Africa, India, and Southeast Asia. From the trade routes of Asia to the coasts of South America, the Portuguese influence left an undeniable mark on the world stage. Spanning nearly five centuries, the empire outlasted its European counterparts – the Spanish, British, and French empires. This period of dominance allowed for the establishment of trade networks, cultural exchange, and the dissemination of the Portuguese language and customs in diverse regions across the globe.
Pedro Peres (1841–1923): Elevation of the Cross in Porto Seguro (1879). In his letter to Manuel I of Portugal, Pero Vaz de Caminha gives perhaps the most accurate accounts of what Brazil used to look like in 1500. “[…]: Esse arvoredo, que é tanto, tamanho, tão basto e de tantas prumagens, que homens as não podem contar.”, (“Such vastness of the enormous treeline, with abundant foliage, that is incalculable”). He describes in a diary the first journey from Portugal to Brazil and their arrival in this country. Pero Vaz de Caminha’s letter is considered to be the first document of Brazilian history and its first literary text. The original of this 27-page document is stored in the Arquivo Nacional da Torre do Tombo, Lisbon (see: Appendix).
The term “discovery of Brazil” (Portuguese: descobrimento do Brasil) traditionally refers to the first arrival of European explorers on the land that is now Brazil. However, the term “discovery” itself is problematic. This narrative implies that the land was previously empty or uninhabited, ignoring the existence and rich history of indigenous populations who had been living in Brazil for millennia. This perspective may be said to reflect a Eurocentric viewpoint that prioritizes European historical records, overlooking the pre-existing cultural and societal context.
Before European contact, Brazil’s landscape was home to a vibrant tapestry of indigenous peoples. These diverse communities, estimated at around 2.000 nations and tribes, practiced a variety of lifestyles, including semi-nomadism and settled communities. Their livelihoods were primarily sustained through hunting, fishing, gathering, agriculture, and arboriculture (tree cultivation). Unfortunately, the arrival of Europeans in the 16th century marked a turning point for these indigenous populations. The introduction of European diseases, against which the Indians had no immunity, had a devastating impact. Coupled with enslavement, genocide, and the disruption of their traditional way of life, these factors resulted in a drastic decline in the indigenous population.
By 2000, the estimated pre-Columbus population of millions plummeted to just around 300.000, regrouping into roughly 200 tribes. This represents a loss of over 90% of the indigenous population within a few centuries. While some indigenous communities were assimilated into the broader Brazilian population, the majority faced marginalization and loss of their cultural heritage. The arrival of Europeans in Brazil has left a lasting legacy of devastation and displacement for the country’s indigenous population (see: Livi-Bacci, M. [2006]. The Depopulation of Hispanic America after the Conquest. Population and Development Review, 32(2), 199–232).
Colonisation
The discovery of Brazil commonly refers to the sighting on 22 April 1500 by a Portuguese fleet under the command of Pedro Álvares Cabral (c. 1467 or 1468 – c. 1520) of the coast near Monte Pascoal. Cabral was a Portuguese nobleman, military commander, navigator, and explorer who led the first known expedition to have touched four continents: Europe, Africa, America, and Asia. The land was then named Ilha de Vera Cruz (“Island of the True Cross”) but quickly renamed Terra de Santa Cruz (“Land of the Holy Cross”). In a final change to the name of the new lands, the colonizers decided to name it Brazil due to the great availability of Brazilwood in the region. Cabral’s voyage was part of Portugal’s broader period of exploration, often referred to as the “Portuguese Discoveries.”
While the term “discovery of Brazil” typically references Cabral’s voyage, it also includes the earlier arrival of Vicente Yáñez Pinzón (c. 1462 – after 1514). Pinzón was a Spanish navigator and explorer, and the youngest of the Pinzón brothers. Along with his older brother, Martín Alonso Pinzón (c. 1441 – c. 1493), who captained the Pinta, he sailed with Christopher Columbus on the first voyage to the New World, in 1492, as captain of the Niña. Pinzón reached Cape Santo Agostinho in present-day Pernambuco on 26 January 1500. This marks the first confirmed European landing in Brazil.
In the early 16th century, Portugal employed a unique system to colonize Brazil. “Terra de Santa Cruz”, was divided into administrative zones known as Captaincies. Each Captaincy was a hereditary fiefdom granted to a Portuguese nobleman, who held the title of Captain-General. These individuals wielded significant governing power within their domain. This “captaincy system” was not new. Portugal had used it successfully on Atlantic islands like Madeira and the Azores. The idea was to incentivize colonization by offering Portuguese nobility land grants and governing privileges in exchange for developing the territory. Eventually, most Captaincies failed due to a lack of resources from the noblemen (donees) and minimal support from the Portuguese crown. Four captaincies never even got off the ground, with the donees failing to take control. Another four were quickly overwhelmed by indigenous resistance. By 1549, only a handful survived: São Vicente, Pernambuco, Ilhéus, and Porto Seguro.
When the Portuguese Inquisition officially began in the year 1536, Brazil inhabited only the extreme margins of the Portuguese Empire and therefore was of little concern to the Inquisitors in Lisbon. Royal authority only became permanently established in 1549 when Tomé de Sousa (1503–1579) became the first governor-general of Brazil until 1553. The establishment of ecclesiastical authority over Brazil occurred about the same time through the padroado real (royal patronage). The Order of Christ (whose grand master was the king himself) and the Mesa da Consciência e Ordens administered the royal patronage in the colony. The Church in Brazil remained directly subordinate to the archbishopric of Funchal on Madeira until the first diocese was established in Bahia in 1551. Throughout the entire colonial period, Bahia (since 1676) remained the only archbishopric in Brazil. Eventually, six bishoprics were established (see: Wadsworth, James E. In the Name of the Inquisition: The Portuguese Inquisition and Delegated Authority in Colonial Pernambuco, Brazil. The Americas, vol. 61, 2004, p. 19-52. Project MUSE).
Dutch Brazil
Portrait of Dom Miguel de Castro, a cousin of the Count of Sonho, who was sent as an envoy of King Garcia II of Kongo to the Dutch Republic to ask the Dutch stadtholder for mediation in a conflict the count had with the King. The Dutch West India Company had conquered Loango-Angola in 1641 from the Portuguese, and they had heavily relied on the assistance of the Count of Sonho. Dom Miguel de Castro travelled with a few servants to the Dutch Republic via Dutch Brazil, where they had been received by Governor John Maurice, Prince of Nassau-Siegen. On 19 June 1643, Dom Miguel de Castro arrived in Flushing, where he was received by three directors of the Zealand chamber of the Dutch West India Company, and who provided him with accommodation in Middelburg. Eventually, he was sailed to The Hague on 2 July 1643, where he had an audience with stadtholder Frederick Henry, Prince of Orange. During his two-week stay in Middelburg, the directors ordered six paintings from Jasper or Jeronimus Becx, comprising two portraits of Dom Miguel de Castro, one portrait each of both his servants, a painting “in Portuguese clothes,” and a full-length painting in “Congolese dress.” Dom Miguel de Castro requested to take one of his portraits back to Africa. The paintings were paid for in May 1645. After John Maurice resigned his governorship of Brazil in early 1644, he visited Middelburg in October 1644 to settle his affairs with the Zealand chamber of the Dutch West India Company. At this occasion, he was given the portrait of Dom Miguel de Castro and that of two of his servants. Governor John Maurice donated the three portraits, together with 20 Brazilian paintings by Albert Eckhout, to King Frederick III of Denmark, which is why the portraits eventually ended up in the collection of the National Gallery of Denmark.
From 1630 onwards, the Dutch Republic conquered a significant portion of settled areas in Brazil, establishing their capital in Recife. The Dutch West India Company took control under Governor John Maurice of Nassau, called “the Brazilian” for his fruitful period as governor of Dutch Brazil. The Dutch attempted to bolster the colony’s image by inviting artists and scientists. This period of Dutch influence was short-lived.
A turning point arrived in February 1649 with the Portuguese victory at the Second Battle of Guararapes, the decisive battle in a conflict called the Insurrection of Pernambuco, between Dutch and Portuguese forces at Jaboatão dos Guararapes in Pernambuco. This significant defeat pushed the Dutch towards surrender, which they formalized in a provisional pact on 26 January 1654. However, the Dutch Republic soon made demands for the return of their captured territory, leading to a lengthy period of negotiation. Ultimately, through the Treaty of The Hague signed in 1661, New Holland (the Dutch-controlled territory) was officially ceded back to Portugal.
Although the Dutch presence in Brazil was temporary, its impact was substantial. The conflict between the two European powers disrupted Brazil’s sugar production, impacting its position as a leading exporter of the commodity. Additionally, competition from Dutch planters in the Caribbean further exacerbated the decline of the Brazilian sugar industry. The war between Spain and the Netherlands, common trends in economic cycles, and cultural developments all played a role (Edel, M. (1969). The Brazilian Sugar Cycle of the Seventeenth Century and the Rise of West Indian Competition. Caribbean Studies, 9(1), 24–44). While the Dutch occupation of Brazil was relatively brief, it left a lasting mark on the country’s history, contributing to the decline of its crucial sugar industry and shaping its colonial landscape.
State of Brazil
The state was created on 13 June 1621 by Philip II of Portugal. It divided Portuguese America into two administrative units, with the capital of the State of Brazil located in São Salvador and the capital of the State of Maranhão located in São Luís. The State of Brazil became a Viceroyalty in January 1763, when the capital of the State of Brazil was transferred from Salvador to Rio de Janeiro (Klooster W. Brazil, Portugal, and Africa. In: The Cambridge History of the Age of Atlantic Revolutions. The Cambridge History of the Age of the Atlantic Revolutions. Cambridge University Press; 2023:427-588).
Kingdom of Brazil
The history of Brazil is marked by a brief yet significant period of autonomy known as the Kingdom of Brazil. It was formed in 1815, following the transfer of the Portuguese court to Brazil during the Napoleonic invasions of Portugal, and it continued to exist for about one year after the court’s return to Europe.
On 27-29 November 1807, just days before Napoleonic forces invaded Portugal on 1 December 1807 (largely to tighten the European blockade of Great Britain), Queen Maria I of Portugal, Prince Regent John, the Braganza royal family, and other court officials, totalling nearly 10.000 people, transferred from Lisbon to Brazil. They arrived at Rio de Janeiro on 7 March 1808.
Napoleon’s defeat in 1815 sparked discussions about the future of the Portuguese monarchy. While the Prince Regent, enjoying life in Rio de Janeiro’s more welcoming political climate, resisted returning to Lisbon, tensions grew. Politicians in Portugal wanted the court’s return and wanted the status of Brazil to officially be reduced to a “Principality of Brazil”, clinging to the traditional view of Brazil as a mere colony unfit to be the seat of power. However, Brazilian elites harboured opposing aspirations. Leading courtiers desired an elevation in status, seeking recognition as equals within Portugal. Nationalists, on the other hand, saw the move as a symbolic step towards independence; a sign that Brazil was no longer simply an appendage to Portugal’s interests.
The Kingdom of Brazil was created on 16 December 1815 by a law issued by Prince Regent John of Portugal, Prince of Brazil, Duke of Braganza, in the name of his mother, Queen Maria I of Portugal, as part of the larger United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil, and the Algarves, a single state consisting of three kingdoms.
The Portuguese crown remained in Brazil until the Liberal Revolution of 1820 (Portuguese: Revolução Liberal) led to the return of John VI to Portugal on 26 April 1821. The revolution initiated a constitutional period in which the 1822 Constitution was ratified and implemented. Just before he departed from Brazil to Portugal, King John VI appointed his firstborn son and heir, Prince Pedro of Braganza, the Prince Royal of the United Kingdom, by a decree issued on 22 April 1821 as Prince Regent of the Kingdom of Brazil. The decree delegated powers to discharge the general government and the entire administration of the Kingdom of Brazil. In 1822, Pedro I, son of John VI, declared the Kingdom of Brazil independent from Portugal. He was then acclaimed as the first emperor of Brazil in October of that same year.
Empire of Brazil
The Brazilian Empire, unlike many of its Hispanic-American counterparts, was marked by relative stability, economic growth, and guaranteed civil liberties – albeit with limitations. While freedom of speech and some civil rights existed, women and enslaved people faced significant restrictions. The latter were viewed not as citizens, but as property.
The Empire had parliament elected through a process considered relatively democratic for the time. However, this system also led to political conflicts between Emperor Pedro I and parliament concerning the monarch’s role in government.
Despite these internal struggles, the Empire achieved several noteworthy successes. Under Pedro II, the economy flourished, attracting European immigrants like Protestants and Jews, while Brazil remained predominantly Catholic. The nation emerged as an international power, securing victories in the Platine War, the Uruguayan War, and the Paraguayan War. Additionally, slavery, initially widespread, was gradually restricted by successive legislation, culminating in its complete abolishment in 1888. Brazilian art, literature, and theater thrived during this period, exhibiting European influences while simultaneously forging a distinct national identity.
However, the path to success was not without its challenges. The early years were marked by instability and regional civil wars due to internal power struggles. The Cisplatine War resulted in the secession of the Cisplatina province, later to become Uruguay. Moreover, the lack of a clear heir after Pedro II contributed to a decline in public support for the monarchy.
Despite its achievements, the Empire ultimately collapsed in a bloodless coup d’état in 1889. This sudden end can be attributed to several factors, including Emperor Pedro II’s disinterest in securing the monarchy’s future beyond his lifetime, the ruling class’s aversion to a female monarch (Pedro II’s daughter, Isabel), and the absence of a viable successor to lead the Empire after Pedro II.
Succession
Today, the family continues to pursue its dynastic and cultural heritage. Claimants to the defunct throne originate from Emperor Pedro II, with two branches of the House of Orléans-Braganza vying for leadership: the Petrópolis Line and the Vassouras Line.
The first decades of independence were difficult though not as chaotic as in Latin America’s Spanish-speaking republics. Brazil underwent a series of regional revolts, some of which resulted in thousands of deaths, but the national economy remained strong and the central government largely intact. The emperor was impulsive, however, and made generally despotic and arbitrary decisions. In 1823 he dissolved the constituent assembly, which he regarded as unruly and radical, and sent Andrada e Silva and his two brothers into exile. However, the emperor and his Council of State subsequently wrote a constitution that was liberal and advanced for its time, although it strengthened the hand of emperor. The municipal councils debated and approved the document; Pedro promulgated it in 1824, and it proved versatile enough to last throughout the imperial period. The constitution helped centralize the government by granting the emperor power to dissolve the Chamber of Deputies, select members of the Senate, and appoint and dismiss ministers of state. Pedro I’s popularity declined thereafter because he lost Brazil’s Cisplatine province (now the republic of Uruguay) following a costly war with Argentina (1825–28), appointed few mazombos (Brazilian Creoles) to high office, overly preoccupied himself with Portuguese affairs, failed to get along with the legislature, and signed treaties with Great Britain that kept import duties low and exacted a promise to abolish the slave trade. As a result, Pedro formally abdicated on April 7, 1831, in favour of his five-year-old son, Dom Pedro de Alcântara (later Pedro II).
II. Dom Pedro II of Brazil (1825-1891); regency 1831–1840; reigned personally 1840–1889.
Brazil had progressed considerably under Pedro II’s wise guidance. Its population grew from 4,000,000 to 14,000,000, its public revenues increased 14-fold, the value of its exports rose 10-fold, and the nation’s newly constructed railroads extended more than 5,000 miles (8,000 km). Immigration also increased, with more than 100,000 entering Brazil in 1889 alone. Yet people were generally dissatisfied.
Many historians have ascribed the fall of the monarchy to a restive military, a brooding landed aristocracy, and a resentful clergy. Indeed, those three powerful groups were increasingly critical of the emperor. Perhaps more pertinent, however, was the stress placed on the traditional social structure in the late 19th century, owing to a widening gulf between the elites in the neo-feudal countryside and the more progressive urban residents and coffee planters. Members of the urban middle class, the military, and the coffee planters believed that the monarchy represented the past and was too closely tied to the landed elite. They reasoned that a republic better suited the goals of Brazil’s emerging capitalist system, which increasingly was based on coffee and industrial production. A civil-military conspiracy formed, and military officers carried out a coup on November 15, 1889. Pedro II abdicated and went into exile in Europe. The abolition of slavery in 1888 and the overthrow of the monarchy in 1889 terminated the two major institutions that had shaped Brazil’s past; in so doing they initiated a period of social, economic, and political change that accelerated modernization. Accordingly, the period between 1888 and 1922 has been described as the emergence of a “new Brazil.”
III. Isabel of Brazil (1846-1921). Princess Imperial and former regent of Brazil during the absence of her father. She was the elder daughter of Pedro II. Dona Isabel, also known as “the Redemptress,” was a significant figure in Brazilian history. Born in 1846, she became the heir presumptive to the throne of the Brazilian Empire after the deaths of her two brothers. Isabel married Gaston, Count of Eu, in an arranged marriage and had three sons with him. During her father’s absences abroad, she served as regent, presiding over the Empire in his stead. However, her most significant act came during her third regency in 1888. Isabel actively championed the abolition of slavery in Brazil and ultimately signed the Lei Áurea (Golden Law), officially emancipating all enslaved people in the country. While this act was widely popular among the general public, it generated significant opposition from powerful landowners who relied on slave labor. Despite her popularity as The Redemptress, Isabel faced criticism for her gender, strong Catholic faith, and marriage to a foreigner. These factors, coupled with the economic anxieties of some over the abolition of slavery, contributed to the downfall of the monarchy. In 1889, a military coup d’état, headed by a dictator, deposed her father and the entire imperial family, forcing Isabel and her family into exile in France, where she lived the remaining 30 years of her life.
IVa. (Petrópolis line) Prince Pedro de Alcântara of Orléans-Braganza, Prince of Grão Pará(1875 – 1940), was the first-born son of DonaIsabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil, and Prince Gaston of Orléans, Count of Eu. As his grandfather ruled, he was second in line to become emperor. However, this changed dramatically in 1889 when a coup d’état ended the Brazilian monarchy. Dom Pedro de Alcântara, then just 14, went into exile in Europe with his mother, and grew up largely in France, at a family apartment in Boulogne-sur-Seine, and at his father’s castle, the Château d’Eu in Normandy. In 1908, Dom Pedro de Alcântara, heir to the Brazilian throne, found himself in a difficult situation. He wished to marry Countess Elisabeth Dobržensky de Dobrženicz. Although she was a member of the Bohemian higher nobility, she was not of royal birth. While the Brazilian constitution allowed such a marriage, tradition held strong. Dom Pedro’s mother, the head of the Imperial Family, disapproved and withheld her blessing unless he gave up his claim to the throne. Faced with a choice between love and duty, Dom Pedro chose love. On October 30, 1908, at the age of 33, he renounced his succession rights, paving the way for his marriage, on 14 November 1908 at Versailles.
Prince Pedro Gastão of Orléans-Braganza (1913-2007) was born into exile, a consequence of the 1889 coup that ended the Brazilian Empire. His father, once heir presumptive, renounced his claim in 1908, but Pedro Gastão never accepted this decision. He actively pursued his claim to the throne for over 60 years, following his father’s death in 1940. Prince Pedro Gastão died in the early hours of 27 December 2007, at the age of 94, and was buried the following day, in the chapel of Villamanrique de la Condesa. He received a State funeral in the presence of Spanish royalty. In 1909, the members of the elder branch of the Imperial Family (the Orléans and Bragança) signed an agreement with the Head of Royal Family of France, at that time the Duke of Orléans (1869-1926), called the “family pact”. By this agreement, all of the members were incorporated in the French line of succession, being properly styled Royal Highness. Therefore, from that agreement, the titles of the members of the Imperial Family of Brazil changed as follows: (i) Prince Pedro Gastão (Head of the Dynasty and Prince of Brazil); Prince Pedro Carlos (Imperial Prince) and Prince Pedro Thiago of Orleans and Bragança (Prince of Grand-Pará), Imperial and Royal Highness; (ii) other princes of the eldest branch, princes of Orléans and Bragança styled Royal Highness; (iii) members of the junior branch hold the title Prince of Saxe-Coburgo Bragança with the style Highness (Royalty Digest, Quarterly 3, 2006, p. 40).
Prince Pedro Carlos of Orléans-Braganza (1945 -), eldest son of Dom Pedro Gastão. Dom Pedro Carlos, a retired forest engineer, dedicates his time to two distinct but intertwined passions: preserving the historical and cultural heritage of the Brazilian monarchy and managing the Petrópolis Real Estate Company, a family-owned venture he helms alongside his siblings. As the owner of the Palace of Grão-Pará, he holds the distinction of being the last royal descendant residing in a former royal palace on the entire American continent. This residence serves as a tangible link to the past while highlighting Pedro Carlos’ personal commitment to the preservation of his family’s legacy. While Pedro Carlos does not actively pursue a formal restoration of the monarchy, he remains deeply connected to its past and dedicated to ensuring its cultural and historical memory is preserved. Heir: Prince Pedro Tiago de Orléans e Bragança (1979-).
IVb (Vassouras line) Prince Luís of Orléans-Braganza (1878–1920). In 1908, after his elder brother relinquished his claim to the throne, Dom Luís became heir apparent to his mother, Princess Isabel, actively working with Brazilian monarchists in their unsuccessful attempts to restore the monarchy. During World War I, he served as an officer in the British Armed Forces, seeing combat in Flanders. However, he contracted a severe form of rheumatism that ultimately led to his death at the age of 42. His commitment to the Allied cause earned him decorations from Belgium, France, and Great Britain.
Pedro Henrique of Orléans-Braganza (1909–1981); grandson of Princess Isabel, son and heir of her second son, Prince Luís of Orléans-Braganza (1878–1920). Upon the death of his father in 1920, Dom Pedro Henrique became claimant to the title of Prince Imperial, but on 14 November 1921, Princess Isabel died at the Castle d’Eu. Therefore, at the age of 12, Dom Pedro Henrique became the head of the Vassouras line of the imperial family.
Luiz of Orléans-Braganza (1938-2022); claimant 1981–2022; the eldest son of Prince Pedro Henrique. At his death, President Jair Bolsonaro decreed official mourning throughout the country (source: EuropeanConservative). Dom Luiz was succeeded as the Head of the Vassouras line by his brother, Prince Bertrand (see below).
Bertrand of Orléans-Braganza (1941-) claimant 2022–present, third son of Prince Pedro Henrique. Heir: Prince Antônio of Orléans-Braganza (born in 1950).
I, Prince Pedro de Alcântara Luiz Filipe Maria Gastão Miguel Gabriel Rafael Gonzaga of Orleans-Braganza, having maturely reflected, have resolved to renounce the right that, by the Constitution of the Empire of Brazil, promulgated on 25 March 1824, accords to me the Crown of that nation. I declare, therefore, that by my free and spontaneous will I hereby renounce, in my own name, as well as for any and all of my descendants, to all and any rights that the aforesaid Constitution confers upon us to the Brazilian Crown and Throne, which shall pass to the lines which follow mine, conforming to the order of succession as established by article 117. Before God I promise, for myself and my descendants, to hold to the present declaration. Cannes 30 October 1908 signed: Pedro de Alcântara of Orleans-Braganza
Montjouvent, P. de (1998). Le comte de Paris et sa Descendance. Charenton: Éditions du Chaney. p. 97.
I agree with the expert opinions of jurists like Professor Francisco Morato and Paulo Napoleão Nogueira da Silva, that the declaration does not have legal effect (Bodstein, A.B. The Imperial Family of Brazil. In: Royalty Digest Quarterly, no. 3 -2006; Parecer sobre a Renúncia do Príncipe Dom Pedro d’Alcântara); simply because Dom Pedro waived “rights” (his “rights” to the defunct throne of Brazil) which do not exist in law. A discussion about the so-called de jure situation is meaningless because Brazilian law does not attribute any meaning (value or worthlessness) to such transfer. As an alternative, a cultural-historical approach serves as a neutral framework to determine the heir to the Imperial House. Historically, the Constitution of 1824 was the guideline that applied in this matter and therefore serves as a solid foundation for this approach.
In 2005, Prince Pedro Carlos of Orléans-Braganza holds the hand of his father, Prince Pedro Gastão, on the day of the funeral of his mother, Princess María de la Esperanzo de Bourbon-Siciles-Orléans, aunt of King Juan Carlos (Photo: Korpa/Abacapress).
The 1908 declaration certainly is significant because it was an attempt to transfer the headship of the Imperial House to another branch of the family. However, despite its significance, it cannot be said the declaration provides enough substance to transfer the headship of the Imperial House to a younger branch of the family because the declaration was a clear breach of art. 115 of the Constitution of 1824, which states that the former palaces and lands of Pedro I follow his successor.
Art. 115. The palaces and national lands now belonging to Sr. D. Pedro I, shall always belong to his successors; and the nation will care for the acquisitions and constructions that may be thought appropriate for the dignity and recreation of the Emperor and his family.
Political Constitution of the Empire of Brazil (Portuguese: Constituição Política do Império do Brasil) commonly referred to as the Constitution of 1824. Brazil’s first constitution, issued on 25 March 1824 subsequently amended with the enactment of the Additional Act of 1834, and the Law of Interpretation of 1840, and revoked on 24 February 1891.
The remains of King Pedro II, Princess Isabel, Count D’Eu, and Empress Teresa Cristina in Petrópolis Cathedral – Photo: Rogério de Paula / Inter TV.
Dom Pedro Carlos owns the Grão-Pará Palace and the D. Isabel Palace, both in Petrópolis, which were returned to his grandfather, Dom Pedro de Alcântara, by the republican government. In line with former art. 115, he therefore is the de facto successor to the historical and cultural heritage of the former Imperial House.
Apart from the transfer by the government of the House’s cultural-historical heritage to Dom Pedro Carlos, superfluously it should be noted that the 1908 declaration was in conflict with the succession rules, as art. 117 stipulates succession via primogeniture:
Art. 117. His legitimate offspring shall succeed to the throne according to the regular order of primogeniture and representation, preferring always the anterior line to the posterior lines; in the same line the nearer degree to the more remote ones; in the same degree the male sex to the female; in the same sex the older to the younger person.
Political Constitution of the Empire of Brazil (Portuguese: Constituição Política do Império do Brasil) commonly referred to as the Constitution of 1824. Brazil’s first constitution, issued on 25 March 1824 subsequently amended with the enactment of the Additional Act of 1834, and the Law of Interpretation of 1840, and revoked on 24 February 1891.
Ethical perspective
Apart from the aforementioned cultural-historical perspective, there is also a serious ethical aspect to be considered. The declaration was made under psychological pressure: Dom Pedro’s mother refused her blessing to the marriage if he would not renunciate (see: letter from Dona Isabel of 9 November 1908 [Castle of Eu] to her monarchist followers). It caused Dom Pedro to commit an act that he would otherwise not commit.
Furthermore, there are strong reasons to conclude Dom Bertrand would have been disqualified on moral grounds under Art. 126 of the Political Constitution of the Empire of Brazil, which governed the imperial succession. Dom Bertrand is known as a religious fanatic who is against the demarcation of indigenous territory in Brazil. He is also a climate change denialist and has published a book entitled “Psicose Ambientalista” (“Environmentalist Psychosis”), denouncing what he calls the hoaxes created by radical environmentalists and by eco-terrorists (source: BBC News Brasil in São Paulo, 4 April 2019. João Fellet, Monarchists occupy positions in Brasília and rehabilitate ultraconservative Catholic group). Dom Bertand’s views are so offensive, out of touch, and immoral that he is unfit to lead the Imperial House of Brazil. In the days of the empire, a special provision was in place in such circumstances, disqualifying the position of the emperor, which – from an ethical point of view – should analogously be applied to the claims of Dom Bertrand:
Art. 126. If the Emperor, from physical or moral cause, evidently recognized by the plurality of each of the chambers of the Assembly, should become unfit to govern, the Imperial Prince, if he be more than eighteen years of age, shall govern in his stead as regent.
Political Constitution of the Empire of Brazil (Portuguese: Constituição Política do Império do Brasil) commonly referred to as the Constitution of 1824. Brazil’s first constitution, issued on 25 March 1824 subsequently amended with the enactment of the Additional Act of 1834, and the Law of Interpretation of 1840, and revoked on 24 February 1891.
Conclusions
In tradition with the legal structure of the former empire, the only legitimate heir to the dynastic rights of the Imperial Family of Brazil is Dom Pedro Carlos, Prince of Brazil, Prince of Grão-Pará, born on 31 October 1945. Dom Bertrand’s claims conflict with this legal structure in various ways and should be rejected.
Barman Roderick J. Citizen Emperor : Pedro Ii and the Making of Brazil 1825-1891. Stanford University Press 1999.
Appendix
Pêro Vaz de Caminha, clerk of the armada of Pedro Álvares Cabral, in a letter to King D. Manuel, left a remarkable account of the first Mass ever offered in the land known today as Brazil. Fr. Henrique de Coimbra, who had arrived with Portuguese explorers, celebrated this Mass on 26 April 1500. Below is a translation of the main parts of the account. The original Portuguese can be read here:
One of them saw some white rosary beads; he waved to be given them, took great delight in them, and threw them around his neck. Then he took them off and wrapped them around his arm and waved to the earth and back to the beads and the Captain’s necklace, as if saying they would give gold for it. (…)
When we got off the barge, the Captain said that we should go straight to the Cross, which was leaning against a tree by the river, to be erected tomorrow, which is Friday, and that we should all get down on our knees and kiss it so that they would see how much we respected it. And so we did. The ten or twelve who were there waved to the Cross, and they all went right away to kiss it. They seem to me to be people of such innocence that, if a man understood them and they understood us, they would immediately be Christians, because they, it seems, have no belief, nor do they understand any belief. (…)
While they were doing it, he and all of us went down to the Cross below the river, where it was. From there, we brought it with those religious and priests in front of us, singing, in procession-like fashion. Some of them were already there, seventy or eighty; and when they saw us coming, some came under it to help us. We crossed the river, along the beach, and put the Cross where it was to stay, which would be the work of two crossbow shots. A hundred and fifty or more came along.
Once the Cross was erected, with the arms and motto of Your Highness were nailed to it, they set up an altar near it. There the friar Father Henry said Mass, which was sung and officiated by the aforementioned. There were fifty or sixty of them with us, all sitting on their knees, just like us.
And when it came to the Gospel and we all stood up, with raised hands, they then stood up with us and raised their hands, and stayed like that, until it was finished; and then they sat down again like us. And when they lifted up God [the elevation of the Mass?] and we knelt down, they all stood like this, as we stood with our hands raised, and in such a quiet way, that, I certify to Your Highness, it made us very devout. They stayed like that with us until communion was over, after which those religious and priests and the Captain received communion with some of us others.
Some of them, because the sun was intense, when we were receiving communion, got up, and others stood and stayed. One of them, a man of about fifty or fifty-five, stayed with those who stayed. This man, as we were thus gathered together, gathered those who remained, and called for others. And walking thus among them speaking, he waved his finger toward the altar and then pointed his finger toward heaven, as if to say something good to them; and we took the meaning of it.
When the Mass was over, the priest took off his vestments and stayed at the altar, sitting on a chair. There he preached to us from the Gospel and the Apostles, whose day it is today, treating, at the end of the preaching, of this your so holy and virtuous continuance, which increased our devotion.
Those who were at the preaching stood like us, looking at him. And he called for some to come there. Some came and some went. And when the preaching was over, as Nicolau Coelho had brought many pewter crosses with crucifixes, which he had left from his other visit, they decided that each one should wear his own around his neck. Father Henry sat down at the foot of the Cross, and there he fastened crosses on the people, one by one, tied by a thread around the neck, first making them kiss the cross.”
Op 13 oktober 2023 vond in de Haarlemse Bavokathedraal de investituur plaats van tien ridders in de Heilige Militaire Constantijnse Orde van Sint Joris (bekend als Constantijnse Orde). Het was voor het eerst dat in Nederland een investituur van deze Orde plaatsvond.
De Luitenant van de Grootmeester (sinds 2023 zelf Grootmeester) van de Souvereine Orde van Malta, Fra’ John Dunlap, ontving op 14 september 2022 Prins Carlo van Bourbon Beide Siciliën in het Magistraal Paleis. Tijdens deze ontmoeting heeft Prins Carlo van Bourbon aan de Luitenant van de Grootmeester het insigne van Baljuw Ridder Grootkruis van Justitie, versierd met de Collar van de Heilige Militaire Constantijnse Orde van Sint Joris, uitgereikt. De luitenant van de grootmeester verklaarde dat hij “zeer trots was al meer dan 25 jaar tot de Constantijnse Orde van Sint Joris te behoren en vereerd was vandaag de hoogste Constantijnse onderscheiding te ontvangen. Ik ben er zeker van dat de reeds uitstekende betrekkingen tussen onze twee Ordes in de toekomst nog verder zullen worden verrijkt in het teken van onze gemeenschappelijke idealen.” De ceremonie werd bijgewoond door de Grootkanselier van de Orde van Malta, Riccardo Paternò di Montecupo, en verschillende leden van de Souvereine Raad. Bron: Souvereine Orde van Malta.
De nieuwe ridders werden geinstalleerd door bisschop Jan Hendriks van Haarlem-Amsterdam. Hendriks werd eerder op de dag zelf geïnstalleerd. De investituur vond aan het begin van de mis plaats. De ridders legden een belofte af en werden zo officieel opgenomen in de Orde, waarbij zijn de blauwe mantel van de Orde ontvingen.
De Constantijnse Orde, die momenteel onder leiding staat van Prins Karel van Bourbon-Beide Siciliën, hertog van Castro, is een eeuwenoude Europese ridderorde die nauwe banden heeft met de katholieke Kerk. De Orde voert zijn legendarische geschiedenis terug tot keizer Constantijn de Grote en ontleent hieraan ook zijn naam. Aan het hoofd van de Orde staat een grootprior; kardinaal Marcello Semeraro, prefect van het Dicasterie voor de heiligverklaringen. De beleving van het geloof, de spiritualiteit van het kruis en caritas staan centraal.
Acceptatie
In zijn verslag van de investituur aan de Johanniter Orde vermeldt jhr. dr. ing. Tom Versélewel de Witt Hamer dat de Constantijnse Orde waarschijnlijk niet door “de gevestigde Nederlandse orden wordt erkend“, waarmee hij de in Nederland gevestigde ridderlijke orden bedoelt (vriendelijke mededeling aan schrijver dezes d.d. 12 april 2024):
Maar ondanks de goede werken is het zeer onwaarschijnlijk dat de Nederlandse delegatie van de orde door de gevestigde Nederlandse orden als ridder(lijke) orde erkend zal worden.
Deze opmerking is juist voor de Nederlandse situatie. Op internationaal niveau heeft de Constantijnse Orde echter een uitstekende relatie heeft met de prominente Souvereine Orde van Malta, die ook een afdeling in Nederland heeft. Deze relatie dateert uit de tijd dat het Koninkrijk der Beide Siciliën historisch gezien een nauwe band had met het eiland Malta, waarmee het een verdrag onderhield dat militaire bescherming bood. Sinds 1878 is elke Prins en Grootmeester van de Orde van Malta een hooggeplaatst lid van de Constantijnse Orde.
Geschiedenis
Het monumentale werk van de Britse historicus Guy Stair Sainty (2018) beschrijft in detail de roemrijke en fascinerende geschiedenis van deze illustere Orde.
Het ontstaan van de Orde in het midden van de zestiende eeuw, toen christelijk Europa werd aangevallen door een militant Ottomaans rijk, kreeg vrijwel onmiddellijk de steun van de paus en tegen het einde van de zeventiende eeuw had de Orde leden over het hele Italiaanse schiereiland, in Spanje, Duitsland, Oostenrijk en Bohemen, Kroatië en Polen. Vandaag de dag zijn de meeste leden van de Orde te vinden in Italië en Spanje, maar er zijn ook leden in Portugal, Frankrijk, België, Groot-Brittannië en Luxemburg, met kleinere groepen in Nederland, Duitsland en Zweden, evenals een groeiend aantal leden in de Verenigde Staten.
Stair Sainty’s werk onderzoekt de bekering van Constantijn en de geschiedenis van de grootmeesters Angeli, Farnese en Bourbon, met uitgebreide verwijzingen naar tot nu toe ongepubliceerde documenten in de archieven van het Vaticaan en in de archieven van Farnese en Bourbon in Napels. Deze documenten bevestigen de nauwe band die de Orde had met de Kerk en de hoge achting die opeenvolgende pausen voor haar hadden, evenals haar autonomie als een onderwerp van canoniek recht dat onafhankelijk is van enige kroon of wereldlijke souvereiniteit. Deze unieke status heeft de erfelijke Grootmeesters in staat gesteld deze waardigheid te behouden na de inlijving van het voormalige Koninkrijk der Beide Siciliën in een verenigd Italië.
Vaticaanstad – December 2013. ZKH Prins Karel van Bourbon-Beide Siciliën, hertog van Castro en Grootmeester van de Heilige Militaire Constantijnse Orde van Sint Joris werd ontvangen door Zijne Heiligheid Paus Franciscus tijdens een audiëntie in de Clementine Zaal van het Apostolisch Paleis van Vaticaanstad. De audiëntie werd gehouden ter gelegenheid van de 5e verjaardag van het instituut Dignitatis Humanae, waarvan ZKH de hertog van Castro beschermheer is en waarvan de Constantijnese Orde en verschillende leden van de Britse, Ierse en Italiaanse delegaties van de Orde ondersteuners zijn.
Volgens de legende is de Constantijnse Orde de oudste ridderlijke instelling, opgericht door keizer Constantijn de Grote en bestuurd door opeenvolgende Byzantijnse keizers en hun nakomelingen. Hoewel deze chronologie tot in de twintigste eeuw door verschillende schrijvers werd ondersteund, heeft deze weinig historische basis. Desalniettemin konden de families Angeli, Farnese en Bourbon, die het Grootmeesterschap bezaten, legitiem aanspraak maken op Byzantijnse keizerlijke afstamming, zij het in de vrouwelijke lijn. Het kruis van de Orde is een kopie van het kruis dat Constantijn zag in het visioen dat zowel Lactantius als Eusebius (beide raadsmannen van keizer Constantijn) vastlegden, kort na Maximianus‘ nederlaag bij de slag bij de Milvische brug.
Ook met het Vaticaan bestaat een uitstekende relatie. In 2018 was de driehonderdste verjaardag van de Pauselijke bul Militantis Ecclesiae die de vorige Pauselijke akten betreffende de Orde bevestigde en goedkeurde, en de rechten en privileges van de Orde, haar Grootmeesters en leden vastlegde. In het begin van de 20e eeuw verleenden paus Sint Pius X en Benedictus XV verdere privileges aan de Orde door de statuten goed te keuren, terwijl de toen toekomstige paus Pius XII in 1913 tot de Orde werd toegelaten.
Conclusies
De Constantijnse Orde is een toonaangevende ridderorde met een rijke geschiedenis die teruggaat tot de zestiende eeuw. Het is te betreuren dat de Orde niet door de lokale Nederlandse riddelijke orden op coöperatieve wijze wordt erkend. Gelukkig is dit niet maatgevend. Op internationaal niveau is de Constantijnse Orde door de paus en de Souvereine Orde van Malta al eeuwenlang geaccepteerd.
Literatuur
Guy Stair Sainty (2018). The Constantinian Order of Saint George: and the Angeli, Farnese and Bourbon families which governed it. ISBN 978-84-340-2506-6.
Appendix
Hieronder volgt de homilie van de viering.
Homilie
Het kruis: In dat teken zul je overwinnen
INVESTITUUR CONSTANTIJNSE ORDE 13 oktober 2023
Broeders en zusters,
Allereerst een paar woorden voor onze buitenlandse gasten in het Italiaans.
Italiaanse begroeting
Eccellenza, Monsignori, Dama e Cavalieri, fratelli e sorelle. È con grande gioia che vi accolgo in questa cattedrale per la prima investitura del Sacro Militare Ordine Costantiniano di San Giorgio. È per me un onore accogliere Lei, Sua Eccellenza, Gran Cancelliere dell’Ordine. Lei rappresenta in mezzo a noi l’Ordine ed il suo Gran Maestro, Sua Altezza Reale il Principe Carlo, Duca di Castro; speriamo che gli assicuri la nostra unione e le nostre preghiere. Possa l’Ordine Costantiniano nei Paesi Bassi crescere e prosperare, non solo in termini numerici, ma anche attraverso la fede, il testimonio della fede cattolica e le buone opere al servizio del prossimo.
De Constantijnse orde
We beleven vandaag dus de eerste investituur van de Constantijnse orde binnen de Nederlandse delegatie. De ridders die zojuist de investituur hebben ontvangen, hebben zich al voorbereid met een weekend in Heiloo en kennen intussen het nodige van de geschiedenis van de Orde. En u allen kunt in het liturgieboekje iets meer lezen over die geschiedenis en de doelstelling van de Constantijnse Orde, die komend vanuit Italië intussen in vele landen verspreid is. Ik wil me vandaag beperken tot een paar aspecten van de betekenis van de Orde, hier en nu.
Het kruis
Het zal iedereen wel zijn opgevallen dat het kruis centraal staat: Het kruis is hét teken van de Orde op de blauwe mantels en op andere uiterlijke tekenen. Ook buiten de Orde is het kruis prominent aanwezig: Het kruis van Christus heeft een ereplaats in de woning van vele christenen en in elke katholieke kerk.
Het kruis en het lijden
Toch is dat precies wat we allemaal zo moeilijk vinden, want dat kruis is een teken van lijden, een martelwerktuig. Ik denk dat er weinigen onder ons zijn die er naar uitzien om te lijden. We ontlopen lijden, pijn en verdriet liever en onze samenleving probeert het lijden op allerlei manieren te verzachten of te elimineren. En toch weten we allemaal dat het lijden bij ons leven hoort; lijden maakt deel uit van ieders leven en er kan zelfs geen liefde bestaan zonder lijden. Wie liefheeft, moet ook lijden. We zouden het lijden niet kunnen uitbannen zonder de liefde geweld aan te doen.
Lijden en liefde
Liefde die lijdt: dat is het beeld van Jezus Christus wat we voor ogen hebben: “Zozeer heeft God de wereld liefgehad dat Hij zijn eniggeboren Zoon heeft gegeven”, hebben we zojuist gehoord. Jezus is in deze wereld gekomen om te geven, om lief te hebben en te lijden: “Niemand heeft groter liefde, dan wie zijn leven geeft”. Liefde is geven, liefde impliceert dat het je wat mag kosten. Het mooiste in ons leven is dan ook niet dat we iets geven – een donatie, een cadeau -, maar dat we onszelf geven en dat gaat dus ook over het hart dat we leggen in de dingen die we doen. Daarom prees Jezus het penningske van de weduwe, dat groter waarde had dan de rijke grift van een vermogende tempelganger.
In die zin is het kruis dat we dragen of in onze woningen hangen en in onze kerken, niet een trieste herinnering maar een uitnodiging tot liefde, tot het geven van jezelf.
Labarum
Binnen de Constantijnse Orde gaat het kruis terug op het Labarum, het wapenteken waarop Constantijn voor de beslissende veldslag het kruis aan liet brengen geïnspireerd door een visioen: “In dit teken zul je overwinnen” “In hoc signo vinces”, woorden die zojuist hebben geklonken bij de investituur van iedere ridder. Je zult de eindoverwinning behalen door het verlossend lijden en kruis van Christus en door zelf te leven in het teken van dat kruis, dat is: in de geest van de liefde die zich geeft.
Overgang
Dat Constantijnse kruis heeft nog een andere betekenis: Het moment dat Constantijn het kruis op het Labarum liet aanbrengen, markeert ook de overgang van een heidense samenleving met een veelheid aan goden en de levenswijze die daarbij hoorde, naar de christelijke samenleving met vrijheid van godsdienst voor iedereen en respect voor de menselijke waardigheid, die blijkt uit een onsterfelijke ziel.
Samenleving
Wie dit kruis van Constantijn draagt wil daarmee dus ook aangeven dat hij of zij wil staan voor een samenleving waarin de christelijke waarden van gemeenschapszin, het bevorderen van het algemeen welzijn met respect voor de menselijke waardigheid en het menselijk leven, godsdienstvrijheid en respect voor de godsdienstige beleving, centraal staan. Het zijn deze en ermee verbonden waarden die in de katholieke sociale leer tot uitdrukking komen.
Het kruis als symbool
Het kruis staat centraal in de Constantijnse Orde. De horizontale en de verticale balk verbinden als het ware hemel en aarde; moge het zo ook in jullie eigen leven zijn, beste ridders, want christen-zijn, katholiek-zijn moet handen en voeten krijgen in ons concrete leven, bijvoorbeeld in de caritas-initiatieven, die wij als Orde hopen te nemen. Het kruis staat symbool voor de liefde die geeft, voor de liefde die nu eenmaal offers met zich mee brengt en voor ons verlangen mee te bouwen aan een mooie samenleving, niet een individualistische maar één waarin we naar elkaar omzien; voor ons moet niet het “ik” centraal staan, maar een “wij” en Hij, die de God en Vader is van ons allen.
Mogen jullie, beste nieuwe Ridders, in dit teken overwinnen!
This article addresses the question to what extent the current Order of the Dragon of Annam is a legitimate continuation of the original Order of the Dragon of Annam, formed in French Indochina in 1884 and 1886.
Historical context
Saigon. Le Théâtre Municipal in 1910. From 1955 to 1975 the building was used as the seat of the lower house of parliament of the republic of (south) Vietnam. Then, it became a theatre again. Since a restoration 1998 the building looks much as it did when built in 1900.
The French conquest of Vietnam (1858–1885) forms the historical background of the Order of the Dragon of Annam. The colonialization of Vietnam was a long war between the Second French Empire, later the French Third Republic on the one hand, and the Vietnamese empire of Đại Nam on the other hand. In 1885, the French defeated the Vietnamese and their Chinese allies and incorporated Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, in French Indochina in 1887.
The French brought many changes to the country. Through the construction of railroads linking the major cities, they modernized Vietnam. A railroad running from Hanoi, the nation’s capital in the north, to Saigon, the biggest city in South Vietnam, was a source of pride for both the Vietnamese and the French. Along with building roads and bridges, the French also imported vehicles and trucks, paved streets, and constructed railroads. The most important visable reference to French occupation is the French architecture, which remains a dominant fixture across South East Asia. This is most notable in the UNESCO World Heritage listed cities of Luang Prabang in Laos and Hoi An in Vietnam.
HIM Đồng Khánh, lit. “collective celebration” (1864 – 1889; reign 1885 – 1889), Emperor of Đại Nam under French protectorate of Annam and Tonkin. Born Nguyễn Phúc Ưng Kỷ (阮福膺祺) or Nguyễn Phúc Ưng Đường (阮福膺禟), also known as Chánh Mông (正蒙), royal temple name Cảnh Tông (景宗). ninth emperor of the Nguyễn dynasty of Vietnam. Emperor Đồng Khánh had a gentle personality, He loved to wear luxurious jewelry and adopted French culture. In return, the French colonial government gave favor to him.
The French introduced electricity to Vietnam, mostly in major cities and towns. Parts of Saigon and Hanoi were transformed into gorgeous, modern towns with impressive public parks and spacious streets. They also constructed still-operating hotels. Saigon’s open-air eateries, contemporary architecture, and wide boulevards reminded of Paris. The French also established a law and medical school as well as the practice of contemporary medicine.
The Vietnamese educational system was likewise altered by the French. The complicated Chinese characters were changed to the much simpler Western European Roman alphabet. Many Vietnamese were able to finish their education in the country of their colonial oppressors because to training they received to pass the exams for French universities. Vietnamese communist revolutionary Hồ Chí Minh (1890-1969), for example, received a French education, attending Collège Quốc học (lycée or secondary education) in Huế in Central Vietnam. His followers, Phạm Văn Đồng and Võ Nguyên Giáp, also attended the school, as did Ngô Đình Diệm, the future President of South Vietnam and political rival.
As an outsider, it is difficult to get an idea of the social relationships in French colonial society. In French media, Indochina was portrayed as glamorous and prosperous, and people were encouraged to emigrate to the colonies. Settler narratives however, focus instead upon Indochina’s perceived immorality, its insalubrity, and the debilitating effects it has on both the physical and psychological well-being of the European settler.
Deputy Defence Minister Ta Quang Buu of Vietnam, right, signs the Indochina Conference Armistice Agreement in Geneva on 21 July 1954. (Credits: KEYSTONE/Photopress-Archiv/Str). The Conference portioned French Indochina in three successor states: the Kingdom of Cambodia; the Kingdom of Laos; and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, the state led by Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh. The State of Vietnam was reduced to the southern part of Vietnam. The division of Vietnam was intended to be temporary, with elections planned for by 1956 to reunify the country. After a military buildup in North Vietnam, the State of Vietnam, under Ngo Dinh Diem, subsequently withdrew from the proposed elections. Worsening relations between the North and South would eventually lead to the Vietnam War.
A dark side of the colonial rulership was the removal of Eurasian children who had been abandoned by their French fathers from their Vietnamese mothers by non-governmental welfare agencies working with help of the French colonial government (1890-1956). These children were considered white and were believed to be a threat to colonial security and white prestige.
In 1953, the Kingdoms of Laos and Cambodia proclaimed their independences. After the Geneva Accord of 1954, the French were forced to withdraw from Vietnam and French Indochina ceased to exist. In 1976, the reunification of North Vietnam and South Vietnam established the Socialist (=communist) Republic of Vietnam. The governementunder the dictatorial one-party rule of the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) systematically suppresses basic civil and political rights, in particular rights to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, movement, and religion.
Imperial Order of the Dragon of Annam
Photo: Stamp of the Seal of the Emperor of Annam presented to Admiral Courbet by Jules Patenôtre, France’s representative to the Court of Hué, after the signing of the 1883 treaty establishing a French protectorate over Annam (Service historique de la Défense).
The Imperial Order of the Dragon of Annam (or Ordre impérial du Dragon d’Annam) was created in 1884 by the French Ministre de la Marine et des Colonies and the French diplomat Jules Patenôtre des Noyers (1845-1925).
In 1884, Patenôtre, in his capacity as France’s minister to China, was sent to regularize the French dominion in the Vietnamese protectorate state of Annam (central Vietnam). He arrived in Hải Phòng on 26 May and in Huế on 30 May 1884. Patenôtre started discussions with Nguyễn Văn Tường (1824–1886); a mandarin (originally descending from a peasant family) of the Nguyễn dynasty in Vietnam, known for installing and dethroning three emperors between 1883 and 1884. On 6 June 1884, the Patenôtre Treaty between France and Đại Nam (Vietnam/Nguyễn dynasty) was signed.
National Museum of American History. Order of the Dragon of Annam for military, badge and sash; fabric (sash material) gold; enamel (badge material). Measurements sash: 85 cm x 10 cm; 33 15/32 in x 3 15/16. Inbadge: 10.77 cm x 5.6 cm, 4 1/4 in x 2 7/32 in. ID number U.67.94433a. Catalogue number 67.94433a. Accession number 211250. Credit line Frederick W. MacKay.
The treaty formed the basis for the protectorates of Annam and Tonkin (northern Vietnam), and for French colonial rule in Vietnam as part of French Indochina during the the following 60 years. The treaty was signed by representatives of the imperial court. The treaty marked the Nguyễn dynasty’s second acceptance of French protectorate in central and northern Vietnam, but was cancelled by the Nguyễn dynasty on 11 March 1945.
In 2021, a Vietnamese mandarin hat from the Nguyễn Dynasty has sold for 600,000 euros at an auction in Barcelona, Spain. The initial price offered by Balclis Auction House was 500-600 euros. However, when the auction opened, many bidders participated, causing the price to increase by 1.200 times compared to the estimate. In the end, it was sold for 600.000 euros, excluding tax, to an anonymous Vietnamese collector. The final bidder was a businessman with a special love for Hue. He was determined to bring the mandarin hat back to Vietnam and will donate this artefact to Hue at the right time. Source: Vietnamplus.
The Order of the Dragon of Annam was formally instituted in Hué on 14 March 1886 by Emperor Đồng Khánh (1864-1889), in agreement with the French government and as a tribute to the alliance with France. The Order was initially called the Imperial Order of the Dragon of Annam, but on 10 May 1896 became the Order of the Dragon of Annam. The dragon being the tutelary divinity of the imperial family, representing the emperor, the prosperity, and power of the nation.
This order existed as a French colonial order between 1896 and 1950. It was abolished by the communists on 5 May 1950, along with all the other colonial orders, following France’s proclamation of independence for Vietnam in 1949.
Modern reconstitution
HIH Crown Prince Bảo Đại and Prince Bửu Chánh, President of the Vietnamese Constitutional Monarchist League. Photo: imperialvietnam.net.
On 30 October 2002, the Imperial Order of the Dragon of Annam was re-established by Prince Bửu Chánh as first provisional Grandmaster under the protection of the Imperial Nguyễn Dynasty of Vietnam, in accordance with the Chapters and Articles of constitution of the Order. Religious ceremonies for the re-establishment of the Order were also coordinated in the United States, and held at Quang Minh Tu Temple in Illinois; the Bat Nha Buddhist Temple in Santa Anna, California; the Quan Am Tinh Xa Temple in California; the Phap Duyen Tinh Xa Temple, San Jose, California; the Buu Mon Temple in Temple of Port Arthur, Texas; and the Co Lam Tu Temple in Seattle, Washington State. These ceremonies were held according to the wishes of the Imperial Nguyễn Family. The modern history of the Order is documented in Guy Stair Sainty’s standard reference work World Orders of Knighthood & Merit:
Some descendants of the Imperial House have been actively involved in opposing the present communist government, and pro-monarchy Vietnamese exiles have formed the Vietnamese Monarchist League. The sometime head of this body, Prince Buu Chanh, a descendant of the seventy-first son of the Emperor Ming Mang (reigned 1820-1841), claims to have had the support of the late Emperor, shortly before his death, in forming a council of members of the imperial dynasty. In 2001 Prince Buu Chanh (who had inherited, been granted, or assumed, the title of Duke of Kien Hoa), proclaimed himself HIH. Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh, Prince Regent of Vietnam and, on 30 October 2002, declared the Order of the Dragon of Annam refounded, with himself as Grand Master. The new statutes he proclaimed declared that his successor would be chosen by the Imperial Family Council. The Crown Prince was not apparently consulted, nor did he approve this action. To the surprise of serveral observers the three senior officers appointed to administer this body were Americans, of European ancestry with no previously known connection to Vietnam; neither were many of the first recipients of the Order known to have any particular Vietnamese connections. In the late summer of 2004, various changes were made and these officers were replaced by Vietnamese.
Since then Prince Buu Chanh has been relieved of his position and the Imperial Order of the Dragon of Annam has been placed under the direction of the legitimate Head of the Imperial Nguyen Dynasty, HIH Crown Prince Bao Long, who has asserted his hereditary rights as Sovereign of the Imperial Annamese Orders in succession to his late father, Emperor Bao Dai. Prince Bao Long has entrusted the Grand Mastership of the Order to Prince Bao Vang, son of the late Emperor Duy Tan. Prince Bao Vang ranks immediately behind the Crown Prince and his brothers in genealogical order, and agreed to assume the responsibilities of leadership for the Order as of 5 August 2005. Another member of the Imperial family has been named as Chancellor of the Order.
The purpose of the revived Order before the events of 2005 was apparently to reward individuals who worked peacefully towards the moral, intellectual and economic restoration of a democratic Vietnam. In future it will abjure any political objectives but will focus on humanitarian, educational, and cultural goals and on efforts to aid the poor and disenfranchised people in Vietnam as well as outside the country, with particular emphasis given to children, the elderly, and the disabled.
The badge is an eight-pointed star of faceted rays of gold or silver contingent upon class, with a blue enamel oval roundel at its centre. The oval contains four Chinese calligraphic characters in gold ‘seal script, reading Emperor Dong Khanh (Doing-Khanh Hoang-De) with decorative lines of flame, encircled by red enamel. The red enamel surround is separated from the blue enamel oval and the faceted rays by circles of gold. The reverse of the badge is plain and usually convex. It is hung from a Western-style crown, surmounted by a green enamel dragon, facing left with gold and red enamel accents. The dragon is facing forward on the breast.
Guy Stair Sainty, Rafal Heydel-Mankoo. World Orders of Knighthood & Merit. Burke’s Peerage & Gentry, 2006. p. 1880
The Order comprises five classes: Grand Cross (Khôi kỳ long tinh or Trác dị long tinh), Grand Officer (Chương hiền long tinh or Thù huân long tinh), commander (Biểu đức long tinh or Sinh năng long tinh), officer (Minh nghĩa long tinh or Tưởng trung long tinh) and knight (Gia thiện long tinh or Khuyến công long tinh).
Conclusions
Human rights in Vietnam are among the poorest in the world, as documented by various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as Amnesty International (AI), Human Rights Watch (HRW), and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The Vietnamese government has also made use of online operatives and nationalist “public opinion brigades”, state-sponsored anonymous political commentators and trolls who combat any perceived dissent against government policies or protest over the status of human rights (see: A History of Violence – Repression of the right to freedom of assembly in Vietnam).
The Order of Annam’s history is heavily embedded in France’s fascinating colonial narrative. The modern Order is legitimately reconstituted under the auspice of the heir to the vacant throne of Vietnam, and currently operates under his full control. The Order is part of the Nguyễn dynasty’s cultural heritage and consitsts of a group of people who support the principle of monarchy in Vietnam as an alternative to the current repressive regime. It is independent of any political party or group, and its members are drawn from many countries and all walks of life.
Literature
Firpo, Christina. Crises of whiteness and empire in colonial indochina: the removal of abandoned eurasian children from the vietnamese milieu, 1890-1956. Journal of Social History, vol. 43, no. 3, 2010, pp. 587–613.
Sylvester, John Jr. (1986). The Orders and Medals of French Indochina; A Monograph. Raleigh.
Cooper, Nicola (2005). Living the dream? Settler responses to French Indochina. The Journal of Romance Studies. 5. 79-90.
Morlat, Patrice (1996). Les affaires politiques de l’Indochine (1895-1923). Paris. L’Harmattan.
Bayly, Susan (2000). French Anthropology and the Durkheimians in Colonial Indochina. Modern Asian Studies. 34. pp. 581 – 622.
Marr, David G. (1971) Vietnamese anticolonialism, 1885-1925, Berkeley. University of California Press.
Bảo Đại (1980). Le dragon d’Annam. Paris. Les éditions Plon. The book tells the story of his life, focusing mainly on his time as Emperor, from 1926 to 1945, his abdication, and his return to power in 1949. In 2006, the Vietnamese governement’s propaganda machine published an article defaming the emperor and his book: “Cuốn sách đầy rẫy những câu chuyện tác giả bịa đặt để tự tâng bốc mình và xuyên tạc các sự kiện lịch sử Việt Nam hơn nửa thế kỷ qua.” [translation: The book is full of stories the author fabricated to flatter himself and distort Vietnamese historical events over the past half century.]. Apparently, even after the emperor’s unfortunate death in 1997 and more than 25 years after his book was published, the communists still fear the concept of a constitutional monarch in a parliamentary democracy.
Duiker, William J. (2018). The Communist Road To Power In Vietnam. Routledge.
Stuart-Fox, Martin (2001). Historical Dictionary of Laos. Second Edition. Asian/Oceanian Historical Dictionaries Series No. 35. Maryland: The Scarecrow Press.
Appendix 1 – Re-establishment ceremony
The Order of the Dragon of Annam had lain in abeyance for a period of 27 years following the tragic events that unfolded in the Fatherland of Vietnam and the communist take over. And although the Order had been awarded by both the French Colonial Government, and also the Republic of the South, it was then and has always been the Real, Personal and Dynastic property of the Imperial Nguyen Family of Vietnam.
In late 2002, the Imperial Nyugen Family proudly announced the restoration of the Order of the Dragon of Annam as a way of bestowing both Honor and Recognition to those Brave and Fearless Patriots who advance the struggle for the liberation of Vietnamese liberation, for the benefit of the Vietnamese People, and to encourage and protect the sacred traditional culture of Vietnam.
The Order’s re-establishment in the 21st century began at exactly 9 AM (US Central Standard Time) on the 30th October 2002, (which is September 25, of the Year of the Horse).
That exact time was chosen as being especially auspicious after Prince Regent Nguyen-phuc Buu Chanh of Vietnam, Duke of Kien Hoa, discussed the re-establishment, and sought the advice of several venerable prophets of the Buddhist Faith. Since the restoration of the Order was announced the Imperial Family has received a tremendous amount of support, and were congratulated by leading members of the Buddhist, Roman Catholic, Protestant and Cao Dai Faiths as well as leading political dignitaries and prominent members of the Vietnamese exile community. Solemn ceremonies for the re-establishment of the Order of the Dragon of Annam were held at a number of very esteemed Religious Temples on the morning of the restoration.
They were:
Buddhist Venerable Thich Quang The, Chairman of Quang Minh Tu Temple in Illinois, which included a number of members of the Imperial Nguyen Dynasty in attendance.
Great Buddhist Venerable Thich Nguyen Tri, Chairman of Bat Nha Buddhist Temple in Santa Anna, California (local time is 7 AM) including two representatives of His Imperial Highness the Prince of Kien Hoa and other members of the Imperial Family.
Buddhist Venerable Thich Giac Minh, Chairman of Quan Am Tinh Xa Temple will celebrate at 7 AM at the Temple in El Monte, California which also included two representatives of the
Provisional Grand Master, His Imperial Highness Prince Regent Nguyen-phuc Buu Chanh of Vietnam of Vietnam, Duke of Kien Hoa and members of the Nguyen Dynasty.
Great Buddhist Supreme Venerable Thich Giac Luong, Chairman of Phap Duyen Tinh Xa Temple celebrated at 7 AM in San Jose, California with two representatives of the Prince of Kien Hoa and members of the Nguyen Imperial Family.
Great Buddhist Venerable Thich Huyen Viet, Chairman of Buu Mon Temple held the ceremony in the Temple of Port Arthur, Texas at 9 AM.
Respected Buddhist Venerable Thich Nguyen An, Chairman of Co Lam Tu Temple held celebrations in the Temple in Seattle, Washington State at 7 AM.
The Provisional Grand Master, His Imperial Highness Prince Regent Nguyen-phuc Buu Chanh of Vietnam of Vietnam, and his wife Princess Phan Lien Buu also received sacred news and good wishes for the future of the Nguyen Dynasty, the Nation and the People of Vietnam. by the Venerable Buddhist clergy.
The Imperial Nguyen Family has also asked all concerned people, and all Vietnamese patriots, to pray for the restored Order, and also for the struggle of the Monarchist movement toward the liberation of Vietnam. In future, the Order throughout the world will celebrate the 30th October as the Order’s Feast Day, and prayers are asked of all people, of all religious creeds pray for the success of the Order in a free Vietnam at 9 AM US Central Standard Time or its equivalent in their area on that date.
The Imperial Order of the Dragon of Annam is the Real, Personal and Dynastic property of the Imperial Nguyen Dynasty of Vietnam
(…)
Ba Tuoc NGUYEN-PHUOC Minh-Kien Member of Great Honor of the Nguyen Dynasty
Appendix 2 – Re-establishing the Imperial Order of the Dragon of Annam
Imperial decree of 30 October 2002
BY THE COMMAND of the IMPERIAL NGUYEN DYNASTY OF VIETNAM, and the sacred succession of OUR beloved Imperial Nguyen Forefathers and Ancestor Emperors, AND acting in pursuit of the cause of the COMPLETE LIBERATION OF OUR FATHERLAND from her modern day oppressors, and as of the auspicious date of 30 October 2002, on the ninth hour of the morning, Central Standard Time of the United States of America, (which is the twenty-fifth of September, of the Year of the Horse), THE IMPERIAL ORDER OF THE DRAGON OF ANNAM is solemnly re-established under the protection of the Imperial Nguyen Dynasty of Vietnam, according to the Chapters and Articles established by the Order.
His Imperial Highness Prince Regent Nguyen-phuc Buu Chanh of Vietnam, Duke of Kien Hoa, Descendant of His Imperial Highness Prince Nguyen Phuc Mien Dieu, Duke of Kien Hoa, the 71st Prince of His Imperial Majesty Emperor Minh Mang, is recognized as Provisional Grand Master.
THE IMPERIAL ORDER OF THE DRAGON OF ANNAM is re-established so as to HONOR and RECOGNIZE those BRAVE AND FEARLESS PATRIOTS who contribute to the noble struggle to bring LIBERATION, INDEPENDENCE, NATIONAL UNIFICATION, FREEDOM, CULTURAL REJUVENATION and ASSISTANCE to the People and Country of Vietnam.
THE IMPERIAL ORDER OF THE DRAGON OF ANNAM IS RE-ESTABLISHED with the intent to further the cause of the Freedom of the Nation of Vietnam and to unite ALL OF OUR PEOPLE under a FREE and DEMOCRATIC traditional government.
WE charge that this Imperial Decree be RECOGNISED and RESPECTED by ALL who value FREEDOM.
SIGNED: PROVISIONAL GRAND MASTER Prince Regent Nguyen-phuc Buu Chanh of Vietnam, Duke of Kien Hoa THE IMPERIAL NGUYEN DYNASTY OF VIETNAM DATED: 30 October 2002 / September 25, Year of the Horse
Appendix 3 – The grand master his imperial highness prince regent Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh of Vietnam
His Imperial Highness Prince Regent Nguyen-phuc Buu Chanh of Vietnam, Imperial Prince of Kien Hoa, Descendant of His Imperial Highness Prince Nguyen Phuc Mien Dieu, Duke of Kien Hoa, and the 71st Prince of His Imperial Majesty Emperor Minh Mang, is the universally recognized as Grand Master of THE IMPERIAL ORDER OF THE DRAGON OF ANNAM, having personally re-established the Order with all due religious ceremony at 0900hrs (US Central Standard Time), on the 30th October 2002, (which is September 25, of the Year of the Horse).
His Imperial Highness Prince Regent Nguyen Phuoc Buu Chanh holds the same Imperial Family rank as the Emperor Khai Dinh (the late father of Emperor Bao Dai).
Initially upon the re-establishment of The Imperial Order of the Dragon of Annam, His Imperial Highness held the appointment of provisional Grand Master, however in 2004, at a High and very beautiful ancient religious ceremony, His Imperial Highness was bestowed with the most treasured and ancient, Dragon Ring of the Imperial Nguyen Family, and from that date onward assumed the Imperial Rank of Regent, and the appointment of Grand Master of the Imperial Order of the Dragon of Annam.
His Imperial Highness was born on the 12th February 1942, in the Imperial City of Hue, the illustrious and ancient Capital of Emperors and Empire. Prince Regent Nguyen Phuoc Buu Chanh, was born under the Imperial Family of the Prince of Kien Hoa (The Duke of Kien Hoa), who was the 71st son of the Emperor Minh Mang.
His Imperial Highness Prince Buu Chanh, is a true Vietnamese patriot, working tirelessly for the restoration of dignity, democracy and a constitutional monarchy in Vietnam as well as Indochina as a whole. His Imperial Highness is currently: General Secretary of the Vietnamese Imperial Family Overseas Central Council, President of the United International Supreme Council for the Freedom of Vietnam (and South East Asia), President of the Vietnamese Constitutional Monarchist League, President of the Southeast Asia Imperial & Royal League, Vice-Chairman of The British Committee for Free Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia & Burma.
His Imperial Highness Prince Regent Nguyen-phuc Buu Chanh attended the National High School at Hue, Viet-Nam before earning a B.A. degree in Literature at Hue University. From 1964-1970 His Imperial Highness attended Dalat University where he earned masters degrees in Political Science and Business Administration. He then worked as assistant to Colonel Nguyen Be at the Ministry of Rural Revolutionary Development, Chi Linh – Vung Tau Center.
From 1971-1973 His Highness was General Director of the 4th Tactic Zone at the Ministry of Economy in Saigon and until 1975 was Assistant General Director of the Vissan Company in the Ministry of Industry, Saigon. After 1975 Prince Buu Chanh was, like many others, forced into exile and moved to the United States. From 1982-1984 he attended North-eastern University Illinois where he graduated with high honors with a B.S. in Information Science.
On the 18th March 1994, His Imperial Highness Prince Regent Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh was recognized by the Republican Party, “for distinction and achievement in helping to promote and perpetuate the ideals and principles of the Republican Party” beside American Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush Sr. and was recognized as a prominent leader.
On the 16th June 1995, US Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole and Senator Alphonse M D’Amato bestowed upon the Prince a personalized “Eternal Flame of Freedom” Medallion and as well, His Imperial Highness Prince Buu Chanh was nominated to have his name engraved on the Ronald Wilson Reagan Eternal Flame of Freedom monument in Washington DC in the United States of America.
His Imperial Highness Prince Regent Nguyen-phuc Buu Chanh of Vietnam is currently working with the Royal Family of Laos, Vietnamese exiles and members of the British Parliament to promote the restoration of democracy and human rights, along with free traditional governments to the people of Southeast Asia as well as Vietnam
A Traditional Symbol of Kingship and Sovereignty, the Bestowal of the Dragon Ring is indicative of being Anointed the Successor to the Throne.
The saga of the Vietnamese Dragon : According to popular Vietnamese Legend, the Peoples of Vietnam descend from the Dragon King Lac Long Quan and his wife, the Water Fairy Au Co.
Mythological, fantastic, a Symbol of Kingship, Sovereignty, Wisdom, Good Luck and Health; endeared and revered as a creature of fantasy, imagination and intrigue, the Dragon is the most important and Sacred Symbol of Vietnam.
Endowed with Mystic and Supernatural Powers [Tu Linh] – and known in Vietnamese as Con Long, or Con Rong – the Dragon is quite often the essence of many traditional Stories, Tales, Fables, Legends and Myths.
The Dragon Ring of the Imperial Nguyen Dynasty of Vietnam : A Traditional Symbol of Kingship and Sovereignty, the Bestowal of the Dragon Ring is indicative of being Anointed the Successor to the Throne; it is an Insignia Ring worn to designate one’s Blessing, Authority and Jurisdiction.
Throughout history, the Dragon Ring was often used by the Emperor to Seal Public Proclamations and other Official Documents; oft-times it was also affixed onto private correspondence.
To ALL and SUNDRY throughout the Realm, sighting the Emperor’s distinctive Imprimatur was sufficient enough to obtain and compel the consent of Court Attendants, Officials, Government Authorities and the general populace throughout the Land to accede to and obey the Emperor’s Declarations, Commands, Summons and Edicts without question.
Formerly belonging to the late Emperor Khai Dinh – who reigned from 17 May 1916 to 06 November 1925 – the Dragon Ring is the most treasured and Sacred Heirloom and possession of the Imperial Nguyen Dynasty of Vietnam which today now has a new Prince Regent His Imperial Highness Prince Regent Nhiep Chinh Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh of Vietnam.
Bestowal of the Dragon Ring On Saturday 17 July 2004, at a solemn ceremony held in Washington DC – USA, The Most Venerable Hòa Thng Thích Giác Minh presented His Imperial Highness Prince Nhiep Chinh Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh of Vietnam with the Imperial Nguyen Family Dragon-Ring. This most treasured and sacred Imperial Family gold ring, formerly belonging to the late Emperor Khai Dinh. This scared ring was presented in the presence Her Imperial Highness Cong Nuong Princess Phan Lien, Respectable and Loyal Members of the Imperial Nguyen Family, Official and Honorable Guests, Respected Religious Venerables, Respected and Imperial Dignitaries, High-Ranking Military Officials and Members of the Vietnamese Diaspora.
The Dragon Ring – customarily presented by the Dowager Empress to the Anointed Successor to the Throne – had long been entrusted to the custody of the Most Venerable Hoa Thng Thich Giac Minh by the Dowager Empress Doan Huy Hoang Thi Hau Tu Cung, who was the Consort of the late Emperor Khai Dinh, and the mother of Vietnam’s last Reigning Monarch, the late Emperor Bao Dai.
Effective from the date of this most Solemn and Significant Ceremony, His Imperial Highness Prince Nhiep Chinh Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh of Vietnam became Prince Regent and – acting by official mandate and authority accorded by Imperial Edict of His Imperial Majesty Bao Dai, the late Emperor of Vietnam, and with adherence to his prerogatives, rights and responsibilities as Regent of Vietnam – he became the rightful and legal Grand Master of the Imperial Order of the Dragon of Annam.
PLEASE NOTE: The Imperial Vietnamese family in now headed by His Imperial Highness Bao Thang, who assumes the headship after the recent passing of his elder brother His Imperial Highness Bao Long.
This article describes the line of succession from the ancient Ordre de la Genette (Order of the Genet; established around 732 by Charles Martel) to the modern Ordre de l’Étoile et de Notre-Dame du Mont-Carmel (Order of the Star and of Our Lady of Mount Carmel; recently restored by the late Henri d’Orléans, Head of the Royal House of France).
Order of the Star
In the battle of Poitiers, Charles Martel (c. 688–741; the de facto ruler of the Frankish kingdoms after uniting the Franks) turned back a Muslim raid that had it been allowed to continue, might have conquered present-day France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and parts of Switzerland, The Netherlands, Germany, and Northern Italy.
Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours or Poitiers, depicted in the Grandes Chroniques de France. The Battle took place on October 10, 732, between the Franks led by Charles Martel and the Muslims led by Emir Abdur Rahman. Stretching from Morocco to China, the Umayyad caliphate based its expansion and success on the doctrine of jihad – armed invasion to claim the whole earth for God’s rule. The End of this Jihad State began with crushing military defeats at Byzantium, Toulouse, and Tours, which led to the Berber Revolt of 740 in Iberia and Northern Africa (Blankinship, 1994). It is interesting to read the Islamic and Christian contemporary accounts (Appendix 1).
When Charles Martel obtained at the battle of Poitiers very substantial spoils in the form of genet skins, this prompted him to create the Order of the Genet, to which later his son, Pippin the Short (714-768), and his grandson, Charlemagne (747?-814), were admitted. A number of ancient chronicles (e.g. De Varennes 1640), verified by modern research (e.g. Delibes, M. et al., 2019), recount that genets were indeed introduced into the Iberian peninsula and France by the Arabs, who used their skins in saddlery:
Donc ce grand duc françois [Charles Martel] voulant avoir le pays d’Aquitaine tenu par le duc Eudes, l’oblige d’appeler à son second Abderame prince arabe, fraichement passé de l’Afrique en Espagne. Cettuy ci vient en France, et au lieu de traitter doucement les terres de ce duc qui l’avoit appellé, il les ravage, pillant et mettant tout à feu et à sang par le moyen de quatre cent mille Sarrazins qu’il conduisoit. Eudes recognoissant sa faute, s’accorde avec Martel, et arme avec luy contre ces Mores, qui desja s’estoient approchez de la ville de Tours, sur l’espérance qu’ils avoient d’en faire leur curée. Martel suivi seulement de trente mille hommes, luy presente la bataille, et le combat avec tant de générosité et de bonheur, qu’il emporte la victoire, laissant abderame tué sur la place avec trois cent soixante et dix mille Sarrazins, n’y estant demeuré que quinze cent François. Or attendu que parmi les dépouilles de cette armée de Mores, on trouva quantité de riches fourrures de genettes, et mesmement plusieurs de ces animaux en vie. Martel en fist tant d’estat pour la beauté de leur poil, et pour leur odeur pareille à celle de la civette, qu’il en donna comme un présent de prix aux princes et aux seigneurs de son armée, voulant de plus que ceste beste jusqu’alors inconnue aux François, fut la marque de leur vaillance. De sorte qu’il institua l’ordre de la Genette composé de seize chevaliers…. Tout ce que dessus nous fait conclure que tous ces gentils-hommes qui sont descendus de ces généreux cavaliers, et chefs de guerre qui ont si généreusement combattu pour la France contre les Mores, sous la conduite du grand Charles Martel… peuvent à bon droit porter le vair dans leurs armes…
Translation
So this great French duke [Charles Martel], wanting to have the land of Aquitaine held by Duke Eudes, forced him to call in his second Arab prince Abderame, who had recently crossed from Africa to Spain. This prince came to France, and instead of treating the lands of the duke who had called him gently, he ravaged them, pillaging and setting everything on fire with four hundred thousand Saracens that he led. Eudes, recognising his fault, agreed with Martel and joined forces with him against these Moors, who had already approached the city of Tours in the hope of making it their prey. Martel, followed by only thirty thousand men, presented him with the battle, and fought with such generosity and happiness that he won, leaving Abderame killed in the square with three hundred and seventy and ten thousand Saracens, leaving only fifteen hundred Frenchmen. Now whereas among the spoils of this Mores army, a great many rich genet furs were found, as well as several of these animals alive. Martel valued them so highly for the beauty of their fur and their civet-like scent that he gave them as a valuable gift to the princes and lords of his army, intending moreover that this beast, hitherto unknown to the Franks, should be the mark of their valour. So he instituted the Order of the Genette, made up of sixteen knights…. All of the above leads us to conclude that all these gentlemen who are descended from these generous horsemen and warlords who fought so generously for France against the Mores, under the leadership of the great Charles Martel… can rightly wear the vair in their arms….
Marc-Gilbert de Varennes SJ. Le roy d’armes, ou l’art de bien former, charger, briser, timbrer, parer, expliquer et blasonner les armoiries. Paris, 1640, p. 57.
This Order took on the characteristics of a Military Order of Chivalry. Charles Martel fixed the number of knights at sixteen, and distributed the collar to the princes who were admitted to the Order. The first seven holders of the Order of the Genet were high-ranking nobles in his intimite circle:
Charles Martel (c. 688–741), Duke of Austrasia, Head of the Order. Charles was the illegitimate son of Pippin II of Herstal, the mayor of the palace of Austrasia. By this period the Merovingian kings of the Frankish realm were rulers in name only. The burden of rule lay upon the mayors of the palace, who governed Austrasia, the eastern part of the Frankish kingdom, and Neustria, its western portion. Neustria bitterly resented its conquest and annexation in 687 by Pippin, who, acting in the name of the king, had reorganized and reunified the Frankish realm. The assassination of Pippin’s only surviving legitimate son in 714 was followed a few months later by the death of Pippin himself. Pippin left as heirs three grandsons, and, until they came of age, Plectrude, Pippin’s widow, was to hold power. As an illegitimate son, Charles Martel was entirely neglected in the will. But he was young, strong, and determined, and an intense struggle for power at once broke out in the Frankish kingdom. Continuing and building on his father’s work, he restored centralized government in Francia and began the series of military campaigns that re-established the Franks as the undisputed masters of all Gaul (see: Britannica).
Childebrand I (678 – 743 or 751) a Frankish duke (dux), illegitimate son of Pepin, and brother of Charles Martel (La préhistoire des Capétiens: 481-987. Settipani, C. Van Kerrebrouck P. Van Kerrebrouck, 1993, pp. 159-161). Childebrand is described as “germanus” of Charles “Martel” by the continuator of Fredegar; the personal record of a certain Burgundian who died around 660. Childebrand was a historian and the patron-author of part of the continuations of the chronicle of Fredegar, written during the reign of King Pépin (751-768). According to these continuations, when Charles’s health began to deteriorate, he divided the realm equally between his two sons. The primogenitus Carloman received Austrasia, Alemannia and Thuringia, while Pippin, the filius iunior, received Neustria, Burgundy and Provence. According to Childebrand continuations, the succession of 741 was an uncontested transition of authority, from one Carolingian generation to the next. Contemporary evidence, however, reveals that there had been a third heir named Grifo, and reveals that Carloman and Pippin had denied Grifo his inheritance and instead had placed him under lock and key in a stronghold in the Ardennes (Goosmann, F. C. W. (2013). Memorable crises: Carolingian historiography and the making of Pippin’s reign, 750-900. [Thesis, externally prepared, Universiteit van Amsterdam], pp/ 95-96). Childebrand and his unknown wife had one child: Nibelung ([705/20]-before 786). The Continuator of Fredegar mentions that he assumed his father’s work on the chronicle after the latter died (Fredegar continuator, 34, MGH SS rer Merov, Tome II, p. 182).
Odo the Great, also called Eudes or Eudo, (died 735–740), Duke of Aquitaine by 700. He fought the Carolingian Franks and made alliances with the Moors to combat them. He retained this domain until 735. He is remembered for defeating the Umayyad Caliphate (the second caliphate established after the death of the prophet Muhammad; 661–750 CE) in 721 in the Battle of Toulouse. Odo also played a crucial role in the Battle of Tours, working closely with Charles Martel, whose alliance he sought after the Umayyad invasion. He arranged for his daughter Lampegia (d. after 730) to marry Uthman ibn Naissa (Munuza), Governor of Catalonia, in an alliance toward the Franks. Munuza rebelled against Abd al-Rahman ibn Abd Allah al-Ghafiqi, who in 730 took the Llivia Fortress, executed Munuza and sent Lampegia as a slave to the harem of Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik, the tenth Umayyad caliph, in Damascus. The first continuator of Fredegar’s Chronicle was Childebrand, the uncle of Pippin III and thus a source favourable to the Pippinids. Chapter 13, below, refers to the Battle of Poitiers.
Carloman (c. 715-754), Frankish prince, son of Charles Martel and brother of Pippin III the Short. After inheriting Austrasia, Alemannia, Thuringia, and the suzerainty of Bavaria from his father, Carloman fought alone and with his brother to suppress external enemies and rebellious subjects.
Pepin[a] the Short (c. 714–768), son of Charles Martel, King of the Franks from 751 until his death in 768. He was the first Carolingian to become king.
Luitprand, king of the Lombards from 712 to 744. In 739, Liutprand seized four cities of the Duchy of Rome. Pope Gregory III, successor to Gregory II, appealed to Charles Martel, who refused aid because he had been Liutprand’s ally against the Saracens in Provence. The Pope left the city for a personal confrontation with Liutprand, a pious Catholic, who was then forced by his conscience to yield. When Liutprand threatened Rome once again in 742, a new pope, Zacharias, met with Liutprand in person at Terni, north of Rome, and again Liutprand’s expansionism was thwarted by an appeal to his religious faith (see: Britannica).
Odilon (-748) of the Agilolfing dynasty (ruled the Duchy of Bavaria on behalf of their Merovingian suzerains), Duke of Bavaria (737-748). He was the initiator of the Lex Baiuvariorum, the first ancient Germanic law collection of the Bavarians.
The knights of the Genet pledged to risk their lives fighting the Saracenes and defending the State and religion. The Order was not abolished until August 1022 when King Robert (the Pious, c. 972-1031) modernised and renamed it as Ordre de Notre-Dame de l’Étoile; Order of Our Lady of the Star (see: Desmoulins 2018, p. 78; Favyn, Volume 1, pp. 535-579; Ashmole, E. The institution, laws & ceremonies of the most noble Order of the Garter collected and digested into one body by Elias Ashmole. J. Macock, for Nathanael Brooke …, London 1672, p. 97). The choice of the formation month cannot be insignificant, since August was already, since the 5th century, dedicated to the Virgin Mary. Knights of the Star were admitted under Robert the Pious, under Philip II (1165–1223), and under Louis IX (1214–1270).
The second modernisation (under the name Order of the Star, French: Ordre de l’Étoile) took place on 16 November 1351 (see: Favyn, Volume 1, pp. 535-579) by John II (the Good) of France (1319-1364; House of Valois); some authors claim in response to the creation of the Order of the Garter, founded in 1347 by Edward III of England (1312–1377). Panier (1872) states that this restauration should be seen as the first creation of the Order, since the 1351 Order was not a simple honorific, but a newly formed group of highly disciplined and trained knights. However, the military character aligns perfectly with the original 742-creation as a military order, and therefore a modernisation of the existing Order is more plausible.
The Order’s name corresponds with its insignia: an eight-pointed argent star, charged in its heart with an azure torteau surcharged with a golden sunburst, affixed to the mantle or chaperon. The motto of the Order’s coat of arms was: Monstrant regibus astra viam (meaning: “the stars show the way to Kings“). The statutes named the Order: the Order of Notre-Dame-de-la-Noble-Maison, because of the patronage of the Virgin Mary and the seat of the institution: the Château de Saint-Ouen, the residence of the early Valois.
This second modernisation of the Order was inspired by Geoffroi de Charny, a French knight, diplomat, and possibly the first owner of the Shroud of Turin (Zaccone, G.M. The Shroud from the Charnys to the Savoys. in: Scannerini and Savarino, 2000, pp. 379-412). In France, after the battle of Crécy on 26 August 1346, it was generally felt that institutional reforms were not essential, and that moral and tactical reform needed to prevail. The battle had resulted in a victory for the English in the first decade of the Hundred Years’ War against the French. The battle at Crécy shocked European leaders because a small but disciplined English force fighting on foot had overwhelmed the finest cavalry in Europe. De Charny was eager to see a reversal in the course of the war. His goal was to restore a sense of prowess to the French knighthood. In his opinion, revitalising chivalrous ardour was the solution to the kingdom’s problems.
John II instituting the Order of the Star, illumination from a manuscript of the Grandes Chroniques de France, 14th c. (BNF, Français 2813, fol. 394). The Grandes Chroniques de France de Charles V (The Great Chronicle of France of Charles V) was recognised as the standard official history of the French monarchy. By the late 13th century it had become the custom of the monks of Saint-Denis to record remarkable contemporary events. This habit was then systematically continued by court historians, and ultimately developed into a historical project unique in the whole of Europe. Like his predecessors, Charles V was strongly concerned to have a lavish, historically updated new copy of the chronicles made, based on the old repertoire of text. This luxurious manuscript actually consists of two volumes illuminated by numerous anonymous artists in very different styles.
All De Charny’s treatises have been written in the context of the creation of the Order of the Star. It is even likely that De Charny was the initiator of the project. Although the Order was reformed in January 1352, it must have been on the King’s mind for many years and must have been the subject of conversations between John II and De Charny at their various meetings (the first of which took place in Brittany in 1341). The Order of the Star was supposed to become the greatest order of chivalry in the Christian West, capable of eclipsing the prestige of the brand-new Order of the Garter. More importantly, its aim was to revive the dynamism of French chivalry, which had been brought down by the bitter defeats of the early Hundred Years’ War. The original plan was to place the Order under the protection of the Virgin Mary. Its members were to gather twice a year in the royal manor house of Saint-Ouen, which had been extensively renovated for the occasion and was renamed the Noble House. The King’s plan was to eventually include no fewer than 500 knights in the Order, which, if he had achieved this, would have represented an impressive proportion of all the knights in the kingdom: between 2.500 and 4.000.
The statutes of the Ordre de l’Etoile required members to swear an oath to report their deeds, whether glorious or shameful, at the annual meetings of the order. De Charny also advised men-at-arms to ensure that accounts of their exploits were circulated, even though he forbade them to boast. This ambiguous statement reflects a very pragmatic attitude. To boast is to be discredited, but there is nevertheless nothing wrong with recounting exploits without embellishing them.
Fame was the core of a knight’s career. For the squire, learning about the fame of experienced knights, was an incentive to acquire his own. De Charny emphasised the benefits of a good reputation and the harm of dishonor. It was the quest for recognition that drove men-at-arms to develop their achievements and protect what they had already gained. The disdain for flight, which had become common among the French knighthood, led the Order of the Star to follow a strategy that often marked the death warrant of its members.
De Charny’s chivalric ideals were intended to be perfectly adapted to the reality of war. However, it failed to reverse the course of the conflict and the accumulation of defeats. The battle of Mauron in 1352, where about 90 knights of the Order of the Star perished for refusing to flee, highlighted an important limitation of the idea of never retreating: the consequences of defeat took on all the more dramatic proportions.
The Order can be seen as the ancestor of the King’s Household, the elite of the royal army, some of whose units guarded the King’s body, such as the famous Scottish Guard (French: Gardes Écossaises) founded by Valois Charles VII of France in1418.
King Charles V (1338–1380) generously opened admission to the Order. He even abolished the investiture ceremony and replaced it with a simple letter, thus devaluating the institution in such a way that it eventually became dormant.
Three years before his death, Charles VII (1403–1461) conferred the Order on the Prince of Navarre, Gaston de Foix (1445-1470), his son-in-law. It is plausible that when Louis XI (1423–1483) instituted the Order of Saint Michael, the great families aspired to be decorated with the latter, and the Order of the Star gradually fell into dormancy.
Order of Our Lady of Mount Carmel
The Order of Our Lady of Mount Carmel was formally created by Pope Paul V (1550-1621) at the request of King Henry IV of France (1553–1610) through the Bull Romanus Pontificus of 16 February 1608 (see Appendix 2), propagated through Militantium ordinum of 26 February 1608 (Bullae Papae Paul V: Romanum decet Pontificem; Laerzio Cherubini, Angelo Maria Cherubino. Magnum bullarium romanum, a Clemente VII vsque ad Gregorium XV. P. Borde, L. Arnaud & C.I. Rigaud, Lyon, 1655, vol. 3, pp.174-179). The bulls gave the French king the authority to nominate the Grandmaster of this order, subject to papal confirmation.
Henry IV aged 56. Portrait by Frans Pourbus the Younger, 1610. King of France. Department of Paintings of the Louvre. Henry IV, also called (until 1572) Prince de Béarn, byname Henry of Navarre, or Henry of Bourbon, French Henri de Navarre, or Henry de Bourbon, (born Dec. 13, 1553, Pau, Béarn, Navarre [France]—died May 14, 1610, Paris, France), king of Navarre (as Henry III, 1572–89) and first Bourbon king of France (1589–1610), who, at the end of the Wars of Religion, abjured Protestantism and converted to Roman Catholicism (1593) in order to win Paris and reunify France. With the aid of such ministers as the Duke de Sully, he brought new prosperity to France. Source: Britannca.
The creation of this Order sealed the reconciliation between the King of France, who had converted to Catholicism in 1593, and the Holy See. In October 1608, Henri IV merged the Order of Our Lady of Mount Carmel with the Order of Saint Lazarus; a Catholic military order founded by Crusaders around 1119. As such, Henry IV appointed the Grand Master of Saint-Lazare, Philibert de Nérestang (1626-1703), Grand Master of Mont-Carmel. At first, the Holy See did not recognise the merger between the Orders of Our Lady of Mount Carmel and Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem. The various Grand Masters of the Order were only recognised as Grand Masters of Mount Carmel. However, in 1668, a bull was issued by the Cardinal Legate de Vendôme under papal authority of Clement IX recognising the merger. Subsequently, a bull of Pope Innocent XII of 3 May 1695 confirmed the merger of the two orders.
The insignia of the Order was a gold cross decorated with a medallion of the Virgin of Mount Carmel (see: Appendix 3). The cross was suspended from an amaranth-coloured ribbon (red, tending towards purple). The Order of Our Lady of Mount Carmel was abolished in 1791 during the French Revolution.
Current status of the combined Orders
Legal status
On 19 June 2012, the intellectual property of the name Ordre Royal de l’Etoile et de Notre Dame du Mont Carmel was registered with the Institut National de la Propriété Industrielle on behalf of the Institut Maison Royale de France. On 8 April 2013, the association Ordre de l’Étoile et de Notre-Dame du Mont-Carmel was filed at the Sens sub-prefecture. The Orders of the Star and of Our Lady of Mount Carmel were were thus reinstituted and combined into one chivalric Order: the Ordre de l’Étoile et de Notre-Dame du Mont-Carmel; an independent French Order with a spiritual and chivalric vocation. Legally, the Order is an association under the French Law of 1901, which allows any group of people to meet and share common ideas without completing any legal formalities at all. As such, the Order of the Star and of Our Lady of Mount Carmel is embedded in the French legal framework.
Yin’s Camera. Investiture, Ordre Royal de l’Etoile et du Mont Carmel. 30 September 2023, Église de la Madeleine (Paris). Xin Yin (1959) is a painter of Chinese origin, residing in Paris and known for orientalizing traditional western images. Yin was born in Kashgar. Yin incorporates his passion for China and its people in his work by orientalizing traditional western images and techniques. His work has been on display at the Victoria and Albert Museum, Staatliche Museen, Shanghai Art Museum, Musee Courbet, Museo Nacional del Grabado and on permanent display in the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris.[citation needed] Martin Roth, director of the Victoria and Albert Museum, described Xin’s work as combining Western and Eastern elements to stress how the observer’s perception of artistic value is determined by his or her cultural context.
The Rule and Statutes of the Order have been submitted to the Grand Chancellery of the Legion of Honour. Army General Jean-Louis Georgelin, Grand Chancellor of the Legion of Honor and Chancellor of the National Order of Merit, provided advice to ensure that the Order is in compliance with French legislation.
Grandmaster
The Grandmaster of the Order is monsieur Richard Finell d’Auxois, former secretary-general of the Institut de la Maison Royale de France and former trusted advisor to the Royal House. His title, comte d’Auxois, refers to a medieval fiefdom in Burgundy, and held by his family since ancient times. At the investiture ceremony on 17 January 2015, in the church of Saint Germain l’Auxerrois, the Count of Paris appointed Finell the Order’s first Grandmaster ad vitam.
His Royal Highness stated the following:
En portant sur les fonds baptismaux, en l’Église de Saint Germain l’Auxerrois, le 8 septembre 2014, jour de la Nativité de la Sainte Vierge, l’Ancien Ordre Chevaleresque de l’Étoile, fondé par Robert le Pieux en 1022 sous le nom de Notre Dame de l’Étoile recréé par Jean II le Bon en 1351 et aujourd’hui réuni à l’Ordre de Notre Dame du Mont Carmel créé par Henri IV en 1608, notre volonté fut de revivifier, partout en France où cela sera possible nos lieux de cultes et nos églises abandonnés ou menacés de ruine et de destruction, en les rachetant pour les restaurer et y rétablir la vie cultuelle de notre chrétienté.
Lorsqu’un projet sera mis en chantier pour restaurer une paroisse il sera nécessaire et complémentaire de le prolonger par la mise en place d’une crèche, d’une école, et d’un dispensaire. Ce sera le côté culturel et caritatif. Une fois le chantier terminé il faut que cette entité puisse poursuivre sa vie . L’Ancien Ordre Royal et Souverain de l’Étoile et du Mont Carmel, et sa branche hospitalière doivent chacun faire face à leurs responsabilités pour faire vivre financièrement cette nouvelle « pierre » de notre chrétienté dans le « désert français ».
On ne construit pas une cathédrale en commençant par la clé de voûte, mais pierre par pierre à partir de la base. Notre tâche sera rude et longue, mais à cœur vaillant rien d’impossible.
En conclusion je vous livre la prière de Saint Louis qui fut un exemple de la vraie Chevalerie.
Dieu Tout Puissant et Éternel qui avez établi l’Empire des Francs dans le monde pour être l’instrument de vos divines volontés, le glaive et le bouclier de votre Sainte Église ; nous vous en prions, éclairez toujours et partout de votre céleste lumière les fils suppliants des Francs afin qu’ils voient ce qu’il faut faire pour réaliser votre règne en ce monde, et que, pour accomplir ce qu’ils ont vu, ils soient emplis de charité, d’amour, de force et de persévérance.
Par Jésus Christ Notre Seigneur, Amen.
Translation
In bringing to the baptismal font, in the Church of Saint Germain l’Auxerrois, on 8 September 2014, the day of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin, the Ancien Ordre Chevaleresque de l’Étoile, founded by Robert the Pious in 1022 under the name of Notre Dame de l’Étoile recreated by John II the Good in 1351 and today united with the Order of Notre Dame du Mont Carmel created by Henri IV in 1608, Our aim was to revitalise, wherever possible in France, our places of worship and our churches that had been abandoned or were threatened with ruin and destruction, by buying them back in order to restore them and re-establish the religious life of our Christian community.
When a project is launched to restore a parish, it will be necessary and complementary to extend it by setting up a crèche, a school and a dispensary. This will be the cultural and charitable side of the project. Once the building work is finished, this entity must be able to continue its life. The Former Royal and Sovereign Order of the Star and Mount Carmel and its hospitaller branch must each face up to their responsibilities to financially support this new “stone” of our Christianity in the “French desert”.
You don’t build a cathedral by starting with the keystone, but stone by stone from the ground up. Our task will be hard and long, but with a valiant heart nothing is impossible.
In conclusion, I offer you the prayer of Saint Louis, who was an example of true chivalry.
Almighty and Eternal God, who established the Empire of the Franks in the world to be the instrument of your divine will, the sword and shield of your Holy Church; we beg you, always and everywhere shine your heavenly light on the pleading sons of the Franks so that they may see what must be done to achieve your reign in this world, and that, in order to accomplish what they have seen, they may be filled with charity, love, strength and perseverance.
On 1 October 2016, the Count of Paris conferred on Finell the title of Sovereign Prince of the Order with the predicate of Serene Highness. This marks the sovereignty of the Order and its independency from the Royal House of France, its eminence as an Order of chivalry in France and the confidence and esteem that the Head of the Royal House of France had in the Grandmaster of the Order.
Objectives
The Order is dedicated to safeguarding France’s Christian heritage, to traditional spiritual activities and to the spiritual and cultural influence of France:
Support for the restoration of Saint-Germain l’Auxerrois church, Paris, in particular its stained-glass windows.
Publication of historical research.
Support for the restoration of the chapel at the Château de Montargis. This palace, castle, and fortress remained the property of the crown from 1183 to 1791.
Organisation of masses at Saint-Germain l’Auxerrois.
Spiritual aims
The Count of Paris made the spiritual aims of the Order very clear:
Prière de Consécration de la France au Sacré Coeur de Jésus
Introduction
En ce monde désaxé chacun regrette de la perte de nos repères et celle de nos valeurs chrétiennes. Or la vie est un court passage sur terre et nous oublions que, de l’autre côté, nous aurons des comptes à rendre. Il n’est jamais trop tard pour comprendre ce qu’il est demandé à chacun.
Pourtant un grand nombre d’entre nous se confie au démon pour les aidée à acquérir argent et pouvoir. Peu d’entre eux comprennent que si le démon existe, c’est Dieu tout puissant qui lui permet d’exister.
A chacun d’entre nous alors de faire ses choix et ne rejetons pas notre foi, source de vie.
Prière de consécration de la France au Sacré Cœur de Jésus
Prions Sainte Marguerite Marie qui en 1675 demandait au Roi Louis XIV, mal conseillé, de consacrer la France au Coeur Sacré de Jésus, car c’est au centre de ce Cœur Sacré que se forgent nos destinées.
Prions l’Archange Saint Michel protecteur de notre Sainte Église et de la France Fille Aînée de l’Église pour qu’il nous assiste dans cette prière: défendez nous dans le combat contre les démons déchaînés sur notre pauvre humanité devenue incrédule. Prince de la Milice Céleste repoussez en enfer par la vertu divine Satan et les esprits malins qui errent dans le monde pour la perte des âmes.
Prions Marie Immaculée, notre douce médiatrice, nous vous supplions très humblement, daignez intercéder pour nous. Demandez à Dieu qu’il envoie Saint Michel et les Anges pour écarter tous les obstacles qui s’opposent au règne du Cœur Sacré de Jésus dans nos âmes.
Prions pour que le feu de l’Esprit Saint descende sur nous afin de devenir pain de vie et que la coupe médiatrice devienne le saint calice au cœur de notre âme, et, par cette préfigure du Sacrement d’entre les Sacrements, puisse commencer la transfiguration de notre pays la France et celle de l’Univers en son entier.
Prions pour que dans cette communion, plus rien de puisse nous séparer de rien ni de personne vivant ou trépassé, ainsi la communion des saints sera, plus rien ne nous fera peur car notre vie sur terre n’étant qu’un passage, nous ne mourrons pas et tout sera vivant à jamais.
Prions pour que nous autres humains, dans cette expérience, devenions des êtres liturgiques et ayant atteint notre royauté intérieure nous devenions le tabernacle du Cœur Sacré du Christ. Alors la vie toute entière deviendra la célébration de la « Racine », ainsi que le disait Saint Jean de la Croix et l’humanité pourra s’écrier ainsi que le fit la Sainte Vierge Marie: « Mon âme exalte le Seigneur et mon esprit est ravi de joie en Dieu mon sauveur ».
Pénétré par ces prières, moi Henri VIIème du nom, descendant des rois qui bâtirent avec les Français ce pays béni de Dieu et des Saints de France, j’obéis humblement à la supplique de Sainte Marguerite Marie et
Je Consacre la France, Aujourd’hui En Péril, Au Cœur Sacré De Jésus.
France, Fille Aînée de l’Église, souviens-toi de ton baptême, que le Cœur Sacré de Jésus soit à jamais ton bouclier pour les combats à venir dans les siècles des siècles. Amen.
Fait en l’Église de Saint Germain l’Auxerrois le 23 juin 2018.
Henri, comte de Paris, duc de France.
Translation
Prayer for the Consecration of France to the Sacred Heart of Jesus
Introduction
In this disorientated world, everyone regrets the loss of our landmarks and of our Christian values. But life is a short passage on earth and we forget that, on the other side, we will have to give an account. It’s never too late to understand what is required of us.
Yet many of us entrust ourselves to the devil to help us acquire money and power. Few of them understand that if the devil exists, it is God Almighty who allows him to exist.
So it’s up to each of us to make our own choices and not reject our faith, the source of life.
Prayer for the consecration of France to the Sacred Heart of Jesus
Let us pray to Saint Margaret Mary, who in 1675 asked the ill-advised King Louis XIV to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, for it is at the centre of this Sacred Heart that our destinies are forged.
Let us pray to the Archangel Saint Michael, protector of our Holy Church and of France, the Eldest Daughter of the Church, to assist us in this prayer: defend us in the fight against the demons unleashed on our poor humanity that has become incredulous. Prince of the Heavenly Militia, by divine virtue, drive Satan and the evil spirits who roam the world for the loss of souls back to hell.
Let us pray to Mary Immaculate, our sweet Mediatrix, we beseech you most humbly, deign to intercede for us. Ask God to send Saint Michael and the Angels to remove all obstacles to the reign of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in our souls.
Let us pray that the fire of the Holy Spirit may descend upon us to become the bread of life, and that the cup of mediation may become the holy chalice in the heart of our soul, and, through this prefigurement of the Sacrament of the Sacraments, may begin the transfiguration of our country, France, and of the entire Universe.
Let us pray that in this communion, nothing can separate us from anything or anyone, living or dead, so that in the communion of saints, nothing will frighten us any more, because our life on earth being only a passage, we will not die and everything will be alive forever.
Let us pray that we humans, in this experience, may become liturgical beings and, having attained our inner royalty, become the tabernacle of the Sacred Heart of Christ. Then all of life will become the celebration of the “Root”, as Saint John of the Cross said, and humanity will be able to cry out as the Blessed Virgin Mary did: “My soul exalts the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour”.
Moved by these prayers, I Henri VIIth of the name, descendant of the kings who built with the French this country blessed by God and the Saints of France, humbly obey the supplication of Saint Marguerite Marie and
I Consecrate France, Today In Peril, To The Sacred Heart Of Jesus.
France, Eldest Daughter of the Church, remember your Baptism, may the Sacred Heart of Jesus be your shield forever in the battles to come, for ever and ever. Amen.
Done in the Church of Saint Germain l’Auxerrois on 23 June 2018.
Since 2021, the Order is under the spiritual protection of the prominent Monsignor Patrick Chauvet, former Rector-Archbishop of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, Prelate of Honour of His Holiness, and Administrator of the Church of Saint Germain l’Auxerrois in Paris. The latter church is where the Order was refounded and where its chapters are held.
Conclusions
Henri d’Orléans (1933-2019), Count of Paris, Duke of France; the successor to the French royal dynasty under the regal name Henry VII. Credit: Mehdi FEDOUACH / AFP
Although further research is being conducted, it can reasonably be assumed that the current Order of the Star and of Our Lady of Mount Carmel can trace its roots back to one of the oldest orders of knighthood in the world; the Order of the Genet, founded in 732 by Charles Martel.
The initiator of the modern Order Star and of Our Lady of Mount Carmel was the Head of the Royal House of France; Monseigneur le comte de Paris, duc de France, de jure Henri VII (1933-2019). It is in line with longstanding international legal principles that he, although not a ruling monarch, continued to possess his sovereign rights and therefore still held the fons honorum and the legitimacy, to award his blood relative, monsieur Richard Finell d’Auxois, the title of Sovereign Prince of the Order, as well as to reinstitute the Order of the Star and of Our Lady of Mount Carmel as an independent order of knighthood (see the authoritive Dutch jurist and founding father of international law, Hugo Grotius’ work: De iure belli ac pacis; English: On the Law of War and Peace. Paris 1625):
That is called Supreme, whose Acts are not subject to another’s Power, so that they cannot be made void by any other human Will. When I say, by any other, I exclude the Sovereign himself, who may change his own Will, as also his Successor, who enjoys the same Right, Cacheranus Decis Pedem. 139. n. 6. and consequently, has the same Power, and no other.
Grotius, Paris 1625.
The line of succession between the Order of the Genet and the Order of the Star is documented by authoritative historians. The right to restore and combine the Order of the Star and the Order of Our Lady of Mount Carmel is vested in the dynastic bloodline of the Royal House of France. The independency and the intellectual property of the restored Order are protected by French law.
To preserve its magnificent heritage, the Order should maintain an entirely French character and remain elitist.
Sources
Wilson, I., & Bryant, N. (2021). The Book of Geoffroi de Charny: With the Livre Charny. Boydell & Brewer. doi:10.1017/9781800101364.
Delibes, Miguel & Centeno-Cuadros, Alejandro & Muxart, Virginie & Delibes, Germán & Ramos-Fernández, Julián & Morales-Muñiz, Arturo. (2019). New insights into the introduction of the common genet, Genetta genetta (L.) in Europe. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences. 11. 10.1007/s12520-017-0548-8.
Gambirasio d’Asseux, Pascal. La chevalerie: l’ancien Ordre royal et souverain de l’Étoile et de Notre-Dame du Mont-Carmel : histoire et refondation. Apopsix éditions, 2018.
Finell d’Auxois, Richard. Ces bâtards royaux, mes ancêtres, Ed. Retour au réel, 2022.
Blankinship, Khalid Yahya (1994). The End of the Jihâd State: The Reign of Hishām ibn ʻAbd al-Malik and the Collapse of the Umayyads. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.
Desmoulins, Éridan. Les compagnons de l’Étoile, une autre approche de la symbolique stellaire, in La Chaîne d’Union 2018/4 (N° 86), pp. 76 à 83 Éditions Grand Orient de France. ISSN 0292-8000 DOI10.3917/cdu.086.0076.
De Saint-Ange, G. Code des Ordres de Chevalerie du Royaume didié au Roi, Paris 1819.
Athanase de Sainte-Agnès, R.P. Le chandelier d’or du temple de Salomon ou la chronologie des prélats, et des religions qui suivent la règle de saint Augustin, rue Mercière à la Fortune, Rigaud et ses fils, 1633, pp. 288 -289.
Guimaraes, Christophe. La croix de Notre-Dame-du-Mont-Carmel des élèves de l’Ecole royale militaire 1779-1787). Bulletin de la société des amis du musée de la Légion d’honneur et des ordres de chevalerie, no 21, 2018, pp. 59-73.
Guemriche, Salah. Abd er-Rahman contre Charles Martel. La véritable histoire de la bataille de Poitiers, édition Perrin 2010,
Hari Seldon, L’Ancien Ordre Royal et Souverain de l’Étoile et de Notre-Dame du Mont-Carmel : la chevalerie à la française, Point de Vue, 20 juin 2022, internet article.
Pannier, Léopold, La noble maison de Saint-Ouen, la villa Clippiacum et l’ordre de l’Etoile, Paris, 1872.
J.B. Dumoulin, Liste des chevaliers de l’Ordre de Saint Lazare de Jérusalem et de Notre-Dame du Mont-Carmel de 1610 à 1736, publiée d’après les registres de l’ordre par A. de Marsy. Paris 1875.
Forster, Loïs. Les traités de Geoffroy de Charny. Laboratoire Institut de Recherches Historiques du Septentrion (UMR CNRS 8529, Université de Lille).
Honoré de Sainte Marie, R.P. Dissertations historiques et critiques sur la chevalerie ancienne et moderne, séculière et régulière, avec des notes, Paris, Giffart, 1718.
Grotius, Hugo, De iure belli ac pacis, ed. Barbeyrac, Jean (Amsterdam, 1720), Prolegomena, n. 52 Google Scholar.
Grotius, Hugo. The Rights of War and Peace, edited and with an Introduction by Richard Tuck, from the Edition by Jean Barbeyrac (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2005). Vol. 1. 7/15/2020. <https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1425>.
Appendix 1: Islamic and Christian accounts of the Battle of Poitiers
Islamic
Near the river Owar [Loire], the two great hosts of the two languages and the two creeds were set in array against each other. The hearts of [Muslim leader] Abderrahman, his captains and his men were filled with wrath and pride, and they were the first to begin to fight. The Moslem horsemen dashed fierce and frequent forward against the battalions of the Franks, who resisted manfully, and many fell dead on either side, until the going down of the sun.
Night parted the two armies, but in the gray of the morning the Muslims returned to the battle. Their cavaliers had soon hewn their way into the center of the Christian host. But many of the Moslems were fearful for the safety of the spoil which they had stored in their tents, and a false cry arose in their ranks that some of the enemy were plundering the camp; whereupon several squadrons of the Moslem horsemen rode off to protect their tents. But it seemed as if they fled; and all the host was troubled.
And while Abderrahman strove to check their tumult, and to lead them back to battle, the warriors of the Franks came around him, and he was pierced through with many spears, so that he died. Then all the host fled before the enemy, and many died in the flight.
—anonymous Arab chronicler
Musa being returned to Damascus, the Caliph Abd-el Melek asked of him about his conquests, saying “Now tell me about these Franks—what is their nature?”
“They,” replied Musa, “are a folk right numerous, and full of might: brave and impetuous in the attack, but cowardly and craven in event of defeat.”
“And how has passed the war betwixt them and thyself? Favorably or the reverse?”
“The reverse? No, by Allah and the prophet!” spoke Musa. “Never has a company from my army been beaten. And never have the Moslems hesitated to follow me when I have led them; though they were twoscore to fourscore.”
—anonymous Arab chronicler
Christian
For almost seven days the two armies watched one another, waiting anxiously the moment for joining the struggle. Finally they made ready for combat. And in the shock of the battle the men of the North seemed like a sea that cannot be moved. Firmly they stood, one close to another, forming as it were a bulwark of ice; and with great blows of their swords they hewed down the Arabs. . . .
At last night sundered the combatants. The Franks with misgivings lowered their blades, and beholding the numberless tents of the Arabs, prepared themselves for another battle the next day. . . . Unaware that [the tents] were utterly empty, and fearful lest within the phalanxes of the Saracens were drawn up for combat, they sent out spies to ascertain the facts. These spies discovered that all the squadrons of the “Ishmaelites” had vanished. In fact, during the night they had fled with the greatest silence, seeking with all speed their home land.
The Europeans, uncertain and fearful, lest they were merely hidden in order to come back by ambushments, sent scouting parties everywhere, but to their great amazement found nothing. Then without troubling to pursue the fugitives, they contented themselves with sharing the spoils and returned right gladly to their own country.
—Isidore of Beja’s Chronicle
The Muslims planned to go to Tours to destroy the Church of St. Martin, the city, and the whole country. Then came against them the glorious Prince Charles, at the head of his whole force. He drew up his host, and he fought as fiercely as the hungry wolf falls upon the stag.
By the grace of Our Lord, he wrought a great slaughter upon the enemies of Christian faith, so that—as history bears witness—he slew in that battle 300,000 men, likewise their king by name Abderrahman. Then was he [Charles] first called “Martel,” for as a hammer of iron, of steel, and of every other metal, even so he dashed and smote in the battle all his enemies. And what was the greatest marvel of all, he only lost in that battle 1,500 men.
Appendix 2: Bull of Pope Paul V of 16 February 1608 creating the Ordre de Notre-Dame du Mont-Carmel
PAUL V, PAPE,
Pour mémoire perpétuelle de la chose.
Le Pontife romain, dont la Majesté Divine a élevé la puissance au-dessus des autres puissances, exauce volontiers les prières de ses enfants pieux et très-soumis, qui désirent non-seulement d’égaler leurs ancêtres, mais encore de transmettre à leur postérité, avec des accroissements notables, la noblesse qu’ils en ont reçue ; et il approuve qu’ils remplissent des vues qui lui paraissent selon Dieu, puisqu’elles sont utiles à la défense et à la conservation de la foi catholique, à la destruction de ses ennemis, et à procurer le salut des âmes.
I.
Notre fils bien-aimé, noble homme, Charles de Neufville, Seigneur d’Alincour, Chevalier des Ordres du Roy, nous a exposé au nom de notre très-cher fils en Jésus-Christ, Henri, Roy de France très-chrétien, dont il est ambassadeur auprès de nous et du Saint-Siège apostolique, que ce même Roy désirait particulièrement, comme fils aîné de l’Église, de défendre la religion, et de contribuer à ses progrès, en continuant d’employer les moyens dont il s’est servi dans son royaume et les lieux de son obéissance, depuis son heureux avènement au trône, pour l’exaltation de l’Église romaine, l’extirpation des hérésies et la destruction des hérétiques ; ce qui lui faisait fortement souhaiter d’ériger et instituer, sous notre bon plaisir et sous l’autorité du Saint-Siège, une Milice ou Ordre Militaire, qu’il dotera suffisamment de biens purement laïques, et non point de bénéfices ou revenus ecclésiastiques, et qui sera composé de personnes nobles et d’une naissance distinguée, sous le nom, le titre et la règle de la très-glorieuse et toujours Vierge Marie, mère de Dieu, Notre-Dame du Mont-Carmel, que le même Roy a pris pour sa patronne et avocate, et qu’il honore toujours d’une dévotion particulière. Ledit Charles de Neufville nous a humblement supplié de favoriser de nos grâces spéciales le même Roy, et de satisfaire à la demande de Sa Majesté.
II.
Désirant donc contribuer à l’accomplissement d’un dessein aussi pieux, et qu’on ne saurait trop louer, ayant absous et tenant pour absous le même Roi Henri, à l’effet des présentes, de toutes sentences et excommunication, suspension, interdit, et autres censures et peines ecclésiastiques portées contre lui de droit ou par les hommes, pour quelques causes ou occasions que ce soit ; et condescendant à ces mêmes demandes, nous avons, par l’autorité apostolique et par la teneur des présentes, érigé et institué sous la susdite règle, pour, maintenant, et à l’avenir à perpétuité, et sans préjudice d’autrui, ladite Milice et Ordre Militaire, dont le siège et couvent principal sera assigné et établi par le même Roy, dans tel lieu de son royaume ou pays de sa domination que voudra choisir Sa Majesté. Il y aura un Grand-Maître, qui tiendra la suprême et principale dignité, sera comme le chef de ladite milice et du couvent établi par le même Roy Henri, et y recevra tel nombre de Chevaliers et Officiers qu’il lui plaira. Les Grand-Maître et Chevaliers pourront seulement contracter mariage une première fois, et se marier en secondes noces, même avec une veuve. Ils feront vœu de chasteté conjugale et d’obéissance à leur supérieur ; porteront l’image de la bienheureuse Vierge Marie Notre-Dame du Mont-Carmel, avec un habit différent des autres Ordres militaires, qu’ils ne pourront changer ; et enfin ils auront une table magistrale, des prieurés, des commanderies, et autres bénéfices et offices qui seront dotés, comme on a dit, de biens purement laïques, et non de revenus ecclésiastiques.
III.
Lorsque la Grande-Maîtrise sera vacante, dès le commencement de son érection et institution, ou quand elle vaquera dans la suite, de quelque manière que ce soit, et de quelque qualité que soit la personne, même auprès du Saint-Siège, ou en quelque autre temps et manière qu’elle vienne à vaquer, la provision et entière disposition en doit appartenir au Roy Henri, et aux Rois de France ses successeurs.
IV.
La première fois que vaquera la Grande-Maîtrise, ainsi que toutes les autres vacances qui la suivront, celui qui en sera pourvu par le Roy sera tenu et obligé d’en demander et obtenir du Saint-Siège, dans trois mois, une nouvelle provision et confirmation : de plus, il sera obligé de faire et d’envoyer, sous ledit temps, au même Saint-Siège, sa profession de foi signée de sa main, suivant les articles donnés par le Siège Apostolique ; en sorte que ledit Grand-Maître ne pourra faire aucunes fonctions de sa charge, ni gouverner la même Milice, qu’il n’ait obtenu sa nouvelle provision du Pape, et qu’il n’ait envoyé, comme dit est, sa profession de foi. Enfin nous avons concédé et appliqué à perpétuité à ladite Milice la dot et tous les biens que ledit Roy lui fait et lui fera.
V.
Les Grands-Maîtres qui succèderont au premier, pourront transférer le siège principal de la même Milice ou Ordre en tout autre lieu qu’il n’était, même maritime, du royaume de France, pays et terres de l’obéissance du Roy très-chrétien, avec la permission du Saint-Siège ; et ils y pourront créer des Chevaliers, qui seront obligés de faire la même profession de foi et serment de fidélité, tant au Pontife romain qu’à leur Grand-Maître.
VI.
Par la même autorité et teneur des présentes, nous leur accordons le pouvoir et la faculté de faire des règlements, statuts et ordonnances concernant le bon gouvernement de la même Milice ou Ordre, qui seront approuvées du Saint-Siège Apostolique, et de changer ceux qui auront été faits en d’autres plus convenables, à la disposition des choses et des circonstances des temps, pourvu que ces règlements soient licites et honnêtes, et non contraires aux saints canons, particulièrement aux décrets du Concile de Trente, et aux constitutions apostoliques.
VII.
Ledit Grand-Maître pourra, à perpétuité, et dans tous les temps à venir, par lui-même et non par d’autres, selon l’établissement et les susdits décrets, pourvoir les Chevaliers et les personnes dudit Ordre, de tous et d’un chacun Prieurés, Commanderies, Membres et autres Bénéfices ecclésiastiques de ladite Milice ou Ordre érigé, comme dit est, quand ils viendront à vaquer, de quelque manière que ce soit, par la mort des personnes, de quelques qualité et condition qu’elles puissent être, même portant quelques réserves que ce soit, et même auprès du Saint-Siège Apostolique.
VIII.
Les Prieurs, Commandeurs et Chapelains de la même Milice ou Ordre, après avoir obtenu le consentement et la permission de leur Grand-Maître, avec l’approbation de l’Ordinaire des lieux, pourront célébrer la messe dans les Églises de l’Ordre, administrer les sacrements de l’Église dans tous les temps aux Chevaliers et autres personnes dudit Ordre, même d’administrer l’extrême-onction à l’article de la mort, sans cependant préjudicier aux droits des Églises Paroissiales et de leurs Curés ; ils pourront aussi, après avoir été approuvés des Ordinaires, entendre leurs confessions, et les absoudre de leurs péchés en la forme ordinaire de l’Église, leur ayant imposé une salutaire pénitence.
IX.
De la même autorité Apostolique, et en vertu des présentes, nous dispensons lesdits Grand-Maître, Chevaliers, Prêtres et Chapelains, tous et un chacun d’iceux, tant clercs que laïques, même mariés et bigames, non toutefois trigames, et leur accordons par une grâce spéciale de pouvoir posséder une ou plusieurs pensions annuelles à eux réservées ou à réserver ; savoir le Grand-Maître, jusqu’à la somme de quinze cents ducats, et les Chevaliers jusqu’à celle de cinq cents ducats d’or de la chambre, sur les revenus, droits, émoluments, distributions quotidiennes des cathédrales métropolitaines, et autres églises et monastères, même consistoriaux, prieurés, dignités, personnats, administrations, offices, et autres bénéfices ecclésiastiques, qualifiés de quelque manière que ce soit, dans les royaume et pays de la domination du Roy, encore bien qu’après les réservations desdites pensions ils aient contracté mariage, et, comme dit est, qu’ils soient bigames, et non trigames ; desquelles pensions ils pourront librement et licitement jouir, se faire payer, et les convertir en leur usage, pendant leur mariage et leur vie durant, avec les commanderies et bénéfices de la même Milice et Ordre.
X.
En outre, nous exemptons à perpétuité, et délivrons la même Milice et les Chevaliers, leurs biens et revenus, de toutes sortes de charges, et impositions mises ou à mettre, et de l’entière dépendance de la juridiction des Ordinaires, et les soumettons entièrement à la supériorité, juridiction et obéissance du Grand-Maître.
XI.
Enfin, pour augmenter la dévotion des fidèles de Jésus-Christ, et pour procurer le salut, par la miséricorde de Dieu tout-puissant, par l’autorité des bienheureux Apôtres Saint Pierre et Saint Paul, et par la même autorité des présentes, nous donnons et concédons à perpétuité, miséricordieusement en notre Seigneur, indulgences plénières auxdits Grand-Maître, Chevaliers et personnes dudit Ordre, qui étant confessées et vraiment pénitentes, et ayant reçu la sainte Communion, tant les jours qu’elles seront reçues dans ledit Ordre, et qu’elles y feront profession, que tous les ans au jour et fête de la bienheureuse Vierge Marie Notre-Dame du Mont-Carmel, qui arrive le 16 juillet, depuis les premières vêpres jusqu’au soleil couché de ladite fête, comme aussi à l’article de la mort, étant contrits et prononçant de cœur, si elles ne le peuvent de bouche, le très-saint nom de Jésus.
XXI.
C’est pourquoi nous mandons à nos bien-aimés fils les officiaux des évêchés du Puy, de Damas et de Paris, par la teneur des présentes, que tous, ou deux, ou un d’entre eux, publient ou fassent publier, de notre autorité, les présentes et le contenu en icelles, toutes fois et quantes il en sera nécessaire ; veillent à ce qu’elles soient gardées par tous ceux à qui il appartient, ou qu’il appartiendra ; ne souffrant pas que lesdits Chevaliers soient troublés en aucune manière, ni par qui que ce soit ; et contraignant par sentences, censures, peines ecclésiastiques, et autres moyens de fait et de droit, qu’ils jugeront à propos, les rebelles et tous ceux qui voudraient contredire et refuser d’obéir aux présentes.
XIII.
Nonobstant toutes constitutions et ordonnances Apostoliques, protestations des susdites Églises confirmées par le Saint-Siège, ou autrement, statuts, coutumes, indults, et lettres Apostoliques qui leur auraient été concédées, ou à leurs prélats, chapitres, couvents, supérieurs et personnes, sous quelque teneur et forme, et avec quelques clauses ou décrets, au contraire, et en quelque manière que ce soit, auxquels pour cette fois nous dérogeons spécialement et expressément, tout ainsi que si dans les présentes il était fait spéciale, spécifique, expresse et singulière mention de leur teneur, et non par ces clauses générales signifiant la même chose ; lesquelles néanmoins demeureront d’autre part dans leur force et valeur, et à toutes choses contraires, même à l’indult, que quelques-unes des personnes susdites auraient obtenu du Saint-Siège, portant défense par des lettres Apostoliques de les interdire, suspendre, ou excommunier, si ces lettres ne font une entière mention, de mot à mot, de cet indult.
XIV.
Que personne donc ne soit assez hardi de contredire, par un attentat téméraire, ni de violer la teneur de ces présentes, de notre absolution, érection, institution, application, disposition, indults, exemptions, libérations, suppositions, concessions, mandements, dérogations et largesses ; or, si quelqu’un présumait d’y attenter, qu’il sache qu’il encourra l’indignation de Dieu tout-puissant et des bienheureux Apôtres Saint Pierre et Saint Paul.
Donné à Rome, à Saint-Marc, l’an de l’incarnation de notre Seigneur 1608, le 16 février, et de notre pontificat l’an troisième.
De Saint-Ange 1819, p. 376.
Appendix 3: Statutes of the Ordre de Notre-Dame du Mont-Carmel
On convient que l’institution des Ordres militaires est utile à la république chrétienne, et qu’ils servent à la défense et à la propagation de la foi catholique, si l’on prescrit aux Chevaliers de ces Ordres certaines règles de conduite, sous l’heureux auspice desquelles ils puissent bien vivre, combattre et surmonter les ennemis du nom chrétien.
I.
C’est pourquoi, ayant égard aux humbles prières qui nous ont été faites de la part de notre très-cher fils en Jésus-Christ, Henry, Roy de France, nous avons, il y a quelques jours, érigé et établi une Milice ou Ordre militaire pour la plus grande gloire de Dieu et de la très-glorieuse Vierge Marie, sa mère, et pour l’exaltation de l’Église Romaine, l’extirpation des hérésies ; composé de personnes nobles et d’une naissance distinguée de la nation française, sous le nom, le titre et la règle de la même très-glorieuse Vierge Marie, mère de Dieu, Notre-Dame du Mont-Carmel ; et afin que cette Milice, appuyée sur des règlements pieux et convenables, fasse continuellement et heureusement, selon nos désirs, des progrès religieux, nous lui donnons, à la prière du même Roi Henry, les règles suivantes.
II.
Les Chevaliers de ladite Milice feront leur profession de foi entre les mains du Grand-Maître, ou de celui qui sera député de sa part, selon les articles proposés par le Saint-Siège, et approuvés du temps de Pie IV ; laquelle profession ils signeront de leur main, pour être déposée dans les Archives de l’Ordre, entre les mains de celui qui sera préposé pour en prendre soin.
III.
Ils sont tenus de confesser leurs péchés sacramentalement, et de recevoir le très-saint Sacrement de l’Eucharistie, le jour qu’ils seront reçus dans l’Ordre, et avant que d’en prendre l’habit.
IV.
Ils porteront sur leurs manteaux une Croix de couleur brune, avec l’image de la Sainte Vierge dans le milieu, et une autre Croix d’or suspendue au col par un ruban de soie de même couleur, sur les deux côtés de laquelle sera l’image de la même Vierge.
V.
Ils feront à Dieu, à la glorieuse Vierge Marie et au Grand-Maître, vœu d’obéissance et de chasteté conjugale.
VI.
Ils combattront contre les ennemis de l’Église Romaine, toutes les fois que le Saint-Siège ou le Roy de France l’ordonnera audit Grand-Maître.
VII.
Ils réciteront tous les jours, avec la plus grande dévotion qu’ils pourront, l’Office ou la couronne de la bienheureuse Vierge Marie.
VIII.
Ils entendront la sainte messe tous les jours de fêtes et tous les samedis de l’année, s’ils ne sont pas légitimement occupés.
IX.
Et s’abstiendront les mercredis de chaque semaine de manger de la viande.
X.
Ils confesseront sacramentalement leurs péchés et recevront le très-saint Sacrement de l’Eucharistie toutes les fêtes de la sainte Vierge, principalement le jour de la fête de Notre-Dame du Mont-Carmel, qu’on a coutume de célébrer le 16 juillet.
XI.
Et ils s’assembleront le même jour dans le lieu qui leur sera assigné par le Grand Maître, pour célébrer dévotement, tous ensemble, ladite fête.
XII.
Ceux qui obtiendront les Commanderies qui seront fondées suivant la teneur des présentes, seront obligés de payer au Trésorier de l’Ordre les responsions et droits, à raison de leursdites Commanderies, ainsi qu’il se pratique par les Chevaliers des autres Milices.
XIII.
Et parce que les Chevaliers dudit Ordre doivent être sujets du Roy de France, selon leur établissement, ils ne pourront servir à la guerre sous un autre Chef ou Commandant, sans l’expresse permission de leur Grand-Maître, à peine d’être privés de l’habit de l’Ordre.
XIV.
Enfin nous ordonnons, statuons, mandons et commandons auxdits Chevaliers de garder et observer les règles contenues dans les présentes, nonobstant toutes Constitutions, Ordonnances apostoliques et autres choses contraires.
Donné à Rome, à Saint-Pierre, le 26 février, l’an de l’incarnation de Notre-Seigneur 1608, et le troisième de notre Pontificat.
In nobiliary circles, the succession to the Headship of a dynastic House has been extensively debated in case a member of the higher nobility marries someone who does not hold a comparable noble rank. When a member of the higher nobility (hereafter called “prince” or “princess”, but the concept also applies to certain dukes and duchesses and even counts and countesses) marries another prince or princess, the marriage is said to be one between two people who hold the same social status by birth. When this is not the case, issues can arise in regards to the succession to the headship of the House. The same disputes arise in cases of dynastic succession in the female line. In both instances, ancient House laws play an important role.
This article shows that these House laws need to be modernised or even disabled to prevent extinction of historical dynasties. The reason is that so called “unequal marriages”, as well as succession in the female line, are crucial for ancient dynasties to remain relevant in modern times.
The scope of dynastic House Laws
The German Committee on Nobility Law (Der Deutsche Adelsrechtsausschuß), a private organization with some authority in these matters, defines the term equality by birth (“Ebenbürtigkeit”) by distinguishing between rights to marry into another princely family and the consequences within the own family in case of an “unequal” marriage.
Dieser Begriff, der mit wenigen Ausnahmen (s.u.) nur für den hohen Adel von Bedeutung war, hat zwei Bedeutungen. Subjektiv bedeutet er das den Mitgliedern der landesherrlichen Häuser kraft ihrer staatsrechtlichen Stellung zukommende und den Mitgliedern der standesherrlichen Häuser (Standesherren) zugestandene Recht, rechtlich in vollem Umfang gültige Ehen mit Mitgliedern regierender Häuser einzugehen (Ehen mit nicht Ebenbürtigen waren sogenannte morganatische Ehen). Objektiv bedeutet er die Summe der üblicherweise in Hausgesetzen und Hausobservanzen festgelegten Rechtsnormen, die die Voraussetzungen für die Ebenbürtigkeit und Rechtsfolgen im Falle von deren Fehlen festlegten. Nicht alle standesherrlichen Häuser haben für sich derartige Ebenbürtigkeitsregeln erlassen. Für den niederen Adel gab es im preußischen Allgemeinen Landrecht Ebenbürtigkeitsregeln, die aber 1854 aufgehoben wurden. Weiters war der Grafentitel der Grafen v. Saldern-Ahlimb-Ringewalde an die Geburt aus der Ehe des Vaters mit einer Adeligen gebunden.
translation
This term, which with few exceptions (see below) was only of significance for the high nobility, has two meanings. Subjectively, it means the right of the members of the sovereign houses, by virtue of their status under state law, and the right of the members of the estates (lords of the estates) to enter into legally fully valid marriages with members of ruling houses (marriages with non-equals were so-called morganatic marriages). Objectively, it means the sum of the legal norms usually laid down in house laws and house observances, which laid down the requirements for peerage and legal consequences in the absence of it. Not all the noble houses enacted such rules of equality for themselves. For the lower nobility, there were rules of equal citizenship in the Prussian General Land Law, but these were abolished in 1854. Furthermore, the count title of the Counts v. Saldern-Ahlimb-Ringewalde was linked to birth from the father’s marriage to a noblewoman.
A central concept in this definition is the so-called internal House law. These rules often regulate (i) the rights of equal nobiliary status; (ii) the arrangement of inheritance by way of majorate (= right of succession to a specific property associated with a title of nobility to a single heir, based on male primogeniture); and (iii) the appanages (= land or some other source of revenue assigned for the maintenance of a younger member of the family of a dynasty):
Der hohe Adel war berechtigt, seine familien-, güter- und erbrechtlichen Angelegenheiten autonom zu regeln. Damit konnten z.B. die Frage des Ebenbürtigkeitsrechts, die Erbanordnung im Wege des Majorates und die Apanagen für die Nachgeborenen geregelt werden. Die Art der Abfassung des Hauvertrages war nicht reglementiert. Im römisch-deutschen Reich mußte der Kaiser bzw. der Reichshofrat den Hausvertrag bestätigen. Die Summe der Hausgesetze wurde als Privatfürstenrecht bezeichnet. Neben den geschriebenen Hausgesetzen gab es beim hohen Adel auch Hausobservanzen.
translation
The high nobility was entitled to regulate its family, property and inheritance law matters autonomously. This meant that, for example, the question of the right of equal nobiliary status, the arrangement of inheritance by way of majorate and the appanages for the descendants could be regulated. The way in which the contract was drawn up was not regulated. In the Roman-German Empire, the emperor or the Imperial Court had to confirm the house contract. The sum of the house laws was called private princely law. In addition to the written house laws, the high nobility also had customary house laws.
Crown Prince Wilhelm of Prussia (1882 – 1951) stipulated in the inheritance contract with his father, the exiled Emperor Wilhelm II (1859 – 1941) and his son Louis Ferdinand (1907-1994), that any descendant would be excluded from inheritance who “did not come from a marriage that conformed to the principles of the old house constitution of the Brandenburg-Prussian House or who lived in a marriage that did not conform to the house constitution“. Louis Ferdinand’s older brother Wilhelm (1906-1940) had married a woman who was – from a nobiliary view – not his equal and had also died in 1940 without leaving any sons. In this case, the contract stipulated that the entire estate of the Crown Prince (who was also the sole heir of the Emperor) was to fall to Louis Ferdinand as the previous heir and, after his death, to the next oldest son entitled to succeed him in accordance with the above provision as the subsequent heir. The by-passed uncles filed a law suit, claiming that the discrimination against them on the basis of their marriage was unconstitutional.
The case was brought before the Federal Constitutional Court which declared the House Laws of the Brandenburg-Prussian Hohenzollerns to be irrelevant in terms of constitutional law:
44. Die Thronfolge im Deutschen Reich und in Preußen richtete sich nach dem Hausgesetz der brandenburgischen Hohenzollern. Das Amt des Deutschen Kaisers war nach Art. 11 der Verfassung des Deutschen Reiches vom 16. April 1871 (RGBl S. 64 <69>) mit dem preußischen Königtum untrennbar verbunden. Für den Erwerb und den Verlust des kaiserlichen Amtes im Reich waren die Vorschriften der preußischen Krone maßgebend (vgl. Laband, Deutsches Staatsrecht, Band I, 6. Aufl., 1912, § 10 II.). Art. 53 der Verfassungsurkunde für den Preußischen Staat vom 31. Januar 1850 sah vor, dass die Krone, den Hausgesetzen gemäß, erblich ist (Gesetz-Sammlung für die königlich Preußischen Staaten, S. 17 <24>). Damit wurden diejenigen Bestimmungen der Hausgesetze, welche die Zugehörigkeit zum königlichen Hause regeln, zu einem Bestandteil der Verfassungsurkunde. Die Abstammung aus einer im Sinne der Hausgesetze ebenbürtigen Ehe wurde zu einem entscheidenden Kriterium für die Thronfolgefähigkeit (vgl. Bornhak, Preußisches Staatsrecht, 2. Aufl., 1911, § 29; Hubrich, Preußisches Staatsrecht, 1909, § 9).
45. Mit In-Kraft-Treten der Weimarer Reichsverfassung vom 11. August 1919 (RGBl S. 1383) und der Verfassung Preußens vom 30. November 1920 (Preußische Gesetzsammlung, S. 543) wurde jeweils die republikanische Staatsform eingeführt. Die Verfassung des Deutschen Reiches vom 16. April 1871 wurde aufgehoben (Art. 178 Abs. 1 WRV). Art. 81 Abs. 1 der preußischen Verfassung hob die Verfassung vom 31. Januar 1850 auf. Damit wurden gleichzeitig die Hausgesetze des ehemals regierenden Kaiser- und Königshauses in staatsrechtlicher Hinsicht gegenstandslos.
46. Seit dem In-Kraft-Treten des Grundgesetzes steht der Wiedereinführung der Monarchie Art. 20 Abs. 1 GG und Art. 28 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GG entgegen. Für die Bestimmung des Staatsoberhauptes haben die Ehe- und Familientraditionen von adeligen Familien heute keine Bedeutung mehr (cf. Herzog, Art. 20 Anm. III. Rn. 5-8 in: Maunz-Dürig, Kommentar zum Grundgesetz, Stand September 1980; Stern, Das Staatsrecht der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Band I, 2. Aufl., 1984, § 17 II. 2.).
translation
44. The succession to the throne in the German Reich and in Prussia was governed by the House Law of the Brandenburg Hohenzollerns. According to Art. 11 of the Constitution of the German Reich of 16 April 1871 (RGBl p. 64 <69>), the office of German Emperor was inseparably linked to the Prussian kingship. The acquisition and loss of imperial office in the Reich were governed by the regulations of the Prussian Crown (cf. Laband, Deutsches Staatsrecht, Vol. I, 6th ed., 1912, § 10 II.). Art. 53 of the Constitutional Charter for the Prussian State of 31 January 1850 provided that the Crown, in accordance with the House Laws, was hereditary (Gesetz-Sammlung für die königlich Preußischen Staaten, p. 17 <24>). Thus those provisions of the House Laws which governed membership of the royal house became part of the constitutional charter. Descent from a marriage that was equal in the sense of the house laws became a decisive criterion for eligibility to succeed to the throne (cf. Bornhak, Preußisches Staatsrecht, 2nd ed., 1911, § 29; Hubrich, Preußisches Staatsrecht, 1909, § 9).
45. With the coming into force of the Weimar Imperial Constitution of 11 August 1919 (RGBl p. 1383) and the Constitution of Prussia of 30 November 1920 (Preußische Gesetzsammlung, p. 543), the republican form of government was introduced in each case. The Constitution of the German Reich of 16 April 1871 was repealed (Art. 178 para. 1 WRV). Art. 81 para. 1 of the Prussian Constitution repealed the Constitution of 31 January 1850. At the same time, the house laws of the former ruling imperial and royal house became obsolete in terms of constitutional law.
46. Since the entry into force of the Constitution, the reintroduction of the monarchy has been precluded by Article 20 (1) of the Basic Law and Article 28 (1) sentence 1 of the Constitution. Today, the marriage and family traditions of aristocratic families no longer have any significance for the determination of the head of state (vgl. Herzog, Art. 20 Anm. III. Rn. 5-8 in: Maunz-Dürig, Kommentar zum Grundgesetz, Stand September 1980; Stern, Das Staatsrecht der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Band I, 2. Aufl., 1984, § 17 II. 2).
Although the Crown Prince’s inheritance contract was inapplicable, testamentary succession took effect in accordance with Louis Ferdinand’s personal will, according to which his grandson George Frederick became his sole heir, albeit burdened with compulsory shares in favour of his father’s siblings. The court considered that the testator’s goal was to preserve the family’s traditions, that this is protected by the freedom of testation, and that therefore this clause is not immoral and void.
Prince George Frederick thus became the co-owner of Hohenzollern Castle, the sole heir to the real estate and fixed assets, and the claimant for restitution of the art objects of the House of Prussia expropriated in 1945. Since then, he is generally seen as the head of the Hohenzollern dynasty, although it is doubtful what the relevance of the aforementioned judicial proceedings is in respect to the Headship of the House. On the contrary, the court ruled that the House rules had no legal relevance in this matter.
House of Bourbon-Parma
Prince Xavier’s de Bourbon Parma’s (1889-1977) prisoner registry card at Dachau Nazi Concentration Camp. Prince Xavier, Hereditary Duke of Parma and Piacenza, known in France before 1974 as Prince Xavier de Bourbon-Parme, known in Spain as Francisco Javier de Borbón-Parma y de Braganza or simply as Don Javier, was the head of the ducal House of Bourbon-Parma and Carlist claimant to the throne of Spain. Between 1940 and 1942, Prince Xavier became increasingly sympathetic to the anti-Pétain opposition and, via local priests, maintained informal contact with district Resistance leaders. At one point, he joined works of the Comité d’Aide aux Réfractaires du STO and welcomed labor camp escapees in wooden areas of his estates, providing basic logistics and setting up shelters for the sick in his library. When two of them were detected and detained, Prince Xavier cycled to Vichy and successfully sought their release. Exposing himself, following a surveillance period in July 1944 he was arrested by the Gestapo. Sentenced to death for espionage and terrorism, he was pardoned by Pétain; first confined in Clermont-Ferrand, Schirmeck and Natzwiller, in September he was finally imprisoned in Dachau. The Nazis asked Franco about his fate, but Franco did not make a decision. Periodically condemned to the starvation bunker, when freed by the Americans in April 1945, Prince Xavier weighed 36 kg. See: Wolfdieter Bihl, La Mission de mediation des princes Sixte et Xavier de Bourbon-Parma en faveur de la paix, in: Guerres mondiales et conflits contemporains 170 (1993), pp. 31–75.
Mr. Carlos Hugo Roderik Sybren Klynstra was born in 1997 in The Netherlands. He is the illegitimate son of Carlos prince de Bourbon de Parme (a nephew of King Willem Alexander of The Netherlands). During his childhood, Klynstra lived with his mother in Hummelo, close to the estate of his stepfather, the Count van Rechteren Limpurg. At birth, Klynstra was given his mother’s surname; Klynstra. When he came of age, he requested the Ministry of Justice to change his family name to de Bourbon de Parme. The minister granted the request in 2015. In November 2016, the District Court of The Hague rejected the objections of Carlos prince de Bourbon de Parme and the Royal House De Bourbon de Parme to the name change. Subsequently, the Dutch Council of State (the highest administrative court in The Netherlands) affirmed the aforementioned ruling of the court.
Change of name
The Dutch Civil Code sets out the conditions for a change of surname. The Council of State considers that the minister was right to decide that Klynstra meets those conditions. The court in Zutphen ‘judicially established’ the paternity of Carlos prince de Bourbon de Parme in 1999. That the father did not acknowledge paternity is immaterial.
Title and royal predicate It follows from Dutch nobility law that changing the surname automatically results in the transfer of nobility. Klynstra may therefore use the title ‘prince’ and the predicate ‘royal highness’ as a result of the name change. HRH Carlos prince de Bourbon de Parme was incorporated into the Dutch nobility and the princely title and royal predicate were granted to him and his male descendants. For the Dutch Law on Nobility, the manner in which the paternity of the child was established does not matter.
Not a member of the Royal House De Bourbon de Parme The name change and incorporation into the Dutch nobility do not mean that Klynstra also becomes a member of the Royal House De Bourbon de Parme. That is a private matter of the House itself. And Dutch public law has no competence in this matter. A very interesting consideration in this matter shows that Dutch law recognizes, in specific circumstances, a dynastic House as a legal “subject” recognizable in law and with standing to sue:
7. Zoals de Afdeling eerder heeft overwogen (onder meer in haar uitspraak van 23 april 2014, ECLI:NL:RVS:2014:1439) is de hoedanigheid van belanghebbende niet voorbehouden aan natuurlijke personen en rechtspersonen, maar kunnen ook andere entiteiten als belanghebbende worden aangemerkt. Gelet op de woorden ‘degene wiens’, opgenomen in artikel 1:2, eerste lid, van de Awb, wordt aan deze andere entiteiten de eis gesteld dat zij herkenbaar zijn in het rechtsverkeer.
Het koninklijk huis De Bourbon de Parme presenteert zich naar buiten als een eenheid, thans onder meer via zijn website. Op deze website is informatie te vinden over de geschiedenis van het koninklijk huis De Bourbon de Parme, de leden van het koninklijk huis en de organisatie van het koninklijk huis. Het bestuur van het koninklijk huis wordt gevormd door Carlos prins de Bourbon de Parme als hoofd van het koninklijk huis, een hoofd ceremoniën, een secretaris en een vertegenwoordiger. Het koninklijk huis De Bourbon de Parme heeft voorts aparte besturen voor de verschillende ordes die het koninklijk huis kent. Uit naam van het koninklijk huis worden jaarlijks evenementen georganiseerd waarbij Carlos prins de Bourbon de Parme als hoofd van het koninklijk huis en Grootmeester van de orden onderscheidingen, waaronder de orden, toekent. Onder deze omstandigheden moet het koninklijk huis De Bourbon de Parma naar het oordeel van de Afdeling worden aangemerkt als entiteit die herkenbaar is in het rechtsverkeer.
7.1. De Afdeling is van oordeel dat de belangen van het koninklijk huis De Bourbon de Parma rechtstreeks worden geraakt door de in het besluit van 14 september 2015 voorziene overgang van de titel prins en het predicaat Koninklijke Hoogheid. De regels van het koninklijk huis De Bourbon de Parme verzetten zich ertegen dat een buiten echt geboren kind de titel prins en het predicaat Koninklijke Hoogheid krijgt. [zoon van appellant A] zal gelet op deze regels ook geen lid van dat Koninklijk Huis worden. Deze regels zijn evenwel niet algemeen bekend, zodat aannemelijk is dat de toekenning van de titel prins en het predicaat Koninklijke Hoogheid de schijn zal wekken dat Hugo Klynstra wél tot dat Koninklijk Huis zal gaan behoren.
translation
7. As the Division [Council of State] has previously held (including in its judgment of 23 April 2014, ECLI:NL:RVS:2014:1439), the status of interested party is not reserved for natural persons and legal entities, but other entities may also be regarded as interested parties. In view of the words ‘the one whose’, included in Article 1:2(1) of the Awb, these other entities are required to be recognisable in legal traffic.
The royal house De Bourbon de Parme presents itself externally as an entity, currently through its website, among others. This website contains information on the history of the royal house De Bourbon de Parme, the members of the royal house and the organisation of the royal house. The administration of the royal house is formed by Carlos prince de Bourbon de Parme as head of the royal house, a head of ceremonies, a secretary and a representative. The royal house De Bourbon de Parme further has separate boards for the various orders that the royal house has. Events are organised annually in the name of the royal house during which Carlos Prince de Bourbon de Parme, as head of the royal house and Grand Master of the orders, bestows honours, including the orders. Under these circumstances, the royal house of De Bourbon de Parma should, in the Division’s view, be regarded as an entity recognisable in law.
7.1. The Division [Council of State] considers that the interests of the royal house of De Bourbon de Parma are directly affected by the transition of the title prince and the predicate Royal Highness provided for in the decree of 14 September 2015. The rules of the royal house De Bourbon de Parme oppose a child born out of wedlock being given the title prince and the predicate Royal Highness. In view of these rules, Hugo Klynstra will also not be a member of that Royal House. However, these rules are not widely known, so it is plausible that granting the title of prince and the predicate Royal Highness will create the appearance that Hugo Klynstra will indeed become a member of that Royal House.
Prince Gustav zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg (1969) is the head of the House of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg, the senior branch of the formerly ruling House of Sayn. Gustav is the son of Prince Richard of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg and Princess Benedikte of Denmark and has two sisters; Princess Alexandra zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg and Princess Nathalie zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg.
Leonilla Ivanovna Baryatinskaya (Moscow 1816-Lausanne 1918) was the daughter of Ivan Ivanovich Baryatinsky, who came from one of the most influential Russian noble families, the Baryatinsky family, and his wife Marie Wilhelmine von Keller. Her paternal grandmother was thus Catherine von Holstein-Beck, her maternal grandparents the German diplomat Christoph von Keller and Amalie Louise zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Ludwigsburg. Leonilla first spent her childhood at Marino Castle near Ivanovskoye (Kursk). Her mother served the Tsarina Alexandra Feodorovna as a lady-in-waiting. At the age of nine, Leonilla was also taken to the Russian Tsar’s court in St. Petersburg. Painting by Franz Xaver Winterhalter.
Before Germany became a republic, the principality and princely title of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg descended according to semi-Salic primogeniture (Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, Fürstliche Häuser XIX. Sayn-Wittgenstein. C.A. Starke Verlag, 2011, pp.314–338), which allows women to succeed only at the extinction of all the male descendants in the male line. If Gustav were to die without legitimate issue, the family heritage would devolve upon his father’s younger brother, Prince Robin zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg.
On 4 June 2022 Prince Gustav married Mrs. Carina Axelsson, of Swedish-Mexican descent, whom has been his partner for 20 years. The reason Prince Gustav could not marry Carina much earlier is that the prince’s grandfather, Prince Gustav Albrecht zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg (1907-missing in action in Russia, 1944), wrote a will in 1939 in which he demanded that his grandson’s spouse should be Aryan, noble and Protestant if he were to keep the castle.
His will still had an effect on the grandchildren’s generation after a son of his younger brother Ludwig Ferdinand considered himself entitled to challenge his last will in court. However, the Bad Berleburg Local Court (file no. 2 LW 3 /17) had rejected this entitlement. By decision of 23 July 2020, the Higher Regional Court of Hamm had affirmed the first-instance decision and given it the force of law. After the Local Court in Berleburg granted the grandson Gustav Prinz zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg a certificate of inheritance (estimated worth: 500 million euro) on 30 October 2020, he was able to accept the inheritance (Juristenzeitung, Ausgabe 8 / 2021, Leitsatz der Redaktion, S. 413–420, Anmerkung Gerhard Otte, S. 421–423). The marriage was postponed for decades due to the stipulations of his grandfather’s will. In 2023, the couple was finally able to welcome their son, Prince Gustav Albrecht, through a surrogate mother.
Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff
Mr. Nabiel Bagadi was born in 1963 as a German national who was adopted by a German citizen, Mr Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff, and subsequently (after adding the first name “Peter”) known in Germany as Nabiel Peter Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff. He moved to the United Kingdom in 2001, and worked as an insolvency adviser in London.
In 2004, he acquired the British nationality by naturalisation, whilst retaining his German nationality. By deed poll, Mr. Bagadi changed his name to Peter Mark Emanuel Graf von Wolffersdorff Freiherr von Bogendorff; a newly invented name and noble title.
He subsequently left the UK together with his spouse and moved back to Germany, where they continued to live together with their daughter, who was born in 2006. In 2013, Bagadi asked the Register office of the city of Karlsruhe to enter the forenames and surname he had acquired under British legislation in the register of civil status. This request was refused and Bagadi asked the national court to impose on the authorities to amend his birth certificate with retroactive effect. In the subsequent court proceeding, the Register office claimed that the reason for the refusal of the registration of the name was based on being manifestly incompatible with essential principles of German law (Mohay, Ágoston & Tóth, Norbert. (2017). What’s in a Name? Equal Treatment, Union Citizens and National Rules on Names and Titles. ICL Journal. 11. 10.1515/icl-2017-0075).
British change of name publication in The Gazette. I cannot explain why the Gazette states “Nabiel Peter Freiherr Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff” but the official decision of the EU Court states “Nabiel Peter Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff” (without “Freiherr”). In Companies House, the name is registered as “Peter FREIHERR VON BOGENDORFF”
Before the aforementioned events, the family took legal action to obtain a change of name for the daughter of Bagadi and his wife. The name on the daughter’s British birth certificate and British passport is Larissa Xenia Gräfin von Wolffersdorff Freiin von Bogendorff. The register office of Chemnitz (where the family resided) however refused to register the daughter under her British name in 2006. The reason was that a person’s name ‘is subject to the law of the State of which that person is a national’, and German law forbids the conferral of nobility titles. Bagadi then asked the Oberlandesgericht Dresden (Higher Regional Court of Dresden, Germany), to impose on the Register office to enter his daughter’s name in the register of civil status in the form appearing on the birth certificate issued by the British authorities. In 2011, the German court ordered the authorities to enter the daughter’s British name in the German civil registers. Following this ruling, Bagadi also attempted to get his British name registered in Germany (Mohay & Tóth 2017).
In 2016, the European Court of Human Rights considered (ECLI:EU:C:2016:401 and ECLI:EU:C:2016:11) that it is necessary to take into account the fact that the change of surname rests on a purely personal choice by Bagadi, that the difference in name which follows therefrom cannot be attributed either to the circumstances of his birth, to adoption, or to acquisition of British nationality and that the name chosen in the United Kingdom includes elements which, without formally constituting titles of nobility in Germany or the United Kingdom, give the impression of noble origins.
The relevance of the afrementioned case is that a person cannot raise his status by birth autonomously in order to meet the conditions of dynastic laws.
Other examples
House of Savoy (I)
The appendix of Aldo A. Mola’s, Declino e crollo della monarchia in Italia (Mondadori 2008) contains unpublished letters in which Italy’s last king, Umberto II, warned his son, crown prince Victor Emmanuel (Italian: Vittorio Emanuele), of the possible consequences of an unacknowledged marriage with Marina Ricolfi-Doria, a Swiss former water skier. Given the importance of such an event for the Savoy dynasty, the king also sent a copy to Queen Maria José. IHowever, ten years later, Victor Emmanuel married Marina Ricolfi-Doria on 11 January 1970 in Las Vegas, which was confirmed religiously on 7 October 1971 in the Cathedral of the Consolata in Tehran at the occasion of the 2.500-year celebration of the Persian Empire. According to a minority of Italian royalists, he threrefore consciously renounced the rank of crown prince and future Head of the House of Savoy for himself and his descendants in favour of Prince Amedeo of Savoy, Duke of Aosta (1943–2021).
In the first letter, dated January 1960, Victor Emmanuel reflects on the ancient House rules on dynastic succession. He thanked the King for “the scruple you have put into exposing to me so patiently and diligently the situation in which I would find myself if I decided to renounce my prerogatives and marry a woman – whatever she was – not of royal blood.” Adding, “It is now my turn to reflect, meditate, decide.”
In 1963, the King, after reading an interview in “Oggi” in which Victor Emmanuel spoke of the concrete possibility of a marriage with Miss Marina Ricolfi Doria, reminded his son of what he had written in January 1960. Umberto II concluded the letter by recalling that he was driven “by the affection I have for you and the desire to ensure you the best future, which could never be in contrast with what has always been done in our family“. Victor Emmanuel replied: “The interview does not reflect my thoughts.”
Marie-José of Belgium (Marie-José Charlotte Sophie Amélie Henriette Gabrielle (1906 – 2001) was the last Queen of Italy. Her 34-day tenure as queen consort earned her the nickname “the May Queen”. Princess Marie-José was born in Ostend, the youngest child of King Albert I of the Belgians and his consort, Duchess Elisabeth in Bavaria. Through her mother she was a grandniece of Empress Elisabeth of Austria and of Maria Sophie of Bavaria, last queen consort of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.
In a 1970 letter (sent for information to Queen Maria José with a note on the importance of its contents for Victor Emmanuel), the king, having heard the increasingly insistent rumour that the marriage between Victor Emmanuel and Miss Dominique Claudel was imminent, explains to his son what a marriage in contrast with the rules governing the dynasty would entail: “law of our House, in force for no less than 29 generations and respected by the 43 heads of families, my predecessors, who succeeded each other according to the Salic law through marriages contracted with families of Sovereigns” (reference to the aforementioned Royal Patents of 1780-82). The King adds: ‘This law, I, the 44th Head of Family, do not intend and have no right to change, despite my affection for you. But even if I failed in my duty, it would be in vain, for no one could recognise my actions as valid.”
The letter warns Victor Emmanuel that such a marriage would result in “your forfeiture of any right of succession as Head of the House of Savoy and of claim to the throne of Italy, losing your titles and rank and reducing you to the situation of a private citizen. Therefore all rights would immediately pass to my nephew Amedeo, Duke of Aosta“. The King concludes the letter clearly: “your decision today opens or closes for ever the prospect of succession to all my rights“. Vittorio Emanuele signs the letter “per presa conoscienza“.
Do these letters prove that the Headship of the House of Savoy passed to the Duke of Aosta when Victor Emmanuel married someone who did not meet the requirements of equal rank? The Duke de Aosta’s advocates correctly state that the Prince of Naples’ marriage to Marina Doria violated the decree of Victor Amadeus III, issued 13 September 1780, regulating the marriages of princes of the blood royal. However, as this decree has no legal effect after Italy became a republic, its relevance is limited. Significant though, is the fact that the Duke of Aosta accepted the Order of the Saints Maurice and Lazarus from its Grand Master, Victor Emmanuel. He therefore acknowledged Victor Emmanuel’s headhip of the House of Savoy, which makes reference to the dynastic rules obsolete.
It must be emphasised that noble titles are irrelevant in Italian law and that in Italy the question of Headship of the House of Savoy cannot be subject of a legal dispute. Only issues concerning the family name can be brought before the Italian courts.
Yet, in this case, one could reasonably draw an analogy to Italian legislation regarding legal limitation periods (Italian Civil Code, article 2934 et seq). Generally, the limitation period is 10 years from the day on which the right of claim can be enforced. In tort law, the claimant has five years from the day the even occurred to claim its rights. If the matter were judged in the context of Italian law, the claim expired in 1993.
Therefore, although there is no authority that can give a final judgement regarding the matter, the generally accepted view is that the Duke of Aosta’s dynastic claims were made too late (2006, instead of 1983; when the King died).
House of Savoy (II)
Prince Emmanuel Philibert, Prince of Venice, Prince of Piedmont (1972) is generally seen as the heir to the title of Head of the Royal House of Savoy. He is the hereditary crown prince of the Italian Royal Family. He is married to French actress Clotilde Courau, with whom he has two daughters: Princess Vittoria of Savoy and Princess Luisa of Savoy.
On 9 June 2023, his father, crown prince Victor Emanuel, confirmed that he had abolished the salic law of succession (succession on the male line, excluding women):
Ho seguito con attenzione e con particolare compiacimento quanto è stato giustamente riportato dal quotidiano nazionale “il Corriere della Sera” con l’intervista, che ho condiviso, data da mio figlio Emanuele Filiberto e successivamente ripresa e rilanciata da moltissime testate nazionali ed estere.
L’attenzione mediatica che ha suscitato questa presa di posizione dimostra il grande interesse sul tema che ho voluto affrontare tre anni fa: ovvero l’abolizione della legge salica; l’attenzione internazionale che ha attirato la giovane figura di mia nipote Vittoria conferma la bontà della mia scelta, ovvero permettere ad una donna di diventare un domani Capo della mia Casa.
Ho molto apprezzato ed appoggio le parole che ha usato mio figlio, per l’amore verso Vittoria e per la delicatezza del suo gesto nell’affrontare questo tema, nello spiegare agli italiani il mio volere con questa storica decisione.
L’abolizione della legge salica, che rispetta la mia precisa volontà, è sicuramente al passo con i tempi, da me voluta e cercata per sottolineare quell’importanza che le Donne di Casa Savoia hanno sempre avuto nei secoli e che grazie a Vittoria continueranno ad avere negli anni futuri.
Le dichiarazioni di mio figlio mi rendono orgoglioso di lui, perché confermano quanto abbiamo fatto finora insieme, rafforzano le nostre scelte, fortificano le nostre idee e saldano la nostra volontà.
Quanto ha affermato lo considero assolutamente una scelta coraggiosa, che condivido e che non mi stupisce, perché so perfettamente cosa pensa e come agisce, so che educazione sta dando a mia nipote Vittoria e so quanto entrambi siano uniti negli intenti e nei progetti della nostra Casa. Una scelta, quella di mio figlio Emanuele Filiberto, che avverrà nei tempi giusti e da lui voluti, che avverrà quando mia nipote sarà pronta e preparata, che darà nuovo impulso e vigore alla mia Famiglia.
Per il momento non cambia assolutamente niente: lavoriamo quotidianamente insieme e sempre a stretto contatto l’uno con l’altro, lui mi supporta e io lo sostengo, tutto è sempre concordato tra noi e sono assolutamente felice dei risultati che ottiene mio figlio, per l’apprezzamento che il suo impegno suscita nella gente, per l’amore che gli italiani gli tributano e per quello che fa con vero slancio di cuore verso chi ha bisogno. In questi anni mia nipote Vittoria è cresciuta, ne ho apprezzato sempre di più la serietà e la maturità, la sensibilità e l’attenzione per il prossimo dimostrate in più occasioni, non ultimo nella sua missione nella martoriata Ucraina.
I suoi impegni pubblici ed istituzionali stanno piano piano aumentando e lei sta assumendo con rigore le sue giuste responsabilità, difronte alla Casa che sempre più spesso è da me chiamata a rappresentare davanti agli italiani, ai quale deve rispetto e dedizione.
Parlo regolarmente ed ho piacere di confrontarmi con lei su temi di volta in volta sempre più importati e ne apprezzo sempre più la serietà e l’impegno, in particolar modo per la sua crescente attenzione verso gli Ordini Dinastici della mia Casa, caratterizzati oggi più che mai dalla cura per il sociale e per il “terzo settore”, dall’aiuto verso i bisognosi e dal sostegno concreto durante le ultime numerose calamità naturali, in special modo nell’amata Emilia Romagna.
Sono certo e sinceramente convinto che mia nipote Vittoria diventerà sempre di più un forte punto di riferimento per tutta la Real Casa di Savoia, per questo invito tutti voi a sostenerla nei suoi progetti e nelle sue idee, nel seguirla ed aiutarla nel percorso importante che sta affrontando e che la vedrà in futuro una sicura protagonista.
translation
I followed carefully and with particular satisfaction what was rightly reported in the national daily ‘il Corriere della Sera’ with the interview, which I shared, given by my son Emanuele Filiberto and subsequently taken up and relaunched by many national and foreign newspapers.
The media attention that this stance aroused demonstrates the great interest in the issue that I wanted to tackle three years ago: that is, the abolition of the Salic law; the international attention that the young person of my niece Vittoria has attracted confirms the correctness of my choice, i.e. to allow a woman to become the Head of my House in the future.
I greatly appreciated and support the words my son used, for his love for Vittoria and for the delicacy of his gesture in addressing this issue, in explaining to the Italians my will with this historic decision. The abolition of the Salic law, which respects my precise will, is certainly in step with the times, which I wanted and sought in order to emphasise the importance that the Women of the House of Savoy have always had over the centuries and which, thanks to Vittoria, they will continue to have in the years to come.
My son’s declarations make me proud of him, because they confirm what we have done together so far, strengthen our choices, fortify our ideas and consolidate our will. What he said I absolutely consider to be a courageous choice, which I share and which does not surprise me, because I know perfectly well what he thinks and how he acts, I know what education he is giving to my niece Vittoria, and I know how united we both are in our intentions and plans for our House.
A choice, that of my son Emanuele Filiberto, which will take place at the right time and as he wishes, which will happen when my niece is ready and prepared, which will give new impetus and vigour to my Family.
For the time being absolutely nothing has changed: we work together every day and always in close contact with each other, he supports me and I support him, everything is always agreed between us and I am absolutely delighted with the results my son gets, for the appreciation that his commitment arouses in people, for the love that Italians give him and for what he does with a true heartfelt dedication to those in need.
In recent years my niece Vittoria has grown, and I have increasingly appreciated her seriousness and maturity, her sensitivity and concern for others demonstrated on many occasions, not least in her mission in the tormented Ukraine. Her public and institutional commitments are gradually increasing and she is rigorously assuming her rightful responsibilities, in front of the House that she is increasingly called upon by me to represent before the Italians, to whom she owes respect and dedication.
I regularly speak and have the pleasure of debating with you on increasingly important issues and I increasingly appreciate your seriousness and commitment, especially for your growing attention to the Dynastic Orders of my House, characterised today more than ever by care for the social and ‘third sector’, by help for the needy and by concrete support during the last numerous natural disasters, especially in my beloved Emilia Romagna.
I am certain and sincerely convinced that my niece Vittoria will increasingly become a strong point of reference for the entire Royal House of Savoy, and for this reason I invite all of you to support her in her projects and ideas, in following her and helping her along the important path that she is facing and that will see her a sure protagonist in the future.
The choice of Victor Emanuel to incorporate modern views into the dynastic succession is protected by the principle that ensures that effect must be given to the expressed wishes of a grantor, as well as by anti gender discrimination clauses in international children’s treaties. Therefore, the abolishment of male-only succession is legal and legitimate.
House of Anhalt
In 2010, the Head of the House of Anhalt also abolished the Salic and semi-Salic laws regarding the succession to the headship of the House:
Aktualisierung des Hausgesetzes der Familie Anhalt-Askanien (Update of the Anhalt-Askania Family House Act)
In January 2010 HH Prince Eduard Duke of Anhalt, Duke of Saxony, Head of the Ducal House and Master of the Order Albrecht the Bear, added and modernized the “Hausgesetz der Familie Anhalt-Askanien für das 21. Jahrhundert” (Family Laws of the Ducal House of Anhalt-Ascania for the 21rst Century).
In close dependence upon the decisions and changes made by most of the ruling royal families of Europe, inevitable for the necessities of the monarchies and our former ruling dynasty of Anhalt-Ascania for the 21st Century and because of the actual adoption laws of the Federal Republic of Germany I have decided to add the following new house laws:
The Salic or Semi-Salic laws are no longer valid and no longer executed by the Ducal House of Ascania.
The Head of the House of Anhalt-Askania is Prince EDUARD Julius Ernst-August Erdmann, DUKE OF ANHALT, Duke of Saxony, Engern and Westphalia, Count of Ascania, Lord of Zerbst, Bernburg und Gröbzig and his legal descendance succeeding his late brother Prince Friedrich, Duke of Anhalt (1938 – 63), son of the late Duke Joachim Ernst of Anhalt (1901 – 1947).
Successor to the present Duke Eduard will be the his first born daughter and her direct lineage, according to the earlier date of birth of her child, independent of the child’s gender.
According to the new laws of the Ducal House, Eduard Duke of Anhalt’s successor will be Princess JULIA KATHARINA, b.at Bad Tölz 14 Dec 1980 and her decendants according to earlier date of birth, not to gender.
With her succession – either at the date of the death of her father, his written abdication or a mental health problem – Princess Julia Katharina will become Duchess of Anhalt, Head of the Ducal House of Ascania and Master of the Order Albrecht der Bär.
Successor to Princess Julia Katharina, future Duchess of Anhalt will be, at present, her eldest child Prince Julius MAXIME Lazllo b at Munich 21 Dec 2010 as future Duke of Anhalt and his lineage of children according to earlier birth, not to gender.
In the case, that there will be no direct living decendancy by the lineage Eduard Duke of Anhalt to Princess Julia Katharina to Prince Julius Maxime Laszlo; the direct lineage of my second daughter Princess Julia EILIKA b at Munich 3 Jan 1985 shall follow, followed by the direct lineage of my youngest daughter Princess Julia FELICITAS b at Munich 14 May 1993.
Accepted family members and successors as Head of the Ducal House of Anhalt-Ascania can only be male and female decendants in the direct lineage from the late Duke Joachim Ernst of Anhalt, Duke of Saxony, Count of Ascania etc. (1901 – 47).
Members of the House of Anhalt, who adopted or adopt persons who are not direct decendence to Duke Joachim Ernst, never were and shall be accepted as members of the House of Anhalt-Ascania.
Given in Berlin January 1st 2010 Julius Eduard Duke of Anhalt
Like Victor Emanuel, the head of the House of Anhalt-Ascania chose to respect international law and abolished the male-only succession to his dynasty rights.
Conclusions and recommendations
Legitimacy
Holding on to obsolete (semi) Salic law and ‘ebenbürtigkeit‘ is a dead end. Around the world, diversity-focussed leaders improve lives and inspire a better future for all (see Research by McKinsey). In a dynastic context, modernization of dynastic succession laws create a lasting change that can save many great and illustrious families from extinction.
To change course, dynastic leadership must be shared equally, in a verifiable and transparent manner. The intelligent choices of the leaders of the aforementioned dynasties to abandon obsolete succession principles means redefining value and success and, tackling the roots of oppressive structures and social norms that hold back dynastic continuity. This transformative leadership is needed to face the unprecedented challenges of modern times.
Legal perspective
In the Roman-German Empire, the Emperor or the Imperial Court had to confirm a dynastic family’s House contract. The succession of ruling monarchs (The Netherlands, United Kingdom) is regulated by state law. Analogously, non-ruling Houses should regulate their succession via civil law for reasons of clarity, transparancy and legal protection. Embedding House rules in a private foundation (“Royal House of X Foundation”) provides a perfect tool to regulate succession in a robust and verifiable manner.
The Dutch foundation (stichting) is perhaps the most effective and efficient option in this respect. A stichting is a legal entity, securely embedded in the judicial structure of The Netherlands. A stichting is not required to publicly file annual accounts, unless it operates a business with a turnover in excess of €6 million per year. A stichting with its statutory seat in The Netherlands can still have a business address anywhere in the world. Some of the world’s most prominent businesses are structured as Dutch foundations. The Dutch stichting INGKA, for example, owns INGKA Holding BV, the parent company of IKEA.
One well-known, unfortunate issue that could have been prevented had ordinary, modern-day civil law protection measures been in place, was a 2014 court ruling in Lisbon, forbidding Duarte Pio of Braganza (Head of the Royal House of Portugal) to use the insignia of his own dynastic Order of Saint Michael of the Wing. The court ordered Dom Duarte to pay compensation of €300,000 to the legal owner of the rights, Mr. Nuno da Câmara Pereira (a proponant of another claimant to the Headship of the Royal House), who registered the intellectual property rights of the “Order of Saint Michael of the Wing”. The matter still has not been resolved entirely.
In The Netherlands, the IP rights of the Royal House are protected by a Dutch Foundation called Stichting Sigillis Regiis Praesidio, formed on 28 January 2002 on the initiative of former queen Beatrix. The foundation has the following objectives:
“het verwerven, beheren en (in rechte) handhaven van intellectuele en andere (eigendoms)rechten die toebehoren aan, betrekking hebben op, of verband houden met het Huis van Oranje-Nassau en/of degenen die tot dat huis behoren, zowel ten aanzien van diegene in persoon als in het kader van te eniger tijd door (één van) hen uitgeoefende functie, waaronder begrepen het voorkomen van ongeautoriseerd gebruik of misbruik van predicaten (….), alles in de meest ruime zin des woords.”
translation
“to acquire, manage and maintain (in law) intellectual and other (property) rights belonging to, relating to, or connected with the House of Orange-Nassau and/or those belonging to that house, both in respect of those in person and in the context of functions exercised at any time by (one of) them, including the prevention of unauthorised use or misuse of predicates (….), all in the broadest sense of the word.”
Hausgesetz für das herzogl. Haus Arenberg vom Jahre 1909, § 4. Das genauere Datum des Hausgesetz konnte ich nicht erfahren
Niederer Adel, sofern die Familie schon 1582 zum niederen Adel gehörte
2
Auersperg
Keine Die gräfliche Linie Auersperg zu Wels ist, da von den männl. Agnaten nur noch ein fast 70 jähr. Mitglied vorhanden ist,dem Aussterben nahe.
3
Bentheim
Tecklenburg
Keine
4
Steinfurt
Hausgesetz vom 16., 17. und 22. März 1898, Art. 21
Hoher Adel
5
Bentinck
Keine Nach Mitteilung des gräfl. Bentinck-Waldeckschen Oberrentamts zu Gaildorf ist ein Hausgesetz in Vorbereitung.
6
Castell
Castell
Hausgesetz der Grafen von Castell vom 6. Juli 1827, VII, §§ 32 -35
Standesmäßigkeit
7
Rüdenhausen
8
Colloredo-Mannsfeld
(†)
9
Croÿ
Keine
10
Erbach
Fürstenau
Keine
11
Erbach
Haus- und Familiegesetz im gräfl. Haus Erbach-Erbach und von Wartenberg bez. der gräfl. Erbach-Erbachischen Linie vom 17. Okt. 1870, § 19
Hoher Adel
12
Schönberg
Keine
13
Esterházy von Galántha
Keine
14
Fugger
Kirchberg und Weißenhorn
Familie-Konferenz-Rezeß v. 23. April 1723, Z. 4. Rezeß v. 1, Aug. 1807 über die Famil.-Konferenz-Verhandlungen v. 27. Mai 1805, § 6
Achtahnenadel und Abstammung aus altgräfl., ritter- und stiftmäßigem Geschlecht. Dispens davon erteilt das Familien-Seniorat
15
Glött
16
Babenhausen
17
Fürstenberg
Hauptast in Schwaben
Primogeniturordnung von 1715 u. 1726
Stiftmäßiger Adel
18
Ast: Königshof
19
Landgräfliche Linie
Familievertrag zwischen der fürstl. und landgräfl. Linie des Hauses Fürstenberg vom 14. Jan. 1867, § 1.
Stiftmäßiger Adel
20
Griech
Abänderung einiger Bestimmungen des Hausgesetz im Geschlechte der Grafen Und Herren v. Griech vom 18. Juni 1910.
Bei der Verehelichung eines Sohnes einfacher niederer Adel, der bis vor 1582 zurückreicht; bei der Verehelichung einer Tochter einfacher niederer Adel, der bis vor 1742 zurückreicht.
21
Harrach
Keine
22
Hohenlohe
Langenburg
Keine Nach Mittheilung der fürstl. Hohenlohschen Domänenkanzlei zu Bartenstein ist ein Hausgesetz für das Gesamthaus Hohenlohe in Vorbereitung
23
Öhringen
24
Ingelfingen
25
Bartenstein u. Jagstberg
26
Waldenburg
27
Schillingsfürst
28
Ratibor und Corvey
29
Isenburg
Bitstein
Konferenz-Rezeß vom 8. Febr. 1732. Konferenz-Protokoll v. 1747
Grafenstand Vergl. oben S. 30 Anm
30
Philippseich
31
Büdingen in Büdingen
32
Büdingen in Wächtersbach
33
Büdingen in Meerholz
34
Khevenhüller-Metsch
(†)
35
Königsegg-Aulendorf
Erb-Verb. der Grafen von Königsegg vom 10. Dez. 1681 mit kaiserl. Bestätigung vom 11. Mai 1688. (Vergl. dazu oben S.113 n.2
Achtahnenprobe Fuer Auslaender: Besitz der Adelsqualität bis in die dritte Generation zurück
36
Kuefstein
Keine
37
Leiningen (aus dem H. der Grafen v.Saarbrücken)
I. Fürstl. Linie
Keine
38
II. Gräfl. Linie
39
Billigheim-Neudenau
40
Leiningen-Westerburg (aus dem H. der Dynasten v. Westerburg)
Alt-Leiningen
Schaumburger Familievertrag vom 13. Juli 1614
Heiratsverbot mit «geringeren Standespersonen”
41
Neu-Leiningen
42
Leyen
(†)
43
Lobkowitz
I. Linie Raudnitz
(†)
44
II. Linie Ho?in
(†)
45
Looz u. Corswarem
(†)
46
Löwenstein-Wertheim
Freudenberg
Keine
47
Rosenberg
Fürstlich Löwensteinscher Hausvertrag, die Befestigung der Primogeniturordnung und die Appanagen betr., vom 22., 30. Jan. u. 16. Febr. 1767
Standesmäßigkeit
48
Metternich-Winneburg
(†)
49
Neipperg
Ergänztes Familiestatut der Grafen von Neipperg v. 23. Aug. 1884, Tit. II
Alter Adel mit 16 Ahnen. Auch fuer Auslaender
50
Öttingen
Spielberg
Hausgesetz. für das fürstl. Gesamthaus Öttingen vom 26. Januar 1876, Art. X
Achtahnenadel. Fuer Auslaender: Gräfl. Rang bis in die 4. Generation zurück
51
Wallerstein
52
Ortenburg
Keine
53
Pappenheim
Haus- und Familiegesetz. der Grafen zu Pappenheim vom 16. April 1864, § 33
Adeliger Stand
54
Platen-Hallermund
Keine
55
Pückler-Limpurg
Gräfl. von Pückler-Limpurgsches Hausgesetz vom 7., 10., 18., 30. März und 2. und 5. April 1904, Art. VI
Besitz der Adelsqualität seit mindestens 100 Jahren
56
Quadt-Wykradt-Isny
Familiestatut der Grafen von Quadt-Wykradt zu Isny vom 28. Okt. 1838, § 8. Abänderung dazu vom 21. Febr. 1843
Achtahnenadel
57
Rechberg und Rothenlöwen
Statut für das Fideikommis Elkofen v. 20. März 1901 und 16. Jan. 1908, § 9.
Besitz des erblichen Adelsstandes in der zweiten Generation
58
Rechteren-Limpurg
I. Jüngerer Ast
F.-St. vom 12. Jan. 1822Nachtrag dazu von 9. Juni 1840, § 15.
Adeliger Stand
59
II. Älterer Ast
60
Rosenberg
Die Angabe stützt sich auf eine Mitteilung der Fürstl. Orsini-Rosenbergschen Zentral-Kanzlei zu Klagenfurt. Meine Bemühungen den genaueren Titel und Text des H.-G. zu erfahren sind fehlgeschlag.
Landständischer Adel
61
Salm
Salm
Hausgesetz des Fürstl. Salm-Salmschen Hauses vom 24. Juli 1901, § 2
Notorisch alter Adel
62
Horstmar
(†)
63
Reifferscheidt-Krautheim u. Dyck
(†)
64
Reifferscheidt-Raitz
(†)
65
Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg
I Ast: Berleburg
Erbverbrüderungvertrag. v. 20. Nov. 1607
Heiratsverbot mit «geringeren Standespersonen»
66
II.Ast: Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn zu Ludwigsburg- Carlsburg
67
Sayn
68
Hohenstein
69
Schaesberg
Keine
70
Schlitz gen. von Görtz
Familievertrag v. 27. Aug. 1788, § 5
Adeliger Stand
71
Schönborn
Wiesentheid
Familievertrag des gräfl. v. Schönbornschen Gesamthauses vom 27. Apr. 1857, Art. I,3
Hoher Ade. Bei europäisch. Adel Achtahnenprobel
72
Buchheim
73
Böhm. Fideikommiß-Linie
74
Schönburg
Waldenburg
Keine Nach Mitteilung der gräfl. Schönburgschen Kanzlei zu Glauchau ist ein Hausgesetz in Vorbereitung.
75
Hartenstein
76
Glauchau
77
Schwarzenberg
I. Maj.: Lieb?jitz
(†)
78
II. Maj.: Worlik
(†)
79
Solms
Braunfels
Keine
80
Hohensohns-Lich
Keine
81
Rösa
(†)
82
Sonnenwalde
(†)
83
Rödelheim und Assenheim
Keine
84
Wildenfels
Keine
85
Baruth
Keine
86
Stadion
Warthausen und Thannenhausen
Familievertrag der Grafen v. Stadion-Thannhausen vom 17. Mai 1830, Abschn. IV, Z. 6.
Stiftmäßigkeit
87
Stadion-Thannenhausen
88
Starhemberg
(†)
89
Stolberg
Wernigerode
Statut für das gräfl. Haus Stolberg-Wernigerode vom 11. Nov. 1876, § 44
Notorisch alter Adel. Fuer Ausenlander: Altes vornehmes Haus
90
Wernigerode-Peterswaldau
91
Wernigerode-Jannowitz
92
Wernigerode-Kreppelhof
93
Stolberg (Hauptzweig)
Keine
94
Stolberg (apangierter Zweig)
Keine
95
Roßla
Hausverfassung für das fürstl. Haus StolbergRoßla vom 27. Dez. 1899, § 22
Niederer Adel, sofern die Familie schon 1582 zum Adel gehörte
96
Thurn und Taxis
I. Linie – Regensburg
Familie-Vertrage vom 21.-28. Hornung 1831, Art. 2.
Sechzehnahnen probe. Fuer Auslaender: Gräfl. Rang vier Generationen zurück
97
II. Linie: Laucin
98
Törring
Bekanntmachung, die Errichtung des gräfl. Törring-lettenbachschen FamilienFideikommisses Pörnbach-Partenstein-Iettenbach betr. vom 24. März 1863
Adelige Geburt
99
Trauttmansdorff
I. Adam-Matthias-Linie
(†)
100
II. Georg-Sigmunds-Linie
(†)
101
Waldbott von Bassenheim.
Keine
102
Waldburg
Wolfegg-Waldsee
(†)
103
Zeil
(†)
104
Zeil-Lustenau-Hohenems
(†)
105
Wied
Hausgesetz für das fürstl. Haus zu Wied vom 25. Aug. und 18. Okt. 1905
106
Windisch-Grätz
I. Linie zu Tachau
Keine
107
II. Linie zu Gonoblitz
Keine
108
Wurmbrand-Stuppach
Keine
Source: Emil Abt: Mißheiraten in den deutschen Fürstenhäusern unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der standesherrlichen Familien, Heidelberg 1911.
It is with great sadness that we announce the passing of Robert Alexander Smith, OStJ, born 1946. He was the founder, former executive director and chairman of the Manorial Society. Robert passed away on 22 July 2023, peacefully in his sleep, after a long illness. He held his first auction of titles as early as 1981. Robert then gave up his career in journalism four years later. Robert made significant contributions to the cultural heritage of numerous manor houses and their manorial history. Under his management, The Manorial Society became a pillar of manorial research. The Manorial Society’s illustrious governing council included such worthy individuals as the Earl of Shrewsbury and Talbot, the Earl of Shannon and the Baron Sudeley. The Society was famous for its black-tie receptions at the House of Lords, which, on occasions, were attended by members of the Royal Family. Other enjoyable events included the annual conferences, usually at an Oxford college. We will miss Robert and are grateful for his legacy.
This series of three articles addresses the question, to what extent the ancient Order of Knights of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem, also known as Knights Hospitaller, has one or more modern surviving entities.
Originally, the Knights Hospitaller were a medieval religious Order (Merriam-Webster: a group of people united in a formal way), but gradually, its military dimension became more dominant. The Knights Hospitaller had their headquarters in Jerusalem until 1291 (after the fall of Jerusalem), on Rhodes from 1310 until 1522, on Malta from 1530 until 1798 and in Saint Petersburg from 1799 until 1803. Today, several organizations continue the Hospitaller tradition, and many claim to be a legitimate continuation of the medieval Knights Hospitaller.
Historical background
In order to understand the context of the formation of the Knights Hospitaller, this article summarizes Jerusalem’s history since Alexander the Great (356–323 BC).
Hellenic period
Jerusalem fell under Hellenistic control and influence when Alexander the Great conquered the region in 332 BC. During the Hellenic period, Jerusalem was a prosperous and independent city, which had the status of a polis (city-state). It had a measure of autonomy in managing its own affairs and was known as “Haga Polis”.
Roman period
In 37 BC, Jerusalem was captured by Herod the Great (c. 72–4 or 1 BC), a Jewish vassal-king of the Romans, who ruled Judea. Herod rebuilt Jerusalem as a pagan city after the destruction in the First Jewish-Roman War (66–73). In the two centuries that the city was under Roman control, it remained a relatively unimportant pagan Roman town.
Byzantine (Eastern Roman Empire) period
Constantine I, byname Constantine the Great, Latin in full Flavius Valerius Constantinus, (born February 27, after 280 CE?, Naissus, Moesia [now Niš, Serbia]—died May 22, 337, Ancyrona, near Nicomedia, Bithynia [now İzmit, Turkey]), is the first Roman emperor to profess Christianity. He not only initiated the evolution of the empire into a Christian state but also provided the impulse for a distinctively Christian culture that prepared the way for the growth of Byzantine and Western medieval culture (source: Britanica.com). Photo by guille pozzi on Unsplash.
Emperor Constantine the Great (272–337) rebuilt Jerusalem as the center of Christianity. His major building project was the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, started around 326 by replacing an ancient temple near his church. After the temple was torn down and its ruins removed, the soil was removed from the cave, revealing a rock-cut tomb that was identified by Constantin’s mother as the burial site of Jesus.
Persian period
In 614, during the Byzantine–Persian war (602–628), Jerusalem was captured by the Persians. The conquest of Jerusalem was a violent military operation that involved a mass killing of the local Christian population. However, all excavated sites in Jerusalem show a clear pattern of continuity, with no evidence of destruction by the Persian conquest of 614 or the Arab conquest of 636. In 630, Jerusalem was under Byzantine control again and the True Cross, which was taken by the Persians was returned, although not everybody believes that this was the original item (Constantin Zuckerman, “Heraclius and the return of the Holy Cross,” Travaux et mémoires 17 (2013), 197-218).
Early Muslim period
By the end of the Byzantine–Persian war, both sides had very little resources left and were vulnerable. The Muslim armies of the Islamic Rashidun Caliphate, the first caliphate to succeed the prophet Muhammad, took advantage of the vacuum and rapidly conquered the entire Sasanian Empire as well large Byzantine territories, including Jerusalem. The city is important to Islam as it is the last place the Prophet Muhammad visited before he ascended to the heavens and talked to God. The historical sources emphasize the fact that Jerusalem was not stormed in a violent invasion but rather surrendered peacefully to the Islamic forces. Christian communities remained active in the city throughout the Early Muslim period. By the middle of the 10th century, most of the population of Jerusalem was still Christian. Throughout the Early Muslim period (from 637–638 until 1099) Jerusalem retained a sizable Christian majority, and the city prospered.
Great Mosque of Damascus, also called Umayyad Mosque, the earliest surviving stone mosque, built between 705 and 715 CE by the Umayyad Caliph al-Walīd I, who proclaimed to his citizens: “People of Damascus, four things give you a marked superiority over the rest of the world: your climate, your water, your fruits, and your baths. To these I add a fifth: this mosque.” Adjacent to the mosque is the tomb of one of the most illustrious Muslim leaders, Saladin, who recaptured Jerusalem from the Crusaders Source: Britanica.com. Photo by T Foz on Unsplash
In 1009, the (“mad”) caliph al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah (985– vanished 1021) destroyed the hospital and three thousand other buildings in Jerusalem, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. In 1023, caliph Ali az-Zahir (1005-1036) granted merchants from Amalfi and Salerno permission to rebuild the hospital in Jerusalem, in order to improve relations with Byzantium and the Christian subjects. Also, he allowed the rebuilding of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which was carried out by workmen, who were sent by Constantine IX (c. 1004-1055). Around 1080, Gérard de Martigues, a lay brother in the Benedictine Order, started managing the hospital of Saint John in Jerusalem. Its purpose was to provide medical aid to pilgrims, and it included infirmaries, a clothing store, a church and an altar, a kitchen area, toilets, storerooms and stables. The hospital was built on the site of the Monasteries of Saint John the Baptist in the 1060s. It was an addition to a hospice that was rebuilt in the 1020s. What the hospitaller’s relationship to the two Benedictine monasteries, which were located on the same site as separate male and female institutions, is still unknown (see: Heinzelmann, D. and J. Krüger. The beginnings of the Order of Saint John in Jerusalem, or: Muristan revisited, Medievalista [Online], 30 | 2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/medievalista.4494).
In 1099, during the First Crusade under Godfreyof Bouillon, the Crusaders (consisting of nobles, knights and peasants) conquered Jerusalem from the Muslim Fatimid Caliphate. This created the foundation of the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem, which lasted almost two centuries. The siege led to the mass slaughter of thousands of Muslims and Jews and to the conversion of Muslim holy sites on the Temple Mount into Christian shrines. Since then, Palestine was in Christian hands. In addition to the most important holy sites such as the tomb of Jesus Christ, the Crusaders controlled the entire eastern shore of the Mediterranean with their cities and castles.
Development of the Order
National Library of Malta, The Archives of the Order of St John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta. Bull “Pie postulatio voluntatis” that was issued by Pope Paschal II in 1113 in favour of the hospital in Jerusalem. By virtue of this document, the pope granted the hospital papal protection and conformed its properties in Europe and Asia (source: WikiCommons).
There is much misconception regarding the transformation from Hospitallers to a recognized Order. Wikipedia states that the 1113 Papal Bull “Piae postulatio voluntatis” (English: the most pious request) “formally recognized the establishment of the Knights Hospitaller and confirmed its independence and sovereignty“. Professor Van Winter (Geestelijke ridderorden, organisatorisch met elkaar vergeleken Winter, Johanna Maria van. (1998) – In: Virtus. Bulletin van de Werkgroep Adelsgeschiedenis vol. 5 (1998) pp. 48-58) claims that the Bull granted the Hospitallers the right to choose their own “Grandmaster”. However, both claims are incorrect, as the text of the Bull immediately shows (see Appendix). An authoritative article by professor Hiestand confirms that the Bull only contains a general and common protection declaration, the (also common) right to freely elect its president and a tax exemption (Hiestand, Rudolf. (1980) Die Anfänge der Johanniter. In: Die geistlichen Ritterorden Europas, p. 50). It is not known when the Hospitallers first developed their military dimension. The first known military appearance was in 1136 when the Hospitallers were given land to fortify and defend Beit Jibrin, a village between Gaza and Hebron. Since the end of the 1140s, the Hospitallers (directly or with the aid of visiting warriors) defended the Crusader states and engaged in contracts to protect Latin strongholds and pilgrims (see: Hiestand, 1980, p. 70). Soon this military function overshadowed the original nursing purpose of the Hospitallers. Contrary to popular belief, it was not before the end of the 12th century, that the hospital was recognized as an Order (Hiestand, p. 64). At the time, it held over 20 strongholds in the Holy Land, including the Krak des Chevaliers, a medieval castle in Syria, first inhabited in the 11th century by the Kurdish military.
In 1187, Jerusalem was reconquered by Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb (“Righteousness of the Faith, Joseph, Son of Job”), also called al-Malik al-Nāṣir Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Yūsuf I, or Saladin (1137/38-1193). Saladin was the Muslim sultan of Egypt, Syria, Yemen, and Palestine, and the founder of the Ayyūbid dynasty. The victory over the Christians made him a famous Muslim hero.
When Saladin entered Jerusalem, it was full of refugees and had few defenders. The worst was expected after Saladin’s mass slaughter of the Templars and Hospitallers, following the battle of Hattin (1187). However, Saladin’s treatment of prisoners was generous. He paid the ransom for thousands of poor Christians and let them go free (William J. Hamblin, Muslim Perspectives on the Military Orders during the Crusades, BYU Studies Quarterly, Vol.40:4, 2001).
The fall of Jerusalem was not the end of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. The capital moved first to Tyre (currently Lebanon) and later to Acre (now Israel), which was recaptured from Saladin during the Third Crusade. When Saladin failed to pay the first installment of the ransom for the prisoners on schedule, king Richard I (the Lionheart) ordered that all 2.700 members of the Muslim garrison be marched outside the city and executed in view of Saladin and his army. Saladin responded by massacring most of his Christian hostages. This abhorrent action is one of the many reasons why Richard I has been viewed as irresponsible and hot-tempered by modern historians and scholars.
In Jerusalem, Saladin restored Muslim holy sites and generally showed tolerance towards Christians. He allowed Orthodox and Eastern Christian pilgrims to visit the holy sites freely — though Frankish pilgrims were required to pay a fee for entry. The control of Christian affairs in the city was handed over to the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople.
In 1291, Acre came under assault of the Mamluks, descendants of slave-warriors who had been recruited (or enslaved) in various regions of the world, including the Balkans and East Asia. The Mamluks became a powerful military force in the Islamic world, establishing their own dynasty which ruled Egypt and Syria from the mid-13th Century. The era of Saladin’s great Ayyubid Dynasty was over. The Crusaders now had to deal with an even worse enemy, who was determined to drive the Christians out of the Middle East. After a chaotic and violent battle, Acre came into Muslim hands and Christian rule ended (John D. Hosler. The Siege of Acre, 1189-1191: Saladin, Richard the Lionheart, and the Battle That Decided the Third Crusade. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018). The historian Abū al-Fidāʾ (1273-1331) – a descendant of Saladin’s nephew Taqi al-Din ‘Umar and one of the last Ayyubid rulers to be tolerated by the Mamluk sultans – stated that the region was purified of the Franks and the whole of Palestine was now in Muslim hands:
The descent of the Islamic armies upon [Acre] occurred in the first days of Jumada I of this year (AH 690, May 1291). The fighting became fierce; the Franks had not closed most of their gates, but rather they were open, with [the Franks] fighting in them. The location of the troops from Hamah was at the head of the right wing, according to their custom. We were beside the sea, with the sea on our right as we faced Acre. Ships bearing wooden vaulting covered with ox hides would come at us, shooting at us with arrows and [crossbow] bolts, so that there was fighting [coming] from in front of us, from the direction of the city, and from our right, from the sea. They brought up a ship upon which was a mangonel that shot at us and our tents from the direction of the sea, and we suffered hardship until one night strong galeforce winds arose, the ship was caught up and sank because of the waves, and the mangonel that was in it was broken in such a way that it was shattered and was not set up [again] after that.
During the time of the siege, the Franks came out by night and took the army by surprise. They routed the sentries and reached the tents, getting entangled in the guy-ropes. One of their knights fell into the latrine of one of the emirs and was killed there. The [Muslim] troops came to outnumber them, and the Franks fled, defeated, to the city. The troops of Hamah killed a number of them, and when morning came al-Malik al-Muzaffar, the lord of Hamah, hung a number of the Franks’ heads on the necks of the horses that the soldiers had taken from them and took them to the sultan al-Malik al-Ashraf [Khalil].
The [Muslim] troops’ attack on Acre became more aggressive until God, be He exalted, gave them its conquest by the sword on Friday, 17 Jumada II (17 June). When the Muslims stormed into [the city], some of its people fled in ships. Within the city were a number of towers that were resisting like citadels, which a large number of Franks entered and fortified themselves within. The Muslims killed [many people] and took in Acre a quantity of plunder greater than can be reckoned. Then the sultan called for the surrender of all who were resisting in the towers, and not one person hesitated. Then he issued orders regarding them, and they were beheaded, to the last man, around Acre. Then he gave orders regarding the city of Acre, and it was torn down to the ground and completely demolished.
A wondrous thing is the coincidence that the Franks took control of Acre, taking it from Salah al-Din (Saladin) at noon on Friday, 17 Jumada II 587 (12 July 1191), capturing the Muslims who were in it and then killing them, and God, be He glorified and exalted, with His advance knowledge decreed that it should be conquered in this year (690/1291) on Friday, 17 Jumada II, at the hand of the sultan al-Malik al-Ashraf Salah al-Din; its conquest was similar to the day that the Franks took possession of it, and likewise the laqabs of the sultans.
Source: ‘Imad al-Din Isma‘il ibn ‘Ali, known as Abu’l-Fida’. (1998–9) Al-Mukhtasar fi Akhbar al-Bashar. Ed. Muhammad Z.M. ‘Azab et al. Cairo: Dar al-Ma‘arif, Vol. 4, pp. 34–35.
Cyprus, Rhodes and Malta
After the fall of Acre, the Hospitallers moved to Cyprus, and in 1310, after more than four years of war, to Rhodes, which was in Byzantine hands. Rhodes remained the last Christian outpost in the East for more than two centuries. Rhodes stood halfway between Istanbul and Cairo as well as midway between Syria and Greece. It stood in the way of Ottoman communication and maritime commerce. During their residence on Rhodes, the Hospitallers were also referred to as the Knights of Rhodes. During this period, the knights withstood five invasions: four by the Egyptian Mamluks in 1440, 1444, 1457, 1469 and another in 1480 by the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror, who captured Constantinople and conquered the territories in Anatolia and the Balkans that constituted the Ottoman Empire’s heartland for the next four centuries.
Young Süleyman the Magnificent by Hans Eworth (or Ewouts; c. 1520–1574), Flemish painter, active in England.
In 1522, after a second war, Ottoman sultan Süleyman the Magnificent, conquered Rhodes with an army of 400 ships and 100.000 men against 6.700 knights, soldiers, peasants, fishermen and women. The terms of the surrender were considered reasonable by the people of Rhodes: (i) the Knights would leave the island within 12 days; (ii) weapons and armory would be allowed to leave with them; (iii) other islanders were offered a time period of three years to leave the island; (iv) no churches would be destroyed or converted into mosques; (v) those remaining would not be subject to Ottoman tax for five years. After the departure of the knights, Süleyman broke his promises. He had thousands of the local civilians killed, plundered the city and converted local churches into mosques.
For seven years, the Knights were without a head quarters, but in 1530 Pope Clement VII reached an agreement with Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, also King of Spain and Sicily, to grant the knights the island of Malta. This was not acceptable for sultan Süleyman. In 1565, he sent a military force of about 40.000 men to conquer Malta, defended by 700 knights and 8.000 soldiers. Süleyman’s goal was to create a new base from which he could launch another assault on Europe. After months of attacks, the Ottomans were on the brink of success when a small force of knights attacked the Ottoman camp. Thinking that the knights had Spanish reinforcements, their commander ordered the retreat and the advantage was lost. The Ottoman forces regrouped and prepared for a long battle. At that moment, the news arrived that a Christian relief force had landed on the north coast of the island. The Ottoman troops retreated, but the forces clashed and less than half of the Ottoman forces managed to escape. The battle ended in a disaster for the Ottomans and the Christian world became aware that the Ottoman expansion could be halted.
Under the knight’s rule, Malta flourished for centuries, however on the backs of innocent men, women and children (see: Fontenay, M., 2001. The slave market in Malta at the time of the Knights of Saint John of Jerusalem (1530-1798). Quaderni storici. 36. 391-413). Valetta, founded by the knights, would later become Christianity’s biggest slave trading city in the Mediterranean:
The institution of slavery formed one of the pillars of the economic fabric of the Order. Slaves were first and foremost a fruitful source of labour. They were employed as rowers in the galleys, as artisans in the manufacture of cotton sail-cloth and as labourers on the land works. In 1635, for instance, as many as 600 slaves were employed in such works in the towns of Valletta and Senglea alone. Their manumission was a good source of income; thus the money accruing to the Order in 1789 from the ransom of slaves amounted to over £1,600 out of a total state revenue of over £136,000. Slaves were sold, bartered, lent or donated as gifts. In the seventeenth century, for instance, the British Navy contemplated the acquisition of slaves from Malta for the manning of its ships in the Mediterranean. In 1662 one hundred slaves were made over to His Holiness the Pope for his naval squadron. In 1720 the Grandmaster again presented forty slaves to the Pope as the Order’s share towards the contribution of 150 Moslem slaves demanded by the Sultan to allow the Christians to repair the cupola of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem. Female slaves were donated to the Vice-reine of Naples on several occasions between 1637 and 1655.
Cassar P. A medical service for slaves in Malta during the rule of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem. Med Hist. 1968 Jul;12(3):270-7. doi: 10.1017/s0025727300013314. PMID: 4875614; PMCID: PMC1033829, p. 271.
And:
No age was exempt from captivity in the bitter and incessant war between Christian and Moslem which came to an end, as far as the Knights of st. John were concerned, as recently as the close of the eighteenth century. For example, one comes across documents in the Order’s archives in Malta recording the enslavement of children from the age of two years onwards and of adults as old as seventy years and also mothers with their babies. Most of these slaves presented a sore spectacle at the time of capture which usually occurred after a fight at close quarters. Thus the injuries and diseases of 109 slaves captured by the knights in 1665 included fire-arms burns, cuts from swords and knives, lacero-contused wounds produced by musket balls and stones, mutilated fingers and wrists; ringworm of the scalp, naevi in the chest and face, squints, abscesses and ‘signs of plague’ in the thigh. There was also a youth with ‘tremors in his hands’.1 In another batch of slaves there were several with scars of smallpox, one with a speech defect and a hunchback. In 1685 an official of the Order complained that out of sixty slaves reaching the Island, twenty-four were found incapable of rowing in the galleys as they were either sick or maimed.
Cassar P. A medical service for slaves in Malta during the rule of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem. Med Hist. 1968 Jul;12(3):270-7. doi: 10.1017/s0025727300013314. PMID: 4875614; PMCID: PMC1033829. p. 270.
The Knights of Malta formed their own pirate fleet which would become the biggest Christian privateer fleet in the Mediterranean. Like the Barbary States (Morocco, Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli), the Knights of Malta became a uncivilized pirate state, which was eventually cleansed in 1798 by emperor Napoléon Bonaparte.
Slavery was abolished in Malta by Napoléon during his invasion of Malta on 16 June 1798. He introduced radical health and education reforms intended to align Malta’s administration to the new revolutionary ideology of the French republic. Fifteen primary schools were founded and the university was replaced by an ‘Ecole centrale’. All feudal rights and privileges were abolished. A new administration was created with a Government Commission, and twelve municipalities were formed. In addition, twelve judges were nominated and public finance administration was arranged (Dictionnaire Napoléon, (ed. J. Tulard), Fayard, 1989, pp. 1125-6).
During the 16th century Protestant Reformation, large numbers of German Knights converted to Lutheranism. This did not go well with the Order’s Grandmaster, Jean de la Cassière. In 1581, he formally summoned the chief of the German branch, Martin Count of Hohenstein, to the Chapter in Malta. Hohenstein did not appear, and De la Cassière declared the exclusion of the Brandenburg members from the Order. This constituted a Protestant split-off within the Order, the Johanniter Order.
End of the Order
On 11 August 1790, the French National Assembly “decreed that those tithes possessed by secular and religious bodies, including the Maltese and other religious and military orders, were to be abolished;” (Cavaliero, pp. 184-185). The seizure of property included the commandery of Manosque (currently Département Alpes-de-Haute-Provence), which was the spiritual heart of the Knights Hospitaller, where Gerard, founder of the Order, was buried and a lamp had been maintained for centuries (Frederick W. Ryan, 1930, p. 174).
“Paul I in Coronation Robes,” by Vladimir Borovikovsky. Tsar Paul here is seen wearing a Maltese Knight’s crimson robe with a large Maltese cross on it. Source: Russian Museum. A copy (a gift to the Order by Emperor Nicholas II in 1908) hangs in a prominent place in the Grand Reception Room of the Magistral Palace in Rome.
After Napoleon’s taking of Malta, the Order was scattered and dissolved. A large number of refugee knights took shelter in Saint Petersburg, which was a logical step. Already in 1698, Tsar Peter had sent delegations and diplomats to Hospitaller Malta to negotiate a Russo-Maltese alliance against the Ottoman empire. In the 1760s a Russian diplomat was installed in Malta and the famous fleet of the Order was used by Russian officers for training. Malta and the Order played an important role in Tsarina Catherine’s politics: Malta was to serve as a bridgehead for a permanent Russian presence in the Mediterranean. In 1768, a plan was drawn up for a joint Russo-Maltese naval attack on the Greek mainland. Officially, France remained the main protector of the Order’s neutrality, so until the end of the Ancien régime the Order did not risk an open alliance with Russia. In the long run, Tsarina Catherine’s insistence had paved the way for extremely close Russo-Maltese relations to come when her son Paul became tsar.
Saint Petersburg, 1797, creation of the Grand Priory of Russia for the Order of Malta through six diplomatic documents, three signed by Paul I and three by his plenipotentiaries, Alexander Bezborodko, Alexander Kurakin and Giulio Litta. The documents were sold at Hôtel des ventes du Château, 13, avenue de Saint-Cloud – 78000 Versailles on 13 March 2021. Result: returned to Moscow. Price: €518,750. The documents mention Prince Bezborodko and Prince Alexander Kurakin as plenipotentiaries to the Order of Malta for the purpose of negotiating a convention to strengthen and extend the establishment of the Order in the Russian Empire: “Let it be known herewith that, wishing to give a striking proof of Our benevolence and consideration to the illustrious Order of Malta, by the consolidation and extension in Our Empire of the establishment of this Order, which existed in Poland and particularly in the provinces which have been united to Our Sovereignty, and with the intention of giving it consequently all its strength, value and execution, We have appointed and instituted (…) Count Alexander Besborodko, present Privy Councillor (…) and Prince Alexander Kurakin as Plenipotentiaries to the Order of Malta. ) and Prince Alexander Kurakin, Our Vice-Chancellor (…) to whom we give power, for ourselves and in our name, not only to enter into negotiations and talks with Jules Réné Bailli, Count of Litta, Minister Plenipotentiary of the illustrious Order of Malthe (…) who is also and sufficiently endowed with full powers on behalf of the said Order (…) but also to draw up, conclude and sign with him on this subject a convention and separate articles relating to it (…).” On behalf of the Order, Giulio Renato Litta-Visconti-Arese played an important role in the negotiations between the Order and the Tsar. In 1794, he was the official ambassador of the Order, charged with pressing the Maltese claim to unpaid rents from the Ostrog Priory in the Polish-Lithunian Commonwealth, by then under the control of the Russian crown. Litta (Milan 1763 – Sain Petersburg 1839) studied at the Collegio Clementino in Rome and excelled especially in Latin and mathematics. At the age of 20 he entered the Order of Malta. Litta, who had very good nautical knowledge, equipped a warship at his own expense, with which he played an outstanding role in the pursuit and destruction of piracy. In 1788, he received the commandery of the Russian fleet. In 1788, he was given the commandery of the Russian fleet, which was operating against the Swedes in the Baltic Sea, and destroyed the Swedish fleet on 13 August 1789. For this outstanding victory he was honored and decorated many times, among others Vice Admiral of the Russian Navy, Minister of State and Grand Admiral of the Russian Navy, and Grand Chamberlain of the Tsar. Litta married to a niece of Potemkin, and lived highly honored at the Tsar’s court (see: La Gazzetta di Milano, 1893, n. 101; G. Greppi, Un gentiluomo milanese guerrierio diplomatico, 1763–1839, 1896; F. Coraccini, Storia dell’amministrazione del Regno ď Italia durante il dominio francese, 1823; G. Berti, Russia e stati italiani nel Risorgimento,1957).
After the loss of Malta, the Grandmaster of the Order, Ferdinand von Hompesh, sought Russia’s protection and financial backing.
Tsar Paul I, was pleased with the offer, which would allow him to strengthen his positions in the Mediterranean and set himself up as a defender of Catholics and Europe’s aristocracy. The two parties signed an agreement making the Orthodox Tsar the Grand Prior of the Catholic order. From a number of documents, it is obvious that Von Hompesch and the Order were most grateful to have found a European power which could afford them protection against the emerging Napoléon, and continue the foreign policy that had been planned before by Grandmaster De Rohan. In a letter written on 5 February 1798, the Grandmaster thanked the Tsar again for accepting the Protectorate of the Order (letters published in: Bonnici, A. (1999). Grand Master Fra Ferdinand von Hompesch and postal history. The PSM journal, 28(1), 3-3, pp. 28-29).
The ceremony was held on 29 November 1798. The Knights, wore black robes and hats with white feathers. They gathered in the throne hall of the Winter Palace in Saint Petersburg. Russian historian and journalist Evgeny Karnovich (1823-1885) described the ceremony:
Count Giulio de Litta, on behalf of the Maltese knighthood, asked the Tsar to assume the title of Grandmaster. After that, Prince Kurakin and Count Kutaisov threw a black velvet mantle lined with ermine over the emperor’s shoulders, and Litta, kneeling, presented him with the crown of the Grand Master, which the emperor put on his head. Litta then presented him with a sword – or ‘dagger of faith’. Accepting the regalia of the new power, the Emperor was greatly excited, and those present noticed that tears of pleasure appeared in his eyes. Having drawn the sword of the Grandmaster, he crossed himself with it, giving this sign an oath of observance of the order’s statutes. At the same moment, all the knights drew their swords and shook them in the air, as if threatening the enemies of the order.
On 21 July 1799 (Ukase 19.044), Tsar Paul I instituted “everywhere and forever” 20 hereditary “Family Commanders” chosen from the most illustrious families of the Russian nobility. In the following years, four hereditary commanders were added to the list:
1799
Mr. Léon Naryshkin Prince Nicolas Yusupov Prince Boris Yusupov Count Nicholas Sheremetev Baron Alexandre Strogonov Count Grégoire Samoilov Prince Alexandre Beloselsky Prince Basile Dolgoruky Mr Leon Davydov Prince Ivan Bariatinsky Mr Nicolas Demidov Prince Basile Trubetskoy Count Ivan Vorontzov Marquis Constantin de Maruzzi Mr Pierre Beketov Prince Pierre Tufiakin Mr Mathieu Olsufiev Mr Alexandre Zherbetzov Count Paul Stroganov Mr Porphyre Buturlin
1800
Mr Potemkin Mr Chirikov
During Alexander I
1802 Prince Khilkov
1805 Prince Odojevski
In 1800, the Russian Grand Priory numbered about four hundred knights and ladies. The Catholic Grand Priory was much smaller, and numbered only about two hundred members.
After Tsar Paul’s death in 1801, his son Tsar Alexander I, did not succeed him as Grandmaster but remained its Protector until 1803, while Prince Nikolay Ivanovich Saltykov was Lieutenant Grandmaster of the Order from 1801 to 1803 on behalf of Tsar Alexander. Tsar Alexander did not assume the title of Grandmaster. The reasons for this decision are of a complex political matter, although as head of a sovereign state, he was perfectly authorised to do so, regardless of the Order’s internal statutes (Hoegen Dijkhof has a dissenting opinion, see: pp. 180-182).:
“Russia is a European power” was Empress Catherine’s II credo and programme. Although generally ignored in modern research on malta and the Order of St. John, her Maltese policy as of major importance. Catherine’s foreign policy concentrated on peace with the major Western powers and aggressive moves towards the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. In two wars against the Ottomans, the Russians won the Crimean peninsula and most of the northern coast of the Black Sea. Besides perceiving the strategic importance of a Russian fleet in the Mediterranean, the tsarina also became interested in the economic benefits of such an extension of Russian interests. Malta and the Order of St. John played an important role in Catherine’s plan. A Russian charge d’affaires was installed in Malta and the Order’s famous fleet was used by Russian officers as a training base. In 1768, in the course of secret negotiations, a plan was drawn up for a joint Russo-Maltese naval attack on the Greek mainland then occupied by the Turks. But the Russian proposal to Malta to use the island as a base for future operations apparently brought about the united opposition of the Mediterranean powers as well as of the British. Diplomacy at this time indicates that, even in such a “holy war” against their infidel arch-enemy, which would have perfectly tallied with its statutes, the Order of St. John could no longer act freely. This is clearly shown when the grand master received a note from Louis XV proposed by the Duke de Choiseul expressing the king’s deep discontent with the Order’s involvement in Russia’s ambitions. The French even threatened to confiscate the property of the Order in France should the Knights of Malta insist in joining the Russian forces. So until the ancien regime in France came to its end, the Order did not risk an open alliance with Russia. But in the long run, Catherine’s insistence had paved the way for extremely close Russo-Maltese relations later. The Order’s balanced policy and neutrality were abandoned in July 1797 when German Grand Master Ferdinand von Hompesch came to power and in August 1797 when Catherine’s son Tsar Paul I was officially acclaimed as the Order’s protector. To what extent it was political reasoning and calculated foresight (questions of strategic Mediterranean policies, symbolic loyalty to an Order which stood for the traditional values of the ancien regime), or just irrationality and romantic sentiments which made Paul such a fervent defender of the Order of St. John, is hard to determine. The fact is that when in October 1798 Paul was proclaimed the new Grand Master of the Order of Malta, a new pinnacle of Russo-Maltese relations had been reached. But by that date, Malta already had been lost to the French. Paul’s early death left many questions open. Whatever his reasons were for accepting the title of Grand Master, even had he lived longer there would have been very little hope of regaining Malta. His double role as tsar and Grand Master would have constituted an insurmountable obstacle in allowing the Order to regain sovereignity over the island. A new Europe shaped by the concept of national states would have prevented the Order from regaining its European possessions anyway. Tsar Alexander’s I decision to refuse the title of the grand master and to keep a distance from the Order can therefore be seen as an act of political as well as spiritual modernity.
Abstract of: Freller, T. (2003). Russia’s view of a new world – Catherine II and the Russian approaches to the Order of Malta. Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas. 51. 161-184.
On 9 February 1803, a Papal bull appointed Giovanni Battista Tommasi as Grandmaster of the Order. His appointment was ratified on 27 June 1803 during the General Assembly of the Order in the Church of the Priory in Messina. Tommasi died on 13 June 1805. Since then, the Order was led by a luogotenente del magisterio; governor of the Grand Magisterium. The Order’s return to Malta was provided for in the Treaty of Amiens (1802) but revoked by the Treaty of Paris (1814), which assigned Malta to Great Britain. During Tommasi’s short reign, the exiled Order moved to Italy where it finally settled in Rome from 1834. By 1806, what was left of the Order in Western Europe was dissolved and the Order became a loose group of (former) members without an organizational structure:
By 1806, Napoleon had suppressed all what was left of the original Order in France and in Italy. [Smith/Storace, Order of St. John of Jerusalem, p. 43, for further details.] During the period 1805-1810, the Commanderies of Germany, Italy and Bavaria were swept away, Portugal was ravaged and Sicily sequestrated the Sicilian Commanderies for the Royal Treasure. On 24 March 1806, the two Russian Grand Priories (through the marionet Sacred Council) accepted that customary procedure must be followed pending the confirmation of the Candidate for the Magistry (Caracciolo). On 12 July 1806, the Treaty of the Confederation of the Rhine expropriated the Priory of Germany. In the year 1806, also the Grand Priories of Venice, Lombardy and Germany were expropriated. On 13 July 1806, King Gustaf IV of Sweden offered Gotland to Guevara-Sardo, who declined. In 1807, Pius VII confirmed Guevara-Sardo to stay on as Lt. Grandmaster of the Papal Order and rejected Caracciolo.
Hoegen Dijkhof 2006, p. 195
This changed in 1879, when the office of Grandmaster was restored by Pope Leo XIII. He confirmed Count Giovanni Battista Ceschi a Santa Croce as the new Grandmaster after almost 80 years of vacancy. It should be noted that the Pope acknowledged the importance of the role of the Tsars:
TO THE BELOVED SON GIOVANNI BATTISTA CESCHI OF SANTA CROCE LEONE PAPA XIII.
Beloved Son greeting and Apostolic blessing. The Roman Pontiffs, Our Predecessors, always esteemed it most praiseworthy and honourable to protect and favour those institutions which they recognised as being for the glory of God and the health of Christendom, and therefore they accepted under their protection the Military Orders instituted for the growing of Religion and the defence of the Church, and they enriched them with many privileges, and if they found any development in them that departed from the rules and customs, they never neglected, with pastoral vigilance and according to ancient times, to call them back to the ancient and upright path.
No one is unaware of the distinction and the flourishing of the Order that took the name of the hospital of St. John the Baptist of Jerusalem, either because of its ancient origin and the dignity of its members, or because of its distinguished merits towards the Church, or because of the glory of its deeds and its victories over the common enemy. But this Order, too, as is the lot of human beings, has experienced the vicissitudes of time and the vicissitudes of fickle fortune, but it has never been so overwhelmed by the forces of fortune, nor has it been so abandoned by the help of God and of this Holy See, that it has perished altogether: This was most evident at the close of the last century and at the beginning of the present, when, having lost the island of Malta and dispersed the brotherhood, it seemed almost overthrown and destroyed: At that time, by the admirable providence of God, it found unexpected help in the most powerful Russian Emperors Paul I and Alexander I; and it found so much favour in our predecessor Pope Pius VII, of happy memory, that in the new seat where he had taken refuge, he was able to assemble legally and under legitimate superiors fulfil the proper offices of the institution, and as far as possible maintain to a great extent his ancient dignity. Now, although with the passing of the years things seemed to be moving in the right direction, Our Predecessor, considering the internal condition of the Order itself and the circumstances of the times, considered it neither safe nor opportune, after the death of Grand Master Giovanni Battista Tommasi, to confer such a title and honour on the head of the Order; But it was more prudent to postpone the election of the Grand Master, and to Inigo Maria Guevara Suardo, who acted as his successor, he was granted with the title of Lieutenant, the major faculties that seemed necessary for the regiment of the Order and the administration of the common goods, as appears from the Apostolic Letters addressed in the form of a Brief to the aforesaid Inigo Guevara on 21 October 1805. However, it was not the will of the most providential Pontiff that what he had only temporarily provided for, should last perpetually. On the contrary, he repeatedly declared that it was his fervent wish that as soon as the reason of the times permitted, a Grand Master should be appointed to the Order according to the Statutes. But since he passed away before this wish was fulfilled, and since there was no favourable opportunity to restore the ancient and honourable rank of the head of the Order, all those who were later called to that dignity, although by the clemency of this Holy See invested with the faculties, office and duties of supreme heads of the Order, had only the name and title of Lieutenants. Nor did the Roman Pontiffs fail at this time to provide for the good of the Order; for by two Apostolic Letters of happy memory, dated 23 December 1844 and 30 September of the following year, Gregory XVI established certain things that he considered salutary for the regular conduct of the affairs of the Order, and by letter of the Cardinal Secretary of State, dated 11 July 1815, he prescribed the manner and form in which the brethren of the Order should elect their Head. More recently, Pius IX of illustrious memory, Our Predecessor, in his Apostolic Letter of March 1, 1865, contemplated and decreed many things concerning the rights and duties of the Lieutenant and his Council, the observance of which he considered to be of benefit to the Order and the administration of its affairs, In the meantime, with God’s help, and with the help of the knights, especially those who were at the height of things, as well as with the benevolent favour of the European powers, the Order’s position was so firmly established and so happily increased, that not only is it to be rejoiced at its present authority and its happy undertakings for the benefit and adornment of the Church, but it is also to be hoped for greater and more prosperous things in the future. Therefore our venerable brother Antonino de Luca, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, Archbishop of Palestrina, and protector of the aforesaid Order, having explained to us the happy and flourishing state of affairs in which this Order finds itself, begged us, with great solicitude for his intervention, that according to the laws and statutes of the Order we might restore to its head the name and dignity of Grand Master. And this we proved to be able to do without harm to anyone, and without a new election, since the people entitled to vote after the year 1805, when the appointment of the Grand Master was indefinitely postponed, in electing the Lieutenant they always sought to confer on him the supreme and permanent power over the entire Order, whatever title the circumstances of the times and things might allow, And the same venerable brother of ours, having moreover represented to us how Thy beloved son was elected to the council that is called complete, with legal suffrage not otherwise than the four Lieutenants of Thy predecessors, commended with various arguments and with much praise Thy diligence towards it and towards the knights of the Order. We have therefore well examined and evaluated everything, considering that those reasons for which Pius VII, Our Predecessor wished to postpone the appointment of the Grand Master; desiring as far as we are concerned to restore this most noble Order, so well deserving of Christian religion and civil society in the person of its head, to its former place of splendour and dignity; and wishing especially to favour you yourself (whom we judge to be most worthy of the highest honour) we thought to accept the prayers made, and gladly acceded to them. We therefore, in view of what has been set forth above, revoke and repeal what was prudently established by Pius VII in his Apostolic Letter of 21 October 1805 concerning the postponement of the election of the Grand Master. We therefore grant the said Order of St. John of Jerusalem the power to elect a successor whenever the post and title of supreme head of the Order is vacant (without prejudice to the Pontiff’s right to confirm him), taking again the name and title of Grand Master, as the laws and Institutes of the Order prescribed in ancient times. With regard to the form and ceremony of the election, we command that the same be observed as has been observed to date in the election of Lieutenant, in accordance with the prescriptions of Gregory XVI, in the letter of the Cardinal Secretary of State of 11 July 1815, which we wish and decree to remain in full force and effect. Likewise with regard to the exercise of the power and rights of the Grand Master, we wish that in the meantime what was established by Apostolic Letter of 17 March 1865 by our predecessor Pius IX with regard to the power and rights of the Lieutenant and his Council should remain in force and be preserved; nor do we wish that any changes be made to them, until such time as we or our successors provide otherwise. Finally, since You, beloved son, have been legally invested with the title of Lieutenant since the year 1872, as we have said above, with supreme and perpetual power over the entire Order, and confirmed in that office by Our predecessor Pius IX by apostolic letters in the form of a Brief of 23 February of the same year; And having continually held that power in such a manner that, by religiously exercising the duties of the most ample ministry, you valiantly promoted the decorum and usefulness of the Order and set an example of exalted prudence, industrious zeal and those other virtues that should shine in the head of this distinguished fellowship; We, certain that it would have been most pleasing to the entire Order if we had not only approved his actions in the choice of your person, but had further illustrated them with a new honour, We, according to custom, absolve you from any excommunication, interdiction, or other ecclesiastical sentences, in whatever manner or cause decreed (if by chance you had incurred them), in grace thereof absolving you, and considering you absolute, We elect and appoint you Grand Master of the Order of Jerusalem with all the obligations and duties in accordance with the Statutes of the Order and the Apostolic Constitutions, and with all the honours, graces and privileges that your predecessors have enjoyed, commanding therefore the individual Knights, the Chaplains of the entire Order and all its ministers and attendants to give you due obedience, and to honour and venerate you as Grand Master and Prince.
We therefore establish and command these things, decreeing that the present letters shall remain invariable, valid and effective for the present and the future, and that they shall have full and complete effect, notwithstanding the Apostolic Constitutions and ordinances, the Statutes and customs of the Order, and Chapter ordinations (even if they have been confirmed by Apostolic oath and confirmation or by any other immutability), and also notwithstanding any indult [a special often temporary dispensation granted in the Roman Catholic Church] or Apostolic letter granted in any way to the contrary, confirmed and renewed, from which all and singular, and from any other disposition to the contrary (which we deem to be wholly expressed herein and almost inserted from word to word, and which shall remain for all the rest in force) we specially and expressly derogate for this time only, and in order that the foregoing may have full effect. Trusting, finally, that these things, which we have so disposed and established, may, by Divine grace, by Thy activity, and by the solicitude of the entire Order entrusted to Thee, be directed to the glory of God and to the interest and honour of the Christian government, to Thee, beloved Son, we implore every happiness in Thy Magisterium, and we impart our Apostolic Blessing most lovingly.
Given in Rome at the Vatican under the fisherman’s ring, on the 28th day of March 1879, the second year of Our Pontificate. L.S.
Ceschi a Santa Croce restored the reputation of the Order by initiating many charities. His contribution to the Order cannot be overestimated. Ceschi played an important role in the formation and maintenance of hospitals and medical services in Italy and France. He restored the Villa del Priorato di Malta, one of the two institutional seats of the government of the Order. Ceschi a Santa Croce created national associations of the Order in Great Britain, France, Portugal and Spain, which were open to lay knights who did not take religious vows.
Subsequent Grandmasters led the Order into the modern era, focusing on charity. Currently, it is heavily debated whether the Order should be led by small group of priests or in the form of a more democratic style of government.
In Paris, on 24 June 1928, twelve descendants of Russian hereditary commanders revived the activities of the Russian Grand Priory in order to preserve the cultural heritage of their ancestors. They were supported by four other Russian noblemen. Today, the Russian Grand Priory operates under the governance of its Grand Prior, Count Pierre Cheremetieff and his Lieutenant Grand Prior, Prince Stéphane Belosselsky Belozersky. The Russian Grand Priory counts about 250 knights, dames and donats spread over France, Italy, Belgium, Canada and the United States.
Conclusions
Over the centuries, the Order of Saint John developed from a group of monks in Jerusalem, successively into an international military power, a slave trading pirate state on Malta, a scattered group of unorganized refugees in Europe and Russia, a Russian State Order, an Order under Papal authority, and finally a non-governmental organization (NGO) under Papal control. Dr Hoegen Dijkhof summerizes its history as follows:
The interim conclusion is that the original Order founded around 1050, carried on till 1154, respectively 1798 and in the course of its history, Anglican and Protestant split-offs occurred. In 1798, Napoleon dissolved this original Order. Czar Paul I was then validly elected in 1798 as Grandmaster of what States and Priories have seen as the original Order continued. Then in 1803, a ‘coup d’état’ by Pope Pius VII, facilitated by Czar Alexander I and a marionet provisional Sacred Council, took place and this started a new Papal Order in 1803. The new Order started in 1798 under Czar Paul I, in principle legally remained established in St. Petersburg and carried on somehow in Russia during the rest of the 19th century. This Order was however internationally not recognised by States as an international legal person. No Order of St. John was so recognised since the Treaty of Paris and the Vienna Congress, except (later and then by about 30 % of the total number of States) SMOM. When a new Grandmaster (Tommasi) was appointed by Pope Pius VII in 1803, not elected, the Pope thus created a new Papal Order. This Order slowly died for lack of (adequate) corporate life. The successor of 1879 of this Papal Order (SMOM), created by Pope Leo XIII, was far more active than the Russian Order, which at best was only active in Russia. The facts then certainly had become stronger than law. SMOM grew and became also recognised as an international legal person by a number of states.
Hoegen Dijkhof, 2006, p. 218
Although there is little doubt that the current Order of Malta has it roots in the ancient Hospital of Saint John in Jerusalem, it remains to be seen whether the line of succession is continuous and whether there are other groups that can also legitimately claim to be routed in the ancient hospital. Another question is if the current NGO and the medieval monks can be considered the same Order:
The name [of an order of knighthood] has remained, and the badge, but the purpose and function is clearly very different. In a literal sense, ITT (International Telegraph and Telephone) is still the same US company it was 30 years ago, but today it doesn’t sell phone services, it runs hotels, until recently still under the name (ITT-Sheraton). Likewise, Westinghouse used to make nuclear plants, now it makes prime-time broadcasts (CBS). Is it the same company? If Coca-Cola moved to Taiwan and became a car manufacturer, would we think of it as being the same company?
Cox, Noel. (2008). The Continuing Question of Sovereignty and the Sovereign Military Order of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta. SSRN Electronic Journal. 10.2139/ssrn.1140462.
Crawford, Paul. Studies on the Hospitallers after 1306: Rhodes and the West (review). The Catholic Historical Review. 96. 529-530. 10.1353/cat.0.0736, 2010.
De Taube, Baron Michel. L’Empereur Paul Ier de Russie, Grand Maître de l’Ordre de Malte et son “ Grand prieuré Russe ” de l’Ordre de Saint-Jean-de-Jérusalem, Paris, 1955.
Greene, Molly. Catholic Pirates and Greek Merchants: A Maritime History of the Mediterranean. Princeton Modern Greek Studies. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2010.
Ryan, Frederick W. The House of the Temple’: A Study of Malta and its Knights in the French Revolution. London: Burns Oates and Washbourne Limited, 1930.
Avni, Gideon. “From Hagia Polis to Al-Quds: The Byzantine–Islamic Transition in Jerusalem”. Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City, edited by Katharina Galor and Gideon Avni, University Park, USA: Penn State University Press, 2021, pp. 387-398. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781575066592-023
Avni, Gideon. “The Persian Conquest of Jerusalem (614 c.e.)—An Archaeological Assessment.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 357, 2010, pp. 35–48. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27805159.
Cavaliero, Roderick. The Last of the Crusaders. The Knights of St John and Malta in the Eighteenth Century. London: Hollis & Carter, 1960.
Scicluna, Joe. By Order of Napoleon: The Taking of Malta, CreateSpace, 2014.
Lipschits, Oded. “Persian Period Finds From Jerusalem: Facts and Interpretations”. Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures VI: Comprising the Contents of Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, Vol. 9, edited by Ehud Ben Zvi, Piscataway, NJ, USA: Gorgias Press, 2010, pp. 423-454. https://doi.org/10.31826/9781463229436-033
Bonazzi, Francesco. Elenco Dei Cavalieri del S.M.Ordine Di S. Giovanni Di Gerusalemme Ricevuti Nella Veneranda Lingua D’Italia Dalla Fondazione Dell’ Ordine AI Nostri Gio. Nabu Press EAN: 9781295031771. ISBN: 1295031779.
Perta, Giuseppe. “A Crusader without a Sword: the Sources Relating to the Blessed Gerard.” F. Sabaté (a cura di), Life and Religion in the Middle Ages, Cambridge, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, ISBN: 978-1-4438-7790-9. 2015: 125–139.
Freller, Thomas. “The order of St. John and Russia’s great power plans during the rule of Tsar Peter the great and Tsarina Catherine II”. Journal of Early Modern History 8.1-2 (2004): 3-30. https://doi.org/10.1163/1570065041268933
Shepelev; L.E. Chinovnyi mir Rossii: XVIII – nachalo XX v (Officials of the world of Russia: KhVIII – the beginning of the twentieth century). Publisher: Iskusstvo, 1999. ISBN-13: 9785210015181 ISBN-10: 5210015181.
Hume, Edgar Erskine. “A Proposed Alliance Between the Order of Malta and the United States, 1794: Suggestions Made to James Monroe as American Minister in Paris.” The William and Mary Quarterly, vol. 16, no. 2, 1936, pp. 222–33. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1918801.
Stegny. P. (éd.), La Russie et l’Ordre de Malte. 1697-1817. Moscow, Éditions Koutchkovo Polié, 2019. This publication is a joint publication prepared by the archival divisions of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation and the Sovereign Order of Malta (SMOM). The book contains a set of unique documents on relations between Russia and the SMOM between 1697–1817. The publication is based on materials of the Archive of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire of the Historical and Documentary Department of the Russian Foreign Ministry. From the side of the Sovereign Order of Malta, documents were found in the Archives of the CFR and the National Library (Valetta), the National Archives of France, the Archives of the French Foreign Ministry, the Secret Archives of the Vatican, the Archives of the Grand Magistracy of Rome.
Cavaliero, Roderick. The Last of the Crusaders. The Knights of St John and Malta in the Eighteenth Century. London: Hollis & Carter, 1960.
Hiestand, Rudolf. Die Anfänge der Johanniter. In: Die geistlichen Ritterorden Europas, published by Josef Fleckenstein und Manfred Hellmann (= Vorträge und Forschungen 26), Sigmaringen 1980, p. 31-80.
Castillo, Dennis. “‘… The Knights Cannot Be Admitted’: Maltese Nationalism, the Knights of St. John, and the French Occupation of 1798-1800.” The Catholic Historical Review, vol. 79, no. 3, 1993, pp. 434–53. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25024071.
Acknowledgement
I would like to express my appreciation for Rev. Michael John Foster and Dr. Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, whose excellent research has been invaluable for this study.
Without exception, the members of this ‘Alliance’ claim to be the historical successor of the ancient Hospital of Saint John, formed in the 11th century in Jerusalem:
We are also united in one fight against False Orders, those self constituted and self styled groups which lack both authenticity or legitimacy of origin but variously describe themselves as an “Order of St. John” or an “Order of Malta”. However the Johanniter Orden in Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands is a legitimate and honoured ally. We pledge ourselves anew to carry into the Twentyfirst Century the historical aims and obligations of our Orders.
See: Appendix 1 and 2
However, none of the members can substantiate their claim, as will be shown hereafter.
The Sovereign Order of Malta is one of the oldest institutions of Western and Christian civilisation. A lay religious order of the Catholic Church since 1113 (…). Founded in Jerusalem in the 11th century, the Order of Malta has a long history of service to the vulnerable and the sick. This 900-year history is reflected in its full name: Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta.
Procession of the Knights of Malta at Versailles (1967). French commentary. MS. Procession of the Knights of Malta. VS. At ceremony at which the new Knights are ordained. VS. As small party visits a local hospital and see a little first aid, etc. VS. In the big church at Versailles a service for the Knights of Malta taking place.
Comment
The current Order of Malta cannot claim to be “founded in the 11th century”. The original Order was dissolved by Napoleon in 1798 (see also: Scicluna, 2014 and Part 1 of this article series):
By 1806, Napoleon had suppressed all what was left of the original Order in France and in Italy. [Smith/Storace, Order of St. John of Jerusalem, p. 43, for further details.] During the period 1805-1810, the Commanderies of Germany, Italy and Bavaria were swept away, Portugal was ravaged and Sicily sequestrated the Sicilian Commanderies for the Royal Treasure. On 24 March 1806, the two Russian Grand Priories (through the marionet Sacred Council) accepted that customary procedure must be followed pending the confirmation of the Candidate for the Magistry (Caracciolo). On 12 July 1806, the Treaty of the Confederation of the Rhine expropriated the Priory of Germany. In the year 1806, also the Grand Priories of Venice, Lombardy and Germany were expropriated. On 13 July 1806, King Gustaf IV of Sweden offered Gotland to Guevara-Sardo, who declined. In 1807, Pius VII confirmed Guevara-Sardo to stay on as Lt. Grandmaster of the Papal Order and rejected Caracciolo.
Hoegen Dijkhof 2006, p. 195
The current Order was revived by the Pope in 1879, when the office of Grandmaster was restored by Pope Leo XIII. He confirmed Count Giovanni Battista Ceschi a Santa Croce as the new Grandmaster after almost 80 years of vacancy (seePart 1). Therefore, the current Sovereign Order of Malta was formed in 1879, not in the 11th century as it unjustly claims.
The Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem
The British Order of Saint John also claims to be founded in the 11th century:
The Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem – commonly known as the Order of St John – has a unique combination of features and has its roots in a hospice (hospital) founded in Jerusalem in the 11th century.
1926 – Order of St. John of Jerusalem. Duke of Connaught Grand Prior – attends celebrations at Clerkenwell. M/S of procession of choristers, choir boys and other men in religious robes walking down a narrow street under an arch. They are followed by men in velvet caps and cloaks, crowds watch from the pavement. Panning shot follows Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught walking in the procession, dressed in black cap and robes.
Comment
Historian François Velde gives a detailed account of the development of the British Order of Saint John:
This Victorian invention has its origins in the turmoil of the Napoleonic era. Following the capture of Malta in 1798 and the conquest of most of Europe by Napoleon, the Order was quite disorganized in 1814. The return of the Bourbons to France prompted the formation of a “capitular commission” of the French langues by an assembly of French knights in May 1814, which was initially recognized by Louis XVIII, and approved by a papal bull of August 10, 1814. It began lobbying for a return of the Order’s French properties, and acting at the Congress of Vienna for a return of the island of Malta. (…)
The French Commission, then controlled by its Chancellor Pierre-Hippolyte de Sainte Croix-Molay, then turned to the possibility of helping the Greeks in their war of independence, and a treaty was signed between the Commission and the Greek rebels in June 1823. The treaty promised the order several Greek islands and Rhodes (should it be conquered), and in exchange the Order would raise troops and 10 million Francs. To begin the process the Commission started making knights rather indiscriminately, at least 200 in the space of a few years. But the treaty was opposed by other Greek rebel groups, as well as England and Austria. (…). The Lieutenant of the Order dissolved the commission. The floatation of the loan in the form of bonds on the London market collapsed before it started.
The Commission nevertheless revived itself in 1826, under the presidency of Calonne d’Avesnes but still controlled by Sainte Croix-Molay, and continued in its attempts at raising money for its Greek operation. At this time it was totally unofficial, disavowed by the Order of Malta and unrecognized by the French government. The Commission decided to search private sources of funds in England, and opened negotiations with a Scot called Donald Currie, an acquaintance of Sainte Croix-Molay. In 1827 Instruments of Convention were signed between the Commission and Currie, enabling him to raise L240,000 by recruiting new members (even non-Catholics). Currie did not raise much money but he recruited avidly.
Greek independence having been achieved without any participation of the Order, Sainte Croix-Molay now turned to the possibility of settling in Algeria, conquered in 1830 by the French. But the same year Charles X was overthrown, and the Commission lost all influence with the French government, which also broke diplomatic relations with the Lieutenancy in Messina. Nevertheless the Commission continued to encourage the formation of an English Langue, which took place in January 1831, with the election of Sr Robert Peat, Bart, former chaplain of George IV, as “Prior ad interim of the Tongue of England”. However, a split amongst the British members occurred the next year. By 1837, the party which the French Commission had recognized had more or less disappeared, and the other party led by Robert Peat continued on its own. Peat was succeeded by Sir Robert Dymoke in 1838, Lt-Col. Sir Charles Montolieu Lamb, Bart, in 1847, Rear-Admiral Sir Alexander Arbuthnot in 1860. (…)
The English group almost disappeared, but, led by Sir John Broun, it persisted in hoping for recognition, basing themselves on letters patent of 1557 recreating the order in England (although it was abolished again by Elizabeth I in 1560). Now called “the Sovereign and Illustrious Order of Saint-John of Jerusalem: Anglia”, it made contact again in 1857 with the Lieutenancy of the Order in Rome, through a Catholic member of the English group, John James Watts. Negotiations started, with the aim of establishing a Catholic priory, which in turn would form a Protestant branch (the existing group, of course). The Lieutenancy was initially favorably disposed, but the three English knights of Malta, led by Sir George Bowyer, and including John James Watts, who had just been received as members and were to form the Catholic priory decided to break off with the English group instead. A British Association of the Order of Malta was to be founded in 1876.
The English association nevertheless persisted in its efforts at some kind of recognition. It enlisted the support of the 7th duke of Manchester who became their grand prior in 1861. The group drew up a Constitution in 1871 and renamed itself more modestly “Order of Saint-John of Jerusalem in England”. A corps of ambulances was created in the 1860s, roughly around the same time as (or preceding) the real Order of Malta’s charitable activities and those of the Red Cross. The Princess of Wales became Lady of the Order in 1876, and she in turn secured the membership of the Prince of Wales.
The priory finally received a royal charter in 1888, which changed its name to The Grand Priory in the British Realm of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint-John of Jerusalem, and made the sovereign of Great Britain its Sovereign Head and Patron. The Prince of Wales was appointed Grand Prior in 1890 by Queen Victoria, and since then the Prior has always been a member of the royal family.
As Velde notes, the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem was formed in 1876, instead of the 11th century as it unjustly claims.
Die seit 1351 nachgewiesene Balley Brandenburg, aus der sich der heutige evangelische Johanniterorden entwickelte, nahm schon im Mittelalter eine Sonderstellung innerhalb des deutschen Großpriorats und des Gesamtordens ein. Dadurch überdauerte sie die Reformation und blieb bis zum 19. Jahrhundert, auch wenn nur lose eingebunden, im Gesamtverband des Ordens.
[EN] The Bailiwick of Brandenburg, which has been documented since 1351 and from which today’s Protestant Order of Saint John developed, already occupied a special position within the German Grand Priory and the Order as a whole in the Middle Ages. As a result, it survived the Reformation and remained part of the Order as a whole until the 19th century, even if only loosely integrated.
The knighting of the Order of St John took place on 24 II in the Friedenskirche in Potsdam under the protectorate of Grand Master von Hindenburg. [Paul] v. Hindenburg (left) and Prince Oskar of Prussia on the right walk at the head of the procession to the ceremony.
Comment
Today, the Order of Saint John (with the full name Bailiwick Brandenburg of the Knightly Order of Saint John of the Hospital of Jerusalem) is a Protestant religious community that claims to have emerged in 1538 from the Bailiwick Brandenburg of the Knightly Order of Saint John or Hospitallers, which in turn can be traced back to the original Hospital of Saint John.
In Germany, the Bailiwick of Brandenburg had already had a largely autonomous status since the Treaty of Heimbach (1382). After the conversion of the Elector Joachim II of Brandenburg to Lutheranism in 1538, this branch became Protestant (Wedekind, 1853).
In the Peace of Tilsit, Prussia committed itself to high payments to Napoleon. By edict of 30 October 1810 and deed of 23 January 1811, King Frederick William III therefore confiscated the possessions of the Bailiwick of Brandenburg and the associated commendations:
Edikt über die Einziehung sämmtlicher geistlicher Güter in der Monarchie
vom 30. Oktober 1810
Wir Friedrich Wilhelm, von Gottes Gnaden König von Preußen
In Erwägung daß a. die Zwecke, wozu geistliche Stifter und Klöster bisher errichtet wurden, theils mit den Ansichten und Bedürfnissen der Zeit nicht vereinbar sind, theils auf veränderte Weise besser erreicht werden können; b. daß alle benachbarte Staaten die gleichen Maasregeln ergriffen haben; c. daß die pünktliche Abzahlung der Contribution an Frankreich nur dadurch möglich wird; d. daß Wir dadurch die ohnedies sehr großen Anforderungen an das Privat-Vermögen Unserer getreuen Unterthanen ermäßigen, verordnen Wir wie folgt:
§. 1. Alle Klöster, Dom- und andere Stifter, Balleyen und Commenden, sie mögen zur katholischen oder protestantischen Religion gehören, werden von jetzt an als Staats-Güter betrachtet.
§ 2. Alle Klöster, Dom- und andere Stifter, Balleyen und Commenden sollen nach und nach eingezogen und für Entschädigung der Benutzer und Berechtigten soll gesorgt werden.
§ 3. Vom Tage dieses Edicts an, dürfen a. keine Anwartschaften ertheilt, keine Novizen aufgenommen und Niemand in den Besitz einer Stelle gesetzt werden; b. ohne Unsere Genehmigung keine Veränderungen der Substanz vorgenommen werden; c. keine Capitalien eingezogen, keine Schulden kontrahirt, oder die Inventarien veräußert werden; d. keine neue Pacht-Contracte ohne Unsere Genehmigung geschlossen, keine ältere verlängert werden.
Alle gegen diese Vorschriften unternommene Handlungen sind nichtig.
§ 4. Wir werden für hinreichende Belohnung der obersten geistlichen Behörden und mit dem Rathe derselben für reichliche Dotirung der Pfarreien, Schulen, milden Stiftungen und selbst derjenigen Klöster sorgen, welche sich mit der Erziehung der Jugend und der Krankenpflege beschäftigen und welche durch obige Vorschriften entweder an ihren bisherigen Einnahmen leiden oder deren durchaus neue Fundirung nöthig erscheinen dürfte.
[EN] Edict on the confiscation of all ecclesiastical property in the Monarchy
of 30 October 1810
We Frederick William, by the Grace of God King of Prussia
Whereas a. the purposes for which ecclesiastical foundations and monasteries have hitherto been established are partly incompatible with the views and needs of the time, and partly can be better achieved in a different way; b. that all neighbouring states have adopted the same rules of measure; c. that the punctual payment of the contribution to France is only made possible by this; d. that We thereby reduce the already very great demands on the private property of Our faithful subjects, We decree as follows:
§1. all monasteries, cathedrals and other foundations, bailiwicks and communes, whether they belong to the Catholic or Protestant religion, shall henceforth be regarded as State property.
§ All monasteries, cathedrals and other foundations, bailiwicks and communes shall be gradually confiscated and compensation shall be provided for the users and beneficiaries.
§ 3. from the day of this edict, the following shall not be permitted a. no entitlements shall be granted, no novices shall be admitted, and no one shall be placed in possession of a position; b. no alterations of the substance may be made without Our permission; c. no capital may be collected, no debts contracted, or inventories sold; d. no new lease contracts shall be concluded without Our permission, and no older ones shall be renewed.
All actions taken in contravention of these provisions shall be null and void.
§ 4. We shall see to it that the highest ecclesiastical authorities are sufficiently rewarded and, with their advice, that the parishes, schools, charitable foundations and even those monasteries which are concerned with the education of the young and the care of the sick and which, as a result of the above provisions, either suffer from their present income or whose entirely new foundation may appear necessary.
Preußische Gesetzsammlung 1810, S. 32. Ernst Rudolf Huber, Dokumente zur deutschen Verfassungsgeschichte Band 1, Verlag Kohlhammer.
The King, however, wanted to suspend the execution of the aforementioned edict of 30 October 1810 for the Order of Saint John as long as his great-uncle, the Master of the Order, Prince August Ferdinand, whom he held in high esteem, was still alive. The Prince, who was 81 years old, declared that “for the sake of example and duty to the state, I do not wish to make use of this Royal Grace“. He obtained the consent of the chapter of the Order, and as early as 31 December 1810, an agreement, a recess, was reached between the commissioners of the state, the representatives of the Crown, and those of the Order, in which the detailed conditions of the transfer of the Bailiwick’s property to the state were determined. The Herrenmeister approved this recess by means of a “Cessions- und Verzichtsacte auf das Meisterthum Sonnenburg und die davon abhängigen Commenden” (Cession and Renunciation Act on the Master’s Estate of Sonnenburg and its Dependent Commands) issued on 12 January 1811. The King, for his part, was informed of this and issued an “Acceptance and Insurance Act” on 23 January 1811 and sent the thus executed recession with a handwritten letter to Prince August Ferdinand, in which he thanked him for his willingness to accept the recession (see: Die Säkularisation der Ballei Brandenburg im Jahre 1811 – Ende oder Weiterbestand in anderer Struktur, s.d. s.l.).
On 23 May 1812, King Frederick William III endowed the Royal Prussian Order of Saint John as an award for honourable service, as proof of royal grace and in memory of the dissolved Bailiwick Brandenburg. In the formation charter he clearly declared that the Order was abolished:
Wir bestätigen durch Unsere gegenwärtige Urkunde diese gänzliche Auflösung der Ballei Brandenburg des Johanniter-Ordens, des Herrenmeisterthums und der Commenden derselben, sowie die Einziehung der sämtlichen Güter des Herrenmeisterthums und der Commenden dieser Ballei als Staatsgüter; wollen und verordnen, dass es bei dieser gänzlichen Auflösung, Erlöschung und Einziehung in allen Folgezeiten verbleiben soll.
[EN] We confirm by our present document this complete dissolution of the Bailiwick of Brandenburg of the Order of Saint John, of the Herrenmeisterthum and the Commenden thereof, as well as the confiscation of all the properties of the Herrenmeisterthum and the Commenden of this Bailiwick as state properties; we want and decree that this complete dissolution, extinction and confiscation shall remain in all subsequent times.
Abschnitt II:
[EN] Section II:
Dagegen errichten Wir hiermit, zu einem ehrenvollen Andenken der nunmehr aufgelösten und erloschenen Ballei des St. Johanniter-Ordens, einen neuen Orden in der Eigenschaft und unter der Benennung: Königlich Preußischer St. Johanniter-Orden, welcher von nun an zu Unseren Königlich Preußischen Orden gehören soll.“
[EN] On the other hand, for the honourable memory of the now dissolved and extinct Bailiwick of the Order of Saint John, We hereby establish a new Order in the capacity and under the name: Royal Prussian Order of Saint John, which shall from now on belong to Our Royal Prussian Orders.
Gelbke, pp. 36-37.
By cabinet order of 15 October 1852, King Frederick William IV of Prussia formally restored the Bailiwick, but without restoring its previous possessions. The holders of the Order of Merit automatically became members of the restored Bailiwick . On 17 May 1853, Prince Carl of Prussia was installed as Master of the Order and announced his election as well as the revival of the Bailiwick directly to the Governor of the Grand Magisterium of the Order of Malta in Rome. The Grand Priory of Germany had ceased to exist in 1811 and the Order as a whole had no Grand Master between 1805 and 1879, but only a Governor ruling in his place. In a letter to the “Bailiwick Brandenburg of the Sovereign Order of St. John in Jerusalem” by the Governor of the Order of Malta Fra’ Philipp von Colloredo-Mels, this was noted, but any determination regarding the legal status of the Bailiwick was avoided (Wedekind, 1853; Herrlich 1886).
In the 1760’s, King Frederick the Great, as well as his Catholic counterpart, Grand Master Pinto de Fonseca tried to merge the Orders to an integral body. Ferdinand von Hompesch, later the last Grand Master to rule on Malta, was the mediator between the two. The Pope, however, insisted on his view that the Bailiwick, as a heretical organisation, could not be part of the Order. Therefore, the original German Johanniterorden was formed in 1538, dissolved in 1810 and revived in 1852, the formation year of the modern Balley Brandenburg des Ritterlichen Ordens Sankt Johannis vom Spital zu Jerusalem. Its claim, that it was formed in 1351 is unjustified.
Johanniter Orde (The Netherlands)
De Johanniter Orde is een Ridderlijke Orde met een protestants-christelijke grondslag. De Orde is in 1099 gesticht als de Ridderlijke Orde van het Hospitaal van Sint Jan en heeft dan ook een rijke historie. Het lidmaatschap is voorbehouden aan diegenen, die tot de Nederlandse adel behoren en voldoen aan de voorwaarden die de Orde aan het lidmaatschap stelt.
The Johanniter Order is a Knightly Order with a Protestant-Christian foundation. The Order was founded in 1099 as the Knightly Order of the Hospital of St. John and therefore has a rich history. Membership is reserved for those who belong to the Dutch nobility and who meet the conditions for membership set by the Order.
Prince Bernhard received membership of the Johanniter Order in the Netherlands at Paleis Huis ten Bosch. Description : Prince Bernhard with members of the Johanniter Order in the Netherlands, in the garden of Paleis Huis ten Bosch. Date: June 27, 1969. Location : The Hague, South Holland.
Comment
A Johanniter Order branch of the German Johanniter Order in The Netherlands was formed in 1909 as a division of the aforementioned German Balley Brandenburg.
Prins Hendrik koestert het plan om de middeleeuwse orde in Nederland te doen herleven. Is de orde hier te lande dan dood? Nee, er zijn nog altijd Nederlandse Johanniter ridders. Van oudsher is de orde in deze contreien gevestigd geweest, met talrijke bezittingen her en der. Van een levende Nederlandse organisatie is echter geen sprake. Ten tijde van de Republiek zijn de bezittingen deels door de overheid overgenomen en deels in handen van de ordeheren gelaten. Zij blijft in naam bestaan, maar na 1795 is nauwelijks sprake meer van een reële Johanniter aanwezigheid. In het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden is de orde verdwenen. De ridders anno 1909 maken, net als de prins zelf, deel uit van de Duitse tak van de Johanniter Orde, de zogenoemde Balije Brandenburg, en die is sinds de reformatie een zelfstandige, los van het oude ordecentrum opererende instelling voor protestantse edellieden. Ook Nederlandse edellieden worden toegelaten tot het lidmaatschap: sommige families onderhouden al sinds generaties een band met de orde. De prins wil een Nederlands verband van Johanniter ridders tot stand brengen, een eigen Nederlandse afdeling oprichten die mogelijk, net als in Duitsland, een moderne invulling kan geven aan de oude ridderlijke opdracht. Op 22 februari 1909 organiseert hij op paleis Noordeinde een maaltijd voor de Nederlandse Johanniter ridders met de bedoeling hen ‘nauwer aan elkaar te verbinden’. Hierop volgen besprekingen die leiden tot de eenstemmig uitgesproken wens een Nederlandse afdeling op te richten, liefst onder leiding van de prins. Deze is hiertoe bereid en vertrekt enkele dagen later met twee rechtsridders, jonkheer P.O.H. Gevaerts van Simonshaven en G.D.C. d’Aumale baron van Hardenbroek, naar Berlijn om te onderzoeken of daar bezwaren tegen het voornemen bestaan.
[EN[ Prince Henry nurtures the plan to revive the medieval order in The Netherlands. So is the order dead here in the country? No, there are still Dutch Johanniter knights. From time immemorial, the order has been based in these parts, with numerous possessions here and there. However, there is no question of a living Dutch organisation. At the time of the Republic, the possessions were partly taken over by the government and partly left in the hands of the order lords. It continues to exist in name, but after 1795 there is hardly any real Johanniter presence. In the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the order disappeared. The knights anno 1909, like the prince himself, are part of the German branch of the Johanniter Order, the so-called Bailiwick Brandenburg, and this has been an independent institution for Protestant noblemen, operating separately from the old order centre, since the Reformation. Dutch noblemen are also admitted to membership: some families have maintained ties with the order for generations. The prince wants to create a Dutch connection of Johanniter knights, to establish his own Dutch branch that could possibly, like in Germany, give a modern interpretation to the old chivalric order. On 22 February 1909, he organises a dinner at Noordeinde Palace for the Dutch Johanniter knights with the intention of ‘linking them more closely together’. This is followed by discussions leading to the unanimously expressed wish to establish a Dutch section, preferably under the prince’s leadership. The prince was willing to do so and a few days later left for Berlin with two knights justice, Jonkheer P.O.H. Gevaerts van Simonshaven and G.D.C. d’Aumale baron van Hardenbroek, to investigate whether there were any objections to the plan.
De Grootmeester, prins Eitel Friedrich van Pruisen, verklaart mede namens de koning van Pruisen, protector van de orde, dat de oprichting van zo’n afdeling ‘met grote ingenomenheid zou worden begroet’. Ook wordt bezien of van Nederlandse zijde misschien bezwaren gemaakt worden. Integendeel, de minister van Justitie, Mr. A.P.L. Nelissen, geeft de verzekering ‘alles in het werk te zullen stellen, om de oprichting der afdeeling […] te helpen vergemakkelijken’. Er worden statuten ontworpen en op 22 mei 1909 vindt in Den Haag een tweede bijeenkomst (met maaltijd, à f 15 per persoon) plaats, nu in paleis Kneuterdijk. Inmiddels heeft de geboorte van een troonopvolgster plaatsgevonden – Nederland viert opgelucht feest. Ook de vijftien ten paleize verzamelde Johanniter ridders zijn ongetwijfeld opgetogen; zij besluiten bij acclamatie tot oprichting van een Nederlandse afdeling, oftewel Commenderij. Prins Hendrik wordt eveneens bij acclamatie tot Commendator gekozen. Het Kapittel te Duitsland stemt op 8 juli 1909 in met de oprichting, de statuten worden goedgekeurd bij Koninklijk Besluit van 31 juli 1909, en er wordt een convent gekozen. Op 28 oktober keurt de Koningin bij Koninklijk Besluit de benoeming van de prins tot Commendator goed. Als officiële stichtingsdatum wordt 30 april 1909, de geboortedag van prinses Juliana, aangehouden.
[EN] The Grand Master, Prince Eitel Friedrich of Prussia, declares, also on behalf of the King of Prussia, protector of the order, that the establishment of such a section would be ‘greeted with great welcome’. It also considers whether objections might be raised from the Dutch side. On the contrary, the Minister of Justice, Mr A.P.L. Nelissen, gives the assurance that ‘everything possible will be done to help facilitate the establishment of the section’. Statutes are drafted and a second meeting (with meal, at f 15 per person) is held in The Hague on 22 May 1909, this time at the Kneuterdijk Palace. Meanwhile, the birth of an heir to the throne has taken place – The Netherlands celebrates with relief. The fifteen Johanniter knights gathered at the palace are undoubtedly delighted too; they decide by acclamation to establish a Dutch branch, or Commenderij. Prince Henry is also elected Commendator by acclamation. The Chapter in Germany approves the establishment on 8 July 1909, the statutes are approved by Royal Decree of 31 July 1909, and a convent is elected. On 28 October, the Queen by Royal Decree approves the Prince’s appointment as Commendator. The official founding date is 30 April 1909, Princess Juliana’s birthday.
De koninklijke handtekeningen markeren een opmerkelijke wedergeboorte. Want zo vanzelfsprekend is het niet, dat een dergelijk aristocratisch instituut in Nederland nieuw leven wordt ingeblazen. De prins mag hieraan behoefte hebben, of anderen in Nederland ook in die mate van nut en noodzaak overtuigd zijn, is nog maar de vraag.
[EN] The royal signatures mark a remarkable rebirth. For it is not so obvious that such an aristocratic institution should be revived in the Netherlands. The prince may feel a need for it, but whether others in The Netherlands are convinced of its usefulness and necessity to this extent remains to be seen.
Bruin, K. (2006). Duitse connecties: De heroprichting van de Johanniter Orde in Nederland. Virtus, 13, 132-133.
The schism between the German mother Order and the division in The Netherlands took place in 1946:
Zolang de prins [Prins Hendrik der Nederlanden, JvBQ] leeft – en dat is tot juli 1934 – blijft de band van de Nederlandse Commenderij met ‘Duitsland’ onverminderd in stand. Ook de band met de voormalige koning van Pruisen blijft in stand. Op de ridderdagen zenden de ridders blijken van aanhankelijkheid naar de Protector van de Balije Brandenburg, nu te Doorn, en deze zendt prins Hendrik in de tweede persoon enkelvoud gestelde telegrammen om te bedanken. Na het overlijden van de laatste blijft het bestuur van de Nederlandse afdeling vertegenwoordigers naar kapittelvergaderingen in Berlijn sturen, tot in 1939 aan toe. Men heeft wel degelijk oog voor wat er in Duitsland gaande is, maar de verbondenheid met de organisatie aldaar blijft zwaar wegen. Er is een tweede wereldoorlog voor nodig om de door sommigen al lang gewenste afscheiding een feit te laten worden. De statuten worden gewijzigd, de naam wordt gewijzigd in die van St.-Jan, en er gaat in mei 1946 een brief van het kapittel naar prins Oscar van Pruisen, Herrenmeister te Potsdam, waarin gesteld wordt ‘daß nach all demjenigen das unser Land und Volk erfahren haben müssen und in Erwägung der Stellungnahme seitens der Führung der Balley Brandenburg, es unmöglich für uns ist, weiter Teil der Balley auszumachen’. Het partijkiezen van de Duitse broeders voor de nazi-machthebbers, bijvoorbeeld blijkend uit een felicitatie aan het adres van de Führer wegens de goede afloop van de veldtocht tegen Polen, wordt hun voor de voeten geworpen. Op 2 juli volgt een bevestigingsbrief uit Duitsland, waaruit niet alleen teleurstelling maar ook verontwaardiging spreekt. De ‘politisch-irdische’ gezichtspunten hebben gezegevierd boven de ‘christlich-göttlichen’, die toch bij de internationale christelijke organisatie als die van de Johanniters de voorrang zouden moeten hebben. Kennelijk hebben de heren in Holland niet de moeite genomen zich echt te verdiepen in wat de Duitse Johanniters tegen het nationaal-socialisme gedaan en daardoor geleden hebben, anders zou het oordeel wel anders uitgevallen zijn.
[EN] As long as the prince [Prince Henry of The Netherlands, JvBQ] lives – and that is until July 1934 – the Dutch Commendery’s ties with ‘Germany’ remain undiminished. The link with the former King of Prussia also remains intact. On the Knights’ Days, the knights send expressions of affection to the Protector of the Brandenburg Bailiwick, now at Doorn, and the latter sends Prince Henry telegrams in the second person singular to thank him. After the death of the latter, the board of the Dutch section continues to send representatives to chapter meetings in Berlin, until 1939. One does have an eye for what is going on in Germany, but the attachment to the organisation there continues to weigh heavily. It takes a Second World War for the withdrawal long desired by some to become a reality. The statutes are amended, the name is changed to that of St John’s, and a letter from the chapter goes to Prince Oscar of Prussia, Herrenmeister at Potsdam, in May 1946, stating ‘daß nach all demjenigen das unser Land und Volk erfahren haben müssen und in Erwägung der Stellungnahme seitens der Führung der Balley Brandenburg, es unmöglich für uns ist, weiter Teil der Balley auszumachen’. The German brethren’s partisanship of the Nazi rulers, as evidenced, for example, by a congratulatory letter to the Führer on account of the good outcome of the campaign against Poland, is thrown their way. A letter of confirmation from Germany followed on 2 July, expressing not only disappointment but also indignation. The ‘politisch-irdische’ views have triumphed over the ‘christlich-göttlichen’, which should have priority in the international Christian organisation like that of the Johannites. Apparently, the gentlemen in Holland did not bother to really delve into what the German Johanniters did against National Socialism and suffered as a result, otherwise the verdict would have been different.
Bruin, K. (2006). Duitse connecties: De heroprichting van de Johanniter Orde in Nederland. Virtus, 13, 139-140.
On 1 September 1939, Germany invaded Poland. It is questionable that the Dutch division of the German Order waited until 1946 to hypocritically distance themselves from the Germans. Especially, since at that moment it must have been known to them that a number of German members of the Order of Saint John had been executed in connection with the assassination attempt on Hitler:
The website statement by the Johanniter Order in The Netherlands regarding their origin is untruthful and misleads the public, from which it obtains donations. The Order was newly formed in 1947, not in 1099. It is dishonest that JO-member Jonkheer Dr. Tom Versélewel de Witt Hamer (alias: Iliwapcot) tries to camouflage this fact on Wikipedia by replacing the original, more or less correct article-version by a version that hides the 1947 formation date:
Johanniterorden grundades i Jerusalem år 1080 för att ge sjukvård och erbjuda härbärge åt pilgrimer. Ordens syfte var då, liksom i dag, humanitärt.
The Order of St. Johnwas founded in Jerusalem in 1080 to provide medical care and shelter for pilgrims. The purpose of the Order was then, as today, humanitarian.
In April 1920 the Swedish Order of Saint John was formed as a Swedish association with Count Walther von Hallwyl as its Commendator. The association was affiliated with the aforementioned Order of Saint John in Germany. After the end of World War II, the Swedish Order separated itself from the German Order. Therefore, the Swedish Order of Saint John was formed in 1920, instead of 1080. In November 1946, it was granted a Royal Charter by King Gustav V as the Johanniterorden i Sverige (Scheffer, 1970). King Carl XVI Gustav is the current High Patron, and Queen Silvia is the First Honorary Member of the Order.
Conclusions
In 1798, Napoleon abolished the Order of Malta, which was revived in 1879 by the Pope. In 1811, the King of Prussia initiated the “complete dissolution, extinction and confiscation” of the German Order of Saint John. This branch was revived in 1852. The British Order of Saint John was formed in 1876. The Swedish and Dutch Orders of Saint John were formed 1920 and 1946 respectively. Thus, the current Orders of Saint John are19th and 20th century revivals which use the badge and name of the ancient Hospitaller Order, without a substantial historical link. Royal nor Papal approval can change the historical truth.
The aforementioned Orders of Saint John are major international charities which provide crucial first aid, health care and support services around the world. Many donors have contributed essential financial and volunteer support. They have made choices regarding the beneficiary of their money, e.g. between the Order of Saint John and the Red Cross. It cannot be ruled out that many donors have chosen the Order of Saint John because of their illustrious history, as presented on their websites. Therefore, honesty regarding the formation date is not only important from a historical, but also from a financial perspective. A charitable organization may not misrepresent its nature. A misrepresentation may be accomplished by words or conduct or failure to disclose material facts. The narrative that an Order was formed in the 11th century to add more credibility to the organisation, instead of telling a potential donor that the Order is a nineteenth century revival, can be seen as misrepresentation. It gets even worse when an Order spends money from donations on lawsuits to fight competing charities instead of helping the sick and poor, as promoted in its publications.
Literature
Scicluna, J. (2014). By Order of Napoleon: The Taking of Malta. Malta. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Hardman, W. (1909). Chapter VII – Attack and Capture of Malta by the French. A history of Malta during the period of the French and British occupations, 1798–1815. London: Longmans, Green & Co.
Wedekind, E. L. (1853). Geschichte des Ritterlichen St. Johanniter-Ordens, Besonders Dessen Heermeisterthums Sonnenburg oder der ballei Brandenburg, von dr. Eduard Ludwig Wedekind. Decker.
Scheffer, C.G.U, & Bengt, L. af H. (1970). Johanniterorden i Sverige, 1920-1970. Utg.
Johan, Versélewel de Witt Hamer, Thomas, Kuiper, Y. B., & Dronkers, J. (2017). Geloven Verplicht: Een elite-onderzoek naar Ridderlijke Orden in Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden (1965-2015). Koninklijk Nederlandsch Genootschap voor Geslacht- en Wapenkunde.
Heshusius, M. (2009). Honderd Jaar Johanniter Orde in Nederland: 1909-2009. Waanders Uitgevers.
This part investigates the question to what extent the SMOM is the only legitimate successors of the original Knights Hospitaller, as it is claimed. In particular, it raises the question whether the Russian branch of the Order, often designated as the Russian Tradition, can legitimately claim to have the same origin.
Nature of the Russian tradition
On 24 June 1928, twelve Russian descendants of Family Commanders of the Russian Orthodox Grand Priory formed the Union of Descendants of Hereditary Commanders and Knights of the Russian Grand priory of the Order of Saint John of Jerusalem in Paris. In 1988, knightly order expert James J. Algrant (1926-2018) contacted Grand Duke Wladimir, who had a key role in the group. Algrant reports the following:
In Paris on 24 June 1928 a group of twelve exiled Russian noblemen, descendants of “family commanders” of the Russian Orthodox Grand Priory formed this union. Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich, in exile in France, agreed to be the union’s “Grand Prior”. When the Union of Descendants was formed, he accepted to become its head and soon tried to effect a rapprochement with the S.M.O.M. The conditions offered by the S.M.O.M. that the Union subject itself to the via Condotti (4) and receive only Roman Catholic members was unacceptable to the Grand Duke and the reconciliation never took place. Thus, the Grand Duke remained Grand Prior of the Union until his death in 1933. After his death, the presidency of the Union passed to Grand Duke Andrei Wladimirovich (brother of Grand Duke Kyrill Wladimirovich, head of the imperial house of Russia who also became its “protector”.) Following Grand Duke Andrei’s death in 1956, the Union was directed by its Secretary General Georges de Rticheff. In 1962 the latter petitioned Grand Duke Wladimir Kyrillovich, head of the imperial house to become the Union’s “protector”. We personally asked H.I.H. Grand Duke Wladimir in August 1988 about his protection of the Union. He confirmed that both he and his father had indeed been its protector but that it never was or was ever meant to be a revival of the Russian Grand priory. Rather it was, what its name implied, merely a union of descendants of the original “family” or “hereditary” commanders. After de Rticheff’s death the group virtually disappeared from the scene in France, but a new “Sovereign Order of the Orthodox Knights Hospitaller of St.John of Jerusalem” (see XVII) claiming to be descended from this Union was created in the United States in 1977 in close cooperation with the Association of the Russian Nobility.
The statement by HIH Grand Duke Wladimir in August 1988, is contradicted by the original formation statement of 24 June 1928 (bold font by me, JvBQ):
We, the undersigned representatives of titled families and Hereditary Commanders of the Russian Grand Priory of the Order of St John of Jerusalem, instituted in virtue of the decree by Emperor Paul I for the Russian Nobility and in conformity with the regulations ratified by the Imperial Throne on 21st July, 1799, unanimously confirm the following:
The commanderies of our ancient ancestors were founded on their family fiefs, having the inviolable perennial privilege constituted on the same bases as the entailed estates of the Empire.
Later events have limited the activity of the Grand Priory of Russia; a revolution had provoked a deficiency in the legitimate power throughout the Empire; yet nothing could weaken our hereditary right as a regular affiliation and as a sovereign order of chivalry. We were born with this privilege and we retain it without further question in law.
Circumstances dictated that we should now sustain without futile and vain ostentation, the prerogatives acquired by our ancestors. The tragic test which overwhelmed our Fatherland calls us to an activity full of abnegation and sacrifice worth of the best traditions of the illustrious Order of St John of Jerusalem. It is, therefore, our duty that all of us shall initiate the following:
1. Re-establish the activity of the Russian Grand Priory of the Order of Malta created and regularised by a treaty signed on the 4/13th of January, 1799, between the Throne of Russia and the Sovereign Order of Malta.
2. Appeal to direct descendants of other Russian Hereditary Knights of Malta in order to urge them to rally with us with in the fold of the Grand Priory of Russia which we are reconstituting abroad.
3. Solicit H.R.H. the Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovitch, great grandson of the Emperor Paul I, Russian Grand Master of the Order of St John of Jerusalem, to take over during his lifetime the functions of Grand Prior of Russia, the first holder of which was the Grand Duke Heir to the Throne, who eventually became Czar Alexander I of Russia.
4. Solicit His Imperial Highness to submit tot H.M. the King of Spain, who at the beginning of the Great War was so kind to accede to the request of the late Emperor Nicholas II to grant his High Protection to Russians abroad, the following request: To temporarily assume instead of the Emperor, the dignity as well the prerogatives of an August Protector for the Russian Grand Priory of the Order of St John of Jerusalem.
5. To invest our elected superior, His Imperial Highness with unlimited powers for life in all decisions relative to the regular re-establishment of the Grand Priory of Russia as well as its statutory regulations in conformity with the fundamental charter of old with eventual amendments necessitated by the exceptional conditions of Russian migrants abroad.”
Statement Paris Group, 24 June 1928. Source: De Taube, 1955, pp. 40-41.
The original statement clearly specifies that the Paris Group sees itself “as a sovereign order of chivalry” with the intention to “Re-establish the activity of the Russian Grand Priory of the Order of Malta created and regularised by a treaty signed on the 4/13th of January, 1799, between the Throne of Russia and the Sovereign Order of Malta.“. This makes Grand Duke Wladimir’s 1988-statement untruthful. Probably, Grand Duke Wladimir did not want to jeopardize his ties with the Order of Malta, which invested him as Bailiff Grand Cross of Honour and Devotion in 1961. The Order of Malta also claims – contrary to the Romanov-family’s official statements – that his daughter, Grand Duchess Maria, is the current head of the Romanov family:
On October 1, 2021, at St. Isaac’s Cathedral, a solemn wedding ceremony was held for the heir to the Romanov dynasty, the Grand Duke, Georgy Mikhailovich Romanov and the daughter of Italian diplomat, Rebecca Bettarini. According to the Russian Imperial House, this is the first wedding of a House representative to take place in Russia in over 120 years.
Georgy Mikhailovich Romanov is the son and heir of the head of the Russian Imperial House of Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna – the only child from the marriage of Vladimir Kirillovich Romanov, the head of the Russian Imperial House in exile (son of the Russian Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich, who proclaimed himself in 1924 the emperor in exile) and Leonida Bagration of Mukhrani.
In the footsteps of the betrayal of Grand Duke Wladimir, his daughter also misrepresented the formation history and activities of the Paris Group:
The Chancellery of the Russian Imperial House occasionally receives inquiries from individuals and organizations about its relationship to groups that refer to themselves as the “Order of St. John of Jerusalem,” including so called “Orthodox” and “Russian” “Orders of Malta,” “Priories,” “Commanderies,” and so on.
In each such instance, it is necessary to clarify that no one has the legal right to use modified names or symbols of the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta (hereinafter referred to as the Sovereign Order of Malta), which has a unquestionable historical and legal continuity from the moment of its founding, and which is recognized as a sovereign entity under international law, and which maintains diplomatic relations with more than 100 States around the world.
The Orthodox Russian Grand Priory was founded by Emperor Paul I in 1798 and was abolished by Emperor Alexander I in 1817. Since then no legitimate authority has reestablished it. Local attempts to revive its activities on a legal basis have not been successful, and all “Orthodox Order of St. John” organizations are illegitimate and offer a means of deception, including the trafficking in false “knighthoods.”
Unfortunately, sometimes members of ancient Russian noble families, some of whose ancestors were members of the genuine Sovereign Order of Malta, have taken part (presumably out of ignorance or carelessness) in the activities of some of these pseudo-Order of Malta organizations. This is especially regrettable because it discredits historic traditional values, and damages the good name of these ancient families and the reputations of their descendants in Russia and the world over.
Source: “Official Statement from the Chancellery of the Head of the Russian Imperial House, H.I.H. the Grand Duchess Maria of Russia“, 30 April 2014. http://imperialhouse.ru/en/interest/interest.html
This statement is echoed by a number of admirers of Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna. However, the authority of the aforementioned statement is questionable because the Romanov Family Association does not accept the headship of Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna as head of the Russian imperial family (see: Appendix 7 and 8, bold font by me, JvBQ):
During my recent stay in St Petersburg I was repeatedly asked to comment upon several articles that have lately appeared in the media concerning my relative Maria Wladimirovna.
FIRSTLY: I would like to say it once more – as it has been stated so often in the past – that it is incorrect that Maria Wladimirovna be titled as Grand Duchess. The last Grand Duchess of the Imperial family was of course the sister of the martyred Tsar Nichols II, Olga Alexandrovna, who died in Canada in 1960. Today, the living members of the Imperial Family all bear the titles of Princes and Princesses.
SECONDLY: – as it has been stated so often in the past – it is misleading that MW should be titled Head of the Imperial Family, as by right and as recognized as such by all other members of the Imperial Family, it is my elder brother Nicholas Romanovich, who is the Head of our Family.
THIRDLY: I was told that Maria Wladimirovna intends to take up residence in Russia, which is not unusual as many other émigré Russian families have done so.
It is however very important to emphasize that if she decides to do so, she then does that as an individual, and certainly not to symbolize “a return of the House of Romanov”. Her entourage, who introduce themselves as representatives, advisers, lawyers or whatever other professionals, are not acting in the name of the Imperial House of Romanov. They are acting on behalf of Maria Wladimirovna as an individual – and as nothing else but that.
To terminate, I would like to refer to a meeting taken place in Paris in 1992 with the participation of all the then living senior male descendants of the House of Romanov: Without exception, and considering the great sufferings endured by the Russian people, we were all in agreement not to put forward any claims of any kind, or expect any kind of privileges.
July 2009
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
It has come to my knowledge that George, son of Franz Wilhelm von Hohenzollern, Prince of Prussia, styling himself as ”The Tsarevich”, during a recent visit to Moscow, has bestowed the Imperial Russian Order of Saint Anne upon various persons.
This action was not only farcical, but it also lacks respect for the memory of a glorious Imperial Russian Order. Therefore this can only be condemned by the descendants of the Imperial Romanov Family.
April 2010
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
During the summer of last year, after a visit to Saint Petersburg, I issued a press release in which I informed the media that the entourage of my relative, Princess Maria Wladimirovna, was titling her as Grand Duchess and Head of the Imperial Family. I did point out that both titles ware misleading as the last Grand Duchess of the Imperial family had been Olga Alexandrovna, the sister of the martyred Tsar Nicholas II, who died in Canada in 1960. Furthermore, I pointed out that the Head of the Imperial Family was my elder brother Nicholas Romanovich who not only by right but also is recognized as such by all other members of the Imperial Family.
These past days, I have learned that the same entourage of my relative, who introduce themselves as representative and advisers, are now titling her as
“Her Imperial Highness Grand Duchess of Russia and de jure Empress and Autocrat of all Russias”.
It seems that there are no limits to this charade that wishes to resuscitate pompous and obsolete patterns, seeking servile homage and titles, honours and orders of a non-retrievable era, risking to fall into a Russia-wide ridicule.
As a Romanov, I firmly believe that all members of my family must first of all limit themselves to be a proud historical link with a past, which no great nation can ever forfeit.
It is very sad to see that the illustrious Russian noblemen in exile who, in 1928, legitimately revived the Russian Grand Priory have been betrayed by Grand Duke Wladimir and his daughter Grand Duchess Maria, driven by their membership of the Order of Malta. It is downright despicable that Grand Duchess Maria, who is rejected by her family, in 2014, unjustifiably defames the Russian Grand Priory by stating that they “are illegitimate and offer a means of deception, including the trafficking in false “knighthoods.” (see the aforementioned statement of 30 April 2014).
The nature of the 1928 Paris Group is simply what it states in its formation document, to: “Re-establish the activity of the Russian Grand Priory of the Order of Malta created and regularised by a treaty signed on the 4/13th of January, 1799, between the Throne of Russia and the Sovereign Order of Malta.“.
Case study: Dame Emma Hamilton
Royal Museums Greenwich. Emma, Lady Hamilton, 1765-1815, waring the cross of the Order of Malta. The pair to PAJ3939, showing Nelson, this pastel portrait of Emma is signed and dated by the artist in pencil lower left, ‘Schmidt / 1800’. Schmidt was artist to the ducal court of Saxony at Dresden. He drew this pair of portraits of Nelson and Emma Hamilton from sittings taken there at the Hotel de Pologne early in October that year, where they stayed during their return to England from Naples, with Sir William Hamilton. Nelson subsequently hung it in his cabin when at sea, including in ‘Victory’ from 1802 to his death at Trafalgar and, according to Emma, called it his ‘Guardian Angel’. While at Dresden Emma borrowed a number of gowns from a young Irish widow there, Mrs Melesina St George, who thought Emma’s ‘own taste in dress frightful’ (in Carola Oman’s account the visit [1947]): ‘Her waist’, wrote Mrs St George, ‘is absolutely between her shoulders’. Whoever the muslin gown shown belonged to, the high waist is evident, disguising both the weight that the 39-year-old Emma had then put on but also the fact that she was already about five months pregnant with Nelson’s daughter Horatia, born in January 1801. This item was acquired as part of the Ingram Collection in 1963. For details of Emma, see BHC2736, Romney’s 1786 oil portrait of her.
Emma Hamilton was the mistress of the British naval hero Admiral Horatio (afterward Viscount) Nelson. She facilitated Nelson’s victory over the French in the Battle of the Nile (1 August 1798) by securing Neapolitan permission for his fleet to obtain stores and water in Sicily. On 21 December 1799 (Gregorian calendar), the Tsar awarded Hamilton with the small cross of the Russian Order of Malta for paying for and organising the delivery of grain to the starving population of Malta during a famine (see: David Huntington. (1815). Memoirs of lady Hamilton: With illustrative anecdotes of many of her most particular friends and distinguished contemporaries, p. 279 and Hellman, Jesse. (2015). Lady Hamilton, Nelson’s Enchantress, and the Creation of Pygmalion. DOI Shaw. 35. 213. 10.5325/shaw.35.2.0213). The Tsar wrote in his appointment (in French): “Having learned with particular satisfaction the active part that you have taken in maintaining tranquility and good order among the inhabitants of Malta, we have kindly given you a proof of our benevolence by decorating you with the small Cross of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, which you will find attached. Upon this we pray to God Milady Hamilton, that he may keep you in his holy and worthy guard.” (sources: Pettigrew, T.J. Memoirs of the Life of Vice-Admiral Lord Viscount Nelson (in Two Volumes, Vol.II) Publisher T. and W. Boone (London), pp. 618-623; Style, L. The Story of Emma’s Maltese Cross, published in the The 1805 Club’s Kedge Anchor magazine, autumn 2019). Horatia Nelson, christened as Horatia Nelson Thompson (1801 – 1881), was the illegitimate daughter of Emma Hamilton, and Horatio Nelson. The family tree can be found here.
Letter from the Tsar to Emma Hamilton, appointing her the small cross of the Order of Malta (source: Emma Hamilton Society)
Prior to 1812, British subjects often assumed foreign titles and honorific prefixes, the exception being that persons in the military (like Vice-Admiral Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, 1st Duke of Bronté and General Sir Charles Imhoff) required the King’s warrant to accept and wear a foreign decoration and assume the honorific prefix, which included “Sir” (source: communication from Mr. Stephen Lautens GCJ, B.A., J.D.). Since then, the regulations regarding these matters have become stricter (see my article: Regulations regarding the acceptance of foreign orders and titles by British nationals). This explains why Hamilton is mentioned as Dame Emma Hamilton in the diploma of the College of Arms, granting her a coat of arms on 19 November 1806, showing the Maltese cross; Per pale Or and Argent, three Lions rampant Gules, on a chief Sable, a Cross of eight points of the second):
TO ALL AND SINGULAR
To whom these presents shall cme Sir Isaac Heard Knight GARTER Principal King of Arms and George Harrison Esquire CLARENCEUX King of Arms of the South East and West parts of England from the River trent Southwards send Greeting. Whereas DAME EMMA HAMILTON of Clarges Street Piccadilly in the County of Middlesex (only issue of HENRY LYONS of Preston in the County of Lancaster) Widow of the Right Honorable Sir William Hamilton K.B. hath represented unto the most noble Charles Duke of Norfolk Earl Marshal and hereditary Marshal of England that she intermarried with the said Sir William Hamilton in the Year 1791 and having attended him during his Embassy from our most gracious Sovereign to His Majesty the King of the Two Sicilies and rendered great service at that Court during an important juncture as appears by the following clause in a Codicil bearing date the twenty first day of October 1805 and annexed to the last Will and Testament of the late Right Honorable Horatio Viscount and Baron Nelson Duke of Bronte in Sicily &c deceased “Whereas the eminent services of Emma Hamilton Widow of the Right Honorable Sir William Hamilton have been of the very great Service to our King and Country to my knowledge without her receiving any reward from either our King and Country First that she obtained the King of Spain’s letter in 1796 to his Brother the King of Naples acquainting him of his intention to declare War against England from which Letter the Ministry sent out Order to the then Sir John Jervis to strike a stroke if opportunity offered against the Arsenale of Spain or her Fleets, that neither of these were done is not the fault of Lady Hamilton the opportunity might have offered. Secondly the British Fleet under my Command could never have returned the second time to Egypt had not Lady Hamilton’s influence with the Queen of Naples caused Letters to be wrote to the Governor of Syracuse that he was to encourage the Fleet being supplied with every thing should they put into any Port in Sicily. We put into Syracuse and received every supply went to Egypt and destroyed the French Fleet. Could I have rewarded these services I would not now call upon my Country but as that has not been in my power I leave Emma Lady Hamilton therefore a legacy to my King and Country that they will give her as capable provision to maintain her rank in Life”
And the said Dame Emma Hamilton not finding any Armorial Ensigns registered to her Family in the College of Arms and unwilling to use any without lawful authority she therefore requested the favor of his Grace’s Warrant for our granting and assigning each Armorial Ensigns as may be proper to be borne by her and her Descendants according to the Law of Arms. And forasmuch as the said Earl Marshal did by Warrant under his Hand and Seal bearing date the twenty ninth day of September last authorize and direct Us to grant and exemplify such Armorial Ensigns for LYONS accordingly. Know Ye therefore that We the said GARTER and CLARENCEUX in pursuance of his Grace’s Warrant and by virtue of the Letters Patent of our several Offices to each of Us respectively granted have devised and do by these Presents grant and exemplify to the said DAME EMMA HAMILTON the Arms following that is to say Per Pale Or and Argent three Lions rampant Gules, on a Chief Sable a Cross of eight points of the second ; as the same are in the margin here more plainly depicted to be borne and used for ever hereafter by the said Dame Emma Hamilton and her Descendants according to the Laws of Arms.
In Witness whereof We the said GARTER and CLARENCEUX Kings of Arms have to these Presents subscribed our Names and affixed the Seals of our several Offices this nineteenth day of November in the forty seventh Year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland King Defender of the Faith &c in the Year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and six.
The case of Dame Emma Hamilton proves that the Russian Tsar awarded his Order to foreigners and that, at the time, these awards were accepted in England. The entitled the recipient to use the prefix Sir/Dame.
Founding fathers of the Russian tradition
In order to obtain insight regarding the historical context of the Paris Group, it is essential to learn more about its individual members. The section below is far from complete and additional information and corrections are most welcome.
Dmitri Alexandrovich Sheremetev/Cheremeteff
Victor Shtemberg.Portrait of Count D.A. Sheremetev, Cornet of the Chevalier Guards.
The Sheremetevs were one of the most prominent boyar families of the Russian monarchy. Field Marshal B.P. Sheremetev was the first in Russia to be granted (in 1706) the title of count (N. Novikov. Genealogical book of princes and nobles of Russia, pp. 124-128). The marriage of the son of B.P. Sheremetev with the heiress of A.M. Cherkassky marked the beginning of a colossal “Sheremetev fortune”. Count N. P. Sheremetev, remains in Russian history as a philanthropist who built and decorated the Ostankino and Kuskovo estates near Moscow, and also founded the Hospice House. In Petersburg, the Sheremetevs owned the Fountain House. In addition to the comital branch, there are less well-known untitled branches of the family; one of them owned Yurin Castle.
Prince Serge Constantinovitch Belosselsky Belozersky
Beloselsky-Belozersky Palace on Nevsky Avenue in St. Petersburg. The interiors of the palace have survived to our time in good condition. The decoration of a number of palace premises is of considerable artistic interest.
The wide flights of the main staircase, fenced with an openwork forged lattice with monograms, lead to the mezzanine rooms. Steps of the stairs are processed with pilasters with caryatids. Sculptural figures supporting candelabra are installed in two niches.
In the reading room of the library, the walls in their lower part are sheathed with wooden panels with gilded carvings, and in the upper part they are covered with light silk fabric. Above the fireplace made of white Carrara marble with high-relief figures of putti, there is a mirror in a gilded carved frame with a picturesque insert in the center.
In the small Golden Living Room, decorated, like other rooms, in the rococo style, the walls are covered with damask. The doors and desudeportes with paintings of the French school of the 18th century are beautiful in design.
In the small foyer there are desudeportes by Van Loo and French masters of the 18th century. In this room, the plafonds of the ceiling are molded and decorated with picturesque inserts with images of playing putti. The walls of the large foyer (formerly an art gallery) are cut through by wide rectangular openings decorated with caryatids.
In 1887, Belosselsky Belozersky graduated from the Corps of Pages, and was made cornet in the Life Guards Cavalry Regiment. Continuing to be listed, he was first attached to the Russian Embassy in Berlin, and then in Paris.
In 1894, Belosselsky Belozersky retired. Two years later, he returned to active service. In 1896-1905, he became adjutant of Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich. In 1906, already in the rank of colonel, he was listed again in the Life Guards Cavalry Regiment. In August 1908, Belosselsky Belozersky was appointed commander of the 3rd Dragoons Novorossiysk Regiment and became an advisor of the Tsar. Soon afterwards he was promoted to major-general of Her Majesty’s Life Guards Lancer Regiment, and at the end of 1913, of the 1st Brigade of the 2nd Guards Cavalry Division, which involved him in the First World War.
Prince Serge Belosselsky Belozersky (1867–1951)
In November 1914 Belosselsky Belozersky temporarily commanded the 2nd Guards Cavalry Division, and then became Chief of the 3rd Don Cossack Division (1914-1915). On December, 29, 1915 Belosselsky Belozersky was appointed commander of the Caucasian Cavalry Division, with which he made the march across Persia through Kermanshah in the detachment of General Baratov. On 10 April 1916, Belosselsky Belozersky was promoted to lieutenant-general.
From 1917, by order of the Minister of War, Belosselsky Belozersky served on the staff of Lieutenant-General Mannerheim (his friend) and participated in the war between the Finnish White Army and the Red Army. In May 1919, at the end of the Finnish Civil War, he arranged several meetings between General Yudenich and General Mannerheim. In 1919, he was appointed representative in Finland of the Special War Mission in London to provide material assistance to the armies of Generals Miller, Yudenich and Denikin, and for Admiral Kolchak. In 1919, he participated in the formation and supply of the North-Western Army. After Mannerheim’s failure in the presidential elections in Finland, he remained in Helsinki until the end of 1919, as a representative of General Yudenich. Then (1920), he went to England and was a member of the Special Mission until its dissolution.
Belosselsky Belozersky was also one of the first international polo players and a member of the Olympic Committee. At the 1900 Paris Olympic games, Belosselsky Belozersky took part in equestrian events. Between 1934 and his death in 1951, Belosselsky Belozersky lived in Lyons Crescent (England), The Red Lion Hotel and finally in Dry Hill Road. He also spent time with his eldest son Serge in New York and an apartment in Kensington (source: russianestonia.eu)
Belosselsky Belozersky has lived in England for more than thirty years. He died on April 20, 1951 in Tonbridge and was buried in the local cemetery.
Count Hilarion Woronzoff-Dachkoff
Irina Vasilievna Naryshkina (1879 – 1917), Woronzoff-Dachkoff’s first wife (since 10 September 1900), daughter of the famous and wealthy Vasily Lvovich Naryshkin (1841-1909) from his marriage to Princess Theodora Pavlovna Orbeliani (1852-1930). Her marriage to Vorontsov-Dashkov ended in divorce in 1914.
Count Hilarion Woronzoff-Dachkoff was third son of the cavalry general Count Illarion Ivanovich Vorontsov-Dashkov and his wife Elizaveta Andreyevna Shuvalova (1845-1924). Upon graduation from the Corps of Pages (first class) in 1898, he was promoted to cornet in His Majesty’s Life Guards Hussar Regiment. Woronzoff-Dachkoff was promoted to lieutenant colonel on 6 December 1902, and to staff sergeant – on 6 December 1905. On 5 September 1909, he was appointed Adjutant to Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich and he remained listed in the Life Guards Hussar Regiment. Woronzoff-Dachkoff was promoted to captain on 11 March 1911, and promoted to colonel on 6 December 1913. On 23 August, 1914, he was appointed commander of the Kabardian Horse Regiment with the outbreak of World War I. In 1926, he was awarded the St George’s Weapon For Courage, which was a grade of the Order of St. George (according to the 1913 Statute of the Order). The St. George’s weapon was established to be awarded to generals, admirals and other senior officers “ for outstanding military feats that require undoubted dedication ”. Woronzoff-Dachkoff excelled during the battle at the river Stypa:
For being the commander of the Kabardian Horse Regiment in the battle on 10 September 1915, during the battle on the river Stypa, to determine the location of the enemy at the division front, commanding two companies of the 128th Infantry Stary Oskol Regiment, six guns and two cavalry regiments, he successfully performed the reconnaissance, and the capture of Hill 392 gave the division a firm foothold along the whole front and subsequently develop a successful advance in neighboring sections of the 11th Corps.
On 24 March 1916, Hilarion Woronzoff-Dachkoff returned to the position of Adjutant to Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, and remained in the Guard Cavalry.
During the Civil War, Hilarion Woronzoff-Dachkoff participated in the White movement (a loose confederation of anti-communist forces that fought the communist Bolsheviks), in the All-Union Revolutionary Army and in the Volunteer Army. In May 1920, he arrived in the Crimea (see: Archives Nationales. Intérieur. Fichier central de la Sûreté nationale: dossiers individuels de WA à WZ (fin XIXe siècle-1940), Dossiers 12662 à 12765 [19940484/142]).
Prince Pavel Alexandrovich Demidov
Pavel Alexandrovich Demidov (1869-1935). Chest portrait of Prince Pavel Alexandrovich Demidov in the uniform of a junior lieutenant of the cavalry regiment. Original photographic print from the era, stamped with the photographer’s name at the bottom of the document and on the reverse. Signed in Russian “Pavel 1890 – 1905”. Hermitage Fine Art, Monaco
Prince Pavel Alexandrovich Demidov (1869-1935) was a representative of the second line of the senior branch of the Demidov family and author of the genealogy of the Demidov family. At the beginning of World War I, Pavel Demidov was appointed by Nicholas II as the HIM’s Stalmeister, and subsequently served as the General Director of the Russian Southwestern Red Cross Service. After the revolution, he emigrated to France.
The family descents from Nikita Demidovich Antufyev (1656–1725), a blacksmith and serf from the western Russian city of Tula, who assumed the surname Demidov in 1702. He began to accumulate his family’s fortune by manufacturing weapons and, after receiving land grants from Tsar Peter I the Great, by building and operating an iron foundry at Tula. Antufyev was ennobled by the Tsar in 1720.
Demidov was the great-great-great-great-grandson of the founder of the family, Nikita Demidov, and the son of chamber junker Alexander Pavlovich Demidov (1845 – 1893) and his wife Alexandra Alexandrovna, née Abaza (1853-1894) . The great-great-grandfather of P. A. Demidov, Alexander Grigorievich (1737 – 1803), was the brother of the founder of the Demidov Lyceum in Yaroslavl (now Yaroslavl State University), Pavel Grigorievich Demidov (1739-1821).
On 14 April 1958, Grand Duke Vladimir signed a diploma in favour of Paul Demidoff;
“de faire droit à Votre requête et de confirmer Votre titre de Commandeur Héréditaire de l’Union des Descendants des Commandeurs Héréditaires et Chevaliers du Grand Prieuré Russe de l’Ordre de St. Jean de Jérusalem en tant que descendant direct de Demidoff Nicolas fils de Nicétas qui, par grâce de Mon trisaïeul, S.M. l’Empereur Paul I-r Grand Maître de l’Ordre de St. Jean de Jérusalem avait été élevé le 2I Juillet 1799.”
(translation)
“to grant Your request and to confirm Your title of Hereditary Commander of the Union of the Descendants of the Hereditary Commanders and Knights of the Russian Grand Priory about St John of Jerusalem as a direct descendant of Demidoff Nicholas son of Nicétas which, by grace of My great-great-grandfather, H.M. the Emperor Paul I Grand Master of the Order of St John of Jerusalem had been elevated 21 July 1799.”
Dmitri Boutourline was a member of an ancient Russian family, descending from the Moscow boyars. The genealogy is included in the Velvet Book (Russian: Бархатная книга, romanized: Barkhatnaya kniga) the (incomplete) official register of genealogies of Russia’s most noble families.
Prince Serge Alexandrovitch Dolgorouky (1872 – 1933) was a former general. Dolgorouky was born in Saint-Petersburg on 22 May 1872 to Prince Aleksandr Sergeievich Dolgorouky and Countess Olga Petrovna Shuvalova. Prince Serge Alexandrovitch Dolgorouky married Irina Vassilievna Naryshkina and had one child. He passed away on 11 Nov 1933 in Paris, Île-de-France, France.
The Dolgorouky dynasty, also called Dolgoruky, Dolgoruki, Dolgorukov or Dolgorukii (Russian: Долгоруков), seems to descend from the Rúrikovich, being a minor branch of the rulers of the Principality of Obolensk. The House of Dolgorukov is a princely Russian family. They are a cadet branch of the Obolenskiy family (until 1494 the rulers of Obolensk, one of the Upper Oka Principalities) and as such claiming patrilineal descent from Mikhail of Chernigov (d. 1246).
The founder of the Dolgorukov branch of the Obolenskiy is Prince Ivan Andreevich Oblenskiy (15th century), who, for his vengefulness, was given the nickname of “Долгорукий Dolgorukiy“, i.e. “far-reaching”. Obolensk was incorporated into the expanding Grand Duchy of Moscow in 1494, and the House of Dolgorukov became a powerful noble family in Russia.
Denis Davydoff
[Denis Davydoff]
Leon Wassillijewitsch Narychkin
Leon (Lew) Wassillijewitsch Narychkin (1875-1931) married on 17 October 1908 in Paris Countess Alexandra von Zarnekau (1883-1957, Paris, Île-de-France), eldest daughter of Duke Constantine Petrovich of Oldenburg and his Georgian wife, Princess Agrippina Japaridze, Countess von Zarnekau, formerly married to the Georgian Prince Dadiani. Countess Alexandra married secondly to Lev Vassilievich Naryshkin. During World War I, Countess Alexandra worked as an administrator of the Russian hospital at Saloniki. After the war, she moved to Paris, France, where she died on 28 May 1957. See for the genealogy: Князь А. Б. Лобанов-Ростовский. Русская родословная книга, 2 тт. С.-Петербург: Издания А. С. Суворина, 1895. p. 18; Almanach de St-Pétersbourg: Cour, Monde et Ville, 1912 (St-Pétersbourg, 1912), p. 356; Almanach de St-Pétersbourg: Cour, Monde et Ville, 1912. St-Pétersbourg: Societé M. O. Wolff Editeurs, 1912. p. 356; C. Arnold McNaughton, The Book of Kings: A Royal Genealogy, in 3 volumes (London, U.K.: Garnstone Press, 1973), volume 1, page 216.
Prince Nikita Wladimirovich Troubetzkoy
Prince Nikita Troubetzkoy (1902-1980), son of Vladimir Vladimirovich Troubetzkoy (1868–1931) and Helene Mikhaylovna Onou Troubetzkoy (1870–1955). Buried at the Batignolles Cemetery, Paris, France.
The Troubetzkoy is a boyar family of Lithuanian-Russian princes, who originally owned the Trubetskoy principality. The genealogy is included in the Velvet Book (Н. Новиков. Родословная книга князей и дворян Российских и выезжих (Бархатная книга). В 2-х частях. Ч. I. Тип: Университетская тип. 1787. Род князей Трубецких. С. 44-46). All representatives of the family lived after 1750 descend from Lieutenant General Yuri Yuryevich Trubetskoy (1668-1739), Russian statesman , privy council, senator, and the youngest of the two princes Trubetskoy of the end of the 17th century.
In 1700, without much success, Yuri Yuryevich Trubetskoy negotiated in Berlin with the Prussian elector about joining the Northern Union. Around 1710, he visited many countries and learned the Italian language, in which he communicated in Moscow with the Dutch traveler and artist Cornelis de Bruyn (1652 – 1726) for a “quite a long time” (see: Cornelius de Bruyn (1652 – 1726), “Travels in Muscovy, Persia and part of the East-Indies …,” Mapping Cultural Space Across Eurasia, accessed 19 January 2023, https://eurasia.omeka.fas.harvard.edu/items/show/1009).
Dmitri Jerebzoff (Zherbetzov)
[Dmitri Jerebzoff]
Nicholas Tchirikoff
[Nicholas Tchirikoff]
Count Dmitry Adamovich Olsoufieff
In 1904, the Russo-Japanese War broke out on the outskirts of the empire. In the Saratov province, mobilization activities were initiated everywhere. Food and fodder for the army were organized. The Saratov detachment of the Red Cross under the leadership of Count D. A. Olsufiev was sent to the front. Count Olsufieff personally led an ambulance train with 200 beds. Rescuing the wounded, he traveled hundreds of miles through the hills and valleys of Manchuria. In one of his letters, Olsufiev wrote: “ The Japanese are crueler than ours. They do not take care of the seriously wounded, on whom there is no hope for them to recover, while we (our sisters of mercy) lay down our lives for them. They look at us with subservience; as a superior race. The Japanese do not have chivalry; they, if profitable, scatter like mice; if necessary, they die … “. In the battles near Mukden, among 70 thousand Russian soldiers and officers, D. A. Olsufiev was taken prisoner. He remained in the city with the wounded Russians and was released 20 days later.
Olsoufieff (1862 -1937) was Russian public figure, statesman and land owner. He was district leader of the Kamyshinsky nobility (1893-1902), an elector from the Kamyshinsky district in the provincial Zemsky Assembly, an honorary magistrate of Dmitrovsky (Moscow province) and Kamyshinsky districts, the chairman of the Saratov provincial Zemstvo board (1902-1904), member of the State Council from Saratov provincial Zemstvo (1906-1916), chairman of the Saratov archival scientific commission, He was also chairman of the board of Saratov society of agriculture, chairman of the local board of the society of water rescue in Kamyshinsk, vice-president of the department of the Trust of the Empress Maria Alexandrovna for the blind, honorary inspector of the local four-class school, honorary trustee of the Kamyshinsk department of the diocesan school board (Source: Граф Д. А.Олсуфьев — патриот, политик, человек. Клуб исторических изысканий КамышинStar. Дата обращения: 26 декабря 2022).
Organisation
The aforementioned members were joined by four other Russian nobles:
Count Wladimir Borch, Hereditary Commander of the Catholic Grand Priory of Russia
Prince Wladimir Galitzine (aspirant member)
Count Andre Lanskoi (aspirant member) and
Count Alexander Mordviboff (aspirant member)
Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich (1866-1933) 1899 copy of an original photograph of 1896. Photogravure | 7.6 x 5.3 cm (image) (image) | RCIN 2916233. Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich was the consort of Grand Duchess Xenia Alexandrovna, the eldest daughter of Alexander III, Emperor of Russia. They married at the Peterhof Palace in August 1894. Photo: Royal Collection Trust.
Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich, a dynast of the Russian Empire, naval officer, author, explorer, the brother-in-law of Emperor Nicholas II and advisor to him, became the Union’s Grand Prior. Mikhailovich tried to constitute reciprocity with the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, but did not succeed.
The thirteenth Hereditary Commander, Andrei Alexandrovitch Bariatinsky, was not able to attend the meeting in June 1928. His uncle, Prince Vladimir Vladimirovitch Bariatinsky, was invited to join the Council of the Russian Grand Priory circa 1929. At the time the Council were seeking recognition from the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, and Prince Vladimir was a second cousin to Prince Don Ludovico Chigi della Rovere Albani, Bailiff of the Sovereign Council and later Grandmaster of the SMOM. Present at the gathering in 1928 was Count Vladimir Borch, a Hereditary Commander of the Catholic Grand Priory of Russia.
The conditions offered by the SMOM were unacceptable for the Union: the subordination to the SMOM and the condition that only Roman Catholic members were to be admitted. Mikhailovich remained Grand Prior of the Union until his death in 1933. After his death, the headship of the Union passed to Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovich (1879-1956), brother of the head of the Russian Imperial House, Grand Duke Kyrill Vladimirovich (1876-1938).
Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovich (1879 – 1956). Source: Boasson and Eggler – www.photoarchive.spb.ru (Archives of the Russian Federation).
In February 1955, Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovich registered the Paris-based Grand Priory-in-Exile with the French administration as a foreign association, named “Russian Grand Priory of St. John of Jerusalem “. The statutes state that it is not a representation for France of the SMOM, but the organisation of the Grand Priory on French soil to “re-establish the activity of the Russian Grand Priory of the Order of Malta“. Under his direction, applicants who made claims to the hereditary commanders were carefully examined and those who qualified were admitted and obtained an official diploma. After the death of Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovich in 1956, the Union was governed by its Secretary-General, Georges Sergueievitch de Rticheff, who died in 1975. In 1962, Rticheff successfully asked Grand Duke Wladimir Kyrillovich, head of the Russian Imperial House, to become the Union’s Protector.
By 1955, out of 14 possible commanders, only six were members of the Paris Group (Taube, p. 50). These family members were listed in italics, and the families in which the direct descendants had ended were marked by a Latin cross. The number of qualified commanders who belonged to the Paris Group continued to decline until the 1970s, and the lines of several hereditary commanders, who became extinct continued. For example, in 1974, Nicholas Tchirikoff, the Dean of the Paris Group, died without an heir to the Commandery.
Extension of the Paris Group: Priory of Dacia
There exists to this date a legitimate extension of the aforementioned 1928 Paris Group, called the Priory of Dacia:
There had been strong Imperial Russian links with Denmark prior to the Revolution. Emperor Nicholas II’s mother, Marie Feodorovna, had been the daughter of King Christian IX of Denmark After the Revolution, following a short stay in London, the Dowager Empress returned to her native Denmark, where she died 13th October 1928. In 1938, discussions took place between the Paris group, and a group of gentlemen in Denmark; Baron Palle Rosenkrantz., Prebend Ahlefeldt Bille, and Prebend Holger Christian Wenck von Wenckheim. In 1950 H. K Ostenfeld joined the “Danish Initiative Committee”. Authorisation for the creation of a Danish Priory was granted by Grand Duke Andrew, October 19th, 1938, and the Priory under the name of “The Ecclesiastical Knightly Order of Malta of Saint John of Jerusalem, Priory of Saint Andrew“, and began its formal life on April 10th, 1939. It was later to be known as “The Autonomous Priory of Dacia of the Order of Malta“.
In the summer of 1938, the Danish Committee wrote to Commander G. Gadd, Grand Duke Cyril’s personal representative in Copenhagen, about the possibility of joining the Russian Grand Priory of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem. Gadd suggested, that a direct approach to Grand Duke Cyril ought to be made. When Grand Duke Cyril received the Danish Committee’s letter, he passed it on to his younger brother Grand Duke Andrew, who had accepted responsibility for the Russian Grand Priory. Grand Duke Andrew, then asked Baron Michael de Taube the legal consultant to the Hereditary Commanders to discuss the matter with the Danes. Baron Michael de Taube had been Professor of Law at St Petersburg University and first legal adviser for the Russian Foreign Office, Senator of Russia and a member of the Council of the Empire.
Initially the first consideration was to widen membership of the Russian Grand Priory itself to include in a seamless way, a Danish group. The final conclusion of the discussions, was that a Priory would be created to serve the “North”, under the title of Dacia. Prebend Wenck von Wenckheim as leader of the group became the first Prior. The war years halted any real activity of the Priory, and Baron Michael de Taube and Grand Duke Andrew gave assistance in continuing the work in the post war period.
After the sudden death of Wenck von Wenckheim in 1957, John K Ostenfeld who had joined the Committee in the post war period, became the Prior but retired from Office in 1968 succeeded by Baron Niels Sandberg Stouge 1968-1969. In the period of 1968 to 1970 disputes caused the separation of a Swedish Commandery. Part of this period was during the leadership of acting Prior, Helmuth Kieldsen 1969-1971. The problems were put to a firm end when in 1971 John K Ostenfeld was re-appointed Prior. By the mid 1970s, the Priory and the Paris Headquarters had lost contact with each other. Two factors had conspired to bring this about; the disputes within the Dacia Priory and its changes of personnel, and the increasing isolationism of the aging Paris administration which was in stark contrast to the previous pro-active role undertaken by Baron Michel de Taube.
The Priory of Dacia enjoyed the patronage of Grand Duke Andrew, who also was the protector of the Paris Group:
Der Protektor desParis, den 17, Nov 1950 Russischen Grosspriorates des Malteserordens
An den Ordensrat des Priorates Dacia des russischen Grosspriorates Kopenhagen.
Das Protektorat, welches ich nach dem Tode meines Vetters S. K. H. Grossfürst Alexander über das russische Gross-Priorat des Malteserordens übernommen habe, umfasst natürlich auch das dänische Priorat – (Prioratus Daciae) – nachdem dieses als autonomer Teil des Gross-Priorates von Russland im Sommer 1939 errichtet wurde.
[EN] The protectorate which I took over the Russian Grand Priory of the Order of Malta after the death of my cousin, H.S.H. Grand Prince Alexander, naturally includes the Danish Priory – (Prioratus Daciae) – after it was established as an autonomous part of the Grand Priory of Russia in the summer of 1939.
Sollte auch ein Mitglied des königlichen dänischen Hauses das Protekorat über das dänische Priorat unseres Ordens übernehmen wollen, würde ich es sehr begrüssen.
[EN] Should a member of the Royal Danish House also wish to assume the Protectorate over the Danish Priory of our Order, I would very much welcome it.
/s/. Grossfürst Andrie von Russland.
Geschäftführendes Mitglied des rüssischen Ordensrates /s/. Michael Frhr. v. Taube.
Translation:
Letter to the Dacia Priory from Grand Duke Andrei of Russia confirming that he is the Protector of the Priory of Dacia.Source: Public Record Office Copenhagen, Denmark. Priorate Dacia af St. Johannes af Jerusalems Orden Arkiv nr: 10266. Jvf. RA. Priv. ark. c. litra P nr. 1006-1.
The forgoing documents prove that the Priory of Dacia is a legitimate extension of the 1928 Paris Group.
Authoritative witness statements
The Grand Prieuré Russe de l’Ordre de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem, headquartered in Paris, and governed by its Grand Prior, Count Pierre Cheremetieff and its Lieutenant Grand Prior, Prince Stephan Belosselsky Belozersky makes the following statement on its website:
L’Empereur de Russie Paul Ier, Protecteur puis Grand Maître
Le 12 juin 1798, Bonaparte en route pour l’Egypte, s’empara de l’île de Malte. Il en expulsa l’Ordre. Les chevaliers, indignés de la capitulation de leur Grand Maître Ferdinand von Hompesh, le déposèrent et quelques deux-cent chevaliers trouvèrent refuge auprès du Tsar Paul Ier, chevalier et Protecteur de l’Ordre depuis 1797, qu’ils élurent 72ème Grand Maître le 27 octobre 1798. Le Tsar accepta cette dignité et fut revêtu des insignes des Grands Maîtres de l’Ordre le 29 novembre 1798. Cette élection fut, dans un premier temps, acceptée par le Pape. Elle fut aussi reconnue par une majorité de cours européennes.
Les 29 novembre et 28 décembre 1798, Paul Ier créa un Grand Prieuré de Russie pour ses sujets orthodoxes qui s’ajouta à la branche russe catholique existant en Russie depuis la Convention qu’il avait signée le 4 janvier 1797 à Saint-Pétersbourg avec le Grand Maître de l’Ordre François de Rohan, portant création « pour toujours » (littéralement, en russe « pour les temps éternels ») d’un Grand Prieuré de Malte en Russie. Dès cette époque, ce Grand Prieuré Russe reçut en son sein de nombreux gentilshommes russes orthodoxes mais aussi des sujets catholiques romains, surtout polonais et quelques protestants. En effet, il était, selon la volonté du Tsar – véritable précurseur à ce titre – mixte et ouvert à toutes les personnes jugées dignes d’y être admis sans distinction de nationalité, de confession et de classe sociale.
Le 21 juillet 1799, afin d’assurer la pérennité de l’Ordre quelque soit les vicissitudes de l’Histoire, le Tsar Paul Ier institua « partout et à jamais» vingt et un « Commandeurs de familles » héréditaires choisis dans les plus illustres familles de la noblesse russe auxquelles son fils, le Tsar Alexandre Ier, en ajouta deux autres. Ces vingt-trois Commanderies héréditaires constituèrent la véritable colonne vertébrale du Grand Prieuré Russe, qui en fonde et transmet, aujourd’hui comme hier, la légitimité à la fois historique et juridique.
Ces caractères font ainsi de ce Grand Prieuré, depuis sa fondation, un Ordre spécialement russe de Saint-Jean-de-Jérusalem.
En 1800, le Grand Prieuré Russe comptait quelques quatre-cent chevaliers et dames (de son côté le Grand Prieuré Catholique n’en comptait que deux-cent).
Les Tsars successifs ont toujours reconnu et maintenu le Grand Prieuré Russe jusqu’au Tsar Nicolas II lui-même qui fut reçu bailli grand-croix ainsi que la Tsarine Alexandra et les oncles du Tsar, les grands-ducs Serge et Paul.
Depuis la Révolution de 1917, l’assassinat du Tsar Nicolas, de la Tsarine Alexandra et de leurs enfants ainsi que l’exil des familles des Commandeurs héréditaires, le Grand Prieuré Russe a été maintenu et confirmé par ces derniers et leurs descendants qui poursuivent la mission assignée à leurs familles par Paul Ier : en France, en 1928, 1955, 1977, 2004, 2006.
Aujourd’hui, sous la gouvernance de son Grand Prieur, S.E. le comte Pierre Cheremetieff et de son Lieutenant Grand-prieur, S.E. le Prince Stéphane Belosselsky Belozersky, tous deux de la dynastie rourikide qui régna sur la Russie pendant près de mille ans, le G.P.R. rassemble environ 250 chevaliers, dames et donats répartis en France, en Italie, en Belgique, au Canada et aux Etats-Unis d’Amérique.
Le Grand Prieuré de Russie ne s’affirme pas comme un Ordre indépendant et reconnaît le seul Grand Magister authentique à l’Ordre de Malte.
Œuvres Hospitalières
Au sein de chaque Prieuré national, une structure complémentaire s’ajoute à la structure chevaleresque dénommée Œuvres Hospitalières de l’Ordre, structure qui opère de façon autonome et distincte dans la poursuite d’œuvres caritatives mais sous le contrôle du Prieuré national.
De nombreux bénévoles ou amis qui ne souhaitent pas nécessairement faire partie de l’Ordre sont ainsi invités à participer à divers projets philanthropiques en partenariat avec les chevaliers et dames.
[English translation]
The Emperor of Russia Paul I, Protector and later Grand Master
On 12 June 1798, Bonaparte, on his way to Egypt, seized the island of Malta. He expelled the Order. The knights, indignant at the capitulation of their Grand Master Ferdinand von Hompesh, deposed him and some two hundred knights found refuge with Tsar Paul I, knight and Protector of the Order since 1797, whom they elected 72nd Grand Master on 27 October 1798. The Tsar accepted this dignity and was invested with the insignia of Grand Master of the Order on 29 November 1798. This election was initially accepted by the Pope. It was also recognised by a majority of European courts.
On 29 November and 28 December 1798, Paul I created a Grand Priory of Russia for his Orthodox subjects, in addition to the Russian Catholic branch that had existed in Russia since the Convention he had signed on 4 January 1797 in St. Petersburg with the Grand Master of the Order, François de Rohan, establishing “for ever” (literally, in Russian, “for eternal time”) a Grand Priory of Malta in Russia. From that time onwards, this Russian Grand Priory received many Russian Orthodox gentlemen, but also Roman Catholic subjects, especially Poles and some Protestants. In fact, according to the will of the Tsar – a true precursor in this respect – it was mixed and open to all persons deemed worthy of admission, without distinction of nationality, confession or social class.
On 21 July 1799, in order to ensure the Order’s continuity regardless of the vicissitudes of history, Tsar Paul I instituted twenty-one hereditary “Family Commanders” chosen from the most illustrious families of the Russian nobility, to which his son, Tsar Alexander I, added two others. These twenty-three hereditary Commanderies constituted the backbone of the Russian Grand Priory, which today, as in the past, establishes and transmits both its historical and legal legitimacy.
These characteristics have made the Grand Priory a specifically Russian Order of St. John of Jerusalem since its foundation.
In 1800, the Russian Grand Priory numbered some four hundred knights and ladies (the Catholic Grand Priory numbered only two hundred).
Successive Tsars have always recognised and maintained the Russian Grand Priory, up to Tsar Nicholas II himself, who was made a Bailiff Grand Cross, as well as Tsarina Alexandra and the Tsar’s uncles, Grand Dukes Sergius and Paul.
Since the Revolution of 1917, the assassination of Tsar Nicholas, Tsarina Alexandra and their children and the exile of the families of the Hereditary Commanders, the Russian Grand Priory has been maintained and confirmed by the latter and their descendants who continue the mission assigned to their families by Paul I: in France, in 1928, 1955, 1977, 2004, 2006.
Today, under the governance of its Grand Prior, H.E. Count Pierre Cheremetieff and his Lieutenant Grand Prior, H.E. Prince Stéphane Belosselsky Belozersky, both from the Rurikid dynasty that ruled Russia for nearly a thousand years, the G.P.R. brings together some 250 knights, dames and donats spread over France, Italy, Belgium, Canada and the United States of America.
The Grand Priory of Russia does not claim to be an independent Order and recognises the Grand Magister in the Order of Malta as the only authentic Grand Magister.
Hospitaller Works
Within each national Priory, a complementary structure is added to the chivalric structure called the Hospitaller Works of the Order, which operates autonomously and separately in the pursuit of charitable works but under the control of the national Priory.
Many volunteers or friends who do not necessarily wish to be part of the Order are thus invited to participate in various philanthropic projects in partnership with the knights and ladies.
The previous section established that in 1928 a group of Russian nobles re-established the Russian branch of the Order of Malta. To examine if this act was legitimate, it is crucial to examine the continuity of the Order since its creation by the Tsar in 1797 until the Russian revolution. This section quotes two contemporary witnesses proving that the Russian branch of the Order of Malta was active in Russia until the 1917 revolution: Arthur Campbell Yate and Mikhail Alexandrovich Taube. It also presents modern research, which confirms these statements.
Arthur Campbell Yate (1853-1929)
Arthur Campbell Yate, FRGD, FRHistS, is a reliable witness in this context, considering the fact that he is independent and knowledgeable regarding the subject:
Yate, Lt-Colonel Arthur Campbell, Indian Army (retired); s. of Rev. C. Yate; b. 1853: educ: Shrewsbury and St. John’s College, Cambridge; joined the Army, 1875; became Lieut-Colonel, 1882; Bombay Staff Corps, 1879; served in Afghan War, 1879-81; Afghan Boundary Commission, 1884-85; Burmese War, 1886-88; Intelligence Officer, Northern Shan States, 1887-88; travelled in Persia, Caucasus and Central Asia, 1881-90; Fellow, Royal Geographical Society; Honorary Organising Commissioner of St. John’s Ambulance Association, India, 1900. Publications: Lieut-Col. John Houghton, a Hero of Tirah; The Army and the Press in 1901; England and Russia Face to Face in Asia. Address: Beckbury Hall, Shifnal, Shropshire. Clubs: United Service, Athenaeum, St James’.
The Island of Rhodes.— We must seek probably in the general ignorance of the past history of the Rhodes the solution of the fact that even the most classical of our British journals fait to grasp the idea that the history of the past may possibly, under fostering influences, have some hearing upon the future destiny of this island. Personally, ever since Italy occupied it, I have been allowing my mind to ruminate, academically, upon the possibility of restoring it to the Knight’s of Saint John of Jerusalem. At the time when an ungrateful Europe, headed by Philippe IV. Of France (Le Bel- Heaven save the mark 1) and his creature, Clement V., were diabolically suppressing the Templars, and doing nothing themselves either to check the Turk or protest the Holy Land, the Hospitallers (alias Knight’s of Saint John) were quietly occupying and fortifying Rhodes. The Byzantine Emperor of the moment, Græculus csuriens, could not protect Rhodes himself, and refused the Hospitallers’ offer to hold it for him, acknowledging his suzerainty. The refusal decided the Grand Master to hold it without permission; and so well did they hold it that it was not until sixty-nine years after the Grand Signor had taken Coustantinople that the Turks succeeded in driving them out. To tell the story of the sieges, which they underwent, and of the incessant naval warfare which they waged against Turk and corsair, is beyond the scope of this short note. Their defence of Rhodes was magnificent; the history of the sieges must be read, For a time they held Smyrna, but Taimur (Tamerlanc) the Lame dove them from it, and also, I think, took their fortified slave-refuge at Budrum, built of the masonry of the ancient Halicarnassus. Budrum for a century was the haven of refuge of the escaped Christian slave. If anyone would read of the Rhodes, of the Knights, and of Budrum, I must refer him to the fine library at St. John’s Gate, Clerkenwell, the principal remnant of the old Grand Priory of England. If any would know what slavery in the hands of the Turk, or Moor, or Barbary corsaic meant, let me refer him to Sir Lambert Playfair’s “The Scourge of Christendom.” The successful defence of Rhodes by the Knights in 1430 won for them the devotion of all Christendom. Their evacuation of it on January 1, 1523, with all the honours of war, after a six-month’s sledge, drew from the lips of Charles V. the words, “Never was a place more nobly lost.” Then he gave them Malta. This suffices to justify my contention that, theoretically, no one had a better right to Rhodes
Journal of the Central Asian Society Vol. I, 1914 Part I, p. 23
And:
than the Knights of St. John. Since 1523 many are the vicissitudes through which they have passed, viz. : The secession of the bailiwick of Brandenburg at the time of Luther’s reformation; the suppression of the Order in England and Ireland by Henry VIII. In 1539, and in Scotland in 1563; and finally the revolution in France (1792) and Napoleon’s seizure of Malta (1798). The order has survived those vicissitudes and holds a high position throughout Christendom, firstly by the distinction of many of those who are numbered among its members, and secondly by the eminence to which it has attained as a promoter of “first aid” and ambulance work. There exists first and foremost the Catholic Order, with its headquarters and Grand Master at Rome and its grand priories in Austria, Italy and Rohemia, and its “associations” in France, Spain, England, and Germany; secondly, the Johanniter Order at Berlin; and last, but not least in distinction and power, the Grand Priory of England. Independent as these three actually are of each other at this moment, there seems no reason why a closer union should not be formed. After the two centuries of estrangement, the Brandenburg bailiwick returned, some time in the first half of the eighteenth century, into the fold of the Order. The Grand Priory of England has its Ophthalmic Hospital at Jerusalem on a site granted by the Sultan. The Johanniter Order hols the Muristan of Jerusalem, the old site of the Order’s chef-lieu, presented, I believe, by the Sultan to the Crown Prince Frederick forty-five years ago. The French Republic has just shown that, thought its earliest aspirations after “liberté, egalité, fraternité” took the form of unfettered madness, the reverence for the great traditions of the past has returned. France, with the consent of Italy and Turkey, has secured possession of the finest of the three old auberges (inns or hostels) which belonged to the French Knights of Provence, Auvergne, and France in the fifteenth century, Everyone knows that they stand to-day much as they were left, with the arms of their countries, Grand Masters, Grand Crosses, and Knights carved upon them. Amid the obvious uncertainty, which, owing to the susceptibilities of the Great Powers and the ambitions of Italy, turkey, and Greece, encircles the destiny of the Ægean Islands, one possible solution of a difficult situation, which might satisfy all, suggests itself. It is understood that the Ægean islands, when allotted, are not to be fortified or used as naval bases. Rhodes, administered by the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem- and in making this suggestion I presume the united action of the chef-lieux of Rome, London and Berlin- under the guarantee of the Great Powers, would surely be, by the very cosmopolitanism of its administrators, exempt from such temptations as might be calculated to once more sow and foster the seeds of discord. The traditions of Rhodes claim it emancipation from Turkish rule. If Christendom wills that no one Power holds it, then let the Knights hold it in the name of all the Powers. It has had a great commercial past. It will have a greater commercial future; for, whatever others may do, the grand priory of England will, we trust, extend to them the privileges of the “open door.”— A. C. YATE.
Journal of the Central Asian Society Vol. I, 1914 Part I, p. 24
And in the article’s addendum:
THE FUTURE OF RHODES.
To Part I. of the Journal for 1914 of the CENTRAL ASIAN SOCIETY I contributed a short note, giving a brief summary of the close ties which, from a historical point of view, entitled Rhodes to the strongest sentiments of sympathy and interest on the part of the Christian nations of Europe. I pointed out the magnificent part which the old Order of the Knights Hospitallers had played in the retention of this island in the face of Islam from A.D. 1310 to 1523. I then
Journal of the Central Asian Society Vol. I, 1914 Part II, p. 35
And (bold font by me, JvBQ):
drew attention to the fact that there existed to-day in Europe three branches of this great Order-the Roman, with its “Cheflieu” at Rome ; the “Johanniter” at Berlin; and the Grand Priory of England at Clerkenwell. I pointed out that there was no unity between these branches, no sign of initiative on the part of any one of them, and that, while their great social influence might enable them to appeal to the courts, aristocracies, and Governments of almost all the Christian nations in Europe, not a thing was being done, not a move made. A sentimental interest was affected in an old Hospitaller castle in Cyprus-whose Lusiguan Kings bullied the Knights – but for Rhodes not a hand was moved.
Although I got little encouragement and scarcely even succeeded in rousing a feeble interest, I however, with the kind assistance of one or two friends whose sympathies were not lukewarm, pursued my aim until I was able to ascertain, on the authority of the Foreign Office, that it had been decided by the Six Great Powers-“Les Six Grandes Impuissances,” as some diplomatic wag has christened them-that Rhodes was to go back to Turkey. Italy holds it at present, and Italy will not part with it till she gets all she wants in return. So there is still hope. When the Six “Grandes Impuissances” cannot agree, an international agent, like the Hospitallers, may step in.
I forgot to add above that the great affection for and interest in the Order displayed by Paul the First of Russia one hundred and fifteen years ago, is by no means dead. There exist in Russia to-day “Hereditary” Knights of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem. These men are undoubtedly adherents of the Eastern or Greek Church. No such thing as a “Hereditary” Knight of the Order of St. John is known elsewhere. Russia, without the authority of the Order, invented it. We presume that these “Hereditary” Knights hold the hand of St. John the Baptist, the most treasured relic of the Order, presented to the Grand Master about 1485 by the then Sultan of Turkey and shamelessly despoiled by Napoleon in 1798. The Knights took the relic, shorn of its jewelled casket, to Russia, and there it still is, if report be true. And yet not all the sympathy and sentiment which unites Catholic, Protestant, and Greek Churches to the hallowed memory of Rhodes in the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries, can move Christendom to emancipate Rhodes!
Journal of the Central Asian Society Vol. I, 1914 Part II, p. 36
Baron Mikhail Alexandrovich Taube (1869-1961)
Герб баронского рода фон Таубе/Coat of arms of the Von Taube family. See: Michael Frhr. v. Taube: Beiträge zur baltischen Familiengeschichte. In: Jahrbuch für Genealogie, Heraldik und Sphragistik. 1899, S. 143–147; 1900, S. 85–89; 1903, S. 113–115; 1904, S. 115–120; 1905/06, S. 257–262; 1907/08, S. 65–73; 1909/10, S. 13. Whether the Taube family originally came from Denmark or from Westphalia cannot be deduced from modern German literature, where the Taube family is labelled as Baltic Uradel. Although in Denmark as well as in Danish Estonia the name bearers Tuve, “Duve” are mentioned in documents as early as the 13th century, the squire Engelke Tuve, who appears in Wierland on 24 August 1373, is generally regarded as the oldest proven family member. The five branches of the family cannot be traced back to a common ancestor, but begin in the 15th and 16th centuries. The family branched out from the Baltic States to Sweden, Poland, Finland, Russia, Denmark and into the German Empire to Saxony and Prussia. Individual branches bear the title of baron, and there have been several elevations to the rank of baron and count.
From 1896 to 1899 Taube was a privat-docent at Kharkov University. From 1909 to 1917, he taught at its law school. From 1892 to 1917, he worked for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, specializing in maritime law. Taube participated in a number of international conferences on this issue and defended Russian interest. From 1909, he represented Russia at the International Court of Arbitration in the Hague. Taube was a supporter of conservative views. From 1911 to 1914 he was the Minister of National Education. After A.L. Kasso’s death, from October 1914 to January 1915, Taube had been his successor. From 1915. – From 1915 he was a senator; from 1917 he was a member of the State Council. In 1917, Taube emigrated to Finland, where he became Minister of Foreign Affairs in the government of A.F. Trepov in exile. He then taught at Uppsala University in Sweden. In 1928, Taube moved to Paris, where he worked at the Carnegie Endowment for Europe and the Russian Institute at the Faculty of Law of the University of Paris. From 1932 to 1937, Taube worked in Germany at the University of Münster. From there he returned to Paris. Taube maintained relations with representatives of the tsarist family, notably as legal adviser to Grand Duke V. Kirill Vladimirovich. He was a member of the “Icon” (Икона) Society and the Supreme Monarchic Council. Taube was a member of a number of Russian historical, archeological, philosophical, philological societies and regional archive commissions. He was the member of Russian Apostolate which promoted the ideas of unification of Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
Taube mainly focussed on history and modernity of international law. Furthermore, he made an important contribution to the development of genealogy in Russia: he was one of the founders of the Russian Genealogical Society and a member of the Historical and Genealogical Society. After the emigration his scholarly interests largely shifted towards church history; in particular, he devoted several studies to the Agrapheans and the history of relations between the Orthodox and Catholic churches (see: Biography of St. Petersburg State University and Columbia University Libraries, Mikhail Aleksandrovich Taube Papers, 1890-1960, Bib ID 4078137).
His statements read as follows:
Le fils et successeur de Paul, Alexandre Ier, lui-même grand-prieur de Russie du vivant de son père, adopta vis-à-vis des chevaliers une ligne de conduite absolument différente. Tout en assumant le titre de Protecteur de l’Ordre, il en refusa la grande maîtrise et, devenant de plus en plus indifférent à cette institution sous l’influence des idées ultra-nationales d’après 1812, — et d’un mysticisme protestant à la Mme de Krudener — finit par se détourner définitivement de l’Ordre de Malte.
[EN] Paul’s son and successor, Alexander I, himself Grand Prior of Russia during his father’s lifetime, took a completely different line with the knights. While assuming the title of Protector of the Order, he refused the Grand Mastership and, becoming increasingly indifferent to this institution under the influence of the ultra-national ideas of the post-1812 period – and of a Protestant mysticism in the style of Madame de Krudener – ended up turning away from the Order of Malta for good.
De Taube, 1955, chapter I
and:
Sous les règnes suivants, ceux d’Alexandre II (1855- 1881) et d’Alexandre III (1881-1894), le Gouvernement impérial se rendait toujours parfaitement compte de l’existence d’un Prieuré Russe de l’Ordre de Saint-Jean représenté par l’ensemble des descendants directs de ses premiers commandeurs héréditaires. Ce fait est prouvé, par exemple, par un document officiel appartenant aujourd’hui à l’un de ces commandeurs héréditaires russes de nos jours, le prince Cyrille Troubetzkoy (demeurant à Paris) ; c’est l’état des services original du fils aîné du général-aide-de-camp prince Vassily Serguéévitch Troubetzkoy du début du XIX siècle, le prince Alexandre Vassiliévitch établi en 1889 et portant la notation suivante “ En sa qualité d’aîné de la famille — commandeur héréditaire de l’Ordre de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem, dont il porte les insignes conformément à l’autorisation Souveraine du 19 octobre 1867 ”
[EN] During the subsequent reigns of Alexander II (1855- 1881) and Alexander III (1881-1894), the Imperial Government was always fully aware of the existence of a Russian Priory of the Order of St. John represented by all the direct descendants of its first hereditary commanders. This fact is proven, for example, by an official document belonging to one of these present-day Russian hereditary commanders, Prince Cyril Troubetzkoy (living in Paris); This is the original service record of the eldest son of the General-Aide-de-Camp Prince Vasily Sergeevich Troubetzkoy from the beginning of the 19th century, Prince Alexander Vasilyevich, drawn up in 1889 and bearing the following notation: “In his capacity as the eldest of the family – Hereditary Commander of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, the insignia of which he wears in accordance with the Sovereign’s authorisation of October 19, 1867”.
De Taube, 1955, sub 18
and:
Il ne faut pas oublier enfin, que les capitaux, comme les propriétés immobilières qui appartenaient au Grand Prieuré Russe de l’Ordre de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem n’ont certainement pas disparus après la mort de Paul Ier, et l’Empereur Alexandre Ier en ordonna l’inventaire et leur gestion en qualité de propriété de l’Ordre, indépendant des propriétés de l’Etat oukaze du 26 Février 1810 au maréchal comte Saltykoff, concernant les capitaux de l’Ordre.
Et celui du 20 novembre 1811 donné au Sénat Dirigeant relativement aux biens immobiliers des commandeurs héréditaires — il est indubitable, que tous les détails concernant cet Avoir du Grand-Prieuré russe au cours des XIX et XXe siècles pourraient être facilement établis par des actes officiels, conservés aux archives russes, soit aux Archives d’Etat (Gossoudarstvenniy arkhiv) ou à celles du “Cabinet de Sa Majesté”.
[EN] Finally, it should not be forgotten that the assets and real estate belonging to the Russian Grand Priory of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem certainly did not disappear after the death of Paul I, and Emperor Alexander I ordered their inventory and management as the property of the Order, independent of state property, or the order of 26 February 1810 to Marshal Count Saltykoff concerning the Order’s assets.
And that of 20 November 1811 given to the Senate Ruler concerning the real estate of the hereditary commanders – there is no doubt that all the details concerning this property of the Russian Grand Priory during the 19th and 20th centuries could easily be established by official acts, preserved in the Russian archives, either in the State Archives (Gossoudarstvenniy arkhiv) or in those of the “Cabinet of His Majesty”.
De Taube, 1955, sub 26
and:
Somme toute, comme on voit, on était loin en Russie d’avantguerre d’oublier le tsar grand-maître Paul Ier, fondateur du Grand Prieuré Russe, et une coïncidence significative voulut que, l’annéemême du déclenchement de la première guerre mondiale qui engendra la révolution et la fin de la période impériale fut marquée par la publication d’un livre très bien fait d’après des documents officiels sur l’Ordre de Malte en Russie c’étaient, comme on dirait, pour la Russie, une oraison funèbre de son Grand Prieuré Russe, ainsi qu’un rappel de son existence à ses commandeurs héréditaires émigrés à l’étranger.
[EN] All in all, as can be seen, the Tsar Grand Master Paul I, founder of the Russian Grand Priory, was far from forgotten in pre-war Russia, and it was a significant coincidence that the very year of the outbreak of the First World War, which brought about the revolution and the end of the Imperial period, saw the publication of a very well-done book based on official documents on the Order of Malta in Russia, which was for Russia, as one might say, a funeral oration for the Russian Grand Priory and a reminder of its existence to its hereditary commanders who had emigrated abroad.
De Taube, 1955, sub 23
Modern research by Mikhail Asvarish confirms the aforementioned statements by Yate and Taube. His book Russian Knights of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem. XVIII–XIX centuries lists 1.600 Russian subjects (both Russians and foreigners in the Russian service), decorated with the Maltese cross, starting with B.P. Sheremetev and ending with members of the imperial house at the end of the 19th century.
Current status of the Russian Grand Priory
The Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta claims to be the only legitimate successor of the ancient Order of Saint John:
The Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta wishes to point out the proliferation all over the world of bodies and associations which, using symbols and names not unlike those of the Order of Malta, are trying in every measure to represent themselves as legitimate and recognised orders of Saint John. These organisations have no connection whatsoever with the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta whose institutional seat is located in Rome, at Via Condotti 68, and which maintains bilateral diplomatic relations with over 100 States and the European Union, and has permanent observer status at the United Nations. The Sovereign Order of Malta does not recognise any historical or legal legitimacy in organisations and associations that take advantage of the names and emblems of the Order of Malta by using them for financial ends.
This claim is untruthful. The Russian Grand Priory has a comparable legal and social-cultural status:
The historical facts show that since the nineteenth century, the two Russian Priories had found themselves vis-a-vis the central organisation in Rome and were no longer in a strong liaison (see: Livre des Ordres de Chevaliers, Anonym. Bruxelles u.a. p. 269).
The aforementioned witness statement by Lt-Colonel Yate clearly proves that there existed a group of hereditary knights of Malta in 1914, which was created by the Tsar in 1799.
The statement of Baron von Taube is an authoritative source that has been written by an expert who is recognized in his field of expertise. Modern authors criticizing the legitimacy of the Russian Priory, cannot be seen as authoritative, since they lack legal expertise, as well as first-hand information.
The fact that this group consists of a number of descendants of the original Hereditary Commanders provides a genuine historical link between the Russian Grand Priory before the 1917-revolution and the one established in 1928. This group of Russian exiles who remained active in France had received the protection of the Romanovs in the person of the Grand Dukes Cyril and Andrei.
Count Boris Petrovich Sheremetev (Russian: Граф Бори́с Петро́вич Шереме́тев, tr. Borís Petróvič Šeremétev; 5 May [O.S. 25 April] 1652 – 28 February [O.S. 17 February] 1719), Imperial Russian diplomat and general field marshal during the Great Northern War. He wears the cross of the Order of Saint John.
This means that the Paris group, formed in 1928, and consisting of descendents of the hereditary knights, is a perfectly legitimate Order with an authentic lineage to the original Order of Saint John. The only direct successor of the Paris group is the Grand Prieuré Russe de l’Ordre de Saint Jean de Jérusalem, based in Paris, and lead by Pierre Cheremetieff and Stéphane Belosselsky Belozersky. This cannot be said for the other Orders of Saint John, since they lack an unbroken historical lineage. Recognition or rejection by the Pope does not constitute historical legitimacy, and it is therefore irrelevant that the Russian Grand Priory is not recognised by the Vatican or the SMOM. It is strange that the Russian Grand Priory recognises the Grandmaster of the SMOM as their Grandmaster, because their is no reciprocity and no material relationship. I recommend revoking the recognition as it is a senseless act of submission to an order that has a lesser historical claim to authenticity.
Summary
Part 3 shows that there exists compelling evidence that:
A Russian Grand Priory was formed in the 19th century as a life line for the Order of Malta which was abolished by Napoleon.
This Russian Grand Priory existed during the19th and 20th century and developed into a separate organisation, independent from the re-established Order by the Vatican in 1879.
The Priory was continued in Paris in 1928 as a Russian Order of Saint John.
The Order lead by Pierre Cheremetieff and Stéphane Belosselsky Belozersky is the modern successor of the 1928 Paris group.
Parts 1, 2 and 3 can be summarized as follows:
Name of entity
Foundation
Status
Hospitallers with nursing purpose
documented since 1023, but probably much earlier
Dissolved end of 12th century by Saladin
Military Order of Saint John
end of 12th century
Abolished 1806 by Napoleon
Bailiwick Brandenburg
before 1351
Dissolved 1811 by Frederick William III of Prussia
Abolished 1917 by the communist Decree on the Abolition of Estates and Civil Ranks; regrouped in Paris 1928 and still active. Grand Prieur: le comte Pierre Cheremetieff. Offspring: Priory of Dacia.
Timeline of Orders, labelled as “Order of Saint John”
Conclusions
Legal perspective
In most legal systems, two basic structures of company mergers can be distinguished. Either the target company is merged into an existing company, or a new company (“NewCo”) is formed. In both cases, the target companies are dissolved by operation of law (automatically). At the end of the process, only the surviving company remains (see: e.g. Rosenbaum, J. and J. Pearl. Investment Banking: Valuation, Leveraged Buyouts, and Mergers and Acquisitions. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey. 2009, p. 276). Analogously, this article considers the surviving entity of the Knights Hospitaller, the entity that holds the control and assets of (a substantial part of) the original entity. It has been shown that none of the modern Orders who claim to be a successor of the original Knights Hospitaller, hold the control and assets of the original entity. Therefore, from a legal perspective, no surviving entities from the original Knights Hospitaller exist today, despite all the claims by modern revivals.
Social-cultural perspective
From a social-cultural perspective, no modern Order can claim authenticity or legitimacy of origin regarding the original hospital in Jerusalem. The reason is obvious: the nature of the modern Orders cannot be compared to the original entity, which required the brothers to fully surrender themselves to God. The same is true for the Order as a combat unit. None of modern Orders of Saint John can be designated as such. Perhaps the only exception is the volunteers who are running many of the relief projects across the world. They are the genuine successors of the monks that, more than a thousand years ago, created the hospital in Jerusalem.
Literature
De Taube, Baron Michel. L’Empereur Paul Ier de Russie, Grand Maître de l’Ordre de Malte et son “Grand prieuré Russe” de l’Ordre de Saint-Jean-de-Jérusalem, Paris, 1955.
Михаил Асварищ, Российские кавалеры ордена Св. Иоанна Иерусалимского. XVIII–XIX вв. Биографический справочник, Фонд «Русские Витязи», 2022. ISBN 978-5-907245-66-2.
Милославский Ю. Г. Странноприимцы: Православная ветвь Державного Ордена рыцарей-госпитальеров Св. Иоанна Иерусалимского. СПб.: Царское Дело, 2001
Захаров В. А. История Мальтийского Ордена в России, 2006.
This article is a historical essay and not in any way intended as Russian propaganda. I strongly condemn the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, and am alarmed and concerned by the terrible suffering in Ukraine. I emphasise the urgent need for promoting peace and the rule of international law, and the importance of long-term bridge building.
THE ALLIANCE OF ORDERS OF THE HOSPITAL OF ST JOHN OF JERUSALEM
The Alliance of Orders of St John – a federation of the official primarily Protestant Orders of St John in Europe – was formed in 1961, on the initiative of then Swiss Commander, Baron M R von Sturler. The Convention of the Alliance of Knightly Orders of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem was signed in Nieder-Weisel on 13 June 1961 by representatives of the Orders of St John in Germany, Britain, the Netherlands and Sweden. Also affiliated to the Alliance are the Commanderies in Finland, France, Switzerland and Hungary, which are all linked with the Bailiwick of Brandenburg. [see Annex A]
The main purpose behind the creation of the Alliance was to strengthen the international standing of the Protestant Orders of St John in Europe and to facilitate a united front in matters of common concern. During the Second World War, Baron von Sturler, from his neutral but key position as Commander in Bern, had been in close contact with the various Orders of St John and their individual members, as well as with the Sovereign Order of Malta. That co-operation continued after the war; but it then proved increasingly difficult for the members of the Orders of St John, with their limited resources, to make a significant contribution among the many rapidly expanding international aid organisations with similar aims of their own, many of which had their headquarters in Geneva. The idea was thus born of forming an Alliance of the various official non-Catholic Orders of St John, as a first stage towards wider international co-operation in the future.
A second reason why such an Association was thought necessary during the post-war era was the growth of illegitimate, or unrecognised, Orders claiming the same historical background as the four official Orders of St John and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. A number of these unrecognised Orders had been formed after World War II, some in the USA and spreading from there to Europe. This was source of irritation and confusion.
When the Alliance of Orders of St John was formed, therefore, its main tasks were defined as first, to spread knowledge of the purpose, organisation and activities of the Alliance and its member Orders; and secondly, to keep a close watch on, and if necessary counteract, the negative effects resulting from confusion with any Unrecognised Order.
This led the Alliance to publish in 1964 the forerunner of this booklet. It aimed briefly to describe not only the history of the Alliance members, but also to give some idea of the nature and scope of their practical charitable activities. These were especially important in Britain and Germany, where the respective Orders occupy somewhat the same position as, for example, the Red Cross does in Sweden. Most of the members of the Alliance have it in common, that they concentrate mainly on national charitable activities, and have only limited funds available for international projects. There are certain major exceptions to this, however. First, the (London-based) Venerable Order of St John has a major eye hospital in Jerusalem where the German Order also runs a general hospital. Secondly, because of its world-wide network described above, the Venerable Order has significant activities outside Europe in the older Commonwealth countries and also does further work (e.g. in First Aid training and Primary Healthcare) in some 30 developing countries in the Commonwealth where it has branches. Several of its Priories also undertake First Aid training in other countries such as Japan, Jordan and Mexico. Thirdly, the Johanniter Unfall Hilfe in Germany now has a significant aid programme abroad, in Eastern Europe, Central Asia and elsewhere.
At a subsequent meeting in Bubikon in 1964, it was decided to open a permanent secretariat for the Alliance in Geneva. Its original aim was to co-ordinate international activities; and to organise the necessary contact with the Sovereign Order of Malta, the International Committee of the Red Cross and UN humanitarian and social agencies, as well as other organisations, in that city.
At the Alliance Meeting in London held in 1967, it was decided to make the following addition to the information contained in the first (1964) booklet about the Alliance Orders of St John.
Only the member Orders of the Alliance of Orders of St John, and the Sovereign Order of Malta (whose headquarters are in Rome) are recognised by the Alliance as historically legitimate Orders of St John.
No other Orders, associations or organisations shall in future be recognised as Orders of St John without consultation of and a unanimous resolution by all members of the Alliance of Orders of St John.
This remains the firm policy of the Alliance.
Finally, an historic declaration was circulated on 14 October 1987, and was signed by the four Orders of the Alliance as a joint declaration with the Grand Master of the (Roman Catholic) Sovereign Military Order of Malta. This formally confirmed the status of the five official Orders of St John. The text is at Annex B.
The Council of the Alliance meets annually, usually in the country of one of its members. There are also regular co-ordination meetings with the Sovereign Military Order of Malta at various different levels.
The “False Orders Committee” is an independent Committee, established by the initiative of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta in 1974. The four recognised Orders of St John in the Alliance are represented on this Committee. In the context of the wider scene of unrecognised orders of Chivalry, the FOC is charged with preventing the misuse of the names, emblems and official documents of its Member Orders, and to forestall unlawful acts arising from the imitation of those names and emblems. In addition to, but separate from, the False Orders Committee, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and the Orders of the Alliance of St John have constituted a Joint Commission on Emblem Protection. This seeks to prevent unauthorised use of the white eight-pointed cross.
ANNEX A – Convention signed in Niederweisel on the 13th June 1961
Two years later, on 26 November 1963, the Alliance was consolidated with the signing of a joint declaration between the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and the Most Venerable Order, at St John’s Gate, London, by the Grand Chancellor of the SMHOM, the Prince of Resuttano, and Lord Wakehurst, Lord Prior of the Most Venerable Order. The text of this document reads:
The relationship which exists between the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta and the Grand Priory in the British Realm of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem is not always clearly understood, and it is to dispel any misconceptions which may exist that this statement is being made.
A dispute, long since relegated to the realms of academic discussion, as to whether the Most Venerable Order was the lineal descendent of the old Grand Priory of the Sovereign Order, at one time caused division amongst those concerned with such questions. Certain it is that the Most Venerable Order acquired a completely independent existence when it was granted a Royal Charter by Her Majesty Queen Victoria, who became its Sovereign Head.
Since this time the Most Venerable Order has pursued the same high ideals of charity, especially to the poor and sick, which were the very cause of the foundation of the Sovereign Order nearly one thousand years ago.
It will be easy to understand, therefore, why two great Orders, representing the same traditions, pursuing the same ideals, serving the same cause and wearing the same famous eight pointed cross, should have the greatest respect and esteem for each other. It is our great happiness to declare that such a relationship does truly exist, and that it is the dearest wish of both Orders, to seek ever more ways in which they can collaborate, to promote God’s glory and to alleviate the sufferings and miseries of mankind.
To supplement this statement, a further agreement was drawn up between the SMHOM and the Venerable Order in 1983. This was signed by Sir Maurice Dorman, Lord Prior of the Most Venerable Order and Sir Peter Hope, KCMG, then President of the British Association of the Sovereign Military Order. It reads as follows:
Twenty years have passed since the signing of the Joint Declaration concerning the relationship between the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and the Most Venerable Order of St. John, during which the relationship between our two Orders has grown ever closer.
In it the common ideal of the struggle in the defense of our suffering brethren was affirmed and the amity between the signatory Orders was acclaimed especially the common wearing of the eight-pointed Cross of St. John.
The last two decades have seen an increase in the world-wide suffering of our brethren, our response has likewise expanded. The banner of our eight-pointed Cross has been flown increasingly where-ever in the world sickness or distress have made demands upon us. Our ties are strong and our purpose to help Our Lords the Sick identical. We are pleased to record our joint efforts to help the elderly which have already seen the creation of Alms Houses in Sussex and Wales.
We are also united in one fight against False Orders, those self constituted and self styled groups which lack both authenticity or legitimacy of origin but variously describe themselves as an “Order of St. John” or an “Order of Malta”. However the Johanniter Orden in Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands is a legitimate and honoured ally.
We pledge ourselves anew to carry into the Twentyfirst Century the historical aims and obligations of our Orders.
The most recent agreement between the five Orders culminated in a further statement which clarifies the difference between those Orders which are recognized as such by the Sovereign authorities of the countries in which they are based and the self-styled “Orders of Saint John” whose pretension to be Orders of Chivalry are unrecognized by such sovereign authorities. Confirming the close and friendly relations between the five Orders, this statement reads as follows:
ANNEX B – Joint Declaration dated 14 October 1987.
THE ORDERS OF SAINT JOHN With the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta which is Roman Catholic, the four non-Catholic Orders of St. John provide a Christian answer to the problems of a troubled and materialistic world. They have a common devotion to a historical tradition and a unique vocation: the lordship of the sick and the poor. They strive to realize their aim by mutual collaboration as well as by their own works. They are the only Orders of St. John which may legitimately use that name.
The Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem had its origins in Jerusalem in the late eleventh century and was recognized as an Order by Pope Pascal II in 1113. From that date it was a religious Order. Its members took monastic vows and lived according to a religious rule.
In the course of its history it developed a class of knights who took no vows, while knights belonging to the first class continued to be professed religious. The Order, therefore, uniquely combined and still combines within itself the nature of a religious Order and an Order of chivalry. In the former capacity it was and still is subject to the laws of the Church. The Sovereign Military and Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta (generally known as the Sovereign Military Order of Malta) is this Order. It is widely recognized as a sovereign subject of International Public Law. It has five Grand Priories, three Sub-Priories and thirty-seven National Associations throughout catholic Christendom. Since 1834 its extra-territorial headquarters have been in Rome. The Grand Master is H.M.E.H. Fra’ Angelo de Mojana di Cologna.
Four non-catholic Orders of St. John of Jerusalem are recognized by their sovereign authorities in the countries in which they are based.
They are: Die Balley Brandenburg des Ritterlichen Ordens Sankt Johannis vom Spital zu Jerusalem (generally known as Der Johanniterorden). Besides seventeen Associations in the Federal Republic of Germany, there are Austrian, Finnish, French and Swiss (which are officially recognized in their respective countries) and the Hungarian in exile. Its Headquarters are in Bonn. Its head, styled Der Herrenmeister, is H.R.H. Prince Wilhelm-Karl of Prussia.
Johanniter Orde in Nederland. It was formed as an independent Order in 1946. Its headquarters are in the Hague. Its head is H.R.H. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. Johanniterorden i Sverige. It was incorporated by royal charter in 1946. Its headquarters are in Stockholm and the High Patron is H.M. King Carl XVI Gustaf.
The Grand Priory of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem (generally known as the Order of St. John). It has six Priories, two Commanderies and forty Saint John Councils throughout the English-speaking world. Its headquarters are in London. Its Sovereign Head is H.M. Queen Elizabeth II.
The four non-Catholic Orders are associated with one another in the international Alliance of the Orders of St. John of Jerusalem. They are Orders of Chivalry, but they are to be distinguished from most national Orders because of their Christian faith and their traditions as religious confraternities of Christian laymen.
In all these Orders are fostered such ideals of the medieval Order as are applicable to their circumstances, essentially the care of the sick and other service to fellow men.
14 October 1987. Signed by H.M.Em. H. Fra’ Angelo di Mojana, Prince and Grand Master of the Sovereign, Military and Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, called of Rhodes and of Malta; H.R.H. Wilhelm-Karl, Prince of Prussia, Herrenmeister of the Johanniter Order; H.R.H. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, Landcommander, Johanniter Order in the Netherlands; Fredrik Lowenhielm, Johanniter Order in Sweden; Rt. Hon. the Earl Cathcart, Lord Prior, The Most Venerable Order of Saint John.
Appendix 2b: Annex A – Convention signed in Niederweisel on the 13th June 1961
I. All Orders of St. John to-day are dedicated, according to their various Constitutions, to the Christian faith and to the work of caring for the sick and needy. The fulfillment of these tasks is largely exemplified in the establishment and operation of hospitals, welfare institutions, nursing schools, first aid organizations and associations for social aid and care of the sick, and like institutions.
II. The signatory Orders of St. John hereunder mentioned are akin to the older Tongues, respect the ancient rule and its underlying purpose, but are each of them free, independent and autonomous, and they now form an Alliance of Orders of St. John to be known by that description.
The signatory Orders of St. John are as follows:
Die Balley Brandenburg des ritterlichen Ordens St. Johannis vom Spital zu Jerusalem
The Grand Priory in the British Realm of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem
Johanniter Orde in Nederland
Johanniterorden i Sverige
With these are to be counted the four Associations in union with the Bailiwick of Brandenburg, namely:
Johanniter Ridderskap i Finland
Association des Chevaliers de St. Jean, Langue de France
Genossenschaft der Johanniterritter in der Schweiz
Johannitarend Magyar Tagozata
III. The signatory Orders are firmly of the opinion that the unity of all Orders of St. John is demanded by history, by their faith and by their common purposes and will fortify their international standing, and that if their efforts and labours are to be effective on the international plane these should be carried on shoulder to shoulder and as a common task.
IV. To enable all Orders of St. John to promote the success of the many international tasks which they undertake and with a view to facilitating also the co-ordination of their various activities, the establishment of a suitable joint committee and of a General Secretariat may be envisaged. The realization of this will only be effected by agreement between all Orders at the time members of the Alliance of Orders of St. John hereby established and if circumstances call for it or make it appear expedient. The organization, duties and powers of these bodies will be laid down by special regulations framed by agreement in the same way. In any case the members of this Alliance recognize that regular mutual contact is desirable.
V. Other Orders, associations, or institutions recognized as Orders of St. John by all members of the said Alliance at the time may with the consent of all such members in like manner adhere to this Convention and become members of the said Alliance. &127 Any member of the Alliance of Orders of St. John may withdraw therefrom and from this Convention by giving six months notice in writing of that intention to all other members at the time.
VII. The word “Alliance” used in the heading and text of this Convention has no political meaning and is not to be interpreted in the light of public international law, and no individual Sovereign person is intended to be bound or committed by this Convention.
VIII. This Convention shall be drawn up in the English and German languages and the text in each language shall have equal validity. HEREBY AGREED AND SIGNED by the Orders mentioned in Article II at the meeting of their delegates held at the Commandery of Niederweisel on the 13th June 1961″.
The “Committee on the Orders of St John (FOC)“ is an independent Committee, established by the initiative of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta in 1974. The four recognised Orders of St John in the Alliance are represented on this Committee. In the context of the wider scene of unrecognised orders of Chivalry, the FOC is charged with preventing the misuse of the names, emblems and official documents of its Member Orders, and to forestall unlawful acts arising from the imitation of those names and emblems.
In September 2000, the FOC issued the following declaration, endorsed by members of the Alliance:
Self-Style Orders of St John The Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta, generally known as the Order of Malta, and the four Orders of St John of Jerusalem which co-operate in the Alliance of the Orders of St John are united by a common historical tradition and a unique vocation: the care of the sick and the poor. These Orders have established a joint committee to investigate and deal with the ever increasing number of organizations which misuse the symbols and emblems of the orders of St John, causing confusion in the minds of the public and impeding the welfare and hospitaller activities of the national and international bodies of the Order of Malta and of the Alliance Orders.
The Sovereign Order of Malta is unique in combining the nature of a Religious Order with an Order of Chivalry and is widely recognized as a sovereign entity of International Law. Confraternities were created after the Reformation which have legitimately conserved the institutional aims and emblems of the Order in their different Christian traditions and which the Sovereign Military Order of Malta recognizes.
The fours Order of St John of Jerusalem associated in the Alliance are recognized by the sovereign authorities in the countries in which they are based. Ther are:
Die Balley Brandenburg des Ritterlichen Ordens Sankt Johannis vom Spital zu Jerusalem (Der Johanniterorden) based in Berlin, the head of which is H.R.H. Prince Oskar of Prussia.
The Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem based in London, the head of which is H.M. Queen Elizabeth II.
De Johanniter Orde in Nederland based in The Hague, the Head of which was H.R.H. the late Prince Bernhard of The Netherlands; H.M Queen Beatrix is Commander of Honour.
Johanniterorden i Sverige based in Stockholm, under the High Patronage of H.M. King Carl XVI Gustaf.
The Orders of St John in the Alliance are Orders of Chivalry and are distinguished from other national Orders because of their Christian faith and their traditions as religious confraternities of Christian lay people.
The following addresses will be of use to those governmental and ecclesiastical authorities and private persons who wish for further information.Sovrano Militare Ordine di Malta Gran Magistero Via Condotti 68 00187 ROMA ITALIA Tel: +39.06.675811 Fax:+39.06.6797202 e-mail: info@smominfo.org
” Committee on the Orders of St John (FOC)” c/o Generalsekretariat des Johanniterordens Finkensteinallee 111 D 12205 – BERLIN GERMANY Phone: +49 30 2309970 0 Fax: +49 30 2309970 249 E-mail: johanniterorden@t-online.de
ADDRESSES OF MEMBER ORDERS OF THE ALLIANCE, AND THE MAIN COMMANDERIES (as of August 2001)
Should you wish to learn more about the Alliance of Orders of St John, or its recognized members, you will find below a number of useful and official addresses. Sites on this list are the only sanctioned and recognized headquarter sites of official members of the Alliance of St John. Further information can be obtained directly from the addresses below:
The Secretariat of the Alliance of Orders of St John, in Switzerland
Schweizerische Kommende des Johanniterordens c/o Maitre Thierry de Haller Rue Saint-Pierre 2 case postale 2673 CH-1002 LAUSANNE Tel: +41 21 321 44 22 Fax: +41 21 323 46 52 Email: tdehaller@dplanet.ch
OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION
The literature about the Orders of St John is very extensive. A recommended starting point is Hospitallers: the History of the Order of St John by Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith; published in the UK by the Hambledon Press in 1999. At the end of it is a list of suggested further reading.
An Official Statement from the Chancellery of the Head of the Russian Imperial House, H.I.H. the Grand Duchess Maria of Russia, on the activities of organizations which falsely refer to themselves as the “Order of Malta”
The Chancellery of the Russian Imperial House occasionally receives inquiries from individuals and organizations about its relationship to groups that refer to themselves as the “Order of St. John of Jerusalem,” including so called “Orthodox” and “Russian” “Orders of Malta,” “Priories,” “Commanderies,” and so on.
In each such instance, it is necessary to clarify that no one has the legal right to use modified names or symbols of the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta (hereinafter referred to as the Sovereign Order of Malta), which has a unquestionable historical and legal continuity from the moment of its founding, and which is recognized as a sovereign entity under international law, and which maintains diplomatic relations with more than 100 States around the world.
The Orthodox Russian Grand Priory was founded by Emperor Paul I in 1798 and was abolished by Emperor Alexander I in 1817. Since then no legitimate authority has reestablished it. Local attempts to revive its activities on a legal basis have not been successful, and all “Orthodox Order of St. John” organizations are illegitimate and offer a means of deception, including the trafficking in false “knighthoods.”
Unfortunately, sometimes members of ancient Russian noble families, some of whose ancestors were members of the genuine Sovereign Order of Malta, have taken part (presumably out of ignorance or carelessness) in the activities of some of these pseudo-Order of Malta organizations. This is especially regrettable because it discredits historic traditional values, and damages the good name of these ancient families and the reputations of their descendants in Russia and the world over.
Therefore, taking into account the long-standing historical and friendly relationship between the Russian Imperial House and the Sovereign Order of Malta, the Chancellery of the Head of the Russian Imperial House considers it necessary to provide the following detailed clarification of the legal and historical position of the Sovereign Order of Malta over the centuries.
The birth of the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta dates back to 1048, when Merchants from the ancient Marine Republic of Amalfi obtained from the Caliph of Egypt the authorisation to build a church and monastery in Jerusalem in honour of St John the Baptist and Forerunner of God. In 1070, the Order built a hospice and hospital at their monastery of St. John for pilgrims coming to the Holy Land.
In 1113, during the tenure of the first Master, Blessed Gerard, Pope Paschal II placed the Order under the aegis of the Church, granting it the right freely to elect its superiors without interference from other lay or religious authorities. By virtue of the Papal Bull, the Hospital became a lay-religious order. The second Master, Raymond du Puy, transformed the originally monastic order into a religious military order. From this point on, the Order added a military role to its previous charitable and medical functions. Its members were pided into three categories: knights engaged in the military struggle to liberate the Lord’s Sepulchre, chaplains who performed religious services, and the brethren who ministered to the needs of pilgrims, the sick, the wounded, and so on.
Gradually, the Order of St. John, which enjoyed the special patronage of the Popes of Rome, grew in fame and became a wealthy and influential organization, owning properties in many Catholic countries of Europe. After the defeat of the Crusaders and the capture of Jerusalem in 1189 by Sultan Saladin, the seat of the Order of St. John moved to Acre, then to Cyprus in 1291, and then to the island of Rhodes in 1310. The members of the Order were then called the Knights of Rhodes. They fought against the Turks but, in the end, in 1522, during the tenure of Grand Master Philippe de Villiers de l’Isle-Adam, the knights were driven from Rhodes after a long and stubborn resistance against Sultan Suleiman II.
In 1530, Charles V, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire and King of Spain, gave the islands of Malta, Comino and Gozo to the Order of St. John. Since then, the members of the Order began to be called Knights of Malta, a name they continue to be known by to this day.
During the Reformation, the Sovereign Order of Malta lost its possessions in those countries that adopted various forms of Protestantism (England, the Netherlands, and the nations of Scandinavia). But the greatest blow that fate delivered to the Sovereign Order of Malta was the loss of its citadel – the islands of Malta – and the threat to its very existence during the French Revolution and the subsequent revolutionary and Napoleonic wars in Europe. It was at this difficult moment that the Sovereign Order of Malta received life-sustaining support from the Russian Empire.
Relations between the Knights of Malta and Russia existed even before the accession to the throne of the House of Romanoff, and diplomatic ties between Russia and Order were established during the reign of Peter I the Great.
The first contact between the two was in 1697, when the courtier (stol’nik) P. A. Tolstoi visited Malta to offer his congratulations to the newly-elected Grand Master, Ramon Perellos y Roccaful. In 1698, on instructions from Tsar Peter I, the boyar B. P. Sheremetev travelled through Europe in an attempt to form an alliance of Christian states against the Ottoman Empire, visiting Pope Innocent XII; the Doge of Venice, Silvestro Valiero; and other rulers, including Ramon Perellos y Roccaful of the Sovereign Order of Malta, who twice received Sheremetev in audience. In recognition of his respect for Russia, the Grand Master presented the tsar’s emissary with a diamond encrusted insignia of the Order of Malta, and so B. P. Sheremetev became the first Russian Orthodox honorary knight of the Roman Catholic Order of Malta.
Since then, diplomatic relations between the Russian Empire and the Sovereign Order of Malta were maintained and continued to evolve. During the reign of Catherine II the Great, a military alliance was formed, though there were never at that time any directly coordinated military operations. Even so, Russian sailors trained on the Sovereign Order of Malta’s ships, and several knights of the Order volunteered to enter Russian service. Among these volunteers was the famous Count Giulio de Litta, who rose to the rank of a Russian Vice-Admiral and was awarded the Russian Order of St. George IV Class.
It was Count de Litta who led the Sovereign Order of Malta’s negotiations with Russia during the reign of Emperor Paul I, who ascended the throne after the death of his mother in 1796. Europe at that time was being rocked by war, which had broken out after the French Revolution in 1789. In 1792, the French National Convention deprived the Order of its properties inside France, which greatly depleted the Order’s resources. The knights of the Order turned to Russia for protection and patronage. In turn, the Emperor Paul I, who was enchanted by the romance of the chivalric order, became interested in the idea of creating out of the Sovereign Order of Malta an outpost of Christian civilization in Europe, which would stand in opposition to the spread of anti-Christian revolution. Filled with these lofty ideals, Paul I enthusiastically agreed to become the Order’s patron.
Originally, the idea was to create Priories in the Russian Empire to provide financial support for the Order, and to name the Russian emperor the patron of the Sovereign Order of Malta. In January 1797, a convention containing these provisions was signed.
When, in 1798, the revolutionary army of France under the command of General Napoleon Bonaparte seized the island of Malta, Emperor Paul I was extremely outraged and offended. Given these circumstances, Paul I ordered the Russian naval squadron in the Mediterranean Sea, which was commanded by Admiral St. Feodor Feodorovich Ushakov, to “act in concert with the Turks and the English against the French, who are a violent race, and who have exterminated within the boundaries of their nation the Christian Faith and all laws established by God.” In this way, there arose the paradoxical situation where the defence of the Catholic Order of Malta was taken up, at least on the level of pleas and exhortations, by Russian Orthodox, English Protestants, and Muslim Turks, the last of these being most extraordinary given the fact that the Knights of Malta had for so many centuries fought against them.
Meanwhile, the Knights of Malta deposed Ferdinand von Hompesch zu Bolheim, who had been ineffective as the Grand Master of the Order, and they decided on October 27, 1798, to recognize Paul I not only as Protector of the Order, but as its 72nd Grand Master.
Strictly speaking, the election of the Orthodox and married Emperor Paul I as Grand Master of a Catholic Order, and the creation of an Orthodox Priory, contradict the Charter of the Order, which could be modified only with the approval of the Pope of Rome. These actions thus violated both the Order’s own internal laws and international law, and were only possible because of the extraordinary circumstances of a Europe that was plagued by revolution and war.
Of course, these acts were entirely legal in the Russian Empire inasmuch as the Emperor holds the Supreme Power and is the very source of law. However, in order for the Sovereign Order of Malta to be able to continue its mission in the global arena, all these decisions had to be later recognized as legal on an international level.
It is possible that, through persistent diplomatic efforts, this international recognition would have been obtained in time, if not for the tragic death of Paul I and the subsequent reversal of his policy on the Sovereign Order of Malta by his son and successor, Emperor Alexander I.
In any case, Count Giulio de Litta was unable to convince Pope Pius VI and his advisors to recognize Emperor Paul I as Grand Master. The next Pope, Pius VII, who was elected in 1800, also refused to recognize Paul I’s election as Grand Master.
Nevertheless, on November 13, 1798, Emperor Paul I accepted the position of Grand Master, and on November 29, 1798, he added the Order of Malta to the Chapter of Russian Orders of Chivalry. Moreover, the insignia of the Order became part of Russia’s State symbols and began to be depicted on the State Coat of Arms and State Seal. Paul I intended to make the title of Grand Master hereditary in his own House, and he included it in the list of his full titles as Emperor of Russia.
Both Russian Priories of the Order – the Orthodox and Catholic ones – received significant properties in Russia, the incomes from which went to supporting the Order’s various activities. With the permission of the Emperor, the knights were permitted to establish noble (that is, hereditary) commanderies, the founders of which and their heirs were required to pay a tithe to the treasury of the Order. Persons not of the required ancient noble ancestry could become honorary commanders and knights of the Order, and others of common birth could be receive as Donats.
For a short period, the Order of Malta became the most prestigious order in the Russian Empire. But on March 11, 1801, Emperor Paul I fell victim to a conspiracy and was murdered. His son, Alexander I, issued a Manifesto on March 16, 1801, in which he took on the title of Protector of the Order and gave his permission for St. Petersburg to be the “main headquarters of the Sovereign Order of Malta until such time as circumstances permit the selection of a Grand Master in accordance with its ancient statutes and decrees” [Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi Imperii, hereafter PSZ, № 17794]. The notion of a hereditary Grand Master was immediately rejected by the new Emperor. The insignia of the Order of Malta were quickly removed from the State symbols of the Russian Empire [see the Imperial decree “Concerning the use of the State Coat of Arms without the Cross of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem,” in PSZ, № 19850]. In an effort to resolve the issues with the Order in Russia as quickly as possible, Emperor Alexander I insisted that, if the election of a new Grand Master could not be conducted fully in accord with the Order’s “ancient statutes and decrees,” then the Pope would decide who the next Grand Master would be. In 1803, Pope Pius VII appointed Giovanni Battista Tommasi as Grand Master. That same year, Emperor Alexander I resigned as Protector of the Sovereign Order of Malta.
On February 26, 1810, Emperor Alexander I stripped the Order of Malta of its wealth and palace in Russia [see the Imperial decree to General-Field Marshall Count N. I. Saltykov “Concerning the disposition of funds of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem,” in PSZ, №24134]. In essence, it was then, in 1810, that one can consider the Russian Orthodox Priory and generally of all activity of the Sovereign Order of Malta in the Russian Empire to have ended. Later decrees concerning Emperor Paul I’s abandoned “Maltese project” merely follow up on or clarify decisions about the Order that had been made earlier.
On November 20, 1811, by a decree issued by the Senate entitled “Concerning the noble estates of family in the Commandery of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem,” the noble (hereditary) Commandery was abolished [see PSZ, № 24882]. On January 20, 1817, a Policy Statement by the Council of Ministers, which was approved by the Emperor, entitled “Concerning the disallowance of those who have received the Order of St. John of Jerusalem at the present time to wear said Order” [PSZ, № 26626] set forth the final terms under which the Sovereign Order of Malta would exist in the Russian Empire. Honorary knights and commanders of the Sovereign Order of Malta, who had received this honour previously, would not be deprived of membership of the Order, but it was also clarified that “after the death of commanders of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, their heirs will not inherit membership in the Order and will not wear its insignia, inasmuch as the Order no longer exists in the Russian Empire.” Henceforth, the Sovereign Order of Malta was viewed in Russia as an exclusively foreign Order. Eventually, subjects of the Russian Empire who were knights of the Order of Malta “at the present time” were no longer allowed even to wear its insignia.
As for the history of the Sovereign Order of Malta subsequently, events developed in the following way:
After the death of Giovanni Battista Tommasi in 1805, the Knights of Malta attempted to elect their next Grand Master. But Giuseppe Caracciolo, who had been elected Grand Master by the knights, was not confirmed by Pope Pius VII and was therefore not recognized as Grand Master, even on a de facto level. In 1805, Pius VII appointed Innico Maria Guevara-Suardo as Lieutenant of the Order. Lieutenants, rather than Grand Masters, governed the Order until 1879, when Lieutenant Giovanni Battista Ceschi a Santa Croce was confirmed as Grand Master by Pope Leo XIII.
Attempts by the Sovereign Order of Malta to return to Malta after the collapse of Napoleonic France were unsuccessful. The island was handed over to England by the Congress of Vienna in 1815.
However, despite all the blows of fate that struck it in the 18th and 19th centuries, the Sovereign Order of Malta preserved its sovereign rights and was recognized as an entity under international law by the Congresses of the Holy Alliance in Aachen (1818) and Verona (1822), and was also recognized as such in numerous other international treaties.
In the 19th century, the Order settled in Rome (in 1834, in the Magistral Palace on the Via Condotti) and came to include four Priories: Rome, Venice, Naples, and Prague.
Relations between the Sovereign Order of Malta and the Russian Empire up until the revolution of 1917 were friendly and mutually respectful. Emperors Alexander I, Nicholas I, Alexander III, and Nicholas II were all Bailiffs Grand Cross of Honour and Devotion of the Order of Malta. Emperor Alexander II was the only Russian monarch of the 19th century who was not a knight of the Order of Malta, but with his permission, his heir – Tsesarevich and Grand Duke Alexander Alexandrovich, the future Alexander III (in December 1875) – and then two of his other sons – Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich and Pavel Alexandrovich (in February 1881) – were made knights of the Order of Malta. In February 1891, with the permission of Emperor Alexander III, the Tsesarevich and Grand Duke Nicholas Alexandrovich, the future Holy Royal Passion-Bearer Emperor Nicholas II, was made a Bailiff Grand Cross of Honour and Devotion. In April 1896, the Holy Royal Passion-Bearer Empress Alexandra Feodorovna was made a Dame Grand Cross of Honour and Devotion.
In accepting the title of Bailiff of the Order of Malta, the Russian Emperors wholly recognized the legitimate continuity and all the historical rights of the Sovereign Order of Malta.
After the revolution of 1917, relations between the exiled Russian Imperial House and the Order of Malta was for a time necessarily carried out through semi-official and personal correspondence and face-to-face contacts. Full and official relations were restored by H.I.H. Grand Duke Wladimir Kirillovich, the Head of the Russian Imperial House, and Grand Master Angelo de Mojana di Cologna, who headed the Sovereign Order of Malta from 1962 to 1988.
In 1961, Grand Master Angelo de Mojana di Cologna revived the tradition of elevating the Heads of the Russian Imperial House to the rank of Bailiff Grand Cross of Honour and Devotion of the Sovereign Order of Malta. Grand Duke Wladimir Kirillovich accepted the title of Bailiff, and his wife, Grand Duchess Leonida Georgievna, accepted the title Dame Grand Cross of Merit. In 1963, Grand Master Angelo de Mojana di Cologna was awarded the highest Russian order of chivalry, the Imperial Order of St. Andrew the First-Called.
In 1994, there was a symbolic exchange of honours between Grand Master Andrew Bertie, who led the Sovereign Order of Malta from 1988 to 2008, and the Grand Duchess Maria of Russia, who inherited the rights and responsibilities of Head of the Russian Imperial House on the death of her father in 1992. The Grand Master became a knight of the Imperial Order of St. Andrew the First-Called, and the Grand Duchess became a Dame Grand Cross of Honour and Devotion of the Sovereign Order of Malta.
On April 3, 2014, the Head of the Russian Imperial House, H.I.H. Grand Duchess Maria of Russia, and her son and heir, H.I.H. the Tsesarevich and Grand Duke George of Russia, met in Rome at the Magistral Palace with Grand Master Matthew Festing, who has led the Sovereign Order of Malta since the passing of Andrew Bertie in 2008. The Grand Duchess awarded him the Imperial Order of St. Andrew the First-Called, and the Grand Master made Grand Duke George of Russia a Bailiff Grand Cross of Honour and Devotion.
Of course, the cooperation between the Russian Imperial House and the Sovereign Order of Malta is not limited to ceremonial indications of mutual honor and recognition. As far back as the 1990s, the Grand Duchess Maria of Russia and Grand Duchess Leonida Georgievna were able to offer substantial charitable aid to medical institutions in Russia thanks to the assistance of the Sovereign Order of Malta. Collaboration between the House of Romanoff and the Sovereign Order of Malta on a range of charitable endeavours continues to grow and evolve today.
As for the Russian Orthodox Grand Priory, it existed only for a few years and ceased entirely to exist during the reign of Emperor Alexander I. There were some residual hints in court ceremonies of a “Maltese” presence in Russia, including the red liveries at the Imperial Court and the miniature Maltese Cross worn by the graduates of the Corps des Pages academy, which was located in the Vorontsov Palace, which had been confiscated from the Order of Malta in 1810 – none of which constitutes “proof” of an on-going “hidden” or “secret” continuation of the former Orthodox Priory of the Order of Malta. Some writers who attempt to make a case for the continuation of the Order of Malta in Russia fail to distinguish between the Commander’s Cross of the Order of Malta and the Prussian Order “Pour le Mérite.” They present photographs of Emperor Alexander II wearing the “Pour le Mérite” as proof of their fantastical theories of the “continuation of the Russian Orthodox Grand Priory”—Alexander II, who was the only emperor after Paul I who was not a member of the Order of Malta!
A Public Policy Statement from the Council of Ministers, affirmed by the Emperor and dated January 20, 1817, clearly states that the Order of Malta “does not exist in Russia” [PSZ, № 26626]. However, after the revolution of 1917, there was an attempt by Russian emigrants to revive the Orthodox Chapter of the Order of Malta that had been abolished over a century earlier. Several descendants of the (formerly) hereditary noble Commanders – all members of Russian aristocratic families – sought to restore the Orthodox Russian Grand Priory, citing their desire to take “actions founded on self-denial and sacrifice.” They sought approval not from the Head of the Russian Imperial House, the Emperor-in-Exile Kirill I, and not even from the Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolaevich, who was recognized as a political “leader” by a certain part of the Russian emigration, but from a member of the most junior branch of the House of Romanoff, Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich, who was asked to take the life-long title of “Grand Prior of Russia”, and to take steps to resurrect the “Russian Grand Priory.”
Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich was favourably disposed to this undertaking, but refrained from taking the title “Grand Prior” and limited himself only to offering his patronage to the newly-formed organization. The Orthodox Priory of the Order of Malta displayed discretion, naming their association not the “Russian Grand Priory” (as they had originally proposed to do), but the “Russian Philanthropic Association of the Descendants of the Hereditary Commanders of the Sovereign Order of Malta.” As this name implies, the members of this organization were not claiming to be “hereditary Commanders” themselves, and understood that, without the approval of the Sovereign Order of Malta, they could only become a purely memorial association of descendants of Commanders, and not themselves be Commanders of a “Orthodox Russian Grand Priory.” They did not claim to be Knights of Malta.
In 1929, the members of the “Russian Philanthropic Association of the Descendants of the Hereditary Commanders of the Sovereign Order of Malta” worked through Baron M. Taube to attempt to “obtain the permission of the Grand Master of the Sovereign Order of Malta in Rome to recreate the Russian branch of the said Order” [Letter of September 29, 1929, from Baron M. Taube].
In response to this request, the Secretary of the Sovereign Order of Malta, Baron Bistrem, on instructions from Grand Master Ludovico Chigi Albani della Rovere, in a letter dated February 13, 1932, unequivocally rejected the idea, emphasizing that members of the Sovereign Order of Malta must belong to the Roman Catholic Church.
As a historical memorial association of descendants, the “Russian Philanthropic Association of the Descendants of the Hereditary Commanders of the Sovereign Order of Malta” had every right to exist, and it enjoyed the support of Grand Duke Andrei Wladimirovich, who became the organization’s patron after the death of Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich in 1933, and later, the support of the Head of the Russian Imperial House, H.I.H. the Grand Duke Wladimir Kirillovich. The Sovereign Order of Malta itself also had a positive relationship with the descendants of Russian Orthodox Commanders of the Order, as organized as “Russian Philanthropic Association of the Descendants of the Hereditary Commanders of the Sovereign Order of Malta.” The Secretary of the Union of Noble Descendants of Commanders, Iu. S. Rtishev, even was made a Knight of Honour and Devotion, and so became a member of the Sovereign Order of Malta.
Unfortunately, in 1973 the formerly measured and entirely reasonable position of the “Union of Descendants of the Hereditary Commanders and Knights of the Grand Priory of the Russian Order of Malta” were abandoned. Count N. A. Bobrinskii, who was living in the USA in the 1970s, formed an association called the “Sovereign Order of the Orthodox Knights-Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem,” and began calling himself “Grand Prior.” The Head of the Russian Imperial House, H.I.H. the Grand Duke Wladimir Kirillovich, did not approve this action. The Grand Duke’s position did not disturb the members of this new organization, who had embarked on a completely new and arbitrary course of fiction that led them away from the historical Order of Malta. A “Protector” for this new organization was found in the person of Prince-of-the-Imperial-Blood Andrei Alexandrovich, a member of the most junior branch of the House of Romanoff who then was not on good terms with the lawful Head of the Dynasty. After his death, Prince Andrei Alexandrovich’s younger brother, Prince-of-the-Imperial-Blood Vasilii Alexandrovich, became the new “Protector.” And when Prince Vasilii died, Andrei Alexandrovich’s son, Mikhail Andreevich Romanoff (who was born of Prince Andrei’s morganatic marriage with Elisabetta von Frederici, born Princess Ruffo), became the organization’s “Protector.”
The so-called “Sovereign Order of the Orthodox Knights-Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem” has never had any continuity with the Orthodox Russian Grand Priory, which was abolished more than 150 years earlier by Emperor Alexander I. This alleged “revival” received no sanction from either the Grand Master of the Sovereign Order of Malta, or from the Head of the Russian Imperial House. The so-called “Protectors” of this organization after its re-founding in the 1970s were not inpiduals who by right could have held the position of Protectors of the Order of Malta; instead, they were simply the first people who, out of a careless disregard for the historical facts, agreed to participate in this illegitimate enterprise out of ambition and the need for money.
Soon a whole gallery of exotic organizations appeared all calling themselves the “Russian Order of Malta.” At best, these were fanciful mock associations, and at worst, fraudulent societies trading in false “passports of the Sovereign Order of Malta,” false “knighthoods,” and other fraudulent “activities.” Particularly harmful have been those cases when the names and emblems of the Sovereign Order of Malta have been exploited for financial gain and political purposes, especially when dishonourable and irresponsible persons, claiming themselves to be representatives of the Order, have interfered in internal political conflicts in various countries. Unfortunately, the activities of these fraudulent “Orders of Malta” have sometimes led to ill feelings toward the genuine Sovereign Order of Malta, which has complicated its important and vast charitable activities around the globe. The Sovereign Order of Malta avoids assiduously any politicization of its activities and enjoys and deserves the respect it has earned from governments, traditional religious groups, royal dynasties, and other reputable historical institutions.
In conclusion, the following points should be emphasized:
1. The founding of the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta occurred before the formal schism of the Church into the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, but all of its history and activities are connected with the Roman Catholic Church. Pope Paschal II formally recognized the Order and placed it under his protection in 1113. In this way, the Sovereign Order of Malta has always been and remains a Catholic Order. All assertions that the Order of Malta is “non-denominational” and “inter-confessional,” or that it is “Masonic” and so on, are absurd and do not stand up to scrutiny.
2. Emperor Paul I of Russia was elected to the position of Grand Master at the most critical moment in the history of the Order of Malta. He saved it from destruction and sought to make it not only an Order of Chivalry of the Russian Empire, but also an influential global force in the struggle for the values of Christian civilization that are common to Orthodox and Catholics. That election, however, never received the necessary legal confirmation on an international level. Some violations of procedures in his election (for example, the inability of a large number of electors to participate in the election, as required by the Statute of the Order) could be considered insignificant and not affecting the legitimacy of the outcome of the election, especially in view of the extreme situation in a Europe that was then being torn apart by revolution and war. Even so, the lack of any formal recognition of the legality of the election of Paul I by Pope Pius VI and Pius VII makes it impossible to consider him Grand Master de jure. He is properly honoured as the Protector of the Order and as de facto Grand Master only.
3. The Orthodox Grand Priory of Russia, and the activities of the Order of Malta inside the Russian Empire, were entirely abolished in 1817 by Emperor Alexander I, and there has not been any legitimate restoration.
4. Attempts by descendants of the Russian Orthodox Noble (hereditary) Commanders of the Order of Malta to revive the “Orthodox Grand Priory of Russia” after 1917 have not been successful. The historical memorial association that was established after the Russian Revolution was formed legitimately and for a time even enjoyed the support of the Russian Imperial House and the Sovereign Order of Malta. However, unauthorized actions by this organization in the 1970s deprived it of recognition from the House of Romanoff and the Sovereign Order of Malta.
5. All so-called “Orthodox” and other false “Orders of Malta” are, at best, a kind of childish game and, at worst, a source of fraud and political provocation. The philanthropic slogans of such organizations serve only as a cover for harmful activities. Belonging to a false order conveys no rights or duties of any sort, and certainly none of the rights or duties belonging to genuine knights of the Sovereign Order of Malta.
6. Protestant Orders of St. John (in Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Great Britain) share the same historic tradition and the same mission of the Sovereign Order of Malta: giving assistance to the sick and the poor. These four orders have gained recognition by virtue of their having been instituted by the legitimate hereditary sovereigns of these nations, and by the subsequent recognition of them by the Sovereign Order of Malta. There is no possible comparison between these Protestant Orders of St. John and the clearly false “Orthodox Orders of Malta.”
7. Any person who elects to enter one of the false “Orders of Malta” or who supports any contact with them, risks becoming a victim of deception and of suffering reputation or financial loss.
All questions relating to the legitimate Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta, which maintains formal and friendly relations with the Russian Imperial House, should be directed to the following address:
Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta
Magistral Palace
Via Condotti, 68 – 00187 Rome – Italy Tel. +39.06.67581.251
Paschal, bishop, and servant of such as are the servants of God, to his venerable son Gerard, founder and Master of the Hospital at Jerusalem, and to his lawful successors for evermore.
The requests of a devout desire ought to meet with a corresponding fulfillment. Inasmuch, as of your affection thou hast requested, with regard to the Hospital which thou hast founded in the city of Jerusalem, in proximity to the Church of the Blessed John the Baptist, that it should be supported by the authority of the Apostolic See, and fostered by the patronage of the blessed Apostle Peter: We, therefore, much pleased with the pious earnestness of your hospitality, do receive the petition with our paternal favour, and do ordain and establish, by the authority of this our present decree, that that house of God, your Hospital, shall now be placed, and shall for ever remain, under the protection of the Apostolic See, and under that of the Blessed Peter. All things whatsoever, therefore, which by your preserving care and solicitude have been collected for the benefit of the said Hospital, for the support and maintenance of pilgrims, or for relieving the necessities of the poor, whether in the churches of Jerusalem, or in those of parishes within the limits of other cities; and whatsoever goods may have been offered already by the faithful, or for the future may through God’s grace be so offered, or collected by other lawful means; and whatsoever goods have been, or shall be granted to thee, or to thy successors, or to the brethren who are occupied in the care and support of pilgrims, by the venerable brethren the bishops of the diocese of Jerusalem; we hereby decree shall be retained by you and undiminished.
Moreover, as to the tithes of your revenues, which you collect everywhere at your own charge, and by your own toil, we do hereby fix and decree, that they shall be retained by your own Hospital, all opposition on the part of the bishops and their clergy notwithstanding. We also decree as valid all donations which have been made to your Hospital by pious princes, either of their tribute moneys or other donations. We ordain furthermore, that at your death no man shall be appointed in your place, as chief and master, by any underhand subtlety, or by violence; but him only who shall, by the inspiration of God, have been duly elected by the professed brethren of the Institution.
Furthermore, all dignities or possessions which your Hospital at present holds either on this side of the water, in Asia, or in Europe, as also those which hereafter by God’s bounty it may obtain; we confirm them to you and to your successors, who shall devote themselves with pious zeal to the cares of hospitality, and through you to the said Hospital in perpetuity. We further decree that it shall be unlawful for any man whatsoever rashly to disturb your Hospital, or to carry off any of its property, or if carried off to retain possession of it, or to diminish anything from its revenues, or to harass it with audacious annoyances. But let all its property remain intact, for the sole use and enjoyment of those for whose maintenance and support it has been granted. As to the Hospitals or Poor Houses in the Western provinces, in the Borgo of St.Egidio, Asti, Pisa, Bari, Otranto, Taranto and Messina, which are distinguished by the title of Hospitals of Jerusalem, we decree that they shall for ever remain, as they are this day, under the subjection and disposal of yourself and your successors. If, therefore, at a future time, any person, whether ecclesiastical or secular, knowing this paragraph of our constitution, shall attempt to oppose its provisions, and if, after having received a second or third warning, he shall not make a suitable satisfaction and restitution, let him be deprived of all his dignities and honours, and let him know that he stands exposed to the judgment of God, for the iniquity he has perpetrated; and let him be deprived of the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ, and of the benefits of the redemption of our Lord, and at the last judgment let him meet with the severest vengeance. But to all who deal justly and rightly with the same, on them be the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ, so that not only here below they may receive the rewards of good actions, but also before the Judge of all mankind, they may enjoy the blessing of peace eternal.
I Paschal, bishop of the Catholic Church, have signed I Richard Bishop of Albano, have signed I Landulphus Archbishop of Benevento, have read and signed I Canon Bishop of the Church of Preneste, have read and signed I Anastasio Cardinal priest with the title of Blessed Clement, have signed I Gregory Bishop of Terracina, have read and signed I John Bishop of Mellito, have read and signed I Romuald Cardinal Deacon of the Roman Church, have signed I Gregorio Cardinal priest of San Crisogono, have read and signed
Given at Benevento, by the hand of John, Cardinal and librarian of the Roman Church, on the 15th day of February, in the 6th cycle of indiction of the incarnation of our Lord, in the year 1113, and in the 14th year of the Pontificate of Pope Paschal II.
Historical Notice on the Russian Grand Priory of the Order of Malta.
Source: Public Record Office Copenhagen, Denmark. Priorate Dacia af St. Johannes af Jerusalems Orden Arkiv nr: 10266. Jvf. RA. Priv. ark. j. litra P nr. 1006-1.Translation: Walter Pincket and The Rev’d Dr Michael Foster.
NOTICE HISTORIQUE sur le Grand-.Prieuré Russe de l’Ordre de Malte fondé en 1798.
HISTORICAL NOTICE on the Russian Grand Priory of the Order of Malta founded in 1798
Les faits historiques concernant le Grand-Prieuré Russe de l’Ordre Souverain de Saint Jean de Jérusalem dit Ordre de Malte, et son état juridique actuel peuvent être résumés comme il suit.
The historical facts concerning the Russian Grand Priory of the Sovereign Order of Saint-John of Jerusalem, alias Order of Malta, and its juridical status can be summarised as follows
1. L’empereur de Russie Paul Ier, légalement élu en 1798 grand-maître de l’Ordre de Malte, institua, le 29 novembre (v,st,) de la même année, – dans un large esprit humanitaire de charité et proclamant les mérites historiques de l’Ordre “envers toute la Chrétienté” – deux grands-prieurés de cet Ordre en Russie, dont l’un dénommé “Grand-Prieuré Russe” (pour la noblesse de toutes les confessions chrétiennes, mais surtout pour les orthodoxes-russes) et l’autre – “Grand-Prieuré Russo-Catholique”, (Recueil com let des Lois de l’Empire de Russie, tome 25, N° 18766 ). Note Explicative I.
1. The Emperor of Russia Paul I, legally elected in 1798 Grand Master of the Order of Malta, instituted on 29 November (old style) of the same year, in a large humanitarian spirit of charity and proclaiming the historical merits of the Order “toward all Christianity” two grand priories of this Order in Russia, of which one was named the “Russian Grand Priory” (for the nobility of all Christian confessions, but specifically for the Russian-Orthodox) and the other the “Russo-Catholic Grand Priory” (The complete ledger of laws of the Russian Empire, vol.25. N° 18766). Explanation NoteI.
2. Le Grand-Prieuré Russe, conçu comme une institution permanente créée “pour toujours” en faveur de la noblesse russe et dont la conservation fut imposée par la même loi (art. XXVI) comme un devoir immuable aux descendants et successeurs de l’Empereur-Grand-maître, était doté de l’institution de “commandeurs de famille héréditaires” nommés également “pour toujours” (Art. XXII)
2. The Russian Grand Priory, conceived as a permanent institution created “for ever” in favour of the Russian nobility was imposed by the same law (Art.XXVI) as an immovable duty for the descendants and successors of the Emperor Grand Master, and was given the institutions of “hereditary family commanders of family”, also appointed “for ever” (Art.XXII)
3. Le fils aîné et successeur de l’empereur Paul Alexandre Ier peu sympathique en général aux idées de son pére, [ayant décliné la grande maîtrise] se bornant au titre de Protecteur de l’Ordre, n’osa toucher en rien aux statuts de ce Grand Prieuré Russe et n’empêcha pas son développement en Russie; c’est ainsi que, sous son règne, le nombre de “cammandeurs héréditaires” (22 sous Paul Ier) put s’accroître encore de deux nouveaux titulaires de cette dignité, et qu’en 1811, une résolution du Conseil de l’Empire approuvée par le tasr décrétait même certaines facilités d’ordre fiscal en faveur des comnandeurs héréditaires russes de l’Ordre de Malte (Recueil des Lois t, 31 N° 24882). Note Explicative II.
3. The eldest son and successor of Emperor Paul I, Alexander I, who in general had little sympathy for the ideas of his father, [having declined the grand mastership] assuming only the title of Protector of the Order, did not dare to touch the statutes of the Russian Grand Priory and did not prevent its development in Russia. So, during his reign, the number of “hereditary commanders” (22 under Paul I) grew with two new titularies of this dignity and in 1811 a resolution of the Council of the Empire, approved by the Tsar, decreed even certain fiscal facilities in favour of the Russian hereditary commanders of the Order of Malta (RCLER vol.31. N° 24882). Explanation Note II.
4. Il résulte de ce ui précède que tous les bruits concenant la prétendue suppression du Grand-Prieuré Russe par Alexsndre Ier (en 1810, affirmait-on à Rome, à la Chancellerie de l’Ordre de Malte) sont dénués de tout fondement et peuvent être facilement démentis : les Almanachs de la Cour de Russie publiés à cette époque à Saint-Pétersbourg (dont un exemplaire de 1813 existe à Paris) contiennent bien, au grand complet, toute l’organisation et tout le personnel des deux Prieurés de l’Ordre de Saint Jean de Jérusalem fondés par l’Empereur-Grand-maître Paul Ier, avec l’Empereur Alexandre Ier, comme Protecteur de l’Ordre, en tête et tous les commandeurs héréditaires
4. It results from the preceding that all rumours concerning the pretended suppression of the Russian Grand Priory by Alexander I (in 1810, affirmed in Rome by the Chancery of the Order of Malta) being devoid of all foundation and can be easily refuted : the Almanacs of the Russian Court published during this period in Saint Petersburg (whereof a copy of 1813 exists in Paris) well contains, most complete all the organisation and all personnel of the two Priories of the Order of Saint-John of Jerusalem founded by the Emperor Grand Master Paul I, with Emperor Alexander, as Protector of the Order, at the head and all hereditary commanders
– 2 -nommés de 1799 à 1805.5. Les bruits concernant la suppression du Prieuré Russe de l’Ordre – qui, en Russie, lui donnaient vaguement pour date l’année 1817 – s’expliquent selon toute probabilité par l’interdiction décrédée en cette même année 1817 d’accepter, et de porter dorénavant les insignes de l’Ordre obtenus par des sujets russes directement de la Grande-Maîtrise de Rome, sans autorisation préalable expresse du Souverain (Recueil des Lois, t. 34, N° 26626).
– 2 -nominated from 1799 until 1805.5. The rumours concerning the abolition of the Russian Priory of the Order – which in Russia given vaguely in the date of the year 1817 – are explained probably by the interdiction decreed in the same year 1817 of accepting and of wearing henceforth the insignia of the Order obtained by Russian subjects directly from the Grand Magistracy of Rome without previous express authorisation of the Sovereign (RCLER vol.34. N° 26626)
6. L’empereur Nicolas Ier (1825-1655) n’a non seulement rien changé à cet état de choses mais il fit restaurer, à ses propres frais, les deux chapelles de l’ancien palais de l’Ordre de Malte à St Pétersbourg, l’orthodoxe-grecque et la catholique-romaine, dénommées comme celles du ”Prieuré Russe” de l’Ordre de Saint Jean de Jérusalem. Aussi un livre des Ordres de Chevaliers, très apprécié en son temps, édité à Bruxelles et à Leipzzig en 1848 (p. 268) indique-t-il, très exactement comme existsnts, les deux Prieurés Russes de l’Ordre de Malte avec tous leurs commandeurs héréditaires en observant aussi, très correctement, que les deux Prieurés Russes ne se trouvent vis-à-vis de l’organisation centrale de l’Ordre à Romme qu’ “en liaison peu étroite”.
6. The Emperor Nicholas I (1825-1855) not only changed nothing to this situation but he did restore, at his own expense, the two chapels of the ancient palace of the Order of Malta in St Petersburg, the Greek-orthodox and the Roman Catholic, named as that of the “Russian Priory” of the Order of Saint John of Jerusalem. Also a book, livre des Ordres de Chevaliers, highly appreciated in these days, published in Brussels and Leipzig in 1848 (p.268) indicates very exactly as existing the two Russian Priories of the Order of Malta with all their hereditary commanders in observing also, very correctly, that the two Russian Priories had found themselves vis-a-vis the central organisation in Rome “no longer in a strong liaison”.
7. Sous les règne suivants, ceux d’Alexandre II (1855-1881) et d’Alexandre III (1881-1894), le Gouvernement impérial se rendait toujours parfaitement compte de l’existence d’un Prieuré Russe (orthodoxe) de l’Ordre de Malte représenté par l’ensemble des descendants directs de ses premiers commandeurs héréditaires, et ce fait est également prouvé par un document officiel appartenant aujourd ‘hui à l’un de ces commandeurs héréditaires russes de nos jours, le prince Cyrille Troubetzkoy demeurant à Paris. Ce document, c’est l’état de service original du fils aîné du général-aide de camp prince Vassily Serguéévitch Troubetzkoy du temps de Paul Ier, le prince Alexandre Vassiliévitch, établi en 1889 et portant la notation suivante : “En sa qualité d’aîné de la famille – commandeur héréditaire de l’Ordre de Saint Jean de Jérusalem dont il porte les insignes conformément à l’autorisation Suprême du 19 Octobre 1867”.
7. Under the following reigns of Alexander II (1855-1881) and Alexander III (1881-1894) the Imperial Government was always perfectly aware of the existence of a Russian Priory (Orthodox) of the Order of Malta represented by the assemblage of direct descendants of the first hereditary commanders, and this fact is equally proven by an official document belonging today to one of these Russian hereditary commanders of our days, Prince Cyrille Troubetskoy who resides in Paris. This document is the original State Service Record of the eldest son of the General Aide de Camp Prince Vassily Sergeivitch Troubetskoy in the time of Paul I, Prince Alexander Vasileyevitch, established in 1889 and carrying the following notation : “In his capacity of eldest of the family – hereditary commander of the Order of Saint John of Jerusalem whereof he wears the insignia conforming to the Supreme authorisation of 19 October 1867”.
8. Enfin, un fait historique remarquable est très significatif dans le mêne ordre d’idée. Durant tout le XIXe siècle, aux cérémonies d’enterrement des empereurs de Russie, la couronne de fer des grands-maîtres de l’Ordre de Malte sommée de sa croix blanche à huit points figurera à côté de la grande couronne impériale en diamants – ce qui eût été impossible et même déplacé si, en réalité le Grand-Prieuré Russe, soi-disant supprimé par ces mêmes empereurs, n’existait plus en Russie.
8. Lastly, a remarkable historical fact is very significant in the same order of ideas. During the full XIXth century, at the funerals of the Emperors of Russia, the crown of iron of the Grandmaster of the Order of Malta, decorated with its white cross of eight points was carried next to the grand imperial crown in diamonds. This would have been impossible, even out of place, if in reality the Russian Grand Priory, so-called suppressed by those same emperors, did not exist any longer in Russia.
9. A tout historien et à tout juriste objectifs, il doit donc être parfaitement clair que, quel que soit le changement survenu après la mort du grand-maître Paul Ier dans la structure de l’Ordre souverain de Saint Jean de Jérusalem, dont la gran.de-maîtrise catholique-romaine se trouve depuis longtemps à Rome, et malgré toutes les modifications opérées dans ses statuts, y compris la suppression de la dignité de commandeurs héréditaires, le Grand-Prieuré Russe institué par Paul Ier en 1798 continue son existence tant au point de vue du droit national russe qu’a celui du droit international.
9. For all historians and all objective jurists, it must therefore be perfectly clear that, whatever change had happened, after the death of Grand Master Paul I, to the structure of the Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, of which the Roman Catholic Grandmastership is based since long ago in Rome, and dispite of all operated modifications to its statutes, even the suppression of the dignity of hereditary commanders, the Russian Grand Priory, instituted by Paul I in 1798 continues its existence, as well from the viewpoint of the Russian national legislation as from the point of view of the international right.
10. Il s’ensuit que, lorsque, à la Saint-Jean 1928, à Paris, 12 commandeurs héréditaires russes avec un commandeur héréditaire polonais et catholique et 3 “aspirants” (appartenant tous à de vieilles familles de la noblesse russe) se réunirent pour confirmer solennellement l’existence continue du Prieuré Russe de Malte, ils n’innovèrent par là absolument rien, mais proclamèrent seulement qu’ils étaient pleinement conscients de tous les faits historiques et juridiques incontestable,
10. It follows that, when on Saint John’s day 1928 in Paris, 12 Russian hereditary commanders with a Polish Catholic hereditary commander and 3 “aspirants” (all belonging to old noble Russian families) met to solemnly confirm the continuing existence of the Russian Priory of Malta, they did not innovate by absolutely anything, but only proclaimed that they were perfectly aware of all incontestable historical and legal facts,
– 3 -exposés ci-dessus et de leurs droits découlants de ces faits. Note Explicative III.
– 3 -exposed above and of all their rights based on these facts. Explanation Note III.
11. Sur cette base, le groupe de commandeurs héréditaires russe sus-mentionnés forma un “Comité d’initiation” pour toutes les mesures à prendre dans l’intérêt du Grand-Prieuré Russe, sous la présidence d’un “Protecteur” le grand-duc Alexandre Mikhailovitch arrière-petit-fils de l’empereur Paul Ier, et avec un “Conseil” composé de personnes suivantes :
11. On this basis, the group of Russian hereditary commanders mentioned above formed a “Committee of Initiation” for all measures to be taken in the interest of the Russian Grand Priory, under the presidency of a “Protector”, Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovitch, great grandson of Emperor Paul I, with a “Council” composed of the following persons :
comte Alexandre Soltykoff (comme vice-président) – arrière-petit-fils du maréchal comte Soltykoff, “lieutenant” du Magistère de l’Ordre de Malte sous Paul Ier et président du premier chapitre électoral des chevaliers de l’Ordre convoqué après la mort du tsar-grand-maître.
Count Alexander Soltykoff (as Vice-President) great grandson of Marshal Count Soltikoff, – lieutenant of the Magistracy of the Order of Malta under Paul I and president of the first electoral chapter of the knights of the Order convened after the death of the Tsar Grandmaster.
Paul Demidoff (des princes de San-Donato), commandeur héréditaire de l’Ordre reconnu jadis à Rome.
Paul Demidoff (of the Princes of San-Donato) hereditary commander of the Order, recognised in times past by Rome.
Prince Vladimir Bariatinsky (parent du grand-maître actuel, prince Chigi, commandeur héréditaire,
Prince Vladimir Bariatinsky (a relative of the present Grandmaster Prince Chigi), hereditary commander
Comte Dmitry Olsoufieff, homme politique russe très connu avant la révolution.
Count Dmitry Olsoufieff, a well known Russian politician before the revolution.
12. Ce Conseil du Grand-Prieuré Russe – qui était donc élu par les 13 commandeurs héréditaires représentants les 13 familles encore subsistantes alors depuis 1798-1805 – étant chargé par eux de l’expédition de toutes les affaires du Prieuré, se compléta, en qualité de jurisconsultes, par deux nouveaux membres : le sénateur Alexis Tchebycheff et l’ancien professeur de droit international de l’Université de Saint-Pétersbourg, baron Michel de Taube sénateur et membre du Conseil de l’Empire; ce dernier fut spécialement chargé, par pleins-pouvoirs du 21 septembre 1929, des démarches à faire en vue de la reconnaissance officielle de la continuité de l’existence du Prieuré Russe par le Grand-Magistère de l’Ordre de Malte à Rome – afin d’être tout-à-fait corrects envers cette vénérable institution.
12. This council of the Russian Grand Priory – which was thus elected by the 13 remaining hereditary commanders representing the 13 families again surviving then since 1798-1805 – being charged by them of the expedition of all the affairs of the Priory, completed itself in the form of legal consultants, by two new members : Senator Alexis Tchebycheff and the former professor of international law of the University of St. Petersburg, Baron Michel de Taube, senator and member of the Council of the Empire; this last one was specially charged, with full powers from 21 September 1929, to take steps to work in view of the official recognition of the continued existence of the Russian Priory by the Grand Magistracy of the Order of Malta in Rome, this to be fully correct toward this venerable institution.
13. Le voyage à Rome entrepris dans ce but par le baron Taube en novembre 1929 sembla d’abord avoir donné un résultat favorable, et plusieurs conférences publiques sur l’histoire de l’Ordre de Malte en Russie faites par lui à Paris dans le courant de l’année 1930 ainsi que son article sur ce thème publié la même année dans la Revue d’Histoire Moderne (N° de Mai-Juin) dissipèrent sans doute certaines erreurs répandues sous ce rapport dans le grand public. Mais finalement, le l3 février 1932, la Grande-Maîtrise de Rome crut pouvoir donner au baron Taube, par l’intermédiaire du secrétaire de la Chancellerie de l’Ordre, baron Bistram, une réponse – non signée mais libellée aux armes du Grand-maître prince Chigi – qui, tout en approuvant, en principe, l’initiative du Conseil du Prieuré Russe, lui opposait, de fait, une fin de non-recevoir. En effet, en déclarant, d’une part,
13. The journey to Rome undertaken with this aim by Baron Taube in November 1929 seemed at first to have given a favorable result, and several public lectures on the history of the Order of Malta in Russia given by him in Paris in the current the year of 1930 as well as his item on this theme published the same year in the Revue d’Histoire Moderne (N° of May-June) dissipated without doubt certain errors widespread under discussion among the general public. But finally, on 13 February 1932, the Grand Mastership in Rome believed to be able to give to Baron Taube, via the intermediary of a secretary of the Chancery of the Order, Baron Bistram, a non signed reply written on stationery with the coat of arms of Grand-Master Chigi, which although in principle approving the initiative of the Council of the Russian Priory opposing them, de facto, at the end with a non reception. In fact, whilst declaring, on one part,
– 4 -que “le Grand Magistère et certainement aussi le Saint Siège verraient avec satisfaction la reconstitution d’une association sur les restes et les traditions de l’ancien Prieuré” – ce qui étaient déja excellent – la Chancellerie faisait valoir, d’un autre côté, “la suppression du Prieuré Russe en 1810” (!)
– 4 -that “the Grand Magistry and certainly also the Holy See would be satisfied to see the reconstitution of an association based on the remainders and the traditions of the ancient Priory” – which was already excellent, the Chancery stated, on the other side, “the suppression of Russian Priory in 1810” (!).
14. Cette dernière affirmation, de tout point fausse (comme il a été démontré plus haut) n’en renversa pas moins de fond en comble tous les plans d’action du Comité d’initiative russe et n’eut pour résultat, jusqu’au déclenchement de la seconde Guerre Mondiale, que des recherches approfondies en vue de démentir clairement l’erreur fondamentale de la Grande-Maîtrise de l’Ordre de Malte à Rome, très préjudiciable aux intérêts moraux et matériels du Grand-Prieuré Russe.
14. This last affirmation, on all points false (as it was demonstrated above) overturned all the action plans of the Russian committee of initiatives and just had for a result, to the start of the Second World War, in depth research to clearly oppose the fundamental error of the Grand Magistry of the Order of Malta in Rome which was very predjudical to the moral and material interests of the Russian Grand Priory.
15. Ce dernier continue son existence sur la base établie en 1928 avec un nouveau Protecteur désigné dès la mort du Grand-duc Alexandre, – son cousin, S. A. I. le grand-duc André Vladimirovitch de Russie, – et les cinq membres suivants du Conseil (cités dans l’Ordre de leur [confirmation de] nomination par S. A. I. le Protecteur les premiers quatre membres mentionnés ci-dessus n’étant plus de cette vie) :
15. The latter continued its existence, on the basis established in 1928, with a new Protector – designated at the death of Grand Duke Alexander – his cousin H.I.H. Grand Duke André Vladimirovitch of Russia, and following five members of the Council, (listed in the order of their [confirmation of] nomination by H.I.H. the Protector the first four members, mentioned above, being no longer of this life) :
Le baron Michel de Taube, ancien professeur de l’Université de St Pétersbourg, sénateur et membre du Conseil de l’Empire;
Baron Michel de Taube, former professor at the University of St. Petersburg, senator and member of the Imperial Council,
Le prince Nikita Troubetzkoy, de la famille des premiers commandeurs héréditaires russes.
Prince Nikita Troubetskoy, member of the family of the first Russian hereditary commanders,
Le prince Pierre Wolkonsky, Alt. Sér.
Prince Pierre Wolkonsky (H.S.H.)
M. Ivan Pouzyna (de la branche russe des princes Puzyno-Kosalski, polono-lituaniens),
Mr Ivan Pouzyna, (of the Russian branch of the Polish-Lithuanian Princes of Puzyno-Kosalski),
[+ décédé] Le comte Dmitry Chérémétev, de la famille des premiers commandeurs héréditaires russes.
[+ deceased]Count Dmitry Cheremetev, member of the family of the first Russian hereditary commanders.
16. Il est bien entendu que toute autre soi-disant restauration du Grand-Prieuré Russe de l’Ordre de Malte, émanant de personnes qui n’ont aucun lien historique avec la tradition impériale du tsar-grand maître Paul Ier (comme, par exemple, celle qu’on attribue au feu roi de Yougoslavie Alexanclre Ier) doit être considérée comme nulle et non avenue au point de vue du droit.
16. It is well understood that all other “so-called” restorations of the Russian Grand Priory of the Order of Malta by persons who have no historical link with the imperial tradition of Tsar Grandmaster Paul I (as, for instance, the one attributed to the late King Alexander I of Yugoslavia) must be considered as null and void from the point of view of law.
17. Par contre serait parfaitement légale une organisation similaire de n’importe quelle confession chrétienne créée dans un pays quelconque hors des limites de l’ancien empire de Russie, en tant qu’elle adhérerait formellement au Grand-Prieuré Russe et serait admise, comme section autonome, par son Protecteur.
17. On the other part, perfectly legal would be a similar organisation of any other Christian inspiration created in another country outside the borders of the ancient Empire of Russia, in as much as it would formally adhere to the Russian Grand Priory and would be admitted, as an autonomous section, by its Protector.
– 5 -18. En définitive, l’organisation actuelle du Grand Prieuré Russe de l’Ordre de Malte se présente sous les formes suivantes :
– 5 -18. Definitively, the current organization of Russian Grand Priory of the Order of Malta presents itself as formed as follows :
I. Le Protecteur-Grand Prieur : S. A. I. le Grand-Duc André Vladimirovitch.
I. The Protector Grand Prior H.I.H. the Grand Duke André Vladimirovitch,
II. Les Commandeurs héréditaires, signataires de l’acte du 24 juin 1928 ou leurs héritiers directs, aujourd’hui – après la mort, sans enfants, du prince Dolgorouki et du comte Olsoufieff – au nombre de onze (voir Notes explicatives II et III), dont l’ensemble constitue éventuellement le “Grand Chapitre” de Grand-Prieuré.
II. The hereditary commanders, signatories of the act of 24 June 1928 or their direct inheritants, at present – after the death without children, of Prince Dolgourouki and Count Olsoufieff – eleven in number (see Explanation Notes II and III) which assemblage constitutes eventually the “Grand Chapter” of the Grand-Priory.
III. Le Conseil exécutif du Grand Prieuré (voir ci-dessus, Par.15) sous la présidence de S. A. I. le Protecteur.
III. The Executive Council of the Grand Priory (see above Par.15) under the presidency of H . I. H. the Protector.
(Les membres du Conseil comme tels n’ont pas droit aux insignes de l’Ordre de Malte).
(The members of the Council are, as such, not entitled to the insignia of the Order of Malta)
Quant aux Statuts du Grand Prieuré, ils restent ce qu’ils étaient sous le grand-maître Paul Ier :
Where the statutes of the Grand Priory are concerned, they remain what they were during the reign of the Grand Master Paul I :
Son manifeste constitutif du Grand Prieuré du 29 Novembre 1798 (Recueil des Lois, t. 25 N°18766) et les Règles concernant l’institution des Commandeurs héréditaires du 21 juillet 1799
Its constitutive manifesto of the Grand Priory dd. 29 November 1798 (RCLER vol.25 N° 18766) and the Rules concerning the institution of the Hereditary Commanders dd.21 July 1799
(Recueil des Lois, t. 25 N° 19044).
(RCLER vol.25. N° 19044)
Paris, le 24 September 1950Le Protecteur du Grand-Prieuré Russe Grand Duc André de RussieThe jurisconsulte et membre du conseil, Baron M. de Taube
Paris, 24 September 1950The Protector of the Russian Grand Priory Grand Duke André of RussiaThe legal consultant and Council Member Baron M. de Taube
– 6 -NOTES EXPLICATIVES I.(Voir Par. 1). Dès le début, le Grand Prieuré Russe (non-catholique) comptait parmi ses membres, outre les orthodoxes, un assez grand nombre de chevaliers d’autres confessions chrétiennes; catholiques, lutheriens, anglicans. Ainsi, sans parler de nombreux “commandeurs d’honneur” étrangers, le Registre officiel de 1’Ordre de Saint Jean de Jérusalem publié a St Pétersbourg en 1800 nomme-t-il, même parmi les “Chevaliers de la Grande Croix”, qui cuvrent la liste des chevaliers “russes”, deux princes de Mecklembourg, un prince de Wütemberg et un comte Zeppelin, ministre Wurtembergeois. De plus, même parmi les commandeurs héréditaires du Prieuré Russe se trouvait un catholique, l’italien Marquis de Maruzzi.
– 6 -EXPLANATION NOTES I. (see Par. 1) From the beginning, the Grand Priory of Russia (non-Catholic) counted among its members, other than the Orthodox, a relatively great number of knights of other Christian confessions : Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans. Thus, to say nothing of numerous foreign “honorary commanders”, the official Register of the Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, published in St Petersburg in 1800 names, among the Knights Grand Cross who open the list of “Russian” knights, two princes of Mecklembourg, a prince of Wütemberg and a count Zeppelin, minister Wurtembergeois. Furthermore, even among the hereditary commandeurs of Russian Priory was located a Catholic, the Italian Marquis de Mazuzzi.
II. (Voir Paragr. 3) Les “commanderies de famille héréditaires” sous Paul Ier appartenaient aux familles suivantes (dans l’ordre de leur nomination, en 1799 et 1800, et d’après l’orthographe du Calendrier de la Cour de 1813 ) : Narychkine, Comtes Chérémétew, Princes Youçoupow (père et f.ils), Barons Stroganow, Comtes Samoylow, Princes Béloselski, Princes Dolgorouki, de Davydow, Princes Borätinski, de Demidow, Princes Troubetzkoy, Comtes Worontzow, de Békétow, Marquis de Maruzzi, Princes Toufäkin D’ Olsouifiew, de Gerebtzova, Comtes Strogonow, de Boutourlin, de Potemkin, de Tchirikow,donc 21 familles avec 22 commandeurs. Deux commandeurs héréditaires s’ ajoutèrent encore à cette liste sous l’empereur Alexandre Ier : un prince Khilkoff en 1802 et un prince Odoévsky en 1805.
II. (see Paragr. 3) The “hereditary family commanderies” under Paul I belonged to the following families (listed as per their nomination in 1799 and 1800 and the orthograph of their names in the Court Calendar of 1813) :Naryshkine, the Counts Chérémetev, Prince Youçoupow (father and son) the Barons Stroganow, the Counts Samoylow the Princes Béloselski, the Princes Dolgorouki de Davidov, the Princes Borätinski, de Demidov, the Princes Troubetskoy, the Counts Worontzow, de Békétow, the Marquis de Maruzzi, the Princes Toufäkin, d’Olsoufiew, de Gerbetzow, the Counts Strogonov, de Boutourlin, de Potemkin, de Tchitikow,i.e. 21 families with 22 commanders. Two hereditary commanders were added to this list under the Emperor Alexander I, a Prince Khilkoff in 1802 and a Prince Odoévsky in 1805.
III. (Voir Par. 9) Des 23 familles titulaires de la dignité de commandeurs héréditaires (voir Note II), dix étaient éteintes avant 1928 : notamment, les Youssoupoff (quant aux mâles), Stroganoff (comtes et barons), Samoyloff, Beketoff, Maruzzi, Tioufiakine, Potemkine, Khilkoff et Odoevsky. Toutes les 13 autres prirent part, au grand complet, à la
III (see Par. 9) From the 23 families which held the title of hereditary commanders (see Note II) ten had disappeared before 1928 : namely the Yousoupoff (male members), Stroganoff (counts and barons), Samoyloff, Beketoff, Maruzzi, Tioufiakine, Potemkine, Khilkoff and Odoevsky. All the 13 others participated most complete to the
– 7 -manifestation du 24 juin 1928, – douze commandeurs héréditaires en signant la déclaration et le l3 ème (absent alors de Paris), le prince Vladimir Bariatinsky, en entrant comme membre au Conseil du Grand-Prieuré (Voir par. 10), – Le commandeur héréditaire polonais et catholique qui signa la déclaration du 24 juin 1928 avec ses collègues russes était le comte Vladimir Borch,- Les “aspirants” à la dignité de chevaliers ou commandeurs de l’Ordre – catégorie déjà connue à l’organisation du Grand-Prieuré Russe en 1800 – étaient : le prince Vladimir Galitzine, le comte Alexandre Mordvinoff et le comte André Lanskoj.
– 7 -manifesto of 24 June 1928, – a dozen hereditary commanders by signing the declaration and the 13th (then absent from Paris), Prince Vladilmir Bariatinsky who joined as a member of the Council of the Grand Priory (see Par. 10), – The Polish Catholic hereditary commander who signed the Declaration of 24 June 1928 with his Russian colleagues was count Vladimir Borch, – The “aspirants” to the dignity of knights or commanders of the Order – a category already known by the organisation of the Russian Grand Priory in 1800 – were Prince Vladimir Galitzine, Count Alexander Mordvinoff and Count André Lanskoj.
Ce document original contient sept pages. Paris (XVI)Le 24 September 1950 18, rue WilhemM. de Taube
The original document contains seven pages. Paris (XVI)The 24 September 1950 18, rue WilhemM. de Taube
Appendix 7
Approval to create the Priory of Dacia 1938
Je soussigné, Baron Michel de Taube, docteur en droit, ancien professeur de l’Université de St. Pétersbourg, Sénateur et Membre du Conseil de l’Empire de Russie, domicilié à Paris (XVIe), 18, Rue Wilhem, confirme par le présent déclaration qu’en ma qualité de fonde de pouvoir du Comité d’Initiative du Grand Prieure de Russie de l’Ordre souverain de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem, constitué à Paris le 24 juin 1928 – pouvoir qui m’a été conféré en date 21 Septembre 1929 (dont copie certificiée est annexée a la présente) – et, d’autre part, en plein accord avec Son Altesse Impériale le Grand-Duc André Wladimirovitch de Russie, comme Protecteur désigné du Grand-Prieuré, et en vue d’un accord avec les autres autorités compétentes de l’Ordre, j’ai approuve la création dans le Nord d’un Prieure “Dacia” sous le Grand-Prieuré de Russie de l’Ordre souverain de l’Hôpital de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem (dit Ordre de Malte), et cela d’après les directives formulées dans les paragraphes 1, 5 et 7 de ma lettre du 23 Septembre 1938.: approuvée, du cote danois, par lettre du 19 Octobre 1938. En foi de quoi j’ai signe la présente déclaration.Paris, le 22 juillet 1950(s) M de Taube.
I, the undersigned, Baron Michael de Taube, Doctor of Law, sometime Professor at the University of St. Petersburg, Senator and Member of the Council of the Empire of Russia, confirm by the present declaration in my capacity of plenipotentiary of the Committee of Initiative of the Grand Priory of Russia of the Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem, constituted in Paris on the 24th June, 1928 – a power bestowed upon me on the 21st September, 1929 (a certified copy of which is annexed to the present) – and, to the other part, in full agreement with His Imperial Highness Grand Duke Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovitch of Russia, as designated Protector of the Grand Priory, and in view of an agreement with the other competent authorities of the Order, I have approved the creation in the north of a Priory “Dacia” under the Grand Priory of Russia of the Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem (called Order of Malta) and that according to directives formulated in paragraphs 1, 5, 7 of my letter of the 23rd September, 1938, approved by the Danes by letter dated 19th October, 1938. In witness thereof I have signed the present declarationParis, 22nd July, 1950.(s) M. de Taube.
Source: Public Record Office Copenhagen, Denmark. Priorate Dacia af St. Johannes af Jerusalems Orden Arkiv nr: 10266. Jvf. RA. Priv. ark. c. litra P nr. 1006-1.
Appendix 8
Declaration by Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovitch Romanoff, 1950
Je soussigné, André Wladmirovitch Romanov, grand duc de Russie, domicilie a Paris (XVIe), 10, Villa Molitor, déclare ce qui suit :
I, the undersigned Andrei Wladimirovitch Romanoff, Grand Duke of Russia, domiciled in Paris (XVI) 10, Villa Molitor, declare the following:
l° Fidèle a la mémoire de mon ancêtre direct, l’Empereur Paul Ier de Russie, Grand-Maître de l’Ordre Souverain de Saint Jean de Jérusalem, dit Ordre de Malte, je constate que le Grand-Prieuré Russe de cet Ordre crée par Sa Majesté en 1798 et comprenant, depuis 1799, des “commandeurs héréditaires” – dont plusieurs descendants légitimes me sont personnellement connus – n’a jamais été abroge en Russie, contrairement a de faux bruits et a de fausses affirmations dans quelques publications modernes.
l° Faithful to the memory to my direct ancestor Emperor Paul I of Russia; Grand Master of the Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem, also known as the Order of Malta, I declare that the Russian Grand Priory, the Order created by His Majesty in 1798, and including since 1799 Hereditary Commanders – several legitimate descendants of whom some are personally known to me – has never been abrogated in Russia, contrary to the false rumours and to false assertions in some modern publications.
2° Il est, par conséquent, incontestable que, tant au point de vue de l’ancien droit russe qu’au point de vue du droit international, le Grand-Prieuré Russe – crée par un Empereur de Russie en sa qualité de chef d’une organisation souveraine de caractère international – continue légalement d’exister, représente par les dits descendants (par droit de primogéniture) des commandeurs héréditaires nommés en Russie depuis 1799, ainsi que par de nouveaux chevaliers de l’Ordre, créés éventuellement par son Grand-Maître actuel résidant a Rome.
2° It is in consequence incontestable, that both from the point of view of the ancient Russian laws, as also that of international law, the Russian Grand Priory created by an Emperor of Russia in its quality of a sovereign organization of international character, legally continues to exist, represented by the said descendants (by primogeniture rights) of the Hereditary Commanders appointed in Russia since 1799, as well as the new knights of the Order eventually created by its actual Grand Master in Rome.
3° On ne peut donc qu’approuver l’initiative d’un groupe de descendants des commandeurs héréditaires russes qui, par une déclaration faite a Paris le 24 juin 1928, proclamèrent le fait de la survivance du Grand-Prieuré Russe de l’Ordre de Malte, en vue de faire revivre son activité humanitaire et de le faire reconnaître officiellement par qui de droit.
3° One can approve the initiative of a group of the descendants of Russian hereditary commanders who by declaration made in Paris on 24th June, 1928, proclaimed the fact of the survival of the Russian Grand Priory of the Order of Malta in order to revive its humanitarian activity and to have it officially recognized as of right.
4° Dans ces conditions, et a l’instar de feu mon cousin, le Grand Duc Alexandre Mikhaïlovitch de Russie, je me declare prêt a assumer le titre et les functions de Protecteur de ce Grand-Prieuré Russe de l’Ordre de Malte, avec toute ses ramifications possibles hors des territoires de l’ancien Empire de Russie.—(s) Grand Duc Andre.Paris, le 31 Juil 1950
4° In these conditions, and with the example of my late cousin, the Grand Duke Alexander Mikhaïlovitch of Russia, I declare myself ready to assume the title and the functions of Protector of this Russian Grand Priory of the Order of Malta, with all its possible ramifications outside the territories of the ancient Empire of Russia.—(s) Grand Duke Andrei.Paris, 3lst July, 1950
Source: Public Record Office Copenhagen, Denmark. Priorate Dacia af St. Johannes af Jerusalems Orden Arkiv nr: 10266. Jvf. RA. Priv. ark. c. litra P nr. 1006-1.
Appendix 9
Letter to the Dacia Priory from Grand Duke Andrei of Russia confirming that he is the Protector of the Priory of Dacia
Der Protektor desParis, den 17, Nov 1950 Russischen Grosspriorates des Malteserordens An den Ordensrat des Priorates Dacia des russischen Grosspriorates Kopenhagen.Das Protektorat, welches ich nach dem Tode meines Vetters S. K. H. Grossfürst Alexander über das russische Gross-Priorat des Malteserordens üòernommen habe, umfasst natürlich auch das dänischen Priorat – (Prioratus Daciae) – nachdem dieses als autonomer Teil des GrossPriorates von Russland im Sommer 1939 errichtet wurde.Sollte auch ein Mitglied des königlichen dänischen Hauses das Protekorat über das dänische Priorat unseres Ordens übernehmen wollen, würde ich es sehr begrüssen./s/. Grossfürst Andrie von Russland.Geschäftführendes Mitglied des rüssischen Ordensrates /s/. Michael Frhr. v. Taube.
The Protector of Paris, 17, Nov 1950 the Russian Grand Priory of the Order of Malta. To the Order’s Council of the Dacia Priory of the Russian Grand Priory Copenhagen.The Protectorship of the Russian Grand Priory of the Order of Malta, which I have taken over after the death of my cousin H.I.H. Grand Duke Alexander naturally also embraces the Danish Priory (Prioratus Daciae) since this was created an autonomous part of the Grand Priory of Russia created in summer 1939.Should also a member of the royal Danish house want to adopt the Protectorship over the Danish priory of our Order, I would welcome it very much./s/. Grand Duke Andrie of Russia.Leading Administrative Member of the Council of the Russian Order /s/. Baron Michael de Taube.
Source: Public Record Office Copenhagen, Denmark. Priorate Dacia af St. Johannes af Jerusalems Orden Arkiv nr: 10266. Jvf. RA. Priv. ark. c. litra P nr. 1006-1
Appendix 10
Historishe Notitser : Beretning om Furholdet til det Kejserlige-Russiske Storpriorat af 1798-i-Paris.Undarbejdet af “Den Danske Initiativ Komite”, bestaaende af :Palle Rosenkrantz Preben Ahlefeldt Bille, Greve Baron, Forfatter / Aarene : Chr. P.H.Wenck von Wenckheim / 1936/-1939Komiteen tiltraadt af H.K.Ostenfeld- der med C W. v. W – i 1950-1951-1952 og 1953 fik de officielle Dokämenter endeligt i Hüs.HO. H. K. Ostenfeld Søvej 10 – Birkerød Telf. (01) 81-1175 Danmark
Historical Notes : Report of the connection to the Imperial-Russian Grand Priory of 1798 in Paris.Drawn up by “The Danish Initiative Committee”, consisting of :Palle Rosenkrantz Preben Ahlefeldt Bille, Count Baron, Secretary / Years : Chr. P.H.Wenck von Wenckheim / 1936/-1939The Committee was joined by H.K.Ostenfeld- who with C W. v. W – in 1950-1951-1952 and 1953 got the official documents finally gathered in.HO. H. K. Ostenfeld Søvej 10 – Birkerød Telf. (01) 81-1175 Denmark
Beretning om Forholdet til det russiske Storpriorat udarbejdet afDen Danske Comité d’Initiative. 1950 ————— H. K. Ostenfeld Søvej 10 – Birkerød Telf. (01) 81-1175 Danmark
Report on the relations to the Russian Grand Priory written byThe Danish Committee of Initiative. 1950 ————— H. K. Ostenfeld Søvej 10 – Birkerød Telf. (01) 81-1175 Denmark
Arbejdet med Oprettelsen af Malteserordenen i Norden. Grundlaget lægges til et legalt Priorat som Bestanddel af det historisk russiske Storpriorat.———————————-Fra mine Ungdomsaar har jeg interesseret mig for de geistlige Ridderordener, og som Medlem af den russisk orthodoxe Kirke studerede jeg særlig den Souveraine Malterridderordenes Forhold til Kejser Poul 1. af Russland som 1798 blev valgt til Ordenens Stormester. Efter Kajser Pouls Død existerede den russiske Provins af Ordenen videre og selv efter at Kajser Alexanser 1 – som ikke var Ordenens Stormester og derfor (siden) uden Berretigelse greb ind i den souveræne Orden og indstillede dens Virksomhed i Rusland, existerede den dog videre om end det var en passiv Tilværelse. Nye Medlemmer kunde ikke optages, men de arvelige Komturer muliggjorde Ordenens fortsatte Existens, i Rusland ogsaa efter 1817. Se nærmere herom i den sidste Redegørelse. Alt dette fordybede jeg mig i og paa en Rejse til Italien 1921 traf jeg en faderlig Ven, Medlem af det russiske Kejserrigets Raad, Alexander de Wolgine, som oplyste mig om mange Ting vedrørende denne Sag. Hr. de Wolgine havde været Kejserens Minister for den russiske Kirke ( ” Procureir supreme de tres Saint Synode de Russie”) Da Johanitter-Maleserordenen ogsaa var en religiøs Orden, havde de Wolgine i den Hellige Synodes Arkiver haft rig Lejlighed til at studere de Forhold, der interesserede mig saa meget.Min Interesse for Malteserordenens russiske Storpriorat holdt sig gennem Aarene og i Sommer 1938 fandt jeg Venner her i Landet, som vilde støtte mig i at komme i Forbindelse med de omtalte Rester af det russiske Storpriorat, for om muligt at faa oprettet et Priorat af Ordenen her i Danmark i fuld legal Forbindelse med det russiske Storpriorat. Mine Venner og jeg som havde dermed dannet en Komite var klar over, at den fra Rom ledede Hovedstamme af Ordenen ikke vilde anerkende en dansk “Afdeling”, hvis ikke alle Medlemmer var romersk-katolske, derfor havde vi kun den Udvej at søge Forbindelse med det russiske Storpriorat, som var uaf- hænig af Rom, mer historisk og juridisk fuld legalt, og som ikke stiller Krav om at Ordensmedlemmerne skulde være romersk katolske. ( Det russiske Storpriorat var delt i 2 Afdelinger- et for romerks-katolske og et for russisk- ortodoxe Medlemmer. En Ordning, som Kejser Paul 1 xxx indførte som Stormester og som endog Pave VI til sidst anerkendte. Vi var i Sommer 1938 endnu af den Formodning, at de russiske Kejsere siden Paul 1 havde sikret sig , at hans Efterfølger paa Tronen skulde være Stormester ( eller Storprior) af den russiske Gren af Ordenen og ansaa det derfor bedst at henvende sig til den russiske Tronprætendant, Storfyrst Cyrels personlige Repræsentant I København, den russiske Kommandør G. Gadd. Vi vexlede et Par Breve om Sagen-og vi fik Storfyrstens Adresse i Frankrig. Derefter skrev vi 25/4 1938 til Storfyrst Cyril, som indenfor de russiske Kredse havde antaget Kejsertitlen, som følger;……….” man har planlagt at begynde med at reorganisere Sct. Johannes af Jerusalem i Danmark, og dertil udbeder vi os Deres Majestæts allernaadigste Sanktion, idet vi ønsker
The work with the foundation of the Order of Malta in the North. The basis is laid for a legal Priory as part of the historical Russian Grand Priory.———————————-From my early youth I was interested in the ecclesiastical orders of chivalry and as a member of the Russian Orthodox Church, I particularly studied the relationship between the Sovereign Order of Malta and the Emperor Paul I of Russia, who was in 1798 chosen Grand Master of the Order. After the death of Emperor Paul I the Russian province of the Order continued even after Emperor Alexander I.. The latter was not Grand Master of the Order, but he intervened without justification in the Sovereign Order and suspended its activities. In Russia however it still existed, if even at a low level. New members were not able to be admitted, but the Hereditary Commanders made the continued existence of the Order possible, in Russia even after 1817. More about this in my last report. I became absorbed in this history and on a journey to Italy 1921 I met a good friend, a member of the Council of the Russian Empire, Alexander de Volgine. He enlightened me about many things concerning this matter. Mr. de Volginee had been the Emperor’s Minister of the Russian Church. (“Procureir suprême de tres Saint Synode de Russie” ) Like the Order of Saint John the Order of Malta was a religious Order-, de Volgine had had plenty of opportunity to study the circumstances, which interested me so much, in the archives of the Holy Synod.My interest in the Order of Malta’s Russian Grand Priory lived on during the years to come and in the summer 1938 I found friends in this country, (Denmark) who would support me in the effort to make a connection to the above mentioned remains of the Russian Grand Priory. We wanted, if possible, to found a Priory of the Order here in Denmark in fully legal connection to the Russian Grand Priory. My friends and I had by then formed a committee and we understood, that the central organisation of the Order, led by Rome, did not want to acknowledge a Danish “branch”, if the members were not all Roman-Catholic. Therefore we only had the alternative of seeking contact to the Russian Grand Priory, which was independent of Rome and which did not demand that the members of the Order belong to the Roman-Catholic Church. Moreover, in my opinion, it is more historically and legally correct. (The Russian Grand Priory was divided into 2 sections, one for the Roman-Catholic and one for the Russian-Orthodox members. An arrangement, which the Emperor Paul I as Grand Master introduced and which even Pope Pius VII at last recognised).In the summer 1938 we still believed, that the Russian Emperors after Paul I had made sure, that their successors of the throne would be Grand Masters, or Grand Priors of the Russian branch of the Order, therefore we thought it best to approach the Russian pretender, Grand Duke Cyril’s personal representative in Copenhagen, the Russian Commander G. Gadd. We exchanged letters about the cause and we got the Grand Duke’s address in France. On the 25/4 1938 we wrote to Grand Duke Cyril, who, within the Russian circles, had adopted the title of Emperor. We wrote as follows: ……………………”It is planned to begin the re-organisation of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem in Denmark, therefore we ask for Your Majesty’s most gracious sanction, wishing to acknowledge
-2-at bevare den legitime Kontinuitet med den gamle Orden. Derfor henvender vi os til Deres Majestæt i Deres Egenskap af Stormester for den Gren af Ordenen, som vi ønsker at træde i Forbindelseemed, thi om end den russiske Del af Ordenen nu lever i Landflygtighed, en Tilstand som Ordensridderne ogsaa tidligere har kendt, da de maatte opgive Rhodos, og siden forlade Malta, saa lever dog Ordenen videre med de russiske Ordensriddere, der ligesom deres Stormester nu har Bopæl udenfor Russland.Vi ønsker ikke at forbinde os med den Gren af Ordenen (Maltese ridderne), som har Hovedsæde i Rom, da dens Bestemmelse om Medlemmernes Confession og Optagelse i Ordenen ( 16 adelige Aner) og deres forældede Virksomhed er uigennemførlig her i Norden.Derfor ansøger vi Deres Majestæt om, som Stormester for den russiske Del af Ordenen Sct. Johannes af Jerusalem, at give Tilladelse til, at den nævnte Orden genoprettes I Norden og at man begynder at organisere et autonomt Ballai i Dan- mark, med intimt Forbindelse med den russiske Moderorden. “Som svar derpaa fik vi en Skrivelse fra Baron M. v. Taube Ø 23/9 1938, der i oversat Uddrag oplyser følgende:” Punkt 1. Kejser Paul af Rusland har i sin Egenskab af Stormester ikke alene indstiftet en russisk Gren af denne Orden, men endvidere arvelige ” Commanderies” i Rusland for en Række Familier af den russiske Højadel i Lighed med, hvade der forefindes i andre af Ordenens Priorater, f. Eks. i Italien. Punkt 2. Hans Søn, Kejser Alexander d. 1. har desværre afslaaet det Ø Ordenskapitlet ( sammenkaldt i St. Peters- borg efter hans Faders Død) fremsatte Tilbud om at udnævne ham til Stormester for Ordenen, og i sin negative Indstilling i denne Sag er han endog gaaet saa vidt, som til at ophæve Ordenen i Rusland 1817.Punkt 3. Følgelig har der siden da ikke eksisteret noget “russisk Gren” af Ordenen i Russland, og de russiske Herskere Paul 1 Efterfølgere, kan derfor hverken være eller titulere sig Stormestere af denne ikke existerende Gren af Ordenen.Punkt 4. Det synes imidlertid ubestrideligt, at en Kejser af Rusland ( Alexander 1) ikke havde nogen Ret til udenfor sit Rige at ophæve de Rettigheder hans Undersaatter havde erhvervet i Kraft af en ” acte legal” der skyldtes en Stor- mester for Ordenen ( Paul 1) eftersom nævnte Kejser i 1817 ( og lige siden 1801) ikke havde haft noget at gjøre med OrdenensPunkt 5. Det følger heraf, at de direkte og ældste Decendenter efter de arvelige Kommanderer af den russiske Gren af Ordenen, indstiftede af Stormesteren Paul 1 af Rusland, altid har anset sig og stadig anser sig for at have Krav paa Rettigheder og Privilegier, der tidligere er til- staaet deres Forfædre. De har i 1929 oprettet en ” Comité d’initiative” for nærmere at studere, hævde og skaffe aner- kendt deres Rettigheder som Riddere af denne Orden under Forsæde af Storfyrst Alexander Mikkailivitch af Rusland, Svi- gersøn af Kejserinde Marie Dagmar af Rusland-Danmark og med Undertegnede som juridisk Konsulent.Punkt 6. I den Anledning har Undertegnede foretaget to Rejser til Rom – til den romersk-katolske Ordens Stormester sæde i Ron. Den historiske og juridiske Side af Sagen er nu fuldstændig klarlagt, men paa en Maade, som ikke helt svarer
-2-the legal continuity of the old Order. We apply to Your Majesty in Your capacity as Grand Master of that branch of the Order, to which we desire to liaise. Even if the Russian part of the Order now lives in exile, a condition of which the knights of the Order even earlier have known, when they had to give up Rhodes and thereafter when they left Malta, however the Order is still alive, even if the Russian knights of the Order, like their Grand Master, now have their residence outside Russia.We do not wish to associate with that branch of the Order (the Order of Malta), which has its headquarters in Rome, because of its rule about the confession of the members and their admission to the Order. (16 noble ancestors). This antiquated procedure is not practical in the Nordic countries.Therefore we apply to Your Majesty, as Grand Master for the Russian branch of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, for permission that the above mentioned Order can be re-established in the Nordic countries and that the beginning will be to organise an autonomous Bailiwick in Denmark with an intimate connection to the Russian Mother-Order.”As a reply we received a letter from Baron M. v. Taube, on the 23/9.1938, which in translated summary informs as follows:” Point l. Emperor Paul I of Russia has in His capacity as Grand Master not only instituted a Russian branch of this Order, but also hereditary “Commanderies” in Russia for a number of families of the nobility, like they also exist in other Priories of the Order, for instance in Italy. Point 2. His son, Emperor Alexander I unfortunately has refused the proposed offer of appointing him Grand Master by the Chapter of the Order, (called together in St. Petersburg after his father’s death and in his negative attitude towards this matter he even went as far as to annul the Order in Russia 1817.Point 3. Consequently there has not ever existed since then any “Russian branch” of the Order in Russia and the Russian successors of Emperor Paul I cannot therefore neither be, nor be addressed by the title of Grand Master of this non-existent branch of the Order.Point 4. However it seems indisputable, that an Emperor of Russia, (Alexander I), did not have any right to remove his subject’s rights, which they had acquired by virtue of an “acte legal” written by Grand Master (Paul I). The Emperor in 1817 ( from 1801) did not have anything to do with the Order.Point 5. From this follows, that the direct and the elder descendants of the hereditary Commanders of the Russian branch of the Order, instituted by Grand Master Paul I of Russia, have always considered and continuously will consider themselves to claim rights and privileges, which earlier were admitted to their ancestors. They have in 1929 established a ” Comitè d’initiative ” to study, to obtain knowledge and claim their rights as knights of this Order under presidency of the Grand Duke Alexander Michailovitch of Russia, son-in-law of Empress Marie Dagmar of Russia, Princess of Denmark and with the undersigned as a legal consultant.Point 6. For this occasion I have undertaken two journeys to Rome, to the Grand Master of the Roman-Catholic Order. The historic and legal aspect of the cause is now completely explained, but in a way that does not answer
NOTES. Punktene 3 – 5. I 1938 stolte Professor Baron Michel de Taube helt ud på de arvelige Kommandørers udiskutable rettigheder for overlevelsen af den Russiske tradisjon af St. John. Opprinnelig trodde Baron Michael de Taube at den Russiske priorat.hadde blivet undertykket i 1877, idet han da trodde det der var skrevet i en Russisk bog i 1891 om Russiske Ordener, udgivet 74 år efter en besluttning i ministeriet angående Malteser ordenen. – ( en teori som den Romersk Katolske, Sovereign Military Order of Malta har efterfulgt). Til trods for dette hevdet han ( de Taube) at de arvelige kommandører fremdeles hadde rett til at fortsette Prioratet. Den (aktuelle) bok’s forfatter hadde ikke siteret det angjeldende dekret (Ukase) og omarbeidet den originale tekst således; “Efter kommandører af Order of St. John’s død, har deres arvinger ingen rett at blive kommandører af Ordenen, og vil ikke ha nogen rett til at bære Ordenens bånd eller dekorationer fordi Ordenen ikke leger eksisterer i det Russiske keiserdømme” (Panov og Zamyslovsky ; A Brief historical Account of the Russian Orders and their Statutes, St. Petersburg 1891, side 28-33) Dette er et grovt feilsitat af den originale tekst, med tillagte ord der ikke eksisterer i originalen.Efter den andre verdenskrig fortsatte de Taube sin forskning, og ble i stand til å konsultere de Russiske dekreter (Ukases) fra 1810,1811 og 1817. Baseret på disse dekreter, og ikke på (personlige) meninger, inså han at det Russiske Storpriorat aldrig hadde blivet undertrykket, men bare hadde mistet sine eiendomme og intækter. I 1950 udgav han en samling Historiske kommentarer der omhandlede overlevelsen af det Russiske Storpriorat. Disse kommentarer var arkiveret sammen med dette dokument (se http://www.orderstjohn.org/osj/dac1950.htm http://www.orderstjohn.org/osj/taube.htm – itm 5 -9).Angjeldende påstanden om at Ordenen hadde opphørt i 1817, så er dette baseret på ; at en offiser i hæren, Lazareff hadde ansøkt tilladelse til at bære Ordenens emblem. Han påstod at han hadde bevist sin gamle nobilitet ifølge det Russiske Priorats regler. Afgjørelsen, der er kjendt som ‘Lazareff Deliberation’ eller ‘Lazareff-dommen’ (Dekret 26.626 – 1. februar 1817) siger; “Det angjeldende priorat eksisterer nu ikke i Russland, og nogen tillatelse kan derfor ikke gives til Cornet Lazareff og de andre nævnte personer der samtidig var nomineret for dekorationer fra samme Orden”.Foskjellige argumenter har blivet fremført angående denne Deliberation eller [minister] besluttning. De to hovedlinjer er; a) At Ordenen ikke lengere eksisterede i Russland, og b) At den Romersk katolske Orden, som da var en separat Orden, ikke blev anerkjent i Russland. Overvekten af de historiske bevis kan ikke akseptere eller godkjenne den førstnævnte fortolkning. De omdiskuterede dekorationer der ikke blev tilladt, var tildelet af den Romersk Katolske Orden, ikke af det (ikke katolske) Russiske Storpriorat. Det Russiske Storpriorat der er nævnt i teksten er antaglig det katolske priorat. Afgjørelsen nævner ikke det faktum at der var to Storpriorat etableret i Russland, og behandler således kun et Priorat.Angående denne episode skriver Professor Baron Michel de Taube; “Keiseren forbød modtagelsen af emblemer fra den Italienske del af ordenen og at bære disse uden forudgående godkjennelse af Tsaren. Denne afgjørelse blev taget av minister-kabinettet og godkjent af keiseren efter forespørsel fra de militære ledere angående tre junior officerer Lazareff, der hadde, den ene efter den andre, modtaget direkte fra italia, Malteserkorset. I tillægg var der mistanker om at de hadde modtaget dem som tak for at betydelige beløb hadde blivet tilført kassen hos the Grand Magistracy” – Fritt oversatt efter; L’Empereur Paul I de Russie, Grand Maître de l’Ordre de Malte, et son Grand Prieuré Russe, Paris 1955, side 42.
NOTES. Points 3 – 5. In 1938, Professor Baron Michel de Taube, relied entirely on the unalienable rights of the Hereditary Commanders for the survival of the Russian tradition of St John. Initially Baron Michael de Taube believed that the Russian Priory had been suppressed in 1817, due to being misled by a Russian book of 1891 on Russian Orders issued 74 years after an 1817 Ministerial Deliberation concerning the Order of Malta. – (a thesis which the Sovereign Military Order of Malta has followed). However he claimed despite this, the Hereditary Commanders still had the rights to continue the Priory. The authors of the book did not quote the actual Ukase and provided a reworking of the original words to read “After the death of the Commanders of the Order of St John, their heirs will not have the right to be Commanders of the Order and will not be allowed to wear the badges and decorations of the Order any longer because the latter does not exist any more in the Russian Empire” (Panov and Zamyslovsky, A Brief Historical Account of the Russian Orders and their Statutes, St Petersburg 1891, pages 28-33). This is a gross misreading of the original texts, intruding words which did not exist in the originals.Following the Second World War de Taube continued his research and was able to consult the Russian Ukases of 1810, 1811, and 1817. Based on the Ukases, and not opinion, he realised that there had never been a suppression of the Russian Grand Priory, and that it had only lost its property and income. In 1950 he issued a set of Historic Notes covering the legal survival of the Russian Grand Priory. These Notes were archived along with this present Document (see http://www.orderstjohn.org/osj/dac1950.htm http://www.orderstjohn.org/osj/taube.htm – items 5-9).Concerning the claim that in 1817 the Order had ended, the simple matter is that an Army Officer, Lazareff had sought permission to wear the Order’s Insignia. He had stated that he had proved his ancient nobility according to the rules of the Russian Priory. The judgment, known as the ‘Lazareff Deliberation’ (Ukase 26.626 – February 1st, 1817), stated; “the said Priory was not in existence any more in Russia, and therefore, the permission could not be giving to Cornet Lazareff and the other mentioned persons, who were presently nominated to be decorated with the same Order”.Various arguments have been forwarded about the deliberation. The two main theses are (a) The Order in Russia no longer existed, and (b) the Roman Catholic Order by then a separate Order was not recognised in Russia. The weight of historical evidence cannot support the former interpretation. The decorations under discussion that could not be worn, were being awarded by the Roman Catholic Order, not by the (non-Catholic) Russian Grand Priory. The Grand Russian Priory mentioned in the text is probably the Catholic Priory. The Decision does not refer to the fact that there were two Grand Priories instituted in Russia, and is only concerned with a single Priory.Professor Baron Michel de Taube writes concerning this episode; “The Emperor interdicted the reception of insignia from Italy of the Order and their wear in Russia without a previous authorisation of Tsar. This measure was taken by the Cabinet of ministers and sanctioned by the Emperor on the request of military chiefs of three junior officers Lazareff, who had received one after another, directly from Italy, crosses of Malta and were suspected to have obtained them thanks to sizable amounts being poured into the treasury of the Grand Magistracy” – Free translation, L’Empereur Paul I de Russie, Grand Maître de l’Ordre de Malte, et son Grand Prieuré Russe, Paris 1955, page 42.
-3-til den russiske Comité’s Synspunkt, Det skal bemærkes, at Kommandererne naturligvis ikke betvivler dere anerkendte Ret som Kommanderer af Malterordenen, men de søger at opnaa materielle Rettigheder i andere af Ordenens Priorater udenfor Rusland. Detaillerne om Resultatet af de romerkse Forhandlinger kan i givet Tilfælde meddeles danske Interesserede under en personlig Udvexling af Synspunkter.Punkt 7. Under disse Omstændigheder vilde den russiske Gruppe af arvelige Ridder af Ordenen være tilbøjelige til sammen med den danske “Comité d’initiative” at overveje paa hvilken Maade man kunde combinere deres analoge Formaal og Virksomhed for at hidføre Genoprettelsen af en russisk skandinavisk Ridderorden i direkte og legitim Fortsættelse af den autentiske-russiske Gren af Ordenen, indstiftet af Stormesteren, Kejser Paul 1 af Russland.”Dermed var den officielle Forbindelse mellem den danske Comité til Genoprettelse af Malteserordenen i Danmark og den officielle Repræsentant for den russiske Gren af Malteserordenen knyttet. Baron v. Taube skrev yderligere, at vor nævnte Brev til Storfyrst Cyrel af denne var blevet overgivet til hans yngre Broder Storfyrst Andreas, da denne var stærkt interesseret i Sagen og Præsident for det russiske,historiske Selskab i Frankrig. Efter at Storfyrst Andreas havde confereret med Baron v. Taube om Sagen, i dennes Egenskab af første juridiske Raadgiver for det russiske Udenrigsministeriu russisk Senator mm var det besluttet, at Baron v.Taube skulde udrede Sagen for os- set fra et historisk-juridisk Synspunkt og optage Forbindelsen med den danske Comité, idet v. Taube repræsenterede den russiske Malteserordenens specielle Comité. Baron v. Taube sammentrækker den historiske Baggrund for Sagen i nævnte 7 Punkter. Yderligere tilføjes, at han staar I konstant Kontakt med Præsidenten for den russiske Ordenscomite Greve Alexander Soltykoff. Saaledes bekræftes yderligere, at v. Taube handlede for “Ordensraadets Vegne, en Betegnelse, som kan senere ( f. Eks. ,i P 4/6 31 bruger for den omtalte Ordenscomite. Forinden vi gaar over til at behandle Sagens yderligere Udvikling, er det rettest at fuldstændiggøre Oplysningerne om Baron v. Taubes Person, som i denne Sag har en saa betydningsfuld Stilling.ad Punkt 1. Disse arvelige Familiekommender ( Conthurier juris patronatus) en Slags Familiestiftelser, findes ogsaa i alle de ældste Dele af Ordenen udenfor Russland, f. Eks. Fandtes i Stor Prioratet i Rom – 12 – xx og i Lombardiet 23, i det russiske Storpriorat var der ligeledes 23.Det er ved Existensen af denne Grundstamme af 23 arvelige Komturer af Ordenen at man endvidere kan konstantere at der endnu bestaar en legal russisk Ordensgren. Sagen blev nu i Løbet af ¾ Aar stadig uddypet og Grundlaget en en fast Forbindelse omhyggelig lagt. Her gengives Correspondacnen med v. Taube i kronologisk Orden, men der medtages for Skyld kun det for Sagen vigtigste. Til Slut i denne Redegørelse sammendrages Kendsgerningerne og de Slutninger og Konsekvenser vi føler os berettigede til at træffe heraf.Baron v. Taube’s betydningsfulde Skrivelse af 23.9 besvaredes 19/10 1938. Vi konstaterede 2 Ting 1) den russiske Tronprætendent Storfyrst Cyrel var afgaaet ved Døden og hvad der var mere betydningdfuldt for Sagen, siden Kejser Paul havde ingen russisk Kejser været Overhovedet for den Russiske Maltezserorden.
-3-the Russian Committee’s point of view. It is to be observed, that of course the Commanders do not question their acknowledged rights as Commanders of the Order of Malta, but they are trying to obtain material privileges in other Priories of the Order outside Russia. The particulars about the result of the Roman negotiations can, if necessary, be announced to interested Danes during a personal exchange of view points.Point 7. Under these circumstances the Russian group of hereditary knights of the Order would be inclined, together with the Danish “Comité d’initiative”, to consider how to combine their analogous purpose and activity to lead to the re-establishment of a Russian – Scandinavian Order of Chivalry in direct and legitimate continuation of the authentic Russian branch of the Order, instituted by the Grand Master, Emperor Paul I of Russia. Now the official connection between the Danish Committee for re-establishment of the Order of Malta in Denmark, and the official representant of the Russian branch of the Order of Malta, were linked together. Baron von Taube further wrote, that our above mentioned letter to the Grand Duke Cyril, was handed over to his younger brother, Grand Duke Andreas, because the latter was greatly interested in the cause as a President of the Russian historical society in France. After Grand Duke Andreas had conferred with Baron von Taube about the cause in the latter’s capacity of first legal adviser for the Russian Foreign Office, Senator of Russia etc., it was decided that Baron von Taube would unravel the matter for us, looked upon in a historic-legal point of view and re-establish the connection with the Danish Committee, because von Taube represented the Russian Order of Malta special Committee.Baron von Taube summarised the historical background for the cause in above mentioned 7 points. Furthermore it is added, that. he was in constant contact with the President of the Russian Committee of the Order, Count Alexander Soltykoff. This confirms furthermore, that von Taube acted ” on behalf of the Council of the Order, an indication, that later is used for the mentioned Committee of the Order. ( for example in ………P 4/6 31 )Before we pass into dealing with further developments of the cause, the right thing to do is to complete the information about the biography of Baron von Taube, who has such an important position in this matter.ad point 1. These hereditary Family-commanderies, (Conthurier juris patronatus), a kind of family-foundations, are also to be found in all the eldest parts of the Order outside Russia. For example there were 12 in the Grand Priory of Rome, in. Lombardia 23 and in the Russian Grand Priory 23 as well. It is by the existence of this stock of 23 hereditary Commanders of the Order that it moreover is possible to establish that there still exists a legal Russian branch of the Order. This matter was in the course of nine months constantly and thoroughly deepened and the ground for a firm affiliation was carefully laid. Here the correspondence with von Taube is reported in chronological order, but only the most important information is mentioned for the sake of [simplicity]. At the end of this report the facts, the conclusions and the consequences that we feel we are justified to make, are given.Baron von. Taube’s important letter of the 23.9. was answered on the 19/10 1938. We realised 2 things: 1) The Russian pretender Grand Duke Cyril had passed away, and more important for the matter was, that since Emperor Paul I no Russian Emperor had been the head of the Russian Order of Malta.
-4-Ordenens russiske Storpriorat maatte under Tvang af Kajser Alexander 1817 fuldstændig indstille sin Virksomhed i Rusland. Ordenen ophævedes ikke i 1817 i egentlig Forstand, hvilket bl.a. bevises af, at der omkring 1848, som anført: “Buch der Ritterorden” (Bruxelles-Leipzig 1848, pag. 268) var 98 Comthurier af Riddere – mæk,- 393 i 1817 og Taube meddelte bl. a. at det med de 23 arvelige Medlemmer bestod Ordenen (ogsaa officielt) selv om Resten af de 98 Comthuriere maatte være uddøde siden 1848- selvom der ifølge Sagens Natur hidtil havde været passiv. Ordenen kunde naar som helstsærlig i Landflygtighed- træde i Funktion igjen. Som det fremgaar af v. Taube’s Skrivelse skete dette i 1928-29 da Arve komturene genoprettede virksomme Organer for den russiske Ordensgren.- og det er – som vi skrev til v. Taube, til denne Reaktivering af de arvelige Komturer, vi vilde søge Tilknytning, da vi ligesaalidt som de russiske Riddere- kan acceptere de “romerske Betingelser”. Derefter anførtes det principielle Grundlag, hvorpaa vi vilde lægge vor Ordensgren op.-” a) Medlemmer af Ordenen skal i det mindste tilhøre den lavere Adel ( eller tilhøre et saadant Rangtrin, at den tilsvarende Rang i Rusland automatisk vilde have medført Adelskab.” b)Ordensridderen skal være positiv Kristen( altsaa ikke som hos de “romerske” Maltesere, der kun optager romersk katolske Medlemmer).” c) Ordensridderen skal før deres Optagelse bringe en bestemt Medgift ind i Ordenen ( eller paa anden Maade yde en extra Indsats for Ordenen).”Ordenens Formaal skal følge Ordenens gamle Tradition og i første linie være karitativ ( Sygepleje, Krigstilfældemen ogsaa ved andre Lejligheder) desuden skal Ordenen virke opdragende paa Ordensriddernes Efterkommere i det kristne Ridderskabets Aand og Tradition og envidere- indenfor Mulighederne- lindre Nød og Lidelse. Den 18.11. 38 fik vi Meddelelse om, at v. Taube var blevet syg men antagelig i Januar 1939 kunde genoptage Correspondance 25/11 1938 foreslog vi v. Taube, at Oprettelsen af den dansknordiske Malteseroden kommer til at faa den i det følgende citerede Ramme, saaledes at det nye danske Priorat ( eller Barlei) ikke kommer x til at blive løsreven Del af Ordenen uden legal Continuitet, men bliver en Del af den souveræne Malteserorden. Rammen: a) den souveraine Orden af Sct. Johannes af Jerusalem Malteserordener) b) Autonom russisk Storpriorat ( Ordensprovins). c) et dansk ( eller dansk-russisk) Priorat, formelt som en Del af b).I en ny Skrivelse af 28.1. 1939 henviste vi til at vort Forslag synes at ligge helt paa Linie med hans Indstilling, saa at man altsaa ” principielt var enige om Forbindelsen” og blot skal finde den rette Maade at gennemføre den paa. I v. Taubers Svar af 7/2 39, synes der kun at være enkelte rent praktiske Spørgsmaal, som skal løses, og v. Taube udbeder sig en Sammenkomst desangaaende i Paris eller København, desuden ønsker han oplyst, hvem der hos os staar bag Sagen, og om vi er i Stand til at klare Sagen financielt. Vort Svar af 12/3 39, hvori vi giver hans forskellige Oplysninger, des uden stiller vi forskellige Forslag, af hvilke her kun skal nævnes det som v. Taube senere accepterede som Grundlag.- Punkt 3 c-.
-4-The Russian Grand Priory had completely been forced to discontinue its activities under compulsion by Emperor Alexander in Russia year 1817. The Order was not suspended in 1817 in the proper sense of the word, which is proved by the fact, that around year 1848, as written in “Buch der Ritterorden” (Brussels-Leipzig 1848, page 268), there were 98 Commanderies of Knights, in year 1817 there were 393, and. von Taube informed among other things, that with. the 23 hereditary members the Order (would officially exist), even if the rest of the 98 Commanderies had been extinct since 1848 and even if, in the nature of the case, it had been passive. The Order was at any time able to step into function again, especially in exile. As it appears by von Taube’s letter this happened in the years 1928 – 1929, when the Hereditary Commanders re-established an active organisation for the Russian branch of the Order, and it was – as we wrote to von Taube- to this re-activation of the hereditary Commanderies we wanted to seek connection. That is because we, as well as the Russian Knights, are not able to accept the “Roman conditions”. Thereafter was stated the principal foundation upon which we would lay our branch of the Order.”a) Members of the Order ought to at least belong to the lesser nobility, or to rank with a level similar to which it would automatically have resulted in nobility in Russia.. “b) The Knight of the Order ought to be positively Christian, therefore not like the “Roman” Order of Malta, which only admits Roman Catholic members.”c) The knight of the Order ought to, before his admission, bring a certain dowry to the Order, or in another way contribute an extra effort to the Order.” The purpose of the Order is to follow the old tradition, that is firstly to be charitable ( nursing in case of war, but also in other cases). Moreover the Order is to be educational to the descendants of the Knights in the tradition and spirit. of the Christian knighthood and furthermore, within the bounds of possibilities, to ease pain and distress.On the 18.11. 38 we got a message, that von Taube had taken ill, but that he possibly would re-establish the correspondence in January 1939. On the 25/11 1938 we proposed to von Taube, that the establishment of the Danish-Nordic Order of Malta would have the conditions quoted as follows, thus the new Danish Priory (or Bailiwick) would not be a detached part of the Order without legal continuity, but would be a proportion of the Sovereign Order of Malta.The framework: a) The Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem, Order of Malta. b) Autonomous Russian Grand Priory (Order province). c) a Danish, or Russian-Danish, Priory, formally as a part of b).In a new letter of 28.1. 1939 we referred to our suggestion, which seemed to be in line with his point of view, so the agreements on fundamentals were of one mind and now only the right way of implementation was to be found. According to the letter of reply by von Taube of the 7/2. 1939 there only seemed to be a few practical questions to be solved and von Taube requested a gathering in Paris or Copenhagen, he wished to know, who was behind the cause on our behalf and if we were capable of fending for ourselves economically. Our answer came on the 12/3.1939 where we gave him some information and in addition we made various proposals, here only one will be mentioned, the one, von Taube later accepted as a foundation. -Point 3 c -.
-5-” Hvis det synes umuligt at organisere en levedygtig Ordensgren udenfor Russland, saa kan vi her straks oprette et fællas russisk-dansk ( nordisk) Stor Ballice, men saa maa vi have fælles Statutter, hva der dog kunde støde paa Vanskeligheder- særlig vedrørende Anvendelse af Ordenens Midler. I Danmark vil man ikke direkte yde en udenlandsk Ordensgren financiel Tilskud. Derimod vil man gerne bevilge de herværende Russere, som kommer i Betragtning som Medlemmer, betydelige Lettelser ved Optagelsen, hvis de ikke er i Besiddelse af de nødvendige Midler. Ogsaa paa anden Maade vilde den intime Forbindelse være til nytte for den russiske Ordensgren. En Efterskrift udtaler” Den 10. April vil den herværende Comité afholde et Plenarmøde for at træffe den afgørende Beslutning.” Den 22/3indløp v. Taubes betydningsfulde Svar- et af de vigtigste Dokumenter i Sagen; Deres saa udførlige Skvielse beviser mig, at 3 Hovedpunkter, om hvilke vi, som jeg serer fuldstændig enige særdeles vel kan tjene som Grundlaget for en tilfredstillende Udvikling af det meget betydningsfulde Foretagende, det er:1)” Ordenens fremtidige Formaal, dens Personalbestandog dens Forhold til Rom bliver fra Deres Side opfattet paa samme Maade som her, ogsaa de russiske Berettigede ønsker at skaffe sig Efterfølgere paa bredere Basis, de vil ikke være romersk-katolske og heller ikke vedblivende sende Pengegaver til Rom.2) Deres snævre Comité deler vor Opfattelse, at Malteserordenens russiske Arvekomturer ( Commandeers de familie) absolutt ikke har mistet deres Ret som Ordensredelere siden Kejser Paul 1.3) Det af dem nævnte Beløp paa 300.000 frs. vil fuldt ud være tilstrækkeligt til at gennemføre hele Sagen( det var det Beløb dex første 30 danske Ordensriddere skulde indbringe som Ordenens Formue).Hvad nu den praktiske Gennemførelse angaar, saa er jeg i Dag I den heldige Situation fra min Side at kunne foretage et Skridt for at faa Planen for vort fælles Arbejde endelig fastslaaet.V. Taube meddeler dernæst- at han paa Gennemrejse til Stockholm kan faa Tid til i København at dokumentere alt for osog tilføjer” Samtalen vilde alene af den grund være nødvendig som visse “internationale” Enkeltheder i Sagen absolut ikke kan betroes til Posten”.” Jeg slaar hermed fast, at jeg I Overensstemmelse med Deres Plan ( c3) udelukkende tænker paa Organisering af et russisk-nordisk Stor Balles, som saa( hvilk De vil se af mine mundtlige Udredninger) ogsaa vilde muliggøre Overførelsen af de fra Russland reddede historiske Reliquier fra Stormesteren af Malteserordenen se Revne d’ Histoire moderne” Paris 1936, nr. 27, side 184) Med Hensyn til Deres Bemærkning om, at deres Comite afholder Plenarmøde 10. April for at træffe en endelig Afgørelse saa er det naturligvis i sin bedste Orden, naar det kun er ment principielt ud fra Hensigten, at gaa sammen med den russiske Comité. “Skulde den danske Comité ubetinget have Brug for en officiel Erklæring fra de russiske Berettigede om en fælles Stiftelse af en russisknordisk Balles, allerede til den 10. April, saa maa jeg straks sammenkalde til Paris de endnu levende Medlemmer af vor Comité af 1929-32 med Grev Alexander Solkykoff I Spidsen( som lever i Bruxelles) denne er den ældste Efterkomme efter Stormester Stedfortræderen efter Stormester Paul 1 Død. P.S. Min egen Fuldmagt i denne Anledning er underskrevet af følgende Personer: Storfyrst Alexander af Rusland, Poul Demidoff Fyrsten af San Doncte) Greve Alexander Solykoff, Fyrst Barietsinsky og Greve D. Olufieff” Til Slut anmoder v. Tauber C Wuchturm at besørge hans Gennemrejsevisum og faa Tilladelsen sendt til det kgl danske Consulat, Paris.
-5-“If it seems impossible to organise a branch of the Order outside Russia, fit to survive, then we are instantly able to establish a joint Russian-Danish (Nordic} Grand Bailiwick, but we must have joint statutes. This could encounter difficulties, especially concerning the use of the finances of the Order. In Denmark financial contributions cannot be directly transferred to any foreign branch of the. Order, but readily there will be given considerable modifications to the Russians of this country, if they are considered for membership and if they not are in possession of the necessary means. Even in other ways an intimate connection would be of use for the Russian branch of the Order.A post script declares: “On the 10. April our Committee will hold a plenary assembly in order to make the conclusive decision”. On the 22/3.1939 von Taube’s answer was received, one of the most important documents in the case: Your very elaborate letter proves to me, that 3 main points, where we, as I see it, are in absolutely complete agreement, would extremely well serve as a foundation for a satisfying development of the very important undertaking, these are:1) “The future purpose of the Order, it’s membership and it’s relationship to Rome is on your side understood in the same way as here, even the titled Russian wish to obtain successors on a broader base, they do not want to be Roman-Catholic, nor continue to send gifts of money to Rome.2) Your core Committee shares our opinion, that the Russian Hereditary Commanders of the Order of Malta (Commandeers de famille) have certainly not lost their right as members of the Order since Emperor Paul I.3) The amount of 300.000 Francs mentioned by them will certainly be sufficient to implement the whole cause. (This was the sum the first 30 Knights should bring in as the capital of the Order).Concerning the practical implementation, I am today in the lucky situation to be able to take the necessary step to get the plan of our common work finally stated. Von Taube informs next, that he on his passing through to Stockholm would be able to substantiate everything for us in Copenhagen and he adds: “The conversation would be necessary if only for that reason that some international particulars in the cause absolutely not can be entrusted with the post.” By this I make clear that I am in agreement with your plan (c3) to solely think about the organisation of a Russian-Nordic Grand Bailey, which also would enable the transfer of the rescued Russian relics from the (Grand Master of the Order of Malta, (see “Revue d’Histoire moderne” Paris 1936, nr.27, page 184). Concerning your observation about their Committee holding a plenary assembly on the 10. April to make a final decision, it is of course fair enough, when in principle the intention is to go together with the Russian Committee. Would the Danish Committee absolutely be in need of an official declaration from the titled Russian of a common foundation of a Russian-Nordic: Bailey already from the 10. April, then I must immediately call together the members of our Committee of 1929-32 who are still living with Count Alexander Solkykoff in charge (he lives in Brussels). He is the eldest successor since the Grand Master’s deputy after Grand Master Paul I’s death. P.S. My own power of attorney in this matter is signed by the following persons: Grand Duke Alexander of Russia, Paul Demidoff , Prince of San Donete, Duke Alexander Solykoff, Prince Barietsinsky and Duke D. Olufieff” Finally von Taube asks of C.Wuchturm to arrange his transit visa and get the permission mailed to the Royal Danish Consulate, Paris.
-6-Den 5. April skrev den danske Comité bl. a. til v. Taube: “Det er ikke nødvendigt, at De sammenkalder det russiske Comthurkapitel allerede før d. 10. April, naar de er sikker paa, at De kan regne med Samtykke fra ” Les Commandeurs de famille”( Dette er en Formfejl fra vor Side, naar der skrives”Conthur Capitlet”og udt. senere ” Les Commandeurs de famille”- det er heller ikke den v. Tauber eventuelt vilde sammenkalde – men Comiteen af 1929″ som fungerede som “Ordensraad” ( amitie – comite d’initiative). af hvilken der kun var faa Medlemmer tilbage, der havde givet v. Tauber den oprindelige Fuldmagt til at handle. ” Naar vi nu den 10/4 afholdt vort forberedende Capitel, saa vilde vi beslutte at gennemføre Grundlæggelsen sammen med det russiske Commaneur-Capitel og paa Grundlag af den imellem os førte Correspondance. Det glæder os meget at De paa Deres Rejse til Sverige, at vi paa Tilbagerejsen personlig kan tale med os om Sagerne.” Vi har kun særlig Brug for Deres Udkast til Proklameringen af det russisk-nordiske Storbalai paa historisk og juridisk Basis som legal Successor Af den polsk-russiske Ordensprovins.”Vi modtog ikke straks Svar fra v. Taube, fordi han-forinden det danske Visum var kommet til Paris, var afrejst til Sverige hvorfra vi atter den 21/4 39 skrev bl. a. “Deres Opholdstilladelse her er i Orden og er meddelt det kgl. Consulat, hvor De nu ogsaa kan faa det ønskede Visum. Endvidere kan vi meddele Dem, at vi anden Paaskedag har afholdt det omtalte Møde som fremtidig Ordenscapitel, og har besluttet under alle Omstændigheder at gennemføre Genoprettelsen af Ordenen I Danmark (Norden) og paa vort Forslag- at det sker i Forbindelse med det russiske Ordenscapitlet. Vort nævnte Brev krydsede et fra v. Taube af samme Dato ( 21/4 fra Stockholm, hvori han kort meddeler, at det danske Visum kom for sent til Paris, men at han bestemt haabede at træffe os ( den danske Comité) i København paa Tilbagerejsen 1/5. Den 22/4 meddelte Rigspolitichefen, at efter at Sagen havde været forelagt Justitsministeren, havde man meddelt det kgl. danske Gesandtskab i Stockholm:” at der kan udfærdiges Visum til Friherre M. v. Taube p. t. i Stockholm. Den 27/4 modtog man Kort fra v. Taube fra Paris, hvormed han meddelte, at han desværre paa grund af Hustruens pludselige, alvorlige Sygdom havde maattet rejse direkte til Paris fra Sverige, hvor han havde forefundet vor Skrivelse af 21/4. Han haabede snarest at kunne svare os, og beklager at det heller ikke denne Gang kom til en Sammenkomst mellem os. Da sagen hastede sendte vi 6/5 vort paa Mødet i København 2. Paaskedag godkendte Forslag til Statutterne, som vi anmodede om at faa godkendt. I Følgeskrivelsen tilføjedes yderligere af mig : ” Jeg har benyttet Deres Ide, forsaavidt h jeg har lært den at kende. Derfor har jeg ogsaa ladet ” Russerne gaa op” i det nordiske Ballei, fordi det for disse vil være fordelagtigere, men selvfølgelig kan ” Russerne” ogsaa danne deres eget Ballei, som sammen med det nordiske Ballei danner Stor Balleiet( kun mister saa Russerne naturligvis de extraordinære Pladser i ledende Organer i det rent nordiske Ballei” Jeg har stærkt Brug for en kort Beretning om Deres tidligere Forhandlinger i Rom, og er saa overbevidst om, at vi saa ogsaa kan blive enige om Formaliteterne ad skriftlig Vej, saa at De nu ogsaa kan indlede deres russiske Ordenscapitlet, alt andet kan saa blive aftalt og ordnet, naar De kommer til Proklameringen af Storbellaet og det danske Ballei- antagelig i Juni”.Den 10/5 skriver v. Taube fra Paris som Svar paa vor Skrivelse af 6/5. Han godkendte Statutterne. Baron v. Taube kender fuldt ud sine russiske Collegaers Standpunkt-ligeledes den kejserlige Familie’s- der er nu kun tilbage, at foranstalte en Sammenkomst af den russiske Comité i Paris, for at faa Beslutningen formælt bekræftet. Der staar i denne Skrivelse af 10. Mai:
-6-On 5. April the Danish Committee wrote to von Taube among other things: “It is not necessary to summon the Russian Commanders-Chapter as early as the 10. April, if you are sure of consent from “Les Commandeurs de famille” (This was a formal error on our side, it is written ” Commanders-Chapter” and later stated as “Les Commandeurs de famille” – it was not the one von Taube wanted to summon – but the Committee of 1929, which acted as “Council of the Order” (amitié – comité d’inintiative) of which there were only a few members left, who had given von Taube the original authority to act.”When we now on the 10/4 held our preliminary Chapter, we wanted to implement the foundation together with the Russian Commander – Chapter and on the basis of the correspondence conducted between us. We are happy, that on your way back from Sweden you are able to have a personal talk about matters with us.” We only have utmost need of your draft of the proclamation of the Russian – Nordic Grand Bailey on a historic and legal base as legal successor of the Polish – Russian Province of the Order.”We did not get a prompt reply from von Taube, because he had left for Sweden before the Danish visa had arrived to Paris. We wrote to him again on the 21/4.1939 and among other things we told him, that ” his residence permit in Denmark is arranged and communicated to the Royal Danish Consulate, where you now are able to get the desired visa. Furthermore we want to inform you, that on Easter Monday we have held the meeting previously mentioned as a future Chapter of the Order and we have decided in any case to go through with the re-establishment of the Order in Denmark (the North) and, on our proposition, that it will happen in connection with the Russian Chapter of the Order” . Our letter crossed one from von Taube, Stockholm, of the same date, (21/4.) where he shortly informed, that the Danish visa arrived in Paris too late, but that he certainly hoped to meet us ( the Danish Committee ) in Copenhagen on his return on the 1/5. On the 22/4. the Commissioner of Police informed us, that after the case had been submitted to the Minister of Justice, it had been communicated to the Royal Danish Legation in Stockholm : “that a visa can be issued to Baron M..von Taube, presently in Stockholm. On the 27/4 there was a card from von Taube in Paris, in which he announced, that owing to the wife’s sudden serious illness, he had unfortunately been forced to travel directly from Sweden to Paris, where he had found our letter of 21/4. He hoped to be able to give us an answer as soon as possible and he was regretting that even this time it would not come to a get-together between us. While the matter was urgent we sent from the meeting in Copenhagen Easter Monday on 6/5 our proposed suggestions for the statutes, which we requested to be adopted. In the covering letter it was further added by me : ” I have used your idea, in far as I have recognised it. Therefore in fact I let the “the Russians merge into” the Nordic Bailey, because it will be on more favourable terms for them, but of course “the Russians” can as well form their own Bailiwick, which together with the Nordic Bailiwick then will form the Grand Bailey, but in that case the “Russians” will loose the extraordinary seats in the leading structures in the all-Nordic Bailey”. I have a strong need for a short report on your earlier negotiations in Rome, and I am convinced, that we will come to terms on the formalities in writing as well, then you will be able to initiate your Russian Chapter of the Order, everything else can be arranged and organised when you arrive for the proclamation of the Grand Bailey and the Danish Bailey, probably in June.” On 10/5. von Taube wrote from Paris as an answer on our letter of 6/5. He approved. of the statutes. Baron von Taube knew fully well the attitude of his Russian colleagues and the Imperial family’s as well, now there was only one thing left, to arrange a meeting of the Russian Committee in Paris to get the decision formally confirmed. In this letter of 10. May it is written :
-7-1) Deres Forslag er saa udførligt og godt udarbejdet, at jeg for mit vedkommende kun vilde forandre meget idt I Texten. 2) Det juridiske og historiske Grundlag vilde jeg gøre noget mere fuldstændig og det russiske Capitels Beslutninger vilde jeg formulere noget anderledes. 3) Jeg kender naturligvis mine russiske Collegers og ogsaa den destinerede Protektors ( af den russiske Kejserfamilie) Standpunkt, det vilde selvfølgelig ikke være mig muligt at handle – særlig efter saa mange Aar uden deres udtrykkelige Samtykke. (Som det siden vel fremgaar af v. Taubes følgende Breve har v. Tauber enkeltvie modtaget de afgørende Personers Billigelse af hele Sagen).1) Det glædede os, at xxxx vore Forslag til Ordenstattuterne passede ham og hans Raad- vi havde ogsaa gene modtaget Forslag af Dem. 2) Naturligvis maatte han- som skrevet- fuldstædniggøre vore Statutters juridiske og historiske Grundlag og noget anderledes formulere Omændringen af det russiske Capitel til et Storballei. Dog holdt vore Jurister fast ved, at vi faar hans Formulering at se, førend den blev besluttet af det russiske Capitel.Sagen er nu traadt ind i det sidste Stadium, naar man er enige om det væsentlige- ja, selv om xxxx uvæsentlige Smaating, man er altsaa fuldt enige om Oprettelse af ” et fælles Storpriorat” og om Indholdet af de sidste Besluttninger- kun angaaende , hvilket af den russiske Ordensgrens Organer ” Comturcepellet” eller Ordensraadet ( comité d’initiative) der skal træffe Beslutninger opstaar en Misforstaaelse ( – som dog tilsidst ogsaa bliver klaret, saa at fuldstændig Enighed er til Stede.21/5 1939 skriver v. Taube: ” Et Udkast til det russiske Malteser-Capitlets Beslutninger ligger foran mig og er endog fo 2 Dage siden blevet bevilliget af den destinerede Protektor for det russiske Ballei, Storfyrst Andreas Wladimiranovitch . Jeg tilsender Dem det gerne, men først om 2-3 Dage, da dette Dokument først omhyggeligt skal afskrives paa Maskine. Det drejer sig ikke blot om nogle faa Sider, men om et temmelig langt og omstændig Aktsykke af hvilket hele den juridiske Sags Stilling og ” Captlets Ønske klart fremgaar. Det bliver fra russisk Side det egentlige konstituerede Hoved-Akt-stykke for hele Foretagendet.Til det Formaal at faa de Underskrivendes Identitet prøvet, har jeg til Hensigt, at bede et prominent Medlem af den lokale Forening af russiske Advokater at deltage i ” ” Malteser Conferencen” og saa lade hans Erklæring desangaaende legalisere ved Dom I Frankrigs Almindelige…………certification materielle de la signature.” Jeg gør her mit mest muligr i den Overbevisning, at det i dette Anliggende handler sig om en social, religiøs og maaske ogsaa juridisk meget betydningsfuld Sag. P. S. Den grundlæggende Erklæring af 24/6 1928 underskrevet 16 Herrer, deriblandt 1 polsk Arvekomtur( som siden er blevet overført til den romerske Malteserordenens polske Association) og desuden af 3 Efterkommere af høje, men ikke arvelige russiske Malterserriddere, de kommer altsaa ikke juridisk i Betragtning for vort Capitel. Til de oprindelige 12 russiske Arvekomturer er siden kommet en til, saa at mit Register nu omfatter 13 Familienavne. Grev Soltzykoff lever i Bruxelles og er beredt til at komme til Paris, naar det ønskes. Misforstaaelserne bestaar i, at vi mente, at det saakaldte Comturcapitel ( med den kvalificerede Majoritet af alle Arvekomturer) skal underskrive Beslutninger af Baron v. Taube mener, at det praktisk xxxx set ikke mere er muligt, da Medlemmerne nu er spredte over mange Lander inclusive Amerika og at det netop er derfor,
-7-1) Your proposition is so detailed and well drawn up, that I for my part only would change very little on the wording. 2) The legal and the historic base I would make much more complete and the decisions of the Russian Chapter I would formulate somewhat differently. 3) Naturally I know my Russian colleague’s and as well the destined Protector’s ( of the Russian Imperial family) standpoint, I would of course not be able to act, especially not after these many years, without their expressed consent. (As it later shows of von Taube’s following letters, he did receive the decisive person’s approval of the whole matter one by one).l. We were pleased that our proposals for the statutes of the Order suited him and his Council, we would also willingly have received propositions from them . 2. Of course he had to, as written, complete the legal and historic foundation of our statutes and formulate somewhat differently the alteration of the Russian Chapter to a Grand Bailiwick. However, our legal advisers firmly held on to, that we should be able to see his proposals before it would be decided on by the Russian Chapter.The case had now entered upon the last phase, when we agree on the essential – yes, even on unessential little things, we are consequently quite agreed on the foundation of a ” united Grand Priory” and on the content of the last decisions and which structure of the branch of the Order the “Commander Chapter” or the Council of the Order (Comité d’initiative) is to make decisions, then a misunderstanding arises (that however is at last cleared up as well, then full agreement is present).On 21/5.1939 von Taube writes: “A draft of the Russian Chapter of Malta’s decisions is laying before me, and had been granted two days ago by the destined Protector of the Russian Bailey, Grand Duke Andrew Wladimiranovitch. I will certainly send it to you, but first in 2-3 days, while this document first is to be carefully transcribed by typewriter. It is not a question about a few pages, but of a rather long complicated document, of which all the legal position of the cause and “the will of the Chapter” clearly appears. From the Russian side it will be the real main constitutional-document of the whole undertaking.Of the purpose of getting the identities of the signings proved, it is my intention to ask a prominent member of the local association of Russian lawyers to participate in the “Conference of the Order of Malta” and then let his declaration on the subject be legalised in the French general court ……… certification materielle de la signature.” Here I do my best in the firm conviction that this cause deals with a social, religious and even a legal, very important matter. P.S. The fundamental declaration of 24/6.1928 signed by 16 gentlemen, among them a Polish Hereditary Commander (who later is transferred to the Roman Order of Malta’s Polish Association) and 3 successors of high, but not hereditary, Russian knights of Malta, they will therefore not be legally recognised by our Chapter. To the original 12 hereditary Commanders one more has turned up, my register now includes 13 family names. Count Soltzykoff, now lives in Brussels and is prepared to come to Paris, whenever it is wanted. The misunderstandings consisted in that we believed that the so called Commanders Chapter (with the qualified majority of all hereditary commanders) was to sign agreements, but Baron von Taube is of the opinion that it is practically no longer possible, because the members now are scattered over many countries including America, and therefor
-8-netop er derfor at man vil redde det russiske Storpriorat, som nu for anden Gang truer med at gaa i Opløsning, ved at knytte det til en nordisk Afdeling, der kan bevare Coutenistaler ( den legale Succession). Derfor ønskede v. Taube et Ordensraad ( le comite d’initiative) som har Beføjelse dertil fra Cometurcapitlet foruden den Fuldmagt v. Taube har – skal- for en Forms Skyld- unde: tegne de Beslutninger,som Storfyrst Andreas og alle afgørende Personer allerede enkeltvis har godkendt. Denne Ordning vilde ogsaa være fyldestgørende, men desværre misforstaar v. Taube og den danske Comité hinanden. Skylden er antagelig mest den danske Comité’s, der ikke kan faa Erklæringer og Garantier nokog som ikke førend den har modtaget yderligere Forklaringer fra v. Taube helt forstaar de praktiske Vanskeligheder i Paris. Dette er beklageligt- man havde kunnet sparet Tid og lidt Bitterhed mod os fra v. Taubes Side. Med Skrivelse af 21/5 ( afsendt 23/5) sendte v. Taube ogsaa den omtalte Resolutionsforslag( der har gengives, saaledes som den var godkendt af Storfyrst Andreas i Oversættelse:………har enstemmig vedtaget følgende: 1) De bekrefter ved nærværende Genoprettelsen – i Egenskab af …. nationale Broderskab, det i 1798 af Stormesteren Poul 1 af Rusland oprettede ” Grand Prieure de Russie” af Malteserordenen. 2) De forpligter sig til med kortest mulig Frist at udarbejde de Statutter for deres Broderskab og at gode Skridt til disses “”enregistrement xxx legal” i en europeisk Stat, der kan vælges efter Forholdene, og til sin Tid i Rusland. 3) De fornyer den til det permanente Medlem af “Comite d’initiative af 1928 Hr. Professor, Baron de Taub, i hans Egenskab af juridisk Raadgiver for det russiske Broderskab givne Fuldmagt dateret den 21/9 1929 vedrørende Genoprettelsen af den russiske Malteserorden med den nye særlige Opgave- nærværende Comités Navn – at naa til Forstaaelse med den danske Comité d’initiative vedrørende den eventuelle Sammensmeltning, som de anser for meget ønskelig, af deres russiske Orden med den, som er ved at dannes x i Norden under den omtrentlige Titel” Grand Prioret for Norden af den hellige Johannes af Jerusalems Orden kaldet Malteserordenen” med Udarbejdelse og ” confirmation legale” i København og de forende Ordeners fælles Statutter. 4) I saa Fald indvilliger de udtrykkeligt til denne nye Orden for de nordiske Lande at overdrage alle de dem som ubestridte Repræsentanter for det gamle ” Grand Priore de Russie” tilkommende historiske Rettigheder og Privilegier, saavel de allerede kendte, som de, der senere maatte opstaa.” Vi indrømmede v. Taube den nævnte Forandring. Benyttelsen af Betegnelse ” Store Priorat” var mere korrekt, desuden foreslog vi at vore Statutter, som var godkendte, som skulde optages som en Bestanddel af det russiske Malteser Resulution. Dette Forslag accepterede v. Taube straks i næste Skrivelse af 4/6. Paris 4/6 1939,: Jeg er principialt indforstaaet med de to Hovedpunkter i Deres venlige Skrivelse af 30/5. Tanken med Hensyn til det første af dem, maa imidlertid juridisk udføres anderledes, som det netop er foreslaaet af Dem i Deres Brev af 2. Juni. Jeg maa nemlig erindre Dem om Punkt 3 i min Skrivelse af 21/22 Maj, hvor det Medlemstal, man i Dag faktisk kan opnaas – det herværende Malteser Capitel dog er blevet klart karaktiseret: 7-16 Herrer, deraf kun faa Kommanderer. Men da De i dette Øjemed kun arbejder med rent theoretiske Muligheder, som vi allerede her har gennemprøvet her i Praxis, er der for mig ikke andet at gøre end at opstille en her vedlagt sammenlignende Tabell. Man vil heraf se, at Erklæringen af 1928 næsten var “vollstimmig) og altsaa absolut retsgyldig, man at den dengang stedfundne Procedur ikke med den bedste Vilje kan gengives i Dag. Da nu ogsaa min Plan om vort Comité d’initiative synes at være uantagelig for den danske Comite maa vi nok …. slaa ind paa den i deres sidste Skrivelse eneste Udvej med min personlige Fuldmagt. Den gamle Fuldmagt fra 1929 var underskrevet af 5 Herrer, nemlig
-8-the very fact why they want to save the Russian Grand Priory, which now for the second time threatens to disintegrate, by connecting it with a Nordic division, which is able to keep the legal succession. For that purpose von Taube wanted a Council of the Order (le comite d’initiative), to have powers from the Commanders-Chapter besides the power of attorney that von Taube had. It would be able, as a matter of form, to sign the decisions which Grand Duke Andreas and all the other decisive persons one by one have approved on. This arrangement would have been adequate, but unfortunately von Taube and the Danish Committee misunderstood each other. (Probably it was the fault of the Danish Committee, which couldn’t get too many statements and guarantees and which did not quite understood the practical difficulties in Paris, until they received more explanations from von Taube. This is regrettable, it could have been saved time and some bitterness against us from the side of von Taube. By letter of the 21/ 5. (sent on the 23/5. ) von Taube also sent the mentioned proposed resolution (here reported like it was approved on by Grand Duke Andreas, translated (*into Danish) as follows: …………………have carried unanimously as follows: 1) They confirm at the present the re-establishment – in capacity of ………….national Brotherhood, the “Grand Prieure de Russie” of the Order of Malta created in 1798 by Grand Master Paul I of Russia. 2) They commit themselves, with the shortest possible respite, to prepare the statutes for their brotherhood and to take the necessary steps to their “enregistrement legal” in an European state, which can be chosen after the circumstances and in due course in Russia. 3) To renew the written authority given to the permanent member of “Comite d’iniative” of 1928, Mr. Professor Baron de Taube in his capacity as legal adviser for the Russian Brotherhood dated 21/9. 1929 concerning the re-establishment of the Russian Order of Malta with the new special task – the name of the present Committee – to reach an understanding with the Danish Committee concerning the possible integration, which they consider very desirable, of their Russian Order with the one, which is shortly to be constituted in the North under the approximate title of ” Grand Priory of the North of the Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, called the Order of Malta” with preparation and “confirmation legals” in Copenhagen and the united Order’s common statutes. 4) In that case they definitely agree to delegate all the future historic rights and privileges, those already known as well as those which later might arise in the new Order of the Nordic Countries, as the unchallenged representatives of the old “Grand Prioré de Russie” . We agreed with von Taube about the alteration mentioned. The use of the indication “Grand Priory” was more correct and moreover we proposed that our statutes, which were sanctioned, would be adopted as a part of the Russian Malta Order resolution. This proposition von Taube accepted at once in his next letter of the 4.6. Paris 4/6.1939: I generally agree on the two main points in your kind letter of 30/5. However the idea behind the first must be carried out differently according to the law, just as it is proposed by you in your letter of the 2nd of June. I have to remind you of the point 3 in my letter of 21/22 May where the number of members, which is today possible to achieve – the local Chapter of Malta, is clearly characterised as 7 – 16 gentlemen, among them only a few Commanders. But as you are at the moment only working with theoretical possibilities, which we already have proved here in practice, is then only left to me to set up the enclosed table. From this you may see, that the Statement of 1928 was nearly “unanimous) and therefore absolutely valid, but the ongoing procedure at that time could not, with the best of will, be reproduced today. As now even my plan for our Committee of initiative seems to be unacceptable for the Danish Committee, we may possibly …turn into the only way out, described in your latest letter, my personal power of attorney. The old written authority of 1929 was signed by 5 gentlemen, namely
-9-Storfyrst Alexander, som Protektor og de 4 Medlemmer af det daværende Raad, der var valgt af de 13 Kommandører. P. Demidoff, Grev Solkykke, Fyrst Beraiaetemky og Grev Olufveff. I Dag lever kun Grev Solykke og Fyrst B med den nye Protektor Storfyrst Andreas, kunde k nu udtede den nye ” absolutte” Fuldmagt, hvis det er ønskelig for vor Plan. Hvis dette stadig ikke er tilstrækkeligt beder jeg Dem betragte hele Sagen som forfejlet fra min Side og straks underrette mig herom. Er det imidlertid tilstrækkeligt, beder jeg Dem ufortøvent tilsende mig det ofte nævnte Beløb, som skal sætte mig i Stand til ( bortset fra Afholdelse af Mødet i Paris, som kun vil koste lidt) hurtigst at kalde Grev Soltikoff til Paris 2) at foranstalte yderligere Efterforskninger vedrørende senere Tilslutning af de stadig i Live værende Cormenturier og 3) at muliggøre min Rejse til København med Dokumennterne og gamle trykte Sager. Nogle Sætninger af vort Brev af 30/5: Efter Deres ønske erstattes Ordet “Store Battei” i vore Statutter til Store Priorat og Forlæggelsen af det russiske Storpriorat til Norden skal klart blive udtrykt. Vort Comité har enstemmigt vedtaget Statutterne, derfor maa man kun afholde ( overlade?) Plenarforsamlinger her Constitueringen af stor Prioratet de paa Grundlag af de allerede vedtagne Statutter.” Vi var nu i et og alt ening med v. Taube om at hans personlige Fuldmagt var fuld tilstrækkelig og for det russiske Storpriorats Organersenere skulde saa det eneste af disse Organer, som endnu kunde samles Ordensraadet (comité d’initiative) underskrive Resolutionen, som nu kun blev en Formsag, da de afgørende Personer enkeltvis havde givet deres Tilslutning. Den 8. Juni tilskrives v. Taube som følger: .. et brev der krydsede v. Taubes Brev af samme Dato- Vi bekrefter med Tak for Modtagelsen af Deres ærede Skrivelse af 4. Juni d. a. det glæder os meget at De er principiel enig med os. Vi anfører nu her kun det, som bør tilføjes, forandres eller bortfalde i deres Resolutionsudkast.Begyndelsen af Resolutionen maa henvise til … fundamentale Kends gerninger: 1) at Forsamlingen og Beslutningerne af det russiske Ordenskomitu rer i Paris 1928 i Betragtning af de foreliggende Omstændigheder var absolut legal. Af de oprindelige 23Arvekomturer existerer end nu kun 13, alle har, som deres sidste Rest af det russiske Stor priorat enstemmigt vedtaget Beslutningerne. 2) her omtalte Forsamling ( Ordenskapitlet) i 1928 udsat et permanent Ordensraad for at varetage Komturenes Interesser og indlede Forbindelse og slutte Overenskomst med andre Del af Ordenen. Af Raadets … Medlemmer er i Mellemtiden 3 afgaaet ved Døden og Raadet har derfor suppleret sig med 3 andre.3) 3 har Ordensraadet nu givet sin juridiske Consulent ……. Og xx Udenrigsraad Baron M. v. Taube Fuldmagt af 25/9 1929 til ovennævntes Vegne at skaffex træffe Beslutninger, afslutte bindende Overenskomster…….. Storprioratet bliver under Navnet Storprioratet Norden i alle Henseender den retsmæssige Efterfølger af Storprioratet Rusland. Ved denne lejlighed bliver det Malteserordenen gamle historiske Priorat “Dacia” restitueret og som det første Priorat ( i Skandinavien) indlemmet i Storprioratet Norden……. Vedlagt sender jeg Dem en Check paa 5.000 Beløbets anvendelse har De nævnt i Slutningen af Deres Brev af 4/6. Nu har vi endelig fundet hinanden og vi kan ikke se, at der i det sidste Øjeblik skulde opstaa yderligere vanskeligheder…Den danske Comité afventede nu v. Taubes Ankomst til København med de underskrene Papirer. Den 10. Juni skrev man paany til v. Taube, at vi her havde nogle mindre interne Vanskeligheder, som vilde medføre en lille Forsinkelse af Starten og den locale Ledelse. Derpaa reagerede v. Taube 12/6, at det var en Skuffelse for ham og tilføjer: Jeg finder Deres sidste Forslag aldeles glimrende- saa meget mere som det ganske fortræffeligt vil passe til nogle Enkeltheder ( Ejendommeligheder) hos de russiske Maltesere. Det er Ting som
-9-Grand Duke Alexander as Protector and the 4 members of the Council then in office, chosen out of 13 Commanders, : P. Demidoff, Count Soltykoffe, Prince Baraiastemski and Count Olufveff. Today only Count Soltykoffe and Prince B. with the new protector Grand Duke Andreas are alive and able to issue the new “absolute” written authority, if it is desirable for our plan. If this still is not enough, I ask you to look at the whole case as unsuccessful from my side and immediately inform me of this. If it, on the contrary it is enough, I ask you, without delay to send me the previously mentioned amount, which is going to enable me to (except for holding the meeting in Paris, that only will cost me a little) swiftly call Count Soltikoff to Paris 2) to make further inquiries concerning approval from the Commanders still living later on and 3) to make my journey to Copenhagen possible together with the documents and old printed papers. Some lines in our letter of the 30/5. After your request the word “Grand Bailiwick” will in our statutes be replaced with Grand Priory and the transference of the Russian Grand Priory to the North will be clearly expressed. Our Committee has unanimously carried the statutes, therefore they only may hold (handover?) plenary assemblies here. The constitution of the Grand Priory is on the basis of the already agreed statutes. Now we were in complete agreement with von Taube that his personal written authority was absolutely enough and regarding the Russian Grand Priory’s structures of late. The only one of these structures that still could be assembled, the Council of the Order, (Comite d’initiative) would sign the resolution, which now only became a matter of form, because the decisive persons one by one had given their consent. On the 8th of June Von Taube was written to as follows: …..a letter, which crossed von Taube’s of the same date……We acknowledge with thanks the receipt of your honoured letter of the 4th of June this year, we are very pleased that you in principle agree with us. We will here only mention what may be added, changed or be disposed of in your draft of resolution. The beginning of the resolution must refer to ……..fundamental facts: 1) that the assembly and the decisions of the Russian Committee of the Order in Paris 1928 was in consideration of the existing circumstances absolutely legal. Of the originally 23 Hereditary Commanders now only 13 still exist, all of them have, as the last remnant of the Russian Grand Priory, in union agreed to the decisions. 2) the here mentioned assembly (the Chapter of the Order) in 1928 has chosen a permanent Council of the Order to attend to the interests of the Comptures and initiate connections or conclude an agreement with other parts of the Order. Of the ……members of the Council in the meantime 3 have departed by death and the Council therefore has supplied itself by 3 others. 3) 3 the Council of the Order has now given the legal consultant and Minister of Foreign Affairs Baron M.von Taube written authority of 25/9 1929 on the behalf of above mentioned persons to make final binding commitments……….. The Grand Priory will, under the name of The Grand Priory of the North, in all respects be the legal successor of the Grand Priory of Russia. At this occasion the Order of Malta’s old historic Priory will be restored and as the first Priory (in Scandinavia) incorporated in the Grand Priory of the North…….. Enclosed I send you today a check of 5.000,-…….. You did mention in your letter of 4.6. the use of the amount. Now we finally have come to terms we cannot see, why difficulties should arise at the last moment……The Danish Committee now awaited the arrival of von Taube to Copenhagen bringing along the signed papers. On the 10. June we wrote again to von Taube, we had some minor internal difficulties, which would bring a little delay of the starting and the local leadership. Von Taube reacted to this on the 12.6, that this was a disappointment to him and he adds: I find your latest suggestion quite brilliant the more so as it will apply to some particulars in the Russian Malta Order, or rather peculiarities. There are things which
-10-hører til den fortrolige Side af Sagen og som derfor skal refereres mundtligt. Jeg er meget gerne beredt y til at føre vor sa vigtige Sag videre ogsaa i den nye Formulering. Da jeg denne og næste Uge endnu raader over fri Tid, kunde jeg i Begyndelsen eller I Midten af næste Uge komme til København med alle mine Dokumenter for nøje at tale med Dem om alt. v. Taube var bemyndiget til at afslutte Overenskomster og fatte Beslutninger paa Grund af den givne Fuldmagt. Som Bevis foreligger den Kendsgerning at v. Taube forhandlede med Stormesteren for Ordenens Hoved… i Rom om en Sammenslutning. I Sammenligning med denne betydningsfulde Sag var vor Sag forholdsvis ringe.Den 15/6 tilskrev man v. Taube at man var indforstaaet med hans Skrivelse af 12/6 og hans Ankomst til København den følgende Uge derunder: vi sender Dem vedlagt Billetten. Vi træffes paa Hotell Astoria. Imidlertid lykkedes ikke med den korte Varsel at faa Rigspolitiets Tilladelse og den blee den 21/6 atter skrevet til v. Taube og beklagede denne Omstændighed, men da Sagen faktisk var i Orden og kun den ydre – mer … Bekræftelse ved v. Taubes Ankomst til København manglede, saa maatte begge Parter finde sig I Udsættelsen af denne Højtidelighed- eventuelt at Par Maanedermedens v. Taube genoptog sine Forelæsninger i ……. Juli og jeg ( v. ……) skulde saa rejse til Jugoslavien … v. Taube blev derefter indbudt til Højtideligheden i det nyoprettede danske Priorat til Midten af September.Dermed sluttede vor Forbindelse med v. Taube. Verdenskrigen brød udMine Vennerog jeg besluttede at lade Sagen hvile til efter Krigen. Vi var overbevidst om, at selv om det havde været ønskeligt, at v. Taube havde bistaaet os ogsaa med de sidste Formaliteter, saa var det ikke … i det mindste de facto ( B. Rosenkrantz der var Jurist mente ogsaa, de jure, den russiske Godkendelse og Anerkendelse klart nok var udtrykt i de her citerede Skrivelser saa at Sagen kunde staa for en historisk Bedømmelse, selv om de sidste Formaliteter manglede- thi de manglede ikke paa Grund af Uoverensstemmelse- men kun paa Grund af Verdenskrigens Udbrud, force majeure.Det danske Priorat under for det russiske Storpriorat lever altsaa endnu og kan blive videre udbygget, naar det altid vil være tro mod Malteserordenens gejstlige-ridderlige Grundsætninger og omhyggelig bevarer den legale Succession og er Rede til at høje sig for Verdens Stormester i Rom, som souveraint Overhovede- naar Rom en Gang er rede til at optage Forbindelser paa de Grundlag, som den har anerkendt ved Oprettelsen af det russiske Storpriorat og dens Ordensgrene som blev gennomført i det autonome Storpriorat I Rusland – to i de arvelige Komturer lever videre og de af dem der 1928 og senere i Udlandet skabte Organer, som igjen i 1939 overdrog det danske Priorat at varetage Storprioratets Interesser og … deponeret de russiske Storpriorat hos det danske Priorat, som den selv havde godkendt og anerkendt som ny Bestanddel af det historiske russiske Priorat. ……………/ 5 1950
-10-belong to the confidential side of the matter and which therefore must be referred by word of mouth. I am willingly prepared to conduct the enterprise of importance to us further by the new wording. Since I have some free time this and the oncoming week, I would be able to come to Copenhagen in the beginning or in the middle of next week with all my documents and carefully talk everything through with you.Von Taube was authorised to conclude agreements and to make decisions because of his power of attorney. In evidence, it is known, that von Taube negotiated with the Grand Master of the Head of the Order……in Rome about an affiliation. In comparison with this very important case, ours was comparatively insignificant.On the 15/6. we wrote to von Taube, about agreeing with his letter of 12/6. and to his arrival to Copenhagen the following week, and below: enclosed we send you the ticket. We will meet you at Hotel Astoria. However, the short notice did not succeed in getting the permission from the Commissioner of Police and it was again on the 21.6. written to von Taube and this fact was regretted, but as the matter was actually in order and only the more formal confirmation at the arrival of von Taube was missing, both parties had to submit to the postponement of this solemnity – perhaps for some months, while von Taube resumed his series of lectures in . ..July and I (v…………) had to leave for Yugoslavia……von Taube then was invited to the solemnity in the newly established Danish Priory in the middle of September.Here our connection with von Taube finished. World War II broke out.My friends and I decided to let the case rest until after the war. We were convinced, that even if it had been desirable, that von Taube had given us assistance also with the last formalities, it was not …….at least de facto. (B. Rosenkrantz, who was a lawyer, also thought, de jure, that the Russian endorsements and recognitions clearly were expressed in the above quoted letters so that the case would be able to stand up to an historic judgment, even if the last formalities were lacking – not because of disagreements – but because of the outbreak of the World War II, force majeure.Consequently the Danish Priory under the Russian Grand Priory is still alive and can be further extended if it only will be always true to the Order of Malta’s ecclesiastical – chivalrous principles and carefully preserve the legal succession and always will be ready to give in to the Grand Master of the Order in Rome as the sovereign head – when Rome once is ready to take up connections on grounds they have acknowledged by the establishment of the Russian Grand Priory and it’s branches of the Order that was carried through in the Autonomous Grand Priory in Russia – two in the hereditary Commanders are still alive and that in 1928 and later abroad, they created structures, which again in 1939 turned over to the Danish Priory to take care of the interests of the Grand Priory and ………..deposited the Russian Grand Priory at the Danish Priory, which it had approved of and acknowledged on it’s own accord as a new component of the historic Russian Priory.………………………/ 5 1950
Source: Public Record Office Copenhagen, Denmark. Priorate Dacia af St. Johannes af Jerusalems Orden Arkiv nr: 10266. Jvf. RA. Priv. ark. h. litra P nr. 1006-1.
Appendix 11
Declaration of 12 December 1964
Erklæring av 12. Desember 1964 En Dansk oversettelse, håndskrevet av Prior Johs. Kaad OstenfeldOversættelse fra russisk af Originalskrivelse af 12/12 1964: Udført for Prioratet af Hs. Højhed Fyrst D. Myschetzky.
Declaration of 12th December 1964 A Danish Translation, handwritten by Prior Johs. Kaad OstenfeldTranslation from Russian of the original letter of 12/12 1964: Undertaken for the Priory by H. H. Prince D. Myschetzky
UNIONEN AF EFTERKOMMERE AF ARVELIGE KOMMANDØRER OG RIDDERE AF DET RUSSISKE STORPRIORAT AF SCT. JOHANNES AF JERUSALEMS ORDEN
THE UNION OF THE DESCENDANTS OF HEREDITARY COMMANDERS AND KNIGHTS OF THE RUSSIAN GRAND PRIORY OF THE ORDER OF ST JOHN OF JERUSALEM
Under Punkt 7 blev forelagt:”Beretning fra Unionens Raad vedrørende Prioratet i Dacie i Danmark, der blev indlemmet i Ordens-Unionen den 12. Juli 1950.
Under point 7 put forward:”Report from the Union’s Council regarding the Priory of Dacia in Denmark, which was incorporated in the Union of the Order on 12th July 1950.
Med Hensyn til Ordensprioratet kaldet “Dacie”, som befinder sig i Danmark og som er ind- registreret af Landets Regering, beretter Ordensunionens Raad til Samlingen af Kommandører og Riddere, at paa Grundlag af hele den omfattende Brevveksling mellem nævnte Ordenspriorat og Ordensunionsraadets forhenværende Seniormedlem Baron M.A. Taube (se Unionens Arkiv Nr. 5 Afdeling 4) kan der ikke herske nogen Tvivl om, at Ordens- Unionens PROTEKTOR Hs. Kejserlige Højhed Storfyrst Andrej Vladimirovitz i Aar 1950 gav Baron M.A. Taube absolut Fuldmagt til at slutte denne Sag ved at indlemme “Dacie” i Ordens-Unionen i Overensstemmelse med § 9 i Unionens Love.
Regarding the Priory of the Order called Dacia, which is in Denmark, and registered with the country’s government, the council of the Union of the Order report to the assembly of Commanders and Knights, based upon the correspondence between the said Order’s Priory and the Union of the Order’s former senior council member Baron M. A. Taube (ref. Union’s Archive No. 5 part 4), there can be no doubt that in the year 1950 the PROTECTOR of the Union of the Order H.I.H. Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovitch gave Baron M. A. Taube absolute authority to finalise this matter by incorporating Dacia in the Union of the Order according to § 9 of the Union’s Rules.
En Fotokopi af nævnte Indlemmelsesdokument, dateret 22. Juli 1950, er da ogsaa blevet fremlagt af “Dacie”Paa Grundlag heraf afgiver Ordens-Unionens Raad sin nedenstaaende Konklusion:
A photocopy of the said incorporation document, dated 22nd July 1950, is also presented by DaciaBased upon the above, the council of the Union of the Order gives its conclusion:
“I Betragtning af den Dokumentation som af “Dacie” er blevet fremlagt for Raadet og som i fuldt Maal svarer til de i Ordens-Unionens Arkiv opbevarede Aktstykker og i Kraft af Retskontinuiteten af de Retsprærogativer, der overgaar fra den ene Protektor til den næste – d.v.s. fra Hs. Kejserlige Højhed den i Gud hensovne Storfyrst Andrej Vladimirovitz til den nuværende Protektor, Hs. Kejserlige Højhed Storfyrst Vladimir Kirillovitz, hvilken Overgang er blevet stadfæstet gennem behørigt oprettede Aktstykker, kan Unionens Raad ikke indse, at der skulle være nogen retslig Grund til at afslaa “Dacie”s Andragende, eller til ikke at forelægge dette for Hs. Kejserlige Højhed Storfyrst Vladimir Kirillovitz til Stadfæstelse”.
“In consideration of the documentation presented to the Council by Dacia, which are fully in accordance with the acts in the Union of the Order’s Archives, and by virtue of the juridical continuity of the legal prerogatives transferred from one protector to the next, i.e. from H.I.H., now in the God’s keeping, Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovitch to the present Protector, H.I.H. Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovitch, whose transfer had been duly confirmed by the appropriate deeds, the Union’s Council can see no legal reason to refuse Dacia’s petition, or to put this forward to H.I.H. Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovitch for affirmation.”
-2-Unionens Samling besluttede:”Ordens-Unionens Raads Konklusion skal forelægges Hs. Kejserlige Højhed Storfyrst Vladimir Kirillovitz til hans høje Afgørelse”.
-2-The Union’s Assembly decided:”The Union of the Order’s Council’s conclusion shall be put forward to H.I.H. Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovitch for his high agreement”
Kopiens Rigtighed attesteres.Ordens-Unionens GeneralsekretærSign: G. de Rticheff12 December 1964
Certified true copy.Secretary General of the Union of the OrderSigned: G. de Rticheff12 December 1964
NOTE:Dokumentets innehold. Prioratet Dacia ble grunnlagt 1938/39. 11 år senere, i november 1950 (forsinkelsen skyldes den 2.verdenskrig) tilskrev John Kaad Ostenfeld, medlem av administrasjonsrådet i Dacia, Storhertug Andrei Vladimirovitch, Storprior og beskytter, med forespørsel om at han i tillegg til å være beskytter for det Russiske Storpriorat, også kunne bli betraktet som beskytter for Prioratet Dacia. Storhertug Andrei Vladimirovitch aksepterte dette velvillig. (se http://www.orderstjohn.org/osj/dacp1950.htm).
NOTES.Contents of the Document. The Priory of Dacia had been founded in 1938/1939. 11 years later in November 1950 (the Second World War causing the delay), John Kaad Ostenfeld a member of the Council of Dacia, had written to Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovitch the Grand Prior and Protector, to ask, that in addition to being the Protector to the Russian Grand Priory, he could be considered as Protector to the Priory of Dacia. Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovitch readily agreed to this (see http://www.orderstjohn.org/osj/dacp1950.htm).
Beklageligvis døde Storfyrst Andrei Vladimirovitch i 1956. Ikke før enn i 1958 aksepterte Storfyrst Vladimir Kirillovitch å bli beskytter for det Russiske Storpriorat/Union, men han avslo imidlertid tittelen som Storprior.
Sadly, Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovitch died in 1956. Only in 1958, did Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovitch consent to be the Protector to the Russian Grand Priory/Union, but refused the title of Grand Prior.
Tidlig i desember 1964 tilskrev John Kaad Ostenfeld, som da var Prior for Dacia, hovedkontoret til det Russiske Storpriorat (som nå brukte benevnelsen ”Unionen av Arvelige Kommandørers Etterkommere og Riddere av det Russiske Storpriorat av St. John av Jerusalem’s Orden”) og forespurte Storfyrst Vladimir Kirillovitch, Unionens beskytter, om han også kunne bli betraktet som beskytter for Prioratet Dacia. Dacia hadde dokumentert at de var en legal del av det Russiske Storpriorat, og også at Storfyrst Andrei Vladimirovitch hadde akseptert å være Dacia’s beskytter ca 14 år tidligere.
Early in December 1964, John Kaad Ostenfeld, by then the Prior of Dacia wrote to the Headquarters of the Russian Grand Priory (now using the term “Union of Descendants of Hereditary Commanders and Knights of the Russian Grand Priory of the Order of St John of Jerusalem”) to ask if Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovitch, the Protector to the Union, be considered also the Protector to the Priory of Dacia. Dacia had demonstrated that they were a legal part of the Russian Grand Priory, and also that Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovitch had agreed to be Protector some 14 years earlier.
Unionen bekreftet Dacia’s medlemskap, og så derfor ingen juridiske grunner til å avslå anmodningen. Imidlertid berodde den endelige beslutning om også å være beskytter for Dacia på Storfyrst Vladimir Kirillovitch’s aksept, og derfor ble anmodningen fra Dacia oversendt ham med positiv anmodning.
The Union confirmed Dacia’s membership, and therefore saw no legal reason for the petition to be refused. However, ultimately the decision for Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovitch to be the Protector also to Dacia, was a matter for his agreement, and accordingly they would forward the petition of Dacia, with their positive recommendation.
De originale franske og russiske brev: De originale franske og russiske brev har ikke blitt funnet i Dacia’s arkiv. Imidlertid vil bekreftelse på nevnte korrespondanse eksistere i både Unionens arkiv og sekretariatet til Storhertug Vladimir Kirillovitch Romanoff.
The Original French and Russian Letters. The Original French and Russian Letters have not been found in the Dacia Archives, however confirmation of this correspondence will exist in the Archives of both the Union and of the Chancellery of Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovitch Romanoff.
Declaration of December 12th 1964.Source: Priory of Dacia Archives.
Appendix 12
Priory of Dacia Investiture Ceremony ca. 1939
Ridderløftet: *********** saaledes som det indledes med den første, og til vor Tid hørende Belæring, der gives ved Tekstholderbordet af den Ærværdige Subprior eller den Ærværdige Cansler.******************************************
The Knight’s Vow: *************** according to the first, and in our time-honoured lesson, given at the Speaker’s table by the Honourable Sub-Prior or the Honourable Chancellor.******************************************
1. Belæring.
1. Lesson
Værdige Væbner: **********************
–
Worthy Squire(s): ***********************
–
–
i al vor Omgang med andre Mennesker bør vi vise Selvbeherskelse, Overbærenhed og Medfølelse, thi vi er alle saa forskellige i Natur, i Vaner og i Opdragelse, at vi ikke bedømmer alting paa sam Maade, vi ser forskelligt paa Tingene.
–
In all our dealings with other people we should behave with self-control, tolerance and sympathy, because we are all so different in nature, habits and upbringing, that we do not see everything in the same way, we have different views on the things.
Der findes ikke to Mennesker, hvis Erfaringer i alle Enkeltheder er de samme, den ene faar ikke de samme Prøvelser som den anden, og de Pligter, som den ene synes er lette, kan være vanskelige og uoverskuelige for den anden.
There aren’t two people whose experiences are the same in all details. One does not have the same afflictions as the other, and duties easy to one can be burden full and incalculable to the other.
Mennesket er af Naturen saa skrøbeligt, uvidende og fejlende, at enhver maa være meget forsigtig i sine Bedømmelser af andre, netop fordi vi ved meget lidt om, hvilken Indflydelse vore Handlinger kan have paa andres Erfaringer. Hvad vi gør eller siger, kan for os synes at være af ringe Betydning, men kunne vi aabne vore Øjne, ville vi maaske se, at det, visiger ellegør, kan faa helt andre Følger, end hvad vi mente med det, vi sagde eller gjorde.
Mankind is by nature so fragile, ignorant and in error, that each one should be very careful in judging others, knowing very little of the influences our acts will have upon other’s experiences. What we do or say can for us be of minor significance, however, if we could open our eyes we might understand that what we said or did could have quite different consequences from our intentions.
Der er mange, som har baaret saa faa af Livets Byrder, kendt saa lidt til virkelig Sjælekval og haft saa lidt Interesse og Bekymring for andres Vel, at de ikke forstaar dem, som har et stort Ansvar at bære.
There are many who have carried so few burdens of life, known so little about real spiritual despair and have had so little interest and concern regarding the well being of others that they do not understand those who have great responsibilities to bear.
Der er mange, som bærer brydefulde Ansvar og Byrder, og som derved udfører et stort og uselvisk Arbejde, der først bliver forstaaet og værdsat, naar de er døde.
There are many who carry heavy responsibilities and burdens, and thereby carry out a great and unselfish work, only to be understood and appreciated once they are dead.
Naar andre herefter overtager deres Ansvar, og Byrder og møder de samme Vanskeligheder, da forstaar de først, hvorledes disse Menneskers Mod og Tro blev prøvet. De ser nu at de Fejltrin, de selv var med til at dadle og ivrig efter at paapege, nu helt mistes af Syne.
When others thereafter take over their responsibilities and burdens, meeting the same difficulties, then at last, they understand how these people’s courage and faith has been tested. Now they observe that the errors they themselves criticised and eagerly attributed, which had been unseen.
Erfaringen lader
dem vise Møedfelelse!
Experience leads
us to show Compassion!
–
Vi staar os ikke ved at lade en virkelig eller indbildt Forurettelse forbitre vort Sind, vi bør ikke være saarbare. Fjern enhver Aarsag til Misforstaaelse, saavidt det staar i Jeres Magt, undgaa enhver Antydning af Ondt og gør alt for at forlige Jer med andre uden derved at svigte Principper. Taler nogen utaalmodigt til Jer, saa svar aldig igen i samme Aand, husk: et mildt Svar stiller Vrede. Der er en forunderlig Magt i Tavshed, at tale til en, som er vred, vil under tiden kun gere ham endnu mere forbitret, hvorimod den Vrede, der mødes med Tavshed og Overbærenhed, hurtigt vil lægge sig.
–
It is not worthy to let a real or imagined injustice embitter our mind. We should not be vulnerable. In your power, remove every cause to misunderstanding. Avoid any hint of evil and do everything to reconcile with others without compromising principles. If somebody speaks impatiently to you, never reply in the same spirit. Remember: A mild reply might calm wrath. It is a peculiar power in silence. To speak to one who is angry, might sometimes make him more exasperated: whereas anger met with silence and tolerance, soon pacifies.
————————————————————-
————————————————————-
Naar I bliver udsat for en Storm af saarende Kritik, eller I bliver daarligt behandlet, eller I bliver anklaget med Urette, giv da ikke et heftigt Svar, lad Jer ikke overvinde af det Onde, men overvind det Onde med det Gode Vi trænger alle til at erkende den forædlende Kratt, der er i rene Tanker. Derfor er den eneste Sikkerhed for enhver af os at tænke Ret . Gør det til en Vane kun at tale godt om andre og læg kun Mærke til deres gode Egenskaber, og saa lidt som muligt til deres Fejl og Mangler.
When being exposed by a storm of insulting criticism, or if you are being badly treated, or if you are being unjustly accused, do not give a violent reply. Do not be slain by evil but defeat evil by good. We all need to acknowledge the purifying power in a just mind. Therefore, the only safety for every one of us is a just mind. Make it a practice to speak only well of others and just notice their good qualities and as little as possible of their errors and shortcomings.
–
Naar I fristes til at klage over, hvad nogen har sagt eller gjort, saa prøv i Stedet paa at fremhæve noget, der er godt og positivt hos den Paagældende, thi den der arbejder alvorligt, har ikke Tid til at tænke paa andres Fejl, og vi er heller ikke tient med at beskæftige os dermed. Bagtalelse er en dobbelt Forbandelse, der falder tungere paa den, som taler, end paa den, som hører paa. Den, som saar Strid og Uenighed, saar Bitterhed og Ondskab, og han høster derfor selv de dødbringende Frugter i sin egen Sjæl. Netop ved at spejde efter Ondt hos andre, udvikles det Onde hos en selv. Alt for ofte glemmer vi, at vore Medmennesker trænger til baade Styrke og Opmuntring. Og I maa stedse huske, at I skal være som en Kilde til Vederkvægelse for alle, som I kommer i Forbindelse med !
–
When tempted to complain about what somebody has said or done, try instead to emphasize his positive and good deeds. The serious worker has no time to concern himself with other’s faults. We draw no benefits in dealing with this matter. Slander is a double curse that falls heavier on those who speak than those who listen. Those who spread conflicts and disagreement create bitterness and evil, therefore they themselves harvest the deadly fruits of their own souls. Just by seeking evil in others, develop the evil in themselves. All too often we forget that our fellow humans need both strength and encouraging. You must always remember: that you shall be a spring of comfort to all you associate!
************************************************** Her slutter den første Belæring, og Aspiranten/Aspiranterne føres til Priors Bord og modtager af ham den historiske Belæring. (2.) **************************************************
************************************************** The first lesson ends here, and the Aspirant(s) is led to the Prior’s table to receive from him the historical lesson. (2.) **************************************************
Prior hilser
Aspiranten / Aspiranterne og udtaler:
The Prior greets
the Aspirant(s) and pronounces:
–
Værdige Væbner / Væbnere, I har nu modtaget den første og til vor Tid hørende Belæring, men inden I modtager Ridderslaget af min Haand paa Storprioratets Vegne og ad Mandatum, maa vi have Svar paa følgende Spørgsmaal, som hver enkelt af Jer maa besvare personligt idet I højt og tydeligt svarer: “Ja Høje Prior’ eller “Nej Høje Prior’.
–
Worthy Squire(s), you have now received the first, and our time-honoured lesson. However, before you receive the accolade from my hand on behalf of the Grand Priory and ad Mandatum (by Authority), you have to answer the following question – which each of you has to answer personally by loud and clear answer: “Yes High prior” or “No High Prior”.
Prior fortsætter:
“Jeg tilspørger Jer da værdige Væbner” (Navn):
The Prior states:
“I then ask you Worthy Squire” (Name):
–
1 ) Har I afgivet Løfte til noget andet Ridderskab, der er til Hindring for Jert Løfte overfor Vor Heje Orden ? Svar: “Nej Høje Prior”. 2) Er I en fri og vaabenfør Mand af hæderligt mdemme og uden tyngende økonomiske, moralske eller juridiske Gældsforpligtelser ? Svar: “Ja Høje Prior”. 3) Er I en Slave af Gods eller Guld eller af materielle Goder ? Svar: “Nej Høje Prior’. 4) Værdige Væbner endnu er det Tid at I kan træde tilbage fra Eders Optagelse i Vort Høje Ridderskab og om I ønsker dette, da siger I personligt til nu. Svar: “Nej Høje Prior’
–
1) Have you given vow to any other knight’s Order, which is an obstacle to your vow to our High Order? Reply: “No High Prior” 2) Are you a free man, will defend the weak and of honourable reputation and without burdening economic, moral or legal debts? Reply: “Yes High Prior” 3) Are you a slave of possessions or gold or of material goods? Reply: “No High Prior” 4) Worthy Squire, Still there is time to withdraw from your induction into our High Order if you so wish. Then say so now. Reply: “No High Prior”
————————————————————-
————————————————————-
–
5) Er det stadig Jert inderste Ønske at sege ind til os, for i Lydighed og Ydmyghed at tiene vort aristokratiske Ridderskab ? Svar: “Ja Høje Prior’.
–
5) Is it your continuing heartfelt desire to join, in faithfulness and humility, with our noble society of knights? Reply: “Yes High Prior”.
Prior fortsætter:
–
The Prior states:
–
–
Vordende Profesriddere, I vil nu hver enkelt, og med Haanden paa Bøgemes Bog, aflægge Vor Høje Ordens ældgamle Troskabsløfte.Og Det Høje Ridderskab rejser sig.Saa hør da Ordene, som de har lydt siden Vor Ophøjede Ordens ældste Dage i Det Hellige Land, paa Cypem og paa Rhodos, paa Malta og i Sct. Petersborg, og i alle de Riger og Lande, hvor vore Ordensbrødre lever og har Levet.
–
Professed Knights Designate, you will now individually, and with your hand on the Book of Books, give Our High Order’s ancient vow.The High Knights stand up.So, listen to the words, which have sounded since Our exalted Order’s ancient days in the Holy Land. Cyprus and on Rhodes, on Malta and in St. Petersburg, and in all countries and lands where our fraternal brothers live and have lived.
Prior fortsætter:
–
The Prior states:
–
Værdige Væbner (Navn), saa læg da Eders hejre Haand paa denne Bibel, idet I samtidig hæver Eders venstre Haand og gentager efter mig, højt og tydeligt:
Worthy Squire (Name), place your right hand on the Bible, and simultaneously raise your left hand in allegiance and repeat after me,
“Jeg forpligter mig og lover”
“I bind myself and pledge”
“Overfor min Gud Faderen og Sønnen og Helligaanden”
“Before my God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”
“Den Hellige Jomfru Maria, Sct. Johannes Døberen”
“The Blessed Virgin Mary, St John the Baptist”
“De Hellige Apostle, Petrus og Paulus”
“The Holy Apostles Peter and Paul”
“Til med Guds Naades Kraft at vise tydighed og Ydmyghed”
“For with God’s power and grace to display humility and obedience”
“Mod denne Vor Høje Orden”
“toward this Our High Order”
“Under Forbehold af Ordenens Ret og Onienens Ledelse”
“Under the establishment of the Order’s Right and United Leadership”
“Vort Ridderskabs Aand og al dens Geming”
“Our Knighthood’s Spirit and its every sanctuary”
“Og ingensinde forglemme de Mennesker”
“And to never forget the people”
“Som haver Hjælp, Barmhjertghed og Miskundhed Behov”
“Who are in need of help, mercy and compassion”
“Og Stadig ihukomme, at vi er de fattiges og de syges Tjenere”
“And always remember that we are the servants of the poor and sick”
–
“Det lover jeg, saa sandt hjælpe mig Gud”
–
“This I pledge, so help me God.”
Naar de vordende Riddere har aflagt Ridderløftet, henvender Prior sig til Ridderskabet og udtaler:
After the Knight candidates have taken the Knight’s vow, the Prior turns to the Society of Knights and pronounces:
–
Høje Ridderskab, saa vend Jer da mod vort Atters Lys, og vi hæver alle vor højre Haand, idet vi bekræfter vort Ridderløfte og gensidigt forsikrer hverandre, idet vi gentager : “Ja det lover vi”.
–
Great Order of Knights, turn yourselves toward the Altar light, and we all raise our right hand confirming our Knight’s vow and mutual brotherhood repeating: “Yes that we pledge”.
************************************************** Herefter føres den I de vordende Profesriddere til Tekstholderbordet til den videre Belæring og til Udlægning af den historiske Tekst og Ridderløftet. ************************************************** —————————————————————–
************************************************** Thereafter, the candidates are lead to the speakers table for a further lesson and interpretation of the historical text and Knight’s vow. ************************************************** —————————————————————–
(3.)Den / de kommende Riddere er nu ført til Tekstholderbordet.
(3.)The future knights have now been led to the speaker’s table.
Subprior /
Cansler udtaler:
The Subprior /
Chancellor states:
Værdige Væbner, I har nu hart den gamle Tekst for Riddemes Løfte, det er nu min Pligt at uddybe dette Løftes Tekst. Det ældste Lefte er tredelt og er sammensat af Ordene Lydighed, Kyskhed og Fattigdom.
Worthy Squire, you have now heard the old text of the Knight’s vow. It is now my duty to elaborate the text of this vow. The oldest vow is tripartite and is composed of the words Obedience, Chastity and Poverty.
Lydighedsløftet ligger i selve Ordet, men laag Mærke til Tilføjelsen: “Under Forbehold af Ordenens Ret” eller som det har lydt paa Latin: “Salvo Ordine Nostro”. Ordenens Ret har altid vsere til Stede, dengang og nu.
The oath of obedience stands by itself, however, notice the addition: “Under the establishment of the Order’s Right” as it is said in Latin: “Salvo Ordine Nostro”. The Order’s own Right has always had a place, then and now.
Kyskhed: forstaas som Renhed i Ord, Tanke og Geming og et ærbart Levned, hvor I nøje efterlever Vor Høje Ordens etiske og moralske Love.
Chastity: is to be understood as purity in Word, Mind and Deeds: an honourable lifestyle in which the High Order’s ethical and moral laws are closely to be followed.
Fattigdom: at I ikke tilbeder Guldkalven. Til disse Løfter var ogsaa tilføjet et Stabilitetsløfte og sidst, men ikke mindst, et Kærlighedsløfte.
Poverty: That you do not worship the Golden Calf. Additional to these promises was a “vow of Stability” and last but not least a vow of Love.
Stabilitetsløftet skal forstaas som et Løfte om Trofasthed og Loyalitet overfor Vor Høje Orden, overfor Det Høje Ridderskab og overfor Vor Høje Prior.
The Vow of Stability shall be understood as a vow of faithfulness and loyalty to Our High Order, to the High Knighthood and to Our High Prior.
Og endelig Kærlighedsløftet der er hele Ordenens aandelige og ridderlige Kvalitet. Dette Løfte er Ordenens “Charta Caritas”.
And finally: the vow of Love, which is the Spiritual and Chivalric qualities of the whole Order. This vow is the Order’s “Charta Caritas” (Charter of Love).
Vi kæmper ikke Isengere med Sværdet i Haand, men derfor er Kampen ingenlunde forbi. Kampen for den ridderlige Tanke og Aand skal være Jert Adelsmserke, og Bestræbelserne for disse Tankers Sejr er Jeres Pligt !
We do not fight with the sword in hands any more, however, the fight is not yet over. The fight for the chivalric idea and spirit shall be your sign of nobility, and the struggle for victory of these ideas is your duty!
Dette er, hvad Ordenen kan give Jer, og det er, hvad Ordenen vil kræve Jer til Regnskab for.
This is what the Order can give you, and what the Order will demand of you.
For som det hedder i den gamle Ordensregel: “Fra Ordenens Hjerte strømmer Blodet ud til alle Dele af den og til alle Hjerter, for atter at strømme tilbage, og atter varm og fomyet igen at tiltrsede sit Løb.
As told in the ancient Rules of the Order: From the heart of the Order the blood is streaming to all its parts and into the heart of everybody: for thereafter again streaming back: and again, warm and renewed, once more to re-enter it’s course.
Hvis I vil tilegne Jer Vor Gamle Ordens sande Væsen og Indhold, da maa I i Jert Hjerte og Liv være besjælet af Kærlighedsaanden.
If you will obtain our Old Order’s true Spirit and content, then you have to be inspired by the spirit of Love in (both) your Heart and Life.
Og hvad er saa det udover at være en sand Ridder ?
And what is this more than being a true Knight?
Enhver kan vist se, at vi i Dag baade savner og behøver en Ridderskabs Aand derfor har Vor Høje Orden ogsaa i Dag en meget vigtig Opgave at udfylde. I har allerede under den første Belæring modtaget et Indtryk af, hvad der menes med ridderlig Adfærd. Hjælp og Støtte til de fattige, fattige er ikke alene de som mangler Penge eller materielle Goder, der kan købes for Penge.
Everyone can surly see that we today miss and need a Chivalric spirit, thus even today Our Order has an important task to fulfil. You have already during your first Lesson received the idea of what it mean by Chivalric behaviour. Help and support for the poor. The Poor are not only those in monetary or material need that can be bought for money.
—————————————————————–
—————————————————————–
Mange er i vore Dage fattige paa en helt anden Maade, de er fattige i Aanden, de er i en aandelig Nødstilstand, de er fattige paa Venner, og de er fattige paa Tillid til alt og alle. Maaske er een i Nød, i Fattigdom og Ensomhed lige ved Siden af os, maaske er det endda een af vore allemærmeste, som har Hjælp. Behov, og her er det, at I skal Hjælpe af Jert Hjertes Rigdom.
Many today are poor in quite a different way. They are “poor in Spirit”, in a spiritual emergency. They make poor friends and they are poor in faith to all and everyone. Perhaps one, just by your side, is in poverty and loneliness: perhaps one of our closest needs help. It is here you shall help out of your heart’s abundance.
Hjælp ogsaa den unge Slægt, vær ridderlig overtor Enker og enlige, faderløse og umyndige, tænk paa de gamle, de enlige og de forladte. Kast Lys og Varme ind til disse i Sandhed fattige Mennesker.
Help also the young generation. Be chivalric toward Widows and the lonely, the fatherless and minor. Think of the old, the lonely and the abandoned. Throw light and warmth on to these truly poor people.
Vær et kærligt Menneske.
Be a compassionate person.
Døm ikke andre forhastet eller paa Forhaand, døm skaansomt og fordøm ikke vær den barmhjertige Samaritan og tænk paa, at det, der for Jer ikke rummer nogen Fristelse, maaske kan friste andre over Evne, og maaske endda kaste dem i Ulykke.
Saadanne Mennesker behøver Jer, de behøver en sand Ridder.
Do not judge others hastily or in advance. Judge gently and do not condemn. Be the Good Samaritan and consider that things giving you no temptation, for others may be over-tempting, even casting them into misfortune.
Such people need you, they need a true Knight.
Fosøg Selvransagelse og Meditation over egne Skrøbeligheder, og I vil erkende, at heller ikke I er ren nok til at kaste den første Sten. I vil da opdage, at Sandheden om os vil være hver og een nok, og derfor appellere til Ydmyghed.
Try self-examination and meditation of your own frailties and you shall acknowledge that not even you are pure enough to throw the first stone. You will then discover, that the truth about yourself would be more than enough: and therefore appeal for humbleness.
Enhver ond Handling bærer Straffen i sig selv, derfor kan en Adelsmand eller Ridder ikke handle slet, uden at den jordiske Retfærdighed ogsaa vil ramme ham. Husk paa hvorledes en Adelsmand og Ridder af en berømt og fornem Slægt fik sin fjerprydede Baret kastet i Støvet, han fik sit Værge knækket og sit Vaabenskiold brudt, han var ingen sand Ridder. Han havde forsøgt at bedrage en Enke ved Hjælp af falske Papirer.
Every bad action brings punishment to one’s self; therefore a nobleman or knight should not act wickedly, whether or not earthly justice affects him. Remember how a nobleman and knight in celebrated and distinguished society found his plumed adornments harshly thrown in the dust, his sword broken and his shield cracked, because he was not a true knight. He had attempted to deceive a widow with the help of false papers.
Ogsaa vor Orden kan fjeme en Ridders Vaabenskiold fra Skioldbordet , dersom I ikke forstaar Betydningen af at leve og handle som en sand Ridder. Og sand Ridder er man etter at have aflagt Ridderløftet, og fra det Øjeblik man har modtaget Ridderslaget af Den Høje Prior.
Our Order can also remove a Knight’s Coat-of-Arms from the gallery of arms if he does not understand the meaning of living and acting as a true Knight. You are a true Knight after giving the vow and being inducted by the High Prior.
Som et Eksempel paa at det kan nytte, og at Resultater kan naas, vil jeg her citere en Bulle, som Pave Alexander i Aaret 1169 sendte Vor Høje Orden.
As an example that it can be done, and that results can be achieved, I shall here quote a Bull, which Pope Alexander sent our High Order in 1169
Denne Bulle lød saaledes:
This Bull thus states:
Midt i Verdensopgørets mange Uvejr, som Forfølgelsens Storm har rejst imod Guds Kirke og imod Os, har Eders Troes Anker med uomskiftelig Fasthed bevaret Petri omtumlede Skib i Oprørets Hav.
In the middle of the world clashes’ many rough weathers like the pursuing storm risen against the Church of God and against us. Your anchor-of-faith has with undisturbed steadiness conserved the ship of Peter tumbling in the ocean of upheaval.
Da Vi saaledes ere Eders Skyldnere, elsker Vi Eder og Den Hellige Johannitterorden, som Vi bevarer med saa stor Kærlighed.
As such, we are your debtors: We love you and the Holy Johannine Order, which we protect with the utmost devotion.
—————————————————————–
—————————————————————–
Pave Alexander
fortsætter:
Pope Alexander
continued:
–
Eders berømmelige Orden har stedse knyftet sin Kærlihed til den Skat, der er Dyden, saaledes at Eders Høje Orden baade har Behag for den evige Konges Aasyn, og ligeledes er yndefuld for Menneskenes Øjne.Thi som en blid og ydmyg Due og Herrens særlige udkaarne, da er denne Orden helt skøn at skue: Thi den holder enhver Udskejelsens Rynke borte fra sig ved at udfylde den fædrende Omsorgspligt og ved at vaage over, at intet Lastens Tjørnekrat kan vokse op, ligesom den er stærk ved sin uvisnelige Fylde af Ærens Blomster og Hæderværdighedens Frugter.
–
Your prize-worthy Order has always tied its devotion to the treasure, which is virtue, in such a way that your High Order has found pleasure to the Eternal King’s view: and grace to human eye.Like a gentle and humble Dove and the Lord’s especial chosen, then this Order is a grace to see. As it keeps every rankle of discontent away by fulfilling the fatherly care, and by watching that none of the thorns of vice can grow. Likewise, it is strong in its immortal grace of the flower of Honour and Chivalric Fruits.
Pave Alexander
slutter sin Bulle saaledes:
Pope Alexander
finished his Bull in this way:
–
Af den Grund har Eders Orden aldrig trængt til fremmed Visitas eller til Korrektion. Over disse Dyder jubler V i Herren, idet V erkender de klare Kendetegn, at Ordenen for andre er Livets Spejl og et Mønster paa frelserlig Livsførelse.
–
Based on this, your Order has never needed independent visitors or any correction. By these virtues we praise the Lord, realising the clear signs that the Order is a mirror-of life and a pattern to others on a way of salvation in life.
Subprior / Cansler
fortsætter:
The Subprior /
Chancellor states:
Værdige Væbner / Væbnere, efter at denne paa de historiske Traditioner hvilende Belæring nu er tilendebragt, er der kun tilbage at lade Jer vide, at hvad der maatte forefalde i Ordenen eller imellem Ordenens Medlemmer indbyrdes, er et indre Anliggende, der er alle andre uvedkommende.
Worthy Squire(s): After this, based upon the historic tradition instructions are completed, it is now only left to let you know: what is carried out within the Order or between the Order’s members, are internal matters which are no concern to all others.
–
Værdige Væbner / Væbnere, I vil nu sammen med Eders Proponent blive ført til Alteret hvor I vil blive iklædt Kappen med det ottespidsede Kors. Herefter modtager I Ridderslaget af Den Høje Prior, hvorefter Profeskorset bliver fæstnet paa Eders venstre Bryst.
–
Worthy Squire(s), You shall now, together with your sponsor, be led to the Alter where you will be vested with the mantle with the eight-pointed cross. Thereafter you will receive the accolade from the High Prior, and the profession cross will be attached to your left breast.
****************************************** Ved Alteret staar Den Høje Prior, Cansleren, Orator (og Priors Adjudant) ******************************************
****************************************** The High Prior stands by the Altar with the Chancellor, the Orator (and the Prior’s Adjutant) ******************************************
Den Høje Prior
udtaler :
The High Prior
pronounces:
–
Ærværdige Proponenter I vil nu behage at iklæde de værdige Væbnere Kappen med det ottespidsede Kors !
–
The distinguished sponsors will now vest the worthy squires with the mantle of the eight-pointed cross!
—————————————————————–
—————————————————————–
–
Vordende Profesriddere, I er nu iklædt den sorte Kappe med det ottespidsede hvide Kors paa den røde Bund, der er Ordenens ældste Mærke og Riddernes Symbol.
–
Professed Knights Designate, you are now vested with the black mantle with the eight pointed white cross, this is the Order’s ancient mark and Knightly symbol.
I ved, at Korsets otte Spidser symboliserer de otte ridderlige Dyder og de otte Saligprisninger i Bjergprsedikenen, og jeg befaler Eder stadig at bære dette Tegn iblandt os, og at I altid bærer det i Eders Hjerte. Derfor vordende Profesriddere er dette Kors Fæstnet paa Eders venstre Brystside, og skulle I i Selvforglemmelse svigte dette Kors og dets Befalinger, da vil det være til størst Skade for Eder selv, og Ordenen vil da tage det fra Eder efter vor ældgamle Sædvane og Dom som en Svigten af det hellige Løfte, som I nys efter egen fri Vilje har afgivet i det samlede Ridderskabs Nærvær.
You know, that the eight points of the cross symbolize the eight knightly virtues and the eight Beatitudes of the sermon on the mount, and I command you to constantly carry this sign among us, and at all times carry it in your hearts. Therefore, Professed Knights Designate this cross is attached on your left breast, and should you, in your forgetfulness, deceive this cross and its demands, then it will be to the greatest damage to yourself. The Order will then remove it from you according to our ancient customs and rules, as a deception of the Holy Vow, which you, by your own free will, have just given in the presence of the assembled society of knights.
(Prior befaler nu Orator at fremsige de otte Ridderdyder, og de otte Saligprisninger.)
(The Prior now commands the Orator to recite the eight Knightly virtues and the eight Beatitudes.)
Prior fortsætter:
–
Prior continues:
–
–
Ærværdige Adjudant, saa ræk mig da Sværdet, dette Svæni der er indviet som det sejrende Vaaben for Troen paa Gud, Kærlighed og Ridderaand.
–
Distinguished Adjutant: So hand me the Sword, the Sword that is consecrated as the victorious weapon in the faith of God, devotion and Knightly Spirit.
Og I Værdige Væbner (Navn), saa knæl da paa denne Pude.
And you Worthy Squire (Name), now kneel upon this cushion.-
“I knæler nu symbolsk ved Herens Grav i Jerusalem,
“Your kneeling now is symbolic of the Lord’s Sepulchre in Jerusalem.
Prior udtaler:
thi Herrens Grav i Jerusalem er overalt hvor Riddere af det ottespidsede Kors er samlet. Saa modtag da Ridderslaget, i Det Kejserlige Russiske Storpriorats Navn, og i Den Geistlige Ridderlige Malteserordens Navn, og til de riddertige Bestræbelsers Fuldkommengerelse, under Vor Høje Ordens Beskyttelse og ad Mandatum slaar jeg, Prior af Ordenen i Dacia, Den Værdige og Tro Væbner (Navn) til sand Profesridder af Vor Høje Orden“. Her følger Ridderslaget.
The Prior states:
The power of the Lord’s Sepulchre in Jerusalem is everywhere where Knights of the eight-pointed Cross are gathered. So receive the accolade, in the Imperial Russian Grand Priory’s name, and in the Religious and Knightly Order of Malta’s name, and to this knightly enterprise’s full communion, under our High Order’s protection and with the mandated tap, I Prior of the Order in Dacia, invest the worthy and trusted Squire (Name) as a true Professed Knight of Our High Order“. Here follows the accolade.-
–
Stat op Chevalier de Malte, og ræk mig begge Eders Hænder som Tegn paa at Eders Optagelse nu er futdbyrdet.
–
Stand up Knight of Malta, and give me your both hands as token of your induction is now fulfilled.
************************************************Priors Adjudant fæstner nu Profeskorset paa den nyoptagne Ridders venstre Brystside, og hans Vaabenskiold, der indtil nu har ligget med Bagsiden opad, vises til Ridderskabet. Til Slut bliver den nyoptagne ført til sit Sæde paa Ridderbænken. Efter Conventets Lukning vil den nyoptagne modtage Ridderskabets (og derefter andres) Gratulationer, dette sker med Haandtryk med begge Hænder.——————————————————————
************************************************The Prior’s Adjutant now fastens the Profess Cross on the newly ordained Knight’s left breast. His Coat-of-Arms, which until now has been lying upside down, is shown to the society of Knights. Finally, the newly inducted is lead to his place on the Knight’s bench. After the closing of the convent, the new Knight will receive congratulations from the Knights ( and thereafter from others) The congratulations are shown by handshakes using both hands.——————————————————————
Ordenens Deviser: ***************
–
The Order’s Devices: *****************
–
“Pro Fide” – for Troen. “Pro Utilitate Hominum” – til Menneskers Gavn.
–
“Pro Fide” – For the Faith. “Pro Utilitate Hominum” – For the good of Mankind.
Ordensdag: *********
–
The Order’s Day: **************
–
–
24. Juni, Sct. Johannes Dag.
–
24 June, St John’s Day
Aarstal: *******
–
Timeline: ********
–
-A.D. 1048 Adelsmænd og Købmænd i Amalfi beslutter at oprette et Johannitterhospital i Jerusalem.
-A.D. 1048 Noblemen and merchants in Amalfi complete preparations to operate a Johannine hospital in Jerusalem.
-A.D. 1309 Ordenen erhverver Rhodos.
-A.D. 1309 The Order occupies Rhodes.
-A.D. 1523 Rhodos maa overgives til Tyrkerne.
-A.D. 1523 Rhodes permitted to be turned over to the Turks.
-A.D. 1530 Kejser Karl d. V overlader Ordenen Malta.
-A.D. 1530 Emperor Charles V, gives Malta to the Order.
-A.D. 1798 Malta gaar tabt, men Ordenen genopstaar i Sct. Petersborg.
-A.D. 1798 Malta falls, but the Order survives in Saint Petersburg.
-A.D. 1939 Forhandlingerne med Storprioratet i Paris tager deres Begyndelse, disse Forhandlinger der fører til Ordenens Genoprettelse i Dacia ved Storfyrst Andreas’s endelige Confirmation i Aaret 1939.
-A.D. 1939 Negotiations with the Grand Priory in Paris begins, the negotiations lead to the re-establishment of the Order in Dacia with the final confirmation by Grand Duke Andreas in the year 1939.
Tilleggsmateriale ***************
Additional Material ****************
De otte Ridderlige **************
Dyder: *****
The Eight Knightly ***************
Virtues: *******
Trofasthed. Omsorg for Kirken. Hjælpsomhed imod Syge og Fattige. Dødsforagt. Hæder og Ære. Tapperhed. Gavmildhed. Fromhed.
Loyalty. Care for the Church. Helpfulness to the Sick and the Poor. Contempt for Death. Honour and Glory. Courage. Generosity. Piety.
De otte *****
Saligprisninger. ************
The Eight *****************
Beatitudes. *********
Salige ere de fattige i Ånden; thi Himmeriges Rige er deres.
Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Salige ere de, som sørge; thi de skulle husvales.
Blessed are those who mourn; for they shall be comforted.
Salige ere de sagtmodige; thi de skulle arve Jorden.
Blessed are the meek; for they shall inherit the earth.
Salige ere de, som hungre og tørste efter Retfærdigheden; thi de skulle mættes.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness; for they shall be satisfied.
Salige ere de barmhjertige; thi dem skal vises Barmhjertighed.
Blessed are the merciful; for they shall obtain mercy.
Salige ere de rene af Hjertet; thi de skulle se Gud.
Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God.
Salige ere de, som stifte Fred; thi de skulle kaldes Guds Børn.
Blessed are the peacemakers; for they shall be called the children of God.
Salige ere de, som ere forfulgte for Retfærdigheds Skyld; thi Himmeriges Rige er deres.
Blessed are those who suffer persecution for righteousness’ sake; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Den Knight hos ************
falsk papirer. **********
The Knight with *************
false papers. *********
Legenden om Ridderen som forsøkte å bedra enken, er fra Kong Christian IV’s tid [1588-1648].
The legend about the Knight, that tried to deceive the widow is from King Christian IV’s time [1588-1648].
Source: Den Autonome Gejstlig Ridderlige Malteserorden i Dacia
Appendix 13
Report to the Sacred Council, Order of St. John of Jerusalem in Malta, concerning the Treaty or Convention to establish a Catholic Grand Priory of Russia
To his Eminence and Sacred Council.
SO as to discharge the honourable duty set upon us by your Eminence and this Sacred Council in their venerable decree of July, we have the honour to inform your Eminence and this Sacred Council that we have carefully examined the Treaty drawn up between the Plenipotentiaries of His Majesty Emperor of all the Russias and the Venerable Bailli Litta, Plenipotentiary Minister of this Sacred Order, and in each Article we observed tracts of the greatest benevolence and munificence of this August Monarch, whilst not content to fully grant to this Sacred Order all its requests, due to the ancient possessions in Poland which passed under His dominion, but also wished, with a generosity fitting only the great magnanimity of His Heart, to grant it more than double its requests, and under conditions far more advantageous and prestigious for the Sacred Order than initially requested.
We shall not report here the entire contents of the Treaty as it is necessary that your Eminence and this Sacred Council do so in person, as well as the four Articles that were drawn up separately from the Treaty, so that they may ratify these, which we deem should be done immediately, and on each article.
We now have the honour to inform your Eminence and this Sacred Council on several matters which we extract from the report of the Venerable Bailli Litta which accompanies this Treaty and which brings to our attention that His Imperial Majesty through his benevolence towards the Sacred Order arranged to reserve the first nomination and Commanderies to the Priory, but not deeming it fitting of the respect and gratitude owed to His Majesty by this Sacred Order, of taking advantage of His act of great clemency, we consider it necessary that the Venerable Bailli Li(tta) beg His Imperial Majesty in the name of your Eminence and this Sacred Council to proceed with the nomination of this Priory and Commanderies, furthermore that He will thereby ensure that the Sacred Order will be invested with fitting subjects , who will continue to deserve the Lofty Protection and Love that His Majesty has shown this Sacred Order, following such nomination the Chancery of the Sacred Order will send the usual seals for which the Venerable Bailli Litta will indicate the name of the Saint, or other, under which the Commanderies should be drawn. And as it could sometimes happen that His Majesty, relative to the aforementioned first nomination of the Priory and Commanderies, will wish to appoint persons who, due to their particular circumstances are unable to submit to the all the statutory depositions, we consider it necessary that the Minister of the Sacred Order demonstrate to His Majesty the firm intent already expressed by your Eminence and this Sacred Council, of according these persons all the dispensations which His Majesty wishes to concede them, whilst entreating Him to maintain intact their obligation to undergo the corresponding proofs, to pay the Common Treasury the established fee, etc, once the Sureties have been established.
We see from the same report that His Imperial Majesty wishes to receive for Himself, Her Majesty the Empress and the three Princes of His August Family the Cross of Devotion. Certainly an event, that in the midst of the adversities with which our Order is beset, which the benign Hand of Divine Providence wishes to give a new Lustre, and to thus summarily render more glorious and triumphant its Name throughout the entire World. Therefore we deem vital that the Venerable Bailli Litta offer His Majesty the most warm and respectful thanks on behalf of your Eminence and the entire Order for such a great honour, and at the same time beg Him to accept on His own behalf and that of his August Family, not only the Cross of Devotion, but also the Habit and the Grand Cross.
The same Venerable Bailli Litta suggests that His Imperial Majesty may appreciate the granting of the Cross of Devotion to the two Plenipotentiaries who concluded this present Treaty, under whose names the usual Seals could be issued from the Chancery and sent to the same Venerable Bailli Litta, who before all else, should present them to His Imperial Majesty, and we deem the same necessary for three Ladies, who were recommended by Her Majesty the Empress.
The Venerable Bailli Litta makes several mentions of the Special Protection given to his work by His Naepolitan Majesty, and the great Zeal with which the Duke of Serracapriola discharged his duties, for which your Eminence has already expressed thanks, and it only remains to suggest the opinion of Venerable Bailli Litta that the said Duke should be given the Cross of Devotion, as well as the Count of Coblenz, Plenipontentiary Minister to the Russian Court of His Majesty the Emperor of Hungary and Bohemia, and the Duke of Siessers, General Lieutenant in the service of His Majesty the Emperor of Russia, who co-operated most effectively towards the success of these negotiations. Of course the Venerable Bailli Litta should not present the relevant Seals without having first reassured himself of His Imperial Majesty’s approval.
In his report the Venerable Bailli Litta further notes that His Imperial Majesty indicated it would please Him that those Knights of the Order who are engaged in His military Service and who will be unable to go to Malta in order to take part in the Crusades, should be recompensed for the Campaigns undertaken after their reception, be these on the Black Sea or at the borders against the Infidel. To which sovereign care we believe we must strictly adhere, obviously only for those persons who have obtained a special recommendation from His Imperial Majesty.
Finally, the Venerable Bailli Litta informs us in his report that His Imperial Majesty, giving ever more of His generosity, assured him that in consideration of the permanence of a Minister for the Sacred Order in St Petersburg, and in order to provide a site for Chapter meetings, for housing archives and a Chapel, He has entirely given over to the Sacred Order ownership of one of the largest and finest palaces to be found in that Capital, which shall be called Malta Palace, with permission to place the Arms of the Sacred Order on its facade.
To the many great acts of kindness by His Imperial Majesty are added spoken honours for which we can merely suggest nothing better than to entreat your Eminence to act as the voice of the entire Order and to send to the Throne of His Imperial Majesty the most humble and respectful expressions of thanks. This is the sum knowledge with which we can inform your Eminence and this Sacred Council, whilst with the most profound respect we declare ourselves.
National Library, Malta. Arch 2196. November 1797. Translation: Tiziana Ferri and Michael Foster
Appendix 14
Convention between the Order of St John of Malta and Czar Paul I of Russia
CONVENTION BETWEEN HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY the EMPEROR of all the RUSSIAS, and the SOVEREIGN ORDER of MALTA.
His Majesty the emperor of all the Russias, on one side, wishing to give a proof of his sentiments of affection, esteem, and consideration, towards the illustrious order of Malta, at the same time intending to assure, consolidate, and encrease, the establishment of the said order in his dominions, which has already been instituted in Poland, particularly in the provinces, of that country now belonging to the Russian government, and being desirous of obtaining for those of his subjects who are capable of being, received into the illustrious order of Malta all the advantages, honours, and privileges, annexed thereto ; and the sovereign order of Malta, with his most eminent highness the grand-master, on the other side, being perfectly sensible of the kind intentions of his imperial majesty towards them, of the importance and utility of such an institution in the empire of Russia, and being desirous on their part of fulfilling the wise and benevolent designs of his majesty the emperor, by facilitating them by every possible means consistent with the constitution and laws of the order; have, by common consent, agreed to form a convention for the accomplishment of these respective objects, according to the reciprocal wishes of the contracting parties. In consequence of which, his imperial majesty the emperor of all the Russias has appointed, and authorised to act as his plenipotentiaries, the sieur comte Alexander de Besborodko, privy counsellor of the first class, minister of the council of state, director-general of the post-office, knight of the orders of St. Andrew and St. Alexander Newsky, and grand cross of that of St. Windimir, of the first class; together with the sieur prince Alexander de Kourakin, his vice-chancellor, privy counsellor, minister of the council of state, chamberlain, knight of the orders of St. Andrew, St. Alexander Newsky, and of St. Anne, of the first class, likewise of the royal orders of Danebrog and of the Perfect Union.-The sovereign order of Malta, with his most eminent highness the grandmaster, have named for the same purpose the sieur Jules Rene, bailli comte de Litta, grand-cross of the order of Malta, knight of justice of the venerable language of Italy, commander of several commanderies, knight of the military order of St.George, of the first class, and of the Polish orders of the White Eagle and St. Stanislaus, rear-admiral of the Russian navy, and minister plenipotentiary from the sovereign order of Malta and his most eminent highness the grand-Master, to his imperial majesty the emperor of all the Russias. These plenipotentiaries, having communicated and exchanged the full powers with which they were vested in due form, agreed upon the following articles:
ARTICLE I. His imperial majesty the emperor of all the Russias, as an act of justice, and at the same time to prove,his sentiments of affection and high consideration for the illustrious order of Malta, approves, confirms, and ratifies, in his own name and that of his successors for ever, in the most ample and solemn manner, the establishment of the said order of Malta in his dominions.
ARTICLE II. His imperial majesty the emperor, acknowledging the validity of the establishment that the order of Malta, under the guaranty of the imperial court of Russia, possessed in Poland, the advantages and enjoyment of which have been suspended by the troubles in that country and the dissolution of its government, as a compensation for the revenues assured to the order in Poland on estates belonging to the ordinate of Ostrog, and being desirous of extending and adding to the. solidity and consistence of the present establishment of the order of Malta in Russia, his said majesty has most graciously granted to the order of Malta to have and to. hold for ever the annual sum of three hundred thousand Polish florins, which shall be collected and distributed by said’ order, according to mode agreed upon in the different articles of the first convention.
ARTICLE III. The state treasury of the empire of Russia shall pay from the total sum annually received, in title of emphyteose, on all the starosties of Poland now in the Russian dominions, the sum of three hundred thousand Polish florins every year to the the order of Malta; this annual payment to be made at, two different times; the first of a hundred and fifty thousand Polish florins on the 30th June/11July and the second of the same sum, making in the whole three hundred thousand Polish florins, on the 31st December/11 January. These said payments are to be made to the receiver for Malta, his treasurer resident in. Russia, or any other person legally authorised to receive them.
ARTICLE IV. The said annual sum of three hundred thousand Polish florins, which his imperial majesty thus graciously grants to the order of Malta, shall be for perpetuity exempted from all drawbacks whatsoever, and from ordinary and extraordinary taxes, and shall form the foundation and revenues of the institution of the said order in his dominions, which shall be termed the grand-priory of Russia.
ARTICLE V. The grand-priory of Russia shall consist of a grand-priory, and ten commanderies. The respective revenues shall be distributed every year in the following manner:-the grand-priory shall have sixty thousand Polish florins; the first and second commanderies thirty thousand Polish florins each; the third and fourth commanderies twenty thousand Polish florins each: the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth, each fifteen thousand Polish florins.
ARTICLE VI. The dignified post of grand-prior shall pay annually to the venerable common treasury of the order of Malta, by way of responsions, twelve thousand Polish florins; and all the ten commanderies shall likewise pay in annually their respective responsions in the following, manner:-the first and second commanderies each six thousand Polish florins; the third and fourth, each four thousand ; the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth, fifteen hundred each. These annual responsions due to the venerable common treasury of the order of Malta shall be deducted from the sum total of three hundred thousand Polish florins by the minister, receiver, or treasurer, for the order of Malta residing in Russia, who shall receive the above-mentioned revenues from the grand-priory, and shall be charged with making the above-mentioned annual repartition.
ARTICLE VII. His imperial majesty and his most eminent highness the grand-master being equally convinced of the use and importance of a permanent legation from the order of Malta in Russia, to facilitate and maintain a direct communication between their respective dominions, and to attend assiduously to every particular relative to this new establishment, have agreed by common consent to dedicate for this purpose the annual sum of twenty thousand Polish florins as a salary for the minister and receiver of the order of Malta residing in the empire of Russia; besides the annual sum of twelve thousand Polish florins for the maintenance of the chapel and archives, and likewise for the pay of officers belonging to the grand-priory and the minister.
ARTICLE VIII. The eighteen thousand Polish florins which remain from the sum total of three hundred thousand florins shall be employed for supplying annually the different expences at Malta relative to the grand-priory of Russia.
ARTICLE IX. The order of Malta shall enter into the enjoyment of its revenues from the 1st of January, 1797; and the sum total of the three hundred thousand Polish florins of this first year, together with the amount of the first four months of the year 1798, shall be paid into the common treasury of the order of Malta, as an indemnification for the expence of the extraordinary mission to St. Petersburg, and likewise for the expences indispensably necessary for the order of Malta in the empire of Russia. In consequence of which, the grand-prior and the ten commanders who shall be appointed will enter upon their respective revenues from the 1st of May, 1798.
ARTICLE X. His Imperial majesty declares, that the dignity of the grand-priory of Russia, and the ten commanderies dependent thereon, can never be conferred, on any pretext, on those of his subjects who are not entitled to be received into the order of Malta.
ARTICLE XI. His imperial majesty grants to the order of Malta full and entire liberty to establish and follow, in its new institutions in his dominions, its own form of government; and he admits and takes under his special protection the execution of the rules and statutes adopted or its interior administration.
ARTICLE XII. His imperial majesty being also desirous that the illustrious order of Malta thus established in Russia should possess the same consideration and splendour that it enjoyed in the other states of Europe, and knowing that nothing can possibly contribute more to this important object than a strict observation of the laws and statutes of the order; he ordains that every individual who composes, or shall in future compose, the said grand-priory of Russia, shall exactly conform to, and put in practice, all the duties prescribed in the rules and constitution of the order of Malta, either for their respective reception, or any other object relative to their situation.
ARTICLE XIII. His imperial majesty is still more attentive to, and interested in, the execution of the preceding article, from the perfect conviction that the duties of the knights of Malta prescribed by the wise constitution of the order are always inseparable from those which every faithful subject has contracted towards his country and lawful sovereign.
ARTICLE XIV. The reception of the knights of Malta, and the proofs of nobility required on that occasion, shall be the same as in the heretofore grand-priory of Poland ; and the passage fees shall be paid according to the tax fixed in the above-mentioned priory.
ARTICLE XV. The Knights shall perform the usual caravans in the most exact manner, and shall make the usual conventual residence in malta.
ARTICLE XVI. On the death of each commander, or professed knight, his effects, according to the statutes, shall belong to the common treasury of Malta; procurator-general, or agent of the order appointed for this purpose, shall be charged to collect the said effects. This article does not regard the commanders of family or jus patronat, but solely relates to those persons who are regularly professed in the order.
ARTICLE XVII. Every individual of the order of Malta shall be equally obliged exactly to fulfil his statutable duties. The commanderies and grand-priory are bestowed according to seniority, which is reckoned from the date of their respective receptions: but this right of seniority is of no avail unless all the other duties of the order be fulfilled; so that every candidate for the commanderies and grand-priory must be competent, not only from the right of seniority, but from having performed his statutable duties.
ARTICLE XVIII. His imperial majesty, as a still further proof of his personal regard for his most eminent highness the grand-master, gives his consent that his eminence, in quality of chief of the order of Malta, shall enjoy the same magisterial prerogative in the grand-priory of Russia as in all other priories such as conferring a commandery by favour once in five years, should one become vacant in that space of time. This commandery shall be subject to the payment of an annate, and of all other duties imposed in the magisterial collations. His most eminent highness cannot, however, bestow this commandery on any knight who is not of the grand-priory of Russia.
ARTICLE XIX. In order that the repartition of the property of Malta may extend to a greater number of persons, no knight shall be permitted, from right of seniority, to possess more than one commandery at the same time; he therefore must quit his commandery, upon being promoted to one of more considerable value. The mutations of commanderies in the grand-priory of Russia shall take place in Malta, according to the laws and rules of the order.
ARTICLE XX. The knights who from their merit have obtained a commandery by favour, from the beneficence of the grand-master, shall not be included in the regulations contained in the preceding, article, which relate exclusively to the commanderies in right of seniority.
ARTICLE XXI. The grand-priory of Russia, and the commanderies depending thereon, shall be subject, equally with all the other commanderies of Malta, to the mortuary and vacancy duties ;and the common treasury of the order shall have, during that time, the administration of the revenues.
ARTICLE XXII. The rent of any commandery which shall remain vacant through want of a candidate shall be paid into the common treasury of the order, until such time as a member of the grand-priory shall become capable of obtaining it.
ARTICLE XXIII. His imperial majesty the emperor of all the Russias likewise approves confirms, and ratifies, all the commanderies of the order of Malta termed of family, or jus patronat, already instituted in Poland, and which now make part of the Russian dominions; and his imperial majesty declares, that all the conditions and clauses announced and stipulated in the different acts of the above-mentioned respective foundations shall be entirely and exactly fulfilled, without any exception from one or the other side.
ARTICLE XXIV. His imperial majesty, to contribute still more to the happiness and prosperity of the order of Malta, and at the same time to enable all the Catholic nobility of his empire, and even those who from particular circumstances cannot submit themselves entirely to the statutable duties of the order of Malta, to participate in the distinctions, honours, and prerogatives, granted to this illustrious order, which his imperial majesty has constantly loved and respected, deigns to grant, from this present moment and for ever, permission and his imperial sanction for all future commanderies of family or jus patronat; for which all those who are desirous of entering into this noble institution must address themselves directly to the order of Malta, or to its representative in the empire of Russia, whether it be to agree upon the reciprocal conditions, or to arrange and commit to writing the respective foundations, and to obtain from Malta the necessary approbation. The commanderies of family shall be entitled in the order of Malta by the names of the families which originally founded them.
ARTICLE XXV. The grand-Priory of Russia.shall hold the capitular assemblies in the chief place of residence, and especially the one fixed for the 23d of June, the eve of the festival of St. John the Baptist, patron of the order of Malta. The venerable chapter shall review and direct all the affairs of the grand-priory that fall under its cognizance, keep a register of its deliberations, and send the requisite communications to Malta.
ARTICLE XXVI. The venerable chapter shall be presided by the grand-prior, and in his absence by the most ancient commander.
ARTICLE XXVII. The capitular regulations fixed by the statutes of the order shall be followed in every thing relative to the proposition and decision of affairs.
ARTICLE XXVIII. The minister-plenipotentiary from Malta in the empire of Russia, in quality of procurator-general of his most eminent highness the grandmaster, the sacred council of the order, and common treasury, shall be constant recorder, in virtue of his office, of affairs, which shall be decided by the majority of votes; and in case of an equality, the grand-prior shall have the casting vote. All affairs discussed and decided according to the statutes, customs, and privileges, of the order, shall be, terminated without delay; but if they be out of the common order of things, the decision shall be sent to Malta before they are executed.
ARTICLE XXIX. All professed knights in the order of Malta who may happen to be upon the spot shall be obliged to attend the chapters ; where they shall all have deliberative votes, and take their seats according to seniority and the capitular rules of the order. The knights in their noviciate shall also assist at the chapter, but without deliberative votes.
ARTICLE XXX. All the commanders of family shall be invited to the chapters in which they shall take their seats with the other commanders, according to the antiquity of the foundation of each commandery. They shall have a consulting vote, and when it shall be question of any thing relative to the patronal commanderies a deliberative one.
ARTICLE XXXI. In order to enable all the knights of Malta who have both military and civil employments in his imperial majesty’s service to perform the duty of their order, permission will be granted them to absent themselves whenever the above-mentioned duties make it indispensably necessary.
ARTICLE XXXII. As all the other grand-priories, though they retain the distinctive colours of the order, have each a different uniform, his imperial majesty and his most eminent highness the grand-master will make choice of one for the grand-priory of Russia.
ARTICLE XXXIII. The grand-prior and commanders alone shall have right of wearing the grand cross of the order in saltire; all the other knights shall wear the small cross at the button-hole.
ARTICLE XXXIV. The honorary knights in Russia, such as those who, without having made their proofs of nobility in the order of Malta, have obtained leave to wear the cross called of devotion or favour, must place the small cross at their button-hole but not wear the particular uniform of the grand-priory of Russia, without the especial permission of his imperial majesty and his eminence the grand-master.
ARTICLE XXXV. All the honorary knights in Russia shall legitimate and register in the chancery of the grand-priory the titles by which they are authorised to wear the cross of the order.
ARTICLE XXXVI. His imperial majesty tile emperor of all the Russias, in the last place, most graciously grants, that the order of Malta shall enjoy the same privileges, prerogatives, and honours, in his dominions, as the said illustrious order enjoys elsewhere from the esteem and affection of other sovereign princes.
ARTICLE XXXVII. The present convention shall be ratified by his imperial majesty the emperor of all the Russias, and by the sovereign order of Malta and his most eminent highness the grand-master; and the ratifications shall be exchanged in the space of four months from the day of their signature, and even sooner if possible. In testimony of which, the underwritten plenipotentiaries have signed the present convention, to which they have put their seals. Concluded at St. Petersburg, the 4-15th January, 1797. (L. S.) Alexander Comte de Besborodko. (L. S.) Prince Alexander Kourakin. (L. S.) Fr. Jules Rene Bailli Comte de Litta.
SEPARATE ARTICLES.
ARTICLE I. The arrears due to the order of Malta in Poland, from having been deprived of its revenue ever since the year 1788, including the four thousand golden ducats likewise due from the time of the first foundation of the order of Malta in Poland, according to the treaty of 1775, till the moment when the estates and dependencies thereof situated in Ostrog were seized upon and incorporated with the Russian dominions in 1793, shall be comprised in the general debt of the heretofore republic of Poland, in order to be verified when the general liquidation shall take place, and as such shall be acquitted according to the mode adopted for the general payment of the debts of the republic. This separate article shall have the same force and validity as if inserted word for word in the convention concluded on the same day, and shall be ratified at the same time. In testimony of which, the underwritten plenipotentiaries have signed it, and have put their seals. Concluded at St. Petersburg, the 4-15th January, 1797. (L. S.) Alexander Comte de Besborodko. (L. S.) Prince Alexander Kourakin. (L. S.). Fr. Jules Rene Bailli Comte de Litta.
ARTICLE II. In regard to the arrears due to the order of Malta from the year 1793 inclusively, when the said Polish provinces became part of the Russian dominions, till the 31st of December, 1796, his imperial majesty, as another proof of his affection and benevolent intentions towards the illustrious order of Malta, thought he reserves to himself the right of making in future the arrangements which shall appear the most proper relative to the above-mentioned arrears, now most graciously declares, that he will from this present moment grant the payment of the particular sum due as a matter of right to the common treasury of the order, which sum arises from the annual responsions not having been as yet paid in. These, being fixed at twenty-four thousand Polish florins a-year to the sum total of ninety-six thousand Polish florins for the four years elapsed since the said time. In consequence of which, his imperial majesty deigns to grant five thousand Dutch ducats for the payment of the said sum to the order, which shall be paid the moment the ratification of the present convention shall take place. This separate article shall have the same force and validity as if inserted word for word in the convention concluded on the same day, and shall be ratified at the same time. In testimony of which, the underwritten plenipotentiaries have signed it, and put their seals. Concluded at St. Petersburg, 4-15th January, 1797. (L. S.) Alexander Comte de Besborodko. (L. S.) Prince Alexander Kourakin. (L. S.) Fr. Jules Rene Bailli Comte de Litta.
ARTICLE III. The grand-priory of Russia, which takes the place of the heretofore grand-priory of Poland in the order of Malta, shall be incorporated, as the latter has hitherto been, in the ancient language of England which had been partly restored in the order of Malta. His most eminent highness the grand-master and the sacred council of the order shall for the future take upon themselves to see that this incorporation be made according to the constitution and laws of the order, the principles of justice, and a regard to their reciprocal convenience. This separate article shall have the same force and validity as if inserted word for word in the convention concluded on the same day, and shall be ratified at the same time. In testimony of which, the underwritten plenipotentiaries have signed it, and put their seals. Concluded at St. Petersburg, 4-15th January, 1797. (L. S.) Alexander Comte de Besborodko. (L. S.) Prince Alexander Kourakin. (L. S.) Fr. Jules Rene Bailli Comte de Litta.
ARTICLE IV. As all the payments mentioned in the present convention are expressed by Polish florins, and as it is of great importance to prevent the inconveniences and alterations for the future which might possibly result in the said payments from the difference of exchange, the high and mighty contracting parties have agreed by common consent to fix an unalterable value to that coin, according to which the respective payments agreed upon in this convention, and indeed all the payments in the grand-priory of Russia, shall be made in perpetuity, and that without any alteration whatsoever. His imperial majesty and his most eminent highness the grand-master have, in consequence, fixed, in the most irrevocable manner, the value of the said Polish florin at twenty-five Russian copecks. This separate article shall have the same force and validity as if inserted word for word in the convention concluded on the same day, and shall be ratified at the same time. In testimony of which, the underwritten plenipotentiaries have signed it, and put their seals. Concluded at St. Petersburg, the 4-15th of January, 1797. (L. S.) Alexander Comte de Besborodko. (L. S.) Prince Alexander Kourakin. (L. S.) Fr. Jules Rene Bailli Comte de Litta.
ADDITIONAL ARTICLES. In the Convention concluded between the Plenipotentiaries of His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias and that of the Sovereign Order of Malta and his most Eminent Highness the Grand-Master, at St. Petersburg, the 4-15th of January, 1797. The plenipotentiaries of his imperial majesty the emperor of all the Russias and that of the sovereign order of Malta and his most eminent highness the grand-master, having judged it proper to add some further stipulations concerning the institution of the order of Malta in Russia to the convention signed by them at St. Petersburg on the 4-15th of January, 1797, have concluded and signed, in virtue of the respective full powers with which they are vested, the following additional articles.
ARTICLE I. His imperial majesty the emperor of all the Russias, having approved that there should be conventual chaplains in the grand-priory of Russia for performing the service of the churches of the order, whether in Russia or Malta, designs to add to the concessions already mentioned in the above convention a new foundation of three commanderies, appropriated to the class of conventual chaplains, each of which commanderies shall receive the annual sum of six thousand Polish florins, to be paid by the state treasury of the empire of Russia, according to the same valuation and on the same terms as are stipulated in the said convention.
ARTICLE II. The annual responsions to be paid to the venerable common treasury of the order by the said three commanderies shall be fixed at a thousand Polish florins each.
ARTICLE III. The conventual chaplains of the grand-priory of Russia shall make their proofs of reception, pay their passage fees to the venerable common treasury, and fulfil all their statutable duties, conformably to what was agreed upon by the last general chapter of the order in 1776; they shall also enjoy all the rights, advantages, honours, and prerogatives, assigned them by the laws. The above-mentioned conventual chaplains shall be named to the commanderies according to their seniority in the order and their statutable capacity.
ARTICLE IV. His imperial majesty grants that there shall be a conventual chaplain of the Maltese nation in the grand-priory of Russia, in the same manner as in the other grand-priories of the order: this chaplain to be chosen from among the most illustrious families of the island, and to have merited by his conduct the esteem of the order.
ARTICLE V. His imperial majesty leaves the nomination of the said Maltese chaplain to his most eminent highness the grand-master, and that, not only at present, but for ever. This magisterial nomination shall be each time communicated to the imperial court, and shall be registered according to form in the grand-priory of Russia. The said Maltese chaplain shall be held to fulfil all the statutable duties, and shall enjoy, by virtue of his nomination, the same rights, honours, and prerogatives in the grand-priory of Russia, as the conventual chaplains subjects of his imperial majesty the emperor of all the Russias; save those particular restrictions prescribed by the statutes in regard to the Maltese chaplains, which are equally in force in, the other priories of the order.
ARTICLE VI. The annual responsions of these last commanderies, fixed by the convention at fifteen hundred, Polish florins, shall be raised to three thousand Polish florins each.
ARTICLE VII. To avoid all discussion which might in future arise in the interpretation of the twenty-second article of the convention, it is agreed, that the revenue of every commandery which shall remain vacant for want of a candidate shall, from the first day of the vacancy till it is filled up by some one who has made himself capax, be entirely dedicated to the use of the venerable common treasury ; and that the course of mortuary and vacancy shall only begin on the day the candidate is named to the commandery, conformably to statute the 9th and to the 14th ordinance of the treasury.
ARTICLE VIII. The present additional articles shall have the same force and validity as if they had been inserted word for word in the convention concluded at St. Petersburg on the 4-15th of January, 1797. They shall be ratified by his imperial majesty the emperor of all the Russias, by the sovereign order of Malta, and his most eminent highness the grand-master, and the ratifications exchanged at the same time. In testimony of which, we, the respective plenipotentiaries, have signed them and put our seals. Concluded at St. Petersburg, the 17-28th of November, 1797. (L. S.) Alexander Prince de Besborodko. (L. S.) Prince Alexander Kourakin. (L. S.) Fr. Jules Rene Bailli Comte de Litta.
Boisgelin, Louis De, Knight of Malta, ANCIENT AND MODERN MALTA, G & J Robinson, London, 1804, Volume 3, Book 3, Appendix No XVII
Appendix 15
Speech of Bailiff Count Jules Réné de Littto to Paul I Emperor of Russia, Sunday 29th November (old style) 10th December 1797 (new style)
SIRE, – The Sovereign Order of Malta, eager to acknowledge its debt of gratitude, and to perform a duty, not only sacred but dear to the hearts of every one of its members, approaches the foot of your throne to its grateful thanks. Your Majesty’s benefactions are such as must ever remain deeply engraved on our memory.
The new establishment which the munificence of Your Imperial Majesty has secured to the Order of Malta in the Empire of Russia, has been sanctioned in that Island with the most lively enthusiasm, and ever sentiment of joy and gratitude. To give a still greater solemnity to our acknowledgement, and to express our homage still more forcibly, His Highness my Lord the Grand Master, together with the Supreme Council have unanimously decreed an Extraordinary Embassy on the occasion.
Being chosen by my Order for this august mission, it is in quality of Ambassador Extraordinary, that I am charged to acquaint Your Imperial Majesty with the universal wish of the whole Order that you would deign to become chief of this establishment, and accept a title so dear, and so encouraging to us all ; a title indeed which you, Sire, by your generous sentiments, and the favours bestowed upon us, have already so justly acquired, namely, that of Protector- of the Order of Malta, and as such we trust we shall see Your Imperial Majesty invested with the ensigns of an Order equally ancient and illustrious, ever renowned for its exploits, and venerable from the sanctity of its institutions.
His Eminent Highness and the Supreme Council have, therefore, sent your Imperial Highness the Ancient Cross of the celebrated La Vallette, that invincible defender of our Island who bequeathed his name to a city which he alone has rendered impregnable. This cross has hitherto been religiously preserved in the treasury of our Cathedral Church, as a precious monument, which constantly recalled to our remembrance the glorious military exploits performed by a Grand Master of Malta, who might properly be termed the Hero of Christianity; and we now feel a pleasure in offering it to your Imperial Majesty, as a proof of our gratitude, as a mark worthy of his piety, and as a happy presage of the renewal of our prosperity.
This offer is accompanied by our most ardent vows for the glory of Your Imperial Majesty, and the happiness of your Empire. This august and revered ensign of our Order, together with the recollection of our ancestors, and the proofs of valour given by the Knights of Malta will, we doubt not, excite in the bosoms of the illustrious, brave, and faithful nobles of Your Majesty’s Empire an enthusiasm and a spirit of emulation worthy the most glorious ages of chivalry; and the solemnity of this memorable day will. constantly recall to posterity the remembrance of the munificence of Paul I, and the gratitude of the Order of Malta.
Source: Hardman, William, of Valetta, A history of Malta during the period of the French and British occupations, 1798-1815, by the late William Hardman. Ed. with an introduction and notes by J. Holland Rose. Longmans, Green, and co., London, New York, 1909, pages 362 and 363.
Appendix 16
List of the Order of Malta, Venerable Grand Priory of Russia
GRAND CROSSES His Majesty the Emperor – Protector of the Order Her Majesty the Empress His Imperial Highness the Grand Duke Alexandre Paulovich His Imperial Highness the Grand Duke Constantine Paulovich His Imperial Highness the Grand Duke Nicolas Paulovich His Highness Prince de Conde, Grand Prior Bailli Count de Litta, Ambassador Prince de Bestorodko, Grand Chancellor of the Empire Prince de Kourakin, Vice-Chancellor of the Empire
COMMANDERIES Jules Rene Bailli Count de Litta Vincent Chevalier Raizynstti Caliste Prince Poninski Stanislav Chevalier Modzelewski Gedeon Baron de Witten George de Kierdei Count de Wielhorski Charles Antoine Chevalier, d Priest Michel Prince Radziwill Adam Prince Czartowik
COMMANDER OF STWOLOWITZ Louis Prince Radziwill
FAMILY COMMANDERS Casimir Count Ratter Joseph Ratter Michel Count Lopolt
KNIGHTS OF JUSTICE Andre Prince Radziwill Constantin Prince Czartoriski Raoul Count de Choiseul Irenee Count de Chreptowitz Robert Joseph Chevalier de Witry
HONORARY KNIGHTS The Prince Stanislav Poniatowsky, current Privy Councillor Prince Joseph Poniatowsky, Leutenant General Count de Siessers, current Privy Councillor Baron Keycking, Privy Councillor and Senator M de Ribaro, Rear-Admiral Count George de Golorkim, Privy Councillor and Senator
OFFICERS OF THE ORDER Commander Antoine Gavazzemi, Secretary Commander Antoine Lockman, Almoner
National Library, Malta. Arch 2196. English translation by Tiziana Ferri. Amendments by The Reverend Michael Foster.
Appendix 17
A Treaty between Czar PAUL I Emperor of All the Russias and Ferdinand von Hompesch, Grand-Master of the Order of St John, creating a new establishment of Commanderies for Russian Nobles.This Treaty had yet to be ratified, and was drafted 1st June 1798 whilst the Order was still in Malta and under a Catholic Grand Master. Owing to the invasion by Napoleon the Treaty was never concluded. Accounts, and Letters from the Imperial Family to the Grand Master which are in the same archive folio are included at the end of the document.
IN THE NAME OF THE VERY HOLY AND INDIVISIBLE TRINITY
His Majesty Emperor of all the Russias on the one hand, wishing in his role of Protector of the Order of Malta, to demonstrate more and more His feelings of affection, regard and consideration, and aware of the advantages He can provide for His states and faithful subjects by granting a great importance to the establishment of the Order in the Russian Empire, to the effect of having the entire Illustrious Nobilty of His Empire take part, enjoying the same honours and distinctions as those admitted to the Grand Priory of Russia, established by the Agreement signed in St Petersburg on 17 January 1797, and on the other hand THE SOVEREIGN ORDER OF MALTA AND HIS EMINENCE THE GRAND MASTER, inspired by the deepest gratitude for the feelings and kind deeds of His Imperial Majesty, and wishing on their part to concur and facilitate, whilst keeping to the Constitution and the Laws of the Order, the accomplishment of an objective of such great import and usefulness to the entire Nobility of the Emperor of Russia, towards whom are directed the good intentions of His Imperial Majesty, have by common accord consented to form an Agreement to dispose of the respective objectives which the high Parties have proposed.
In consequence of which they have nominated and authorised as their Ministers Plenipotentiaries, His Imperial Majesty of all the Russias, the Lords N and N, and the Sovereign Order of Malta and His High Eminence the Grand Master, Lord N., who after having discussed matters and exchanging their full authority are directed to the following articles.
ARTICLE I. His Majesty Emperor of all the Russias, knowing how much the Institutions of the Illustrious Order of Malta are ready to inspire and keep in the greatest energy and purity, the sentiments of honour and love of glory, which distinguish the Nobility of His Empire, by and act of His Sovereign munificence, founds in His States in favour of the Order of Malta, a new Establishment for the Nobility of the Greek Religion.
ARTICLE II. For the foundation of this new Establishment of the Order of Malta within the Empire of Russia, His Majesty the Emperor very graciously assigns and accords in perpetuity, in the most ample and Solemn manner an annual revenue of 200 thousand Roubles, which will be administered, levied and allocated according to the method established in the various articles of the present Agreement.
ARTICLE III. The State Treasury of the Russian Empire will pay annually to the Order of Malta the sum of two hundred thousand Roubles. This annual payment will be made in two instalments, that is to say, the first of one hundred thousand Roubles on the 30 June/11 July, and the second instalment of one hundred thousand Roubles, in order to acquit the payment of the two hundred thousand Roubles, on the 31 December/11 January of each year. The said annual payments will have to be made to the Receiving Minister of Malta, or to his Treasurer residing in the Russian Empire, or to whomsoever shall be legally authorised to receive the allocation stated and fixed in the various Articles of this present Agreement.
ARTICLE IV. His Imperial Majesty declares that the aforementioned annual sum of two hundred thousand Roubles which He graciously grants to this foundation, will be exempt in perpetuity from all reduction and any tax, ordinary and extraordinary, in order that this new Establishment of the Order of Malta founded in the Russian Empire, will enjoy in perpetuity, in full and without the least deduction whatsoever the annual sum of two hundred thousand Roubles.
ARTICLE V. This new Establishment founded for the Nobility of the Greek Religion will be composed of eighty-four different Commanderies, the revenues from which will be fixed in the following manner; Two Commanderies at six thousand Roubles annual revenue each, two Commanderies at five thousand Roubles annual revenue each, four Commanderies at four thousand Roubles annual revenue each, six Commanderies at three thousand Roubles annual revenue each, eight Commanderies at two thousand five hundred Roubles annual revenue each, twelve Commanderies at two thousand Roubles annual revenue each, eighteen Commanderies at one thousand five hundred Roubles annual revenue each, thirty-two Commanderies at one thousand five hundred Roubles annual revenue each.
ARTICLE VI. All the aforementioned eighty-four Commanderies will pay annually to the Venerable Common Treasury of the Order in Malta twenty percent of their respective revenues according to the division indicated in the previous Article. The aforementioned Commanderies shall further make an annual payment of five percent in order to be exempt from the duty belonging to the Venerable Common Treasury of the Order over the goods of each owner upon the latter’s death, to which duty are subject all the Knights of Malta and therefore through this aforementioned annual contribution of five percent of the Russian Knights of the Greek Religion shall be exempt in perpetuity.
ARTICLE VII. That which remains to complete the total sum of two-hundred thousand Roubles shall be distributed each year in the following manner : for the benefit of the Great Hospital of Malta, ten-thousand Roubles yearly for the defense of the Island and the repair of the Fortifications, ten-thousand Roubles, for the expenses of the permanent Mission in St Petersburg, four-thousand Roubles for the upkeep of the Chapel of the Greek Religion including its minister, four-thousand six-hundred Roubles, and for house repairs and other additional expenses, ten-thousand Roubles.
ARTICLE VIII. The Order of Malta will be given possession of the revenues assigned to its new establishment in the Russian Empire, and which constitutes the subject for this present Agreement, beginning from the 1 July until the 1 of January 1799, making for the half year one-hundred thousand Roubles which shall be deposited in the Venerable Common Treasury of the Order of Malta. Consequently of the Commanders who shall be nominated, none shall begin to benefit from their respective revenues until the 1 January 1799.
ARTICLE IX. The contracted high Parties are convened by common accord to fix and assign in the Articles of this present Agreement the duties which the Knights of Russia and the Greek Religion will of necessity have to fulfil without any exception in order to gain admittance to this Establishment of the Order of Malta and to subsequently enable them to obtain the Commanderies founded by this present Agreement.
ARTICLE X. The prescribed duties are as follows ; 1: Undergo the proof of Nobility the manner of which shall be established by a Commission nominated by the first of the eighty-four Commanders and which shall include the representative of the Order of Malta in the Empire of Russia, this will later be approved and sanctioned in Malta. 2: Pay into the Venerable Common Treasury in Malta the passage fee, be it of Majority or of Minority, from the moment of their reception by all the other Knights of the Order, and to satisfy all the duties and taxes established within the Order of Malta. The Majority passage, that is to say, for all those who are received after the age of fifteen years is fixed at 1200 Roubles. The Minority passage, that is to say, for those who are received before the said age is fixed at 2400 Roubles. 3: Undertake the four customary Crusades, be it in Malta within the ranks of the Order, or be it in the Russian army, against the Infidels. Six months of Campaign shall be completed for a Crusade. To establish the discharge of Crusading duties, it shall be necessary to obtain a Certificate from the military Chiefs and Commanders outlining the length of service and good conduct. 4: Not to be in debt either to the Venerable Common Treasury of the Order of Malta nor to the Venerable Grand Priory of Russia.
ARTICLE XI. All individuals who wish to be admitted to this new Establishment of the Order of Malta in the Russian Empire, will of necessity have to fulfil the duties outlined by the Numbers 1 and 2 of the preceding Article, and to subsequently measure up to the expectations of the Commanders and to be granted future vacancies, it will be necessary to have fulfilled all the duties outlined in the same Article under the Numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4.
ARTICLE XII. All the Knights who will be received into this new Establishment of the Order of Malta will be obliged to precisely fulfil all the duties prescribed by the present Agreement, and it is by right of seniority which must be accrued after the time of respective receptions, that the enjoyment of Commanderies will be attained through successive vacancies, but the right of seniority will not be valid until the prescribed duties have been discharged, so that all candidates can be favoured, they shall have to acquire right of seniority and the completion of all duties prescribed by this present Agreement.
ARTICLE XIII. A Commander may, on the occasion of subsequent vacancies, on leaving the Commandery to which he had already been admitted move to a Commandery of Improvement, that is to say of better renown. But in order to obtain this improvement within the Commanderies, a Commander must have acquired the right of seniority, nor be indebted to the Venerable Common Treasury nor the Venerable Grand Priory of Russia.
ARTICLE XIV. The eighty-four Commanderies of this new Institution will be subject to, as all the other Commanderies of Malta, to the duties of Burial and vacancies, these will be regulated according to the laws and customs observed in all the Grand Priories. The Venerable Common Treasury of the Order will have, within the terms prescribed for Burials and Vacancies, the administration and the revenue of a vacant Commandery.
ARTICLE XV. The revenue from all Commanderies which remain vacant due to lack of Candidates, shall be deposited in full in the Venerable Common Treasury of the Order, until an individual shall show himself capable of filling the post, and it will be only from the day that he will have legally acquired it, that Burial and Vacancy will come into force, conforming to Statute IX and Order XIV of the Common Treasury.
ARTICLE XVI. His Eminence Monsignor Grand Master of the Sovereign Order of Malta, leaves to His Majesty the Emperor the first nomination of the eighty-four Commanders and the eighty-four Knights who will have the expectancy of the Commanderies on the occasion of the latter’s subsequent vacancies, according to the rank of priority assigned them by His Majesty the Emperor in this first nomination.
ARTICLE XVII. The aforementioned eighty-four initial Commanders will be exempt from their Crusading duties. The first eighty-four Knights nominated by His Majesty the Emperor and who will have the expectation of Commanderies will pay at the time of their nomination, only half of the fixed passage fees, but when they will subsequently be in a position of obtaining a Commandery, they will have to pay the remainder of their passage fees and satisfy all duties and taxes fixed by the Order of Malta.
ARTICLE XVIII. His Majesty the Emperor leaves to his Eminence Monsignor Grand Master, head of the Order of Malta, to exercise his magisterial prerogative to bestow a Commandery every five years, whilst during which interval he will render vacant some amongst the aforementioned eighty-four Commanderies which form this new Establishment.
ARTICLE XIX. The Commanderies, which by virtue of the concession of His Majesty the Emperor, outlined in the preceding Article, will be bestowed by his Eminence Grand Master, shall be subject to the annual fees and other duties outlined in the Magisterial Conferments, the very Eminent Grand Master will not however be able to validate this Magisterial pre-eminence other than in favour of an individual admitted to this new establishment of the Order of Malta ARTICLE XX. The very Eminent Grand Master, wishing to bestow Commanderies by his magisterial grace as a reward for merit, wishes that prior to magisterial inclusions taking place, His Majesty the Emperor indicates the individuals who through their personal service will be well deserving of the Sovereign, the State and the Order of Malta, and will be the most worthy of this preference.
ARTICLE XXI. So that the distribution of the goods assigned to this new establishment of the Order of Malta, can be extended over a larger number of individuals, it will not be permitted for any Knight to have, by virtue of seniority more than one Commandery at one time, so that he quits the Commandery he had before he can opt for another, superior, Commandery. The acquisition of Commanderies will be carried out according to the conditions of Succession, the regulations outlined in the articles of this present Agreement.
ARTICLE XXII. The Knights who, by their particular merit, will have gained the goodwill of His very Eminent Grand Master, a bestowed Commandery, will not be subject to the regulations outlined in the previous article, which is only relevant to those Commanderies gained by virtue of Seniority.
ARTICLE XXIII. His Majesty the Emperor of all Russias, in order to contribute more and more to the advantages of the Order of Malta, to its well being and its prosperity, and at the same time aid all individuals of the Nobility of His Empire, and also those who through particular circumstances are not in a position to fully afford the duties prescribed in the present Agreement, the means to fully partake of the distinctions, honours and prerogatives assigned to Russian Knights, admitted and received into this new Establishment of the Order of Malta, deigns to accord from the present and once for all time His Imperial permission and Sanction for all foundations to come from family Commanderies or Patronage, for all those who wish to follow this noble Institution, will have to address directly the Order of Malta or its representative in the Russian Empire, be it to agree reciprocal conditions or draw up respective deeds of foundation and obtain from Malta the necessary approval.
ARTICLE XXIV. Family or Patronal Commanderies will be titled in perpetuity in the Order of Malta, and wherever there is need, with the name of the founding families. The family Commanders will enjoy all honours, privileges and prerogatives which will be assigned to them by the respective Agreement between the Empire of Russia and the Sovereign Order of Malta.
ARTICLE XXV. The Commanders of this new Establishment will assemble in the house belonging to the Grand Priory of Russia of the Order of Malta, to acknowledge and direct matters, be this through administration and bookkeeping, or the observance, interpretation and execution of the regulations and conditions stipulated in the present Agreement, by observing the rules prescribed for those assembled.
ARTICLE XXVI. The Plenipotentiary Minister of Malta to the Russian Empire, in his function of general Proxy for your Eminence Monsignor Grand Master of the Supreme Council of the Order, and of the Venerable Common Treasury will be given audience according to his rank and seniority. He will report on all matters decided by majority vote, according to the forms and customs observed in the Order of Malta and according to the regulations prescribed in the present Convention. He will keep a register of relevant debates and will make to Malta the required communications.
ARTICLE XXVII. The present Convention will be ratified by His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias and by the Sovereign Order of Malta and his very Eminent Monsignor Grand Master, and the ratifications will be exchanged as promptly as is possible. At which time the undersigned Plenipotentiaries will sign and seal the present Agreement. Drawn up in St Petersburg this
STATEMENT
=========
Monies which will be paid to the Venerable Common Treasury in the year 1798
for the second Establishment of the Order of Malta in the Russian Empire
_____________________________________________
Sum for the first term of 1 July 1798 to 1 January 1799 R 100,000
Passage Fees of 84 Commanders at R1,200 100,800
Passage Fees paid in half for 84 Knights 50,400
______________
Total R 251,200
______________
NB - To the sum of Roubles 251,200 is added 20% according to actual exchange
of St Petersburg, over Vienna, given to Malta 301,440
DISTRIBUTION
of 200 thousand Roubles annualy assigned by His Majesty the Emperor to the
second establishment of the Order of Malta in the Russian Empire
___________________________________________
2 Commanderies each at R 6,000 R 12,000
2 " " 5,000 " 10,000
4 " " 4,000 " 16,000
6 " " 3,000 " 18,000
8 " " 2,500 " 20,000
12 " " 2,000 " 24,000
18 " " 1,500 " 27,000
32 " " 1,200 " 38,400
______________________ ________
84 Commanderies R 165,400
To the Great Hospital of Malta 10,000
For the maintenance of the fortifications of Malta 10,000
For the Chapel in St Petersburg 4,600
For the permanent Maltese Mission in Russia 4,600
For the Palace of Malta in St Petersburg 6,000
________
Total R 200,000
________
STATEMENT Of annual revenues, fixed and extraordinary,
of the Venerable Common Treasury originating from the second establishment
of the Order of Malta in the Russian Empire
_______________________________________________
Surety 20% on the sum of R 165,400 R 33,080
Duty of 5% in lieu of those effects
calculated on said sum of R 165,400 8,270
For the Great Hospital of Malta 10,000
For the maintenance of the fortifications of Malta 10,000
________
Fixed Revenues R 61,350
Fees
Burials and Vacancies
Duties and Taxes ________
Total R ________
Letter from Czar Paul I, Emporer of all the Russia to the Grand Master in Malta.
Monsignor the Grand Master I have received from the hands of the Ambassador Count de Litta, your Eminence’s letters, marked with the seal of the Order of Malta, with which he had been charged, he delivered to me the ones and the others in a solemn audience which I granted him for this purpose. The sentiments which your Eminence expressed to me in Your name and that of Your Order, were most agreeable to me. It is with equal pleasure that I have associated myself to a Corps which from time immemorial has had as guide to its actions valour and glory, I can therefore assure your Eminence that I attach a particular value to the Consignment You have made to me of the Crosses brought by the most celebrated heroes of Your Predecessors as well as Your own. I accept the Quality of Protector of the Order of Malta with which Your Eminence, together with all Your Knights, has honoured me, if it belongs to me, due to the proofs that I have given up to the present regarding my Goodwill, to the Order of Malta, I forsee that the Feelings of Esteem and Affection that I shall retain for it, will furnish me in the Future with occasions in which to advance Its Interests. The Count de Litta, of whom I wish to render witness the distinguished manner in which he discharged the task he was set in my regards, will always find me disposed to receive and consider all that will be relevant to this objective, he will not have failed to recount to your Eminence of the distribution of the Crosses and Commanderies which I have already carried out in the Grand Priory of Russia.
I am for the rest Monsieur Grand Master
Of your Eminence The most affectionate Paul
St Petersburg 26 February 1798
Letter No 2 from the Empress.
Monsieur the Grand Master, Monsieur the Ambassador the Count de Litta presented Me with the Grand Cross of the Order of Malta which your Eminence had charged him to deliver to Me. I received with a true satisfaction this token which distinguishes a Corps whose reputation has shone through up to our times. It is for this reason that the Emperor My Husband has accorded it His Esteem, publicly ascertained by the foundation of a Grand Priory in the Russian Empire. I do share these feelings of His Majesty, and it will always give Me pleasure to furnish proof of this to your Eminence as well as to Your Order.
Letter to the Grand Master on behalf of Alexander.
The Grand Duke Nicolas My Son
To M Grand Master in Malta
Having been awarded the same decoration, and his tender age not yet allowing him to express the sentiments which he will one day experience, I shall serve as his interpreter with your Eminence
I am for the rest very perfectly
M Grand Master Of your Eminence
The most affectionate
St Petersburg 27 February 1798
Monsignor Grand Master, I shall leave your Eminence to be the judge of the feelings inspired in me by the Grand Cross of the Order of Malta which the Ambassador the Count de Litta has just delivered to me. These tokens of Heroism and Valour have been appreciated as they should be on my part, they remind me of all the glorious deeds which have shone upon the Order, and which have merited it the most distinguished sufferance of His Majesty the Emperor my Father. I can therefore but feel very flattered to see myself associated with a Corps that gathers to itself such fine titles of public and general Esteem. It is with these sentiments that I am
Monsignor Grand Master Of your Eminence The most affectionate Alexandre St Petersburg February 1798
To M Grand Master, in Malta.
National Library, Malta. Arch 2196. Pages 87-105. English Translated by Tiziana Ferri. Amendments by The Reverend Michael Foster.
The Office of the Chief Herald of Arms of Malta, currently Dr. Charles Gauci (1947)*, regulates new heraldic emblems to Maltese citizens and to foreigners. The state has granted the Chief Herald the power to devise and grant new arms (personal or corporate); to register arms which have already been in use locally for many years; and to register arms previously granted by appropriate foreign authorities.
As part of the political decision-making process in recent years, it was decided to see whether the newly-established Office of the Chief Herald of Arms of Malta would attract enough interest from the public, before passing on to the next logical step and ask Parliament to pass specific legislation so as to formally embed heraldry in the laws of Malta. The results exceeded the expectations and draft legislative proposals were prepared, implementing comments by Malta’s National Ombudsman.
This article describes the current legal framework of the Chief Herald of Malta for issuing coats of arms.
Malta’s national and international legal order
Acts of Parliament (Primary Legislation);
Regulations, Rules, Orders, Bylaws (Subsidiary Legislation); and
EU Law including decisions of the ECJ.
The Constitution is the basic source of national law and stipulates that laws are passed by Parliament in the form of Acts of Parliament, but that Parliament may delegate legislative powers to other bodies (i.e. ministers, authorities, public bodies etc.) which are empowered to make subsidiary legislation within the sphere of authority delegated to them by an Act of Parliament.
In Malta, there is no judge made law: The Court interprets the law as contained in the various enactments. This does not mean however that judicial precedents are not authoritative. In fact judges as a general rule do not depart from a well settled principle established by case law, if not for grave reason. It is also the practice in the Inferior Courts to follow the principle laid down on points of law by a Superior Court.
The national legal order must also be viewed in the context of EU legislation, and especially the Treaty of Accession. International treaties may form part of Malta’s domestic legislation. By virtue of an Act of the Maltese Parliament, Act XIV of 1987, the European Convention of Human Rights was incorporated into Maltese law. No law in Malta may be inconsistent with the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention. The power of review is vested in the Courts. A good example is the Barone della Tabria case, in which it was established that the Maltese legal system does not recognize titles of nobility.
(..) that the title of nobility “ut sic” (and therefore independently of any property right derived from that title, and which remained unprejudiced in view of what is provided in article 28(2) of Chapter 251), once it is not recognized in our legal system (Article 28(1), Chapter 251), it may not be a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of the First Protocol, and neither may it give rise to a contestation regarding “a civil right or obligation”. For completeness, there is being reproduced below a bit more “in extensor” the decision of the European Court in the case cited by the first court in the appealed judgment, and that is to say that of De la Cierva Osorio de Moscoso and others v. Spain: “The Court reiterates that under its case-law the Article relied upon does no more than enshrine the right of everyone to the peaceful enjoyment of “his” possessions. Consequently, it applies only to a person’s existing possessions and does not guarantee the right to acquire possessions whether on intestacy or through voluntary dispositions (see, mutatis mutandis, the Marckx v. Belgium judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 23, § 50; and the Van der Mussele v. Belgium judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, § 48). “Furthermore, while a legitimate expectation of acquiring property may in certain instances be equated to a “possession” within the meaning of paragraph 1 of Article 1, such an expectation is always dependent on the commitment of a third party; that is the case, for example, with the granting of a commercial operating licence by the authorities (see the Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, p. 23, § 51; and the Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159, p. 22, § 55).“The Court considers that a nobiliary title cannot, as such, be regarded as amounting to a “possession” within the meaning of that provision. In general, the same applies to a mere hope of being able to exploit such a title commercially, for example, as a trademark. Since in the instant case the applicants are unable to assert the right to use the nobiliary titles concerned, a fortiori, they cannot claim any legitimate expectation concerning the commercial exploitation of those titles. In these circumstances and in accordance with Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, the Court considers that the applicants’ complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken alone and under Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 must be dismissed as being incompatible ratione materiae with those provisions.”
The non-recognition of the said title – and always save what is provided in the said Article 28(2) – also brings as a consequence that the Articles 6(1) and 13 of the Convention are not applicable – see, of note the decisions of the Court of Strasbourg in the names Wolff Metternich v.Netherlands (18 May 1999) and Bernadotte v. Sweden (3 June 2004).
Source: Constitutional Court, Civil Appeal Number 57/2006/1; see Appendix.
Hierarchy of norms
At national level, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, followed by Acts of Parliament, followed by subsidiary legislation. However, the Treaty of Accession and EU regulations are legally binding and operative in Malta, as in all Member States, and must be taken into account along with EU law in general.
Institutional framework
While the three pillars exercise legislative, executive and judicial powers in their own sphere, the system of checks and balances, which Malta inherited from English principles of the rule of law, allows smooth operation of the legal system in Malta.
Malta follows the British parliamentary system, following 180 years of British rule. A minister proposes a draft law, which is then published in the Gazette for a first reading to be given in Parliament. Depending on the importance of the law in question a white paper may or may not be published beforehand. The House of Representatives then forms a committee and, after a second reading where members of Parliament are given the opportunity to comment in general terms on the particular piece of legislation in question, the Committee Stage examines each and every article in detail and proposes any amendments. When the Committee Stage is completed the Bill is sent back to Parliament for a final third reading, is subsequently given assent to by the President of the Republic and then becomes law.
The general rule is that a law enters into force on the date of publication, unless specifically stated in the law itself that the minister concerned may bring the law (or part of the law) into force on a different date.
Cultural Heritage Act
Malta’s cultural heritage is primarily protected by the Cultural Heritage Act 2002. Prior to the enactment of this Act, the local cultural heritage sector was protected by the Antiquities Act of 1925. Other existing national legislation is also related to the conservation and protection of our cultural heritage. Several aspects of Malta’s cultural heritage are widely acknowledged as common heritage of mankind. To this effect, it is protected by international heritage legislation.
Content
This Act constitutes the reference legislative framework in matter of cultural heritage in Malta. It is divided into eleven parts, as follows: (I) Preliminary; (II) Principles and general duties; (III) Constitution, composition and functions of entities; (IV) Administrative and personnel provisions; (V) Financial provisions; (VI) Conservation professionals; (VII) Special powers of the State; (VIII) Religious cultural heritage; (IX) Offences; (X) Regulations; (XI) Miscellaneous. As a general principle, every person in Malta shall have the duty to protect the cultural heritage as well as the right to benefit from this cultural heritage (art. 5). The Superintendence of Cultural Heritage is created under Part III. Its task shall be to fulfill the duties of the State to ensure the protection and accessibility of cultural heritage. The functions are listed with detail in article 7. Particular regard is to be given to article 43, which establishes that all excavations or explorations of land as well as in the territorial waters or contiguous zone of Malta can only be made by the Superintendent or with the written permission of the Superintendent.
Definition of Cultural Heritage
The Cultural Heritage Act 2002 defines ‘cultural heritage’ as “movable and immovable objects of artistic, architectural, historical, archaeological, ethnographic, palaentological and geological importance and includes information or data relative to cultural heritage pertaining to Malta or to any other country. This includes archaeological, palaeontological or geological sites and deposits, landscapes, groups of buildings, as well as scientific collections, collections of art objects, manuscripts, books, published material, archives, audio-visual material and reproductions of any of the preceding, or collections of historical value, as well as intangible cultural assets comprising arts, traditions, customs and skills employed in the performing arts, in applied arts and in crafts and other intangible assets which have a historical, artistic or ethnographic value.”
Heritage Malta is an entity that has been created by the Cultural Heritage Act as is an operating agency, established to ensure that those elements of the cultural heritage entrusted to it are protected and made accessible to the public. Heritage Malta manages State-owned Museums and heritage sites. Heritage Malta is governed by a Board of Directors, whose role is to determine the policy and strategy of the Agency, to manage its human resources and finances, and to ensure collaboration with local and foreign bodies necessary for achieving the aims of the Agency. Additionally, Heritage Malta’s function is “to set up and manage the Office of the Chief Herald of Arms of Malta”.
Office of the Chief Herald of Malta
In June 2020, a complaint was lodged against the Office of the Chief Herald of Malta. The complainant contended that the Chief Herald did not have the appropriate authority to regulate heraldry, grant new armorial bearings or to register and matriculate existing foreign armorial bearings that have no cultural or heritage connection with Malta.
The Ombudsman’s mandate is to investigate any action taken by or on behalf of a governmental entity, which include the powers of investigation and recommendation but not directive powers. When the Ombudsman’s investigation shows that the complaint is justified, he may recommend that complainant be given adequate redress.
Heritage Malta insisted that the original Cultural Heritage Act also implied the protection of heraldry as an intangible asset. But in order to safeguard and entrench it further a specific change in the law was proposed. However, an updated strategy which included Heraldry and the Office of the Chief Herald of Malta, was due for public consultation. The Chief Herald of Malta pointed out that legislative intervention was required, and action will be taken to update the legislation to include the function of the Chief Herald of Malta to regulate the duties, powers and functions of the latter. This will eliminate the need for interpretation, and justification of the powers of this Office.
In his final opinion issued on 21 July 2021, the Ombudsman recommended the establishment of the Office of the Chief Herald in an appropriate manner (be it legislative or otherwise) and underlined that Chapter 445 of the Cultural Heritage Act did not include regulation of heraldry. It was therefore recommended that the law provides ground for the powers and functions of the Office of the Chief Herald.
On 11 August 2021, the Ministry for The National Heritage, The Arts and Local Government (MHAL) replied to the Office of the Ombudsman stating that with regard to the first recommendation, the Ministry had already coordinated the drafting of amendments of the Cultural Heritage Act which were subsequently presented to Parliament on 22 June 2021 and published as Act XLI of 2021 on 20 July 2021. Its objects and reasons were to update the principal Act according to current practice and standards of heritage management, especially regulatory obligations, edit and correct mistakes, establish an office of the Chief Herald of Arms, provide for compensation of impacts on cultural heritage, better facilitate the State’s right of preference for the acquisition of cultural heritage items, and the formal establishment of National World Heritage Sites Technical Committee.
As regards the second recommendation, the Ministry stated that the functions and powers of the Office of the Chief Herald will be promulgated through a legal notice, whereby the regulations will ensure that, while the law clarified that the Agency had the function to set up and manage the Office of the Chief Herald of Arms of Malta and, in consequence, had the competence on heraldry, the functions of the Office of the Chief Herald, its vires and duties, and relevant regulatory procedures together with operational regulation will be stipulated by law.
On 10 September 2021, the Ombudsman replied to the Ministry requesting to be notified once the subsidiary legislation was in place. With reference to the recommendations, he asked the Ministry what measures will be put in place to deal with actions taken by the Office of the Chief Herald of Arms of Malta prior to the amendment of the Cultural Heritage Act. On 5 October 2021, the Permanent Secretary (MHAL) replied that the proposed Regulations will provide a transitory provision which, in brief, will regulate retroactively that any action taken under the authority published in the Government Gazette of 25 June 2019, until the publication of the Regulations, will be deemed to have been issued under the proposed Regulations. In addition, the Ministry stated that it will inform the Ombudsman of the publication of the proposed Regulations.
The aforementioned legal notice stipulates the criteria for registering coats of arms; when the coat of arms is already formally granted and/or registered by other recognised heraldic authorities. “Recognised” refers to heraldic institutions recognised by the State in which they are situated. It is the sole decision of the Chief Herald of Arms to determine which particular institutions are to be recognised. In addition, all citizens of Malta are entitled to apply for a grant of Arms. However, a grant of Arms should be considered as a singular honour, issued at the discretion of the Chief Herald of Arms. Citizens of other countries also have the right to apply for a grant of a coat of arms at the complete discretion of the Chief Herald of Arms of Malta:
In Malta, the Office of the Chief Herald of Arms manages the official creation of coats of arms, flags and badges. All Maltese citizens and organizations (schools, associations, corporations, companies, etc.) can contact the Chief Herald of Arms to have heraldic emblems created for them as can other individuals and entities that have a connection with Malta. The criteria are the following: Registration of Arms Arms already formally granted and/or registered by other recognised heraldic authorities can be registered at the Office of the Chief Herald of Arms. “Recognised” refers to heraldic institutions recognised by the State in which they are situated. It shall be the sole decision of the Chief Herald of Arms to determine which particular institutions are to be recognised. New creations of personal Arms Based on the founding principles of the Republic of Malta, all citizens of Malta are entitled to apply for a grant of Arms. However, a grant of Arms should be considered as a singular honour, issued at the discretion of the Chief Herald of Arms and based on the following criteria: a. Any honours received (local of foreign) b. Involvement of the applicant in public life together with other merits and activities c. Professional qualifications held by the applicant d. Membership of an Order of Chivalry. Citizens of other countries also have the right to apply for a grant of Arms, based on the above criteria at the complete discretion of the Chief Herald of Arms of Malta. Should an applicant be considered a suitable candidate for a grant of Arms, the Chief Herald would discuss with the applicant, ideas, including the incorporation of any already ‘established’ family Arms as displayed in Stemmi Maltesi or in other sources. Thus: a. Abela’s “Della Descrittione di Malta” is the oldest known formally published (1647) compilation of armorial bearings used by Maltese families. (see Lib. IV Not. III, p. 445 et seq). Later Arms and augmentations are also recorded in another equally reliable source viz., Ciantar’s sequel to Abela’s work, “Malta Illustrata” published in 1772, 1780 (see Lib. IV. Not. III p. 380 et seq). b. Several Maltese family arms are recorded in various anonymous manuscripts to be found at the National Library of Malta. The authorship and basis for many of these Arms remains unknown. c. Such already ‘established’ family Arms may be considered as the basis of the applicant’s grant of Arms but would need to be suitably differenced so as to show that the applicant (and his/her descendants) are the sole proprietors and users of the particular Arms in question. In addition, such Arms may need to be adjusted so as to ensure that they conform to the basic rules of heraldry. The display of any local or foreign award or honour within a Coat of Arms ceases with the death of the holder of that award or honour. An applicant may choose to have a completely new Coat of Arms created instead of one based on any already “established” family Arms. In this case the Chief Herald would discuss the applicant’s requirements and make his own suggestions and recommendations. New creations of impersonal (corporate) Arms When considering an application for impersonal (Corporate) Arms from any institution such as a club or society the Chief Herald would need to consider: a. The nature of that institution, so as to ensure that it is non- controversial and generally socially acceptable. b. The time scale during which that institution has been in existence c. The number of members that institution possesses. Already established personal Arms (i) If it can be proven that certain personal Arms have been in uninterrupted use in Malta for a considerable period of time by the applicant’s ancestors, those Arms would be considered as part of Malta’s intangible cultural heritage and would be registered as they stand (tale quale). This concession applies especially to members of the Maltese nobility, in deference to the unique status of the nobility in the history and culture of the Maltese islands. (ii) Registration or granting of Arms, do not signify State-recognition of any title of nobility which the bearer of the Arms in question may purport to hold. The State recognises the Arms not any titles which may be appended to it in deference to the 1975 Ġieħ ir-Repubblika Act. Titles of nobility may be mentioned en passant in the Letters Patent or document of registration for historical reasons. (iii) In the case of a title of Maltese nobility, the right of the applicant to hold those specific Arms as a lineal descent of a former State-recognised title-holder of Maltese nobility would be included, together with the relevant genealogical information and details of the once-State recognised title. (iv) It may also be necessary to difference the Arms with marks of cadency in the event of different branches of the family applying for the same Coat of Arms. (v) Any gazetted foreign award, may be included in a Coats of Arms granted by the Office of the Chief Herald to any Maltese citizen. In addition, awards made by the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem and by the Venerable Order of St. John in the British Realm may also be included. (vii) Any person who claims a solitary undifferenced shield of Arms from the Abela & Ciantar lists would have to provide rigorous genealogical proofs of such exclusive entitlement based strictly on agnatic primogeniture. Already established impersonal Arms Maltese Corporations, e.g., Companies, schools, learned societies, band clubs etc. may have previously devised their own Arms (as opposed to simple logos) and may, sometimes even have registered them as Trademarks purely for copyright purposes. Such Arms would be eligible for registering at the Office of the Chief Herald together with any trademark references duly noted. Arms held by Local Councils As these Arms have all been gazetted in the Malta Government Gazette, they would be registered as they stand (tale quale). Ecclesiastical Heraldry The Office of the Chief Herald of Arms also grants Arms to Ecclesiastics and religious institutions of any denomination. Discretion of the Chief Herald Note should be taken of the following Regulation in the Heraldry and Genealogy Regulations, S.L. 445.07: Reg. 12: Arms may be granted to or registered by an individual or body corporate at the discretion of the Chief Herald
The changes in the Cultural Heritage Act did not come across purely as a result of the Ombudsman’s recommendations but as a result of detailed discussions at Ministerial and Prime Ministerial level. The Office of the Chief Herald of Malta is currently embedded in a solid legal framework. He is authorized by law to register and create coats of arms in the Republic of Malta. Mentioning in diploma’s of other honours, e.g. awards, titles, knighthoods and academic degrees, is a matter of courtesy, and has no legal consequences. Titles of nobility are not recognized in the Maltese judicial system and cannot be considered a possession, a civil right or an obligation (Philip Bugeja Viani vs Attorney General; see appendix). They are, however, part of Malta’s rich cultural heritage. Ignoring them would be an act of cultural whitewashing.
Because the applicant affirms that all of the information on her/his application form is correct to the best of her/his knowledge, supplying the Chief Herald with false information may constitute a criminal offense.
Note
Dr Charles Gauci was born in 1947 in Imtarfa (Malta), and studied at St Aloysius College and University of Malta (MD 1971). He served with the Royal Army Medical Corps and retired from the British army as Lieutenant-Colonel (1992). He was director of the Chronic Pain Relief Clinic in Whipps Cross University Hospital, London. He is a member of various heraldic associations. Gauci has written extensively and gives lectures on heraldry and history of nobility.
Sources
Maltese Biographies of the Twentieth Century (1997), editors Michael J. Schiavone and Louis J. Scerri
Translation from Maltese to English of the two Court Judgments (2004 and 2009) relating to the title of Baron of Tabria (1728) granted to Isidoro Viani by Grand Master Vilhena.
Judgment (2004)
Informal Copy of Judgment
Courts of Justice
Malta
CIVIL COURT
FIRST HALL
Hon. Judge
Joseph Azzopardi
Sitting of the 30th January, 2004
Writ number: 1722/2001/1
Writ Number: 1722/01 JA.
Corinne Ramsay and Christianne Ramsay Pergola.
-vs-
John Bugeja, Philip, Maryanne, and Julian Bugeja.
The Court;
Having seen the writ filed by the plaintiffs on the 30 October, 2001 whereby they premised:
That by a contract made in the acts of Notary Doctor Jeanette Laferla Saliba of the 14 January 1985, a copy is being attached marked Document A, Joseph John Scicluna Testaferrata Moroni Viani allegedly in the exercise of the power given to him by the proclamation of the Grand Master de Vilhena claimed to have nominated Lilian sive Lillianina Bugeja in the title of Baron of Tabrija and by the same act he claimed to have vacated and renounced the same title competent to him;
That by another act (document B) made on the same day, he received as a loan from John Bugeja the sum of Lm8000 which sum in fact did not have to be repaid because it represented the payment for the aforesaid transfer of title;
That subsequently the same Joseph John Scicluna did by his testament nominate as his heir the plaintiff Christianne Ramsay Pergola and as successor in his title his sister the plaintiff Corinne Ramsay;
That according to the same proclamation of Grand Master de Vilhena (here exhibited and marked Document C) it was only possible for the holder of the title to nominate successors in the title only after his death and not during his lifetime as he claimed to have done in the deed of the 14 January 1985;
That in any case the contract of the 14 January 1985, Document A, containing a testamentary disposition was superceded and its efficacy was removed by the later wills and nominations that the same Joseph John Scicluna was pleased to make;
That the contract of the 14 January, 1985 breaches and runs counter to Maltese public policy because, amongst other matters it claims to be an irrevocable testamentary disposition and also because it refers to a matter which cannot be the subject of a public deed, and is therefore lacking in form and null;
That the said Lillianina Bugeja died and was survived by the defendants as her heirs and successors;
Therefore they are requesting this Honorable Court to say why it should not:
declare and decide that, in the light of the circumstances so premised, the act of 14 January 1985, here exhibited and marked Document A, is null and without any effect because it breaches the public principles and policy of Malta and that in any case it was rescinded and revoked by later testamentary dispositions, with costs and ordering the defendant to appear in court to be examined.
Having seen the declaration of the plaintiffs sworn by Corinne Ramsay on the 30 October, 2001 and the list of witnesses;
Having seen the note of pleas of the defendants filed on the 1 February 2002 by which they stated:
1. Preliminarily: (a) that this court does not have any jurisdiction because it is precluded by section 29 (4) of Chapter 251 to consider a claim of invalidity of a contract of nomination of a title of nobility because such an examination would be recognizing or implying the possibility of recognition of the said title;
(b) that the defendant John Bugeja is to be liberated from the demands because he is neither an heir or successor in the title of Lilianina Bugeja Viani; In fact there is no request in regard to the contract Doc B, and he was only party to that contract;
(c) That the plaintiff Christianne Ramsay Pergola has to prove her legal interest because it does not result that she has any interest in the title of nobility in question;
(d) That although the writ only lists one request, in fact there are two distinct and separate requests, one for the nullity, and the other for the rescission in subordinance.
2. On the merits and without prejudice:
That the request for the declaration that the said contract dated 14 January 1985 (Doc A) is null and without effect and is unfounded in fact and in law because:; (a) Joseph John Scicluna Testaferrata had every right to nominate Lilianina Bugeja Viani in the title of Baron of Tabrija by means of a Notary’s deed made “inter vivos” and this nomination cannot in any way be considered to be a testamentary disposition; (b) the proclamation of the Grand Master de Vilhena does not say anywhere that such nomination may only be made by means of a testament and that it would take effect only after the death of the previous holder, which holder has every right to renounce the title whenever and however he wishes;
(c) subordinately, in any event, the same Joseph John Scicluna Testaferrata had confirmed the nomination in favour of Lilianina Bugeja Viani of the same title in the first Article of his secret testament dated 14 January 1985 and published by Notary Dr Tonio Spiteri on the 28 November 1995 (copy BV1) which testament or article was not revoked at any time until he died on the 6 June 1995. In fact, the plaintiffs did not exhibit any testament which revokes.
Save further pleas.
Having seen the declaration of the defendants sworn by Philip Bugeja on the 1 February 2002 and the list of witnesses;
Having seen the record of the sitting of the 7 November 2003 whereby the court case was left for judgment on the defendants’ first plea;
Having seen the acts of the process and the written notes of the defendants;
Considered:
That the Court must decide whether it has jurisdiction to hear the court case because of what is provided in article 29(4) of Chapter 251 of the Laws of Malta which says that no public officer or authority may recognize in any way and may do nothing that means a recognition of a title of nobility;
In effect, the plaintiffs are requesting the nullity of the public contract which took place on the 14 January 1985 in the acts of Notary Jeanette Laferla
Saliba by which contract Joseph John Scicluna Testaferrata Moroni Viani had nominated in the title of Baron of Tabrija Lilianina Bugeja, today deceased, and mother of the defendants;
The plaintiffs are claiming that the said Joseph John Scicluna Testaferrata Moroni Viani did not have the power to do this and effectively stultified the effect of this act by means of his last testamentary dispositions;
The defendants by their pleas are maintaining in effect that if the Court investigates the nullity of the said contract, it would indirectly be recognizing the title of nobility.
The plaintiffs in their written notes are saying that they are only requesting a declaration of nullity of the contract.
One immediately realizes that the plaintiffs’ argument is one which falls in the “petitio principii” or as they say in the English language ‘they are begging the question’. The effect of the declaration requested by the plaintiffs is in effect that the Court decides who is entitled to style himself the Baron of Tabrija. This when the mens legis behind the Chapter 251 is clear. The legislator made it clear that he will not continue recognizing titles of nobility and also wanted that no public authority should take any notice of them.
Society is just not interested if someone calls himself Baron or Count of wherever he wishes, and certainly this should not concern the Court. The plaintiffs may of they wish call themselves whatever they like without requesting the intervention of the Court. It is clear that the legislator did not want the public bodies to waste their time on such matters.
For these motives, the Court upholds the first plea of the defendants and therefore declares that it has no jurisdiction to decide on the plaintiffs’ request, with costs to be borne by the plaintiffs and liberating the defendants from the court case.
This is an appeal, or rather two appeals, from a judgment of the First
Hall of the Civil Court in its ‘conventional’ competence given on the 10 July 2007, by which that Court denied the requests of the applicant Philip Bugeja Viani, with costs against him. It is said “two appeals” because, surprisingly, there is also a cross appeal by the Attorney General.
By means of an application files on the 8 November 2006 before the First Hall of the Civil Court, Philip Bugeja Viani premised that after the death of his mother Helen sive Liliana Bugeja, who had the nobiliary title of Baroness of Tabrija, he made a request to the Committee of Privileges of the Maltese Nobility so that he be recognized as the successor of his mother in the aforesaid title of nobility; This committee appointed a subcommittee to report on his claim, but that subcommittee did not do anything other than await the outcome of a court case in the names “Corinne Ramsey et v. John Bugeja et” which was pending before the First Hall. The applicant continued explaining that in that other case so mentioned, decided on the 30 January 2004, the First Hall upheld his preliminary plea and declared that it “had no jurisdiction to decide on the plaintiffs’ request” and this in view of what is provided in Article 29(4) of Chapter 251 (Law of “Gieh ir-Repubblika”) that no public officer or authority in Malta may in any way recognize any title of nobility. The applicant continued saying in his application that on the 25 July 2005 the Committee of Privileges of the Maltese Nobility informed him that his request that he be recognized as successor of his mother in the title of Baron of Tabrija was not being accepted and that instead, on the recommendation of the subcommittee, Corinne Ramsay Scicluna was so recognized.
The applicant continued saying that he did not agree with the decision of this Committee of Privileges and that “he wanted to impugn by judicial process both the recommendation made by the sub-committee as well as the decision taken by the Committee of Privileges”, but he may not do this because the said article 29(4) precludes “the Courts from considering and deciding causes about disagreements or contestation that may be related to the recognition of a title of nobility..” According to the applicant, this amounts to a violation of Article 6 and 13 of the European Convention, as well as Article 1 of the First Protocol of the said Convention.
Having stated all this, Philip Bugeja Viani requested that court to “give all the necessary remedies, to make such orders and issue such acts and give such directives that it deems equitable so that their (recte: his) fundamental rights be protected, by (1) declaring that Article 29(4) of Chapter 251 of the Laws of Malta violates the right to an effective remedy guaranteed by Article 13 of the European Convention; (2) declares that the applicant has a right to submit to the Maltese Courts for the determination of his civil rights and obligations related to the recognition of any title of nobility (recte: singular); (3) declare moreover that the applicant is being obstructed from the enjoyment of this possession in violation of Article 1 of the First Protocol of Chapter 319 (recte: of the European Convention); and (4) order the payment of fair compensation to the applicant for the breach of his fundamental rights.”
The defendant Attorney General, in his answer of the 21 November 2006, made a preliminary plea that the application was null because it was made by the applicant not in his name which is “Bugeja” but as “Bugeja Viani”. He also pleaded preliminarily that none of the invoked Articles – 6, 13 and Article 1 of the First Protocol – were applicable to the case, as well as that the applicant did not have a legal interest to file the court case. On the merits, he said that the allegations and claims are unfounded in fact and at law.
The Appealed judgment:
After exchanging written notes, and after the cause was heard before the first court during the audience of the 25 May 2007, that court, as said, by a judgment of the 10 July 2007 denied the requests of the applicant, with costs against him. That Court reached its decision after it made the following considerations:
“That it results that the applicant made a request to the Committee of Privileges of the Maltese Nobility so that he be recognized as the successor of his mother in the nobiliary title of Baron of Tabrija. This request was denied and the applicant wished that this decision be reviewed by judicial process, however he is submitting that he is precluded from doing so because Maltese legislation, and precisely, article 29)4) of the Gieh ir-Repubblika Act (Chapter 251 of the laws of Malta). He is alleging that this constitutes a violation of his fundamental rights which are guaranteed by article 6 and 13 of the European Convention (Chapter 319 of the Laws of Malta), and Article 1 of the First Protocol.”
“As this Court sees it, the applicant is submitting that he does not have a ‘right to a court’ when, to a certain point, it does not result whether in fact he has such a right. Article 29(4) of Chapter 251 provides that: “It shall be the duty of every public officer or authority, and of every body established or recognized by law and of every member thereof, to refrain from recognizing in any way, and from doing anything which could imply recognition of, any title of nobility or any honour, award, decoration, membership or office which is not recognised in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this article”.
As the defendant says in his reply, this means that the use of the title claimed by the applicant is expressly prohibited by the law “in any document intended for the public authority”, and no officer or public organ may “recognize” such title. However, this does not mean that such title may not be used on documents or occasions which are not public. Article 28 of the same law says that titles of nobility are “not recognized”, but is does not say that they do not exist or that they were abolished.
The law on Gieh ir-Repubblika did not have the purpose of canceling those titles of nobility, but only to remove all official recognition of the same titles, There is nothing which prevents a person from continuing to use titles of nobility which he enjoys in environments which are social, cultural and others which are not official in the sense of organized or sponsored by the organs of the State. Once this is established, there is nothing to stop members who possess titles of nobility from creating a committee to regulate the succession of those titles.
It appears, in fact, that this committee was created some time ago, and it does not appear that its function is contrary to law. It is not prohibited for a group of people with a similar purpose to create an association or committee which regulates their purpose, and unless such club is not contrary to law, public order or morality there is nothing against the creation of such a society.
In this case, the committee of privileges of the Maltese Nobility does not appear to be acting contrary to the law or public order. It is the law that titles of nobility are not legally or officially recognized, however, there is nothing wrong for those who claim to have some title of nobility to, even within the limits of their interests, regulate who has the right to bear a particular title instead of another. Once, however, this is done, the committee of that club is obliged not only to act within the terms and according to the club statute, but to follow the principles of natural justice in its deliberations.
It is this court’s understanding that each member of a society which has a structure and a formal statute has a right to be treated “fairly” by the same society, and this means that, in his regard, there should be followed the principles of natural justice. If a member alleges that this did not take place, then he has a right to apply to these courts, so that, without entering into the private matters of such club, it be seen that matters take place “fairly”,
The jurisdiction of the ordinary courts of “review” is not limited to the actiosn of the official administration, but is intended as well to see whether the contracts between parties are executed in good faith and “fairly”. If a group of people create an association with specific rules and with a committee which contemplates to regulate who may form part of that society and who may not, these courts have the function of ensuring that those rules be respected and the committee so created, acts in a way which is “fair”, and in particular, follows the principles of natural justice.
When a court acts as said, it is exercising its function to ensure that contracts are executed with equity and for that which is contemplated (art. 993 of the Civil Code) and is not in any way “recognizing” officially the status of the member of that club, The purpose of “judicial review” is not for the court to give a stamp of officialdom to the impugned decision, but to ensure that to arrive at such decision, there were followed the principles of natural justice which are inherent to every process. Whether a decision is of an official administrative nature or not, depends on the organ which delivered it and the laws of the country, however whatever may be the nature of such decision, every person who has an interest has a right to insist that the process is a “fair” one.
Now it is true that for “judicial review” to take place, whoever is exercising the action must show his legal interest in the development of the cause, which interest must exist at the beginning of the cause and continue throughout the hearing of the cause. (“Laferla vs Lauri” decided by this Court on the 2 May, 2002). As the Honorable Court of Appeal said in the cause “Goggi vs Mifsud’, decided on the 11 April,1930, although our code does not make any provision which considers the need for an interest, this need may be desumed from article 236, which talks about the right of appeal “by whoever may have an interest”, and from article 960, which considers the intervention in a cause in statu et terminis, in both cases of the Code of Organization and Civil Procedure. That court continued saying “Fu nondimeno sempre ritenuto nella patria gurisprudenza, malgrado il difetto di una precisa disposizione della legge in materia, e come corollario di (queste) due disposizioni, che base e misura di ogni azione guidiziario e` l’interesse in chi la istituisce e in chi la contesta perche` se l’interesse e una condizione sine qua non per il semplice intervento e per l’appello, e` tale con maggior ragione per poter iniziare un giudizio”.
In this context, the interest must be legal in the sense that this interest must be recognized by law and the action is one intended to obtain a remedy protected by the law.
Because of this requisite, it was decided that the remedies which only go as far as obtaining a simple declaration are not permitted. In the cause “Darmenia vs Borg Oliver noe”, decided by the Honorable Court of Appeal on the 18 February, 1966, it was said “in the system probably followed by our Courts although it is not prohibited for demands to be made to obtain a simple declaration which could be intended for another demand which is definitive or final, even though this is not deducted, the Court must be persuaded that that other remedy may be given; if such consequential remedy is not obtainable from the court, then the declaration is not to be given. See also, “Edrichton Estates Ltd vs Munro Philips & Co Ltd”, decided by this court on the 2 October, 2003, where it is said that in the case of declaratory demands, the Court may take cognizance of them as long as they are intended for another demand which is definitive or final, even if this has still not been deducted in the judicial process (see also “Grech vs Grech”, decided by the Honorable Court of Appeal on the 11 January, 1989).
On the other hand, it was also said” The interest for who makes a cause it is not necessary that it is patrimonial but it may also be moral or abstract, as long as it is of a legal nature, meaning that it must correspond to the injury of a right, and therefore, it is enough, to base such interest even for a simple honorific title. It isn’t even necessary to have a violation of a right real and proper, but it is enough that such right be threatened.– “Axiaq vs Mizzi”, decided by this Honorable Court on the 13 October, 1952 (Kollez. Vol. XXXVI.11.532).
The court, in that cause, continued to hear the cause which concerned the simple interpretation of a legacy, and although, it could have been said that it might not have been executable, “it is not fathomable how a judgment which gives that interpretation may be ignored”.
Also interesting is the decision in the cause “Falzon Sant Manduca vs Weale”, decided by the Honorable Court of Appeal on the 9 January, 1959, (Kollez. Vol XVIII.1.1), where it is said that the interest need not be exchangeable in money or economic value. In the cause, “Ganado vs Ezekuttiv tal-Partit Nazzjonalista”, decided by the Honorable Court of Appeal on the 3 September, 1961, it was also decided that “the right of the plaintiff violated by the impugned decision has moral content, and falls in the category of intangible subjective rights – which right the plaintiff has with this action the interest to be affirmed by the judicial authority.”
In this case, the procedure of “review” that may be attempted by the applicant, could lead to proving his right to the title of nobility claimed by him, which although may not have any patrimonial effect, will surely have a moral content, at least amongst the other members of the club. As said the “intangible subjective rights” may also be affirmed by judicial process.
When it has made an examination of this kind, the court is not interesting itself the decision “ut sic”, and nor should it enter into the considerations which that society would have made to arrive at its decision, but the interest of the court is only to ensure that he has been treated “fairly” by his fellow club members.
Every citizen has a right to this minimal protection by the judicial organ, meaning to ensure that the regulations of the statute of the society to which he belongs be followed and that, in any case, there never be ignored the principles of natural justice (see, as a reflection of this, the decision of this court, in the context of the General Workers Union, decided on the 3 August, 2006 after an application in the names “Attard Sultana vs Zarb et”).
The court is emphasizing that with the procedure of “review”, the court is not and should not substitute the discretion of that club or committee with its own. This, however, does not mean that the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts is completely annihilated by the fact that the discretion may be exercised only by the Board. As the Honorable Court of Appeal said in the cause “Eden Leisure Group vs Borg D’ Anastasi”, decided on the 27 Jun, 2003, “Today it is clear that the Civil Court may review the operations of any administrative tribunal, first so as to ensure that the principles of natural justice have been observed, and second to ensure that there is no wrong or incomplete enunciation of the legal hypothesis; and this without attempting in any way to substitute the Board’s discretion with its own.”
This also was observed by this court in the cause “Power Projects Ltd vs Agius”, decided on the 16 June, 2003, which said that in the context of the decisions of the Industrial Tribunal, those decisions may be reviewed if the Tribunal acts ultra vires of the powers given to it. The Tribunal has to also ensure that justice takes place according to the merits of the substance of the cause, and this without prejudice to the rules of natural justice.
It was also saif that the courts do not have any jurisdiction to reconsider or review the merits of the controversy which was decided by the Tribunal (see also “Falzon vs Grima”, decided by the Honorable Court of Appeal on the 17 April, 1993).
In this context, and within the limits so explained, this court in its ordinary competence, enjoys jurisdiction to examine the operations of the Committee of Privileges of Nobility and this also in the light of the modern tendency that the obligation to observe the principles of natural justice is imposed “upon every one who decides anything” – “Board of Education vs Rice”, decided by the House of Lords in the cause in 1911 and reinforced in the decision of the same House of Lords in the cause “Ridge vs Baldwin”, decided in 1964..
This court is not saying that the title claimed by the applicant is a kind of “possession” that merits protection; this is far away from the Court’s mind. What it is saying is that the right to be treated “fairly” is a civil right which no court may deny. The protected right is not the title of nobility in question, but the right of judicial “review” of the process by which he was denied to be recognized, albeit unofficially but amongst Maltese social strata, as the Baron of Tabrija.
Only this is the civil right that may be invoked by the applicant. He may not expect the State to intervene and decide on who is the baron, count or other grade of nobility. The Maltese State took a political decision to become a Republic, and that, therefore titles of nobility (which are derived from a monarchy) are not to be recognized officially in Malta. The applicant may not, therefore, expect something which the state does not recognize in principle. The applicant may not expect as a civil right, that what the law does not give him. As said by van Dijk and van Hoof, “Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights” (Third Edition, page 394).“Although for the determination of whether a right or obligation is at stake the domestic legal system concerned has to be taken as a starting point, the Strasbourg case law has made it clear that, as part of the provision of the Convention, the words ‘rights and obligations’ have an autonomous meaning. Thus, the Commission held in the Kaplan Case:
‘These concepts [rights and obligations] are in themselves autonomous to some degree. Thus it is not decisive that a given privilege or interest which
exists in a domestic legal system is not classified or described as a ‘right’ by that system. However in deciding whether it is a ‘right’ for the purpose of Article 6(1), account must be taken of its ‘substantive content and effects’, the object and purpose of the Convention and the national legal systems of other Contracting States.’”
“If, according to this line of interpretation, a certain claim is considered to be a ‘right’, the Court’s case-law requires for the applicability of Article 6 that this right ‘can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognized under domestic law’. The words ‘on arguable grounds’ leave the Commission and Court sufficient ground to make an assessment independently of the arguments advanced by the defendant State on the issue. And the fact that the claim concerned was addressed as an issue in national proceedings constitutes sufficient ground for the ‘arguability’ of the existence of a right. On the other hand, if domestic law expressly excludes the claim concerned the Court takes the position that ‘to this extent’ there can be no arguable right which would make Article 6 applicable” (underlining by this court).
Although the application is a bit vague as to what sort of “judicial examination” is expected by the applicant, it is clear in the opinion of the court that the applicant does not have any right to expect more than what was expressed before in this decision. A Title of nobility ut sic may not be regarded as a “possession” for the purposes of the European Convention.
One may not forget that the Government, by the law on Gieh ir-Repubblika, neither abolished those titles and, more importantly, nor did it divest the claimer of nobility from the property attached to that title (artikolu 28(2) of Chapter 251). Therefore as said in the aforesaid book by van Dijk and van Hoof, (ibid page 620), “The basic point of departure appears to be the economic value of the right or interest: where State measures do no affect this economic value, no responsibility under Article 1 is engaged”.
In fact the European Court of Human Rights in the cause “Pilar de la Cierva Osorio de Moscoso et vs Spain”, decided on the 28 October, 1999, had clearly observed that “a nobility title cannot, as such, be regarded as amounting to a ‘possession’ within the meaning of that provision”, that is to say the first article of the first protocol of the Convention.
Therefore, because this court sees, within the limits of that stated before, that the applicant had from the very beginning a “a right to a court” for the judicial examination of the decision made in his regard by the Committee of Privileges of the Nobility of Malta, it cannot uphold the demand of the applicant that he is being denied a right of access to the courts. As far as he claims more than that, the applicant is not entitled to it.
For all intents, in the context of the preliminary plea of the defendant regarding the name of the applicant, as the Honorable Court of Appeal had said in the cause “Vella et vs Galea et”, decided on the 23 October, 1991 “Jean or John Mifsud and Jean Missud – are the same person. This means that the same person is described in different ways, but on such person’s identity there is absolutely no reasonable doubt. Now it is just as clear, obvious and without a shadow of doubt that it is persons who acquire rights and have obligations, and the names and surnames are to there to help identify and distinguish one person from another”. (underlining by this court).
The Appeal and Cross Appeal:
From this judgment Philip Bugeja Viani appealed by an application filed by him on the 19 July 2007. Basically, he continued insisting that the article 29(4) of Chapter 251 violates his rights as protected by Articke 6 and 13 of the Convention, as well as Article 1 of the First Protocol of the same Convention. He is insisting that this is the implication of the judgment of the First Hall of the 3 January, 2004 in the names Corinne Ramsay et v. John Bugeja et, mentioned in his initial application. He is also complaining that the in the appealed judgment there is no reference to the judgment of the European Court Golder v. United Kingdom.
The Attorney General made a cross appeal. The appeal of the Attorney General is in fact not the “decide” of the judgment of the 10 July 2007, but of the motivations or arguments that took the First Hall to decide how it decided – and this, as we saw, decided by denying the demands of the applicant Philip Bugeja Viani.
Considerations made by this Court:
This Court starts out by saying, without any hesitation whatsoever, that it completely agrees with the conclusion reached by the first court in the appealed judgment. That what was effectively said by the first court – and this is being said in different words because it appears that both the appellant Bugeja Viani as well as the appealed Attorney General misunderstood – was that the title of nobility “ut sic” (and therefore independently of any property right derived from that title, and which remained unprejudiced in view of what is provided in article 28(2) of Chapter 251), once it is not recognized in our legal system (Article 28(1), Chapter 251), it may not be a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of the First Protocol, and neither may it give rise to a contestation regarding “a civil right or obligation”. For completeness, there is being reproduced below a bit more “in extensor” the decision of the European Court in the case cited by the first court in the appealed judgment, and that is to say that of De la Cierva Osorio de Moscoso and others v. Spain: “The Court reiterates that under its case-law the Article relied upon does no more than enshrine the right of everyone to the peaceful enjoyment of “his” possessions. Consequently, it applies only to a person’s existing possessions and does not guarantee the right to acquire possessions whether on intestacy or through voluntary dispositions (see, mutatis mutandis, the Marckx v. Belgium judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 23, § 50; and the Van der Mussele v. Belgium judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, § 48). “Furthermore, while a legitimate expectation of acquiring property may in certain instances be equated to a “possession” within the meaning of paragraph 1 of Article 1, such an expectation is always dependent on the commitment of a third party; that is the case, for example, with the granting of a commercial operating licence by the authorities (see the Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, p. 23, § 51; and the Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159, p. 22, § 55).“The Court considers that a nobiliary title cannot, as such, be regarded as amounting to a “possession” within the meaning of that provision. In general, the same applies to a mere hope of being able to exploit such a title commercially, for example, as a trademark. Since in the instant case the applicants are unable to assert the right to use the nobiliary titles concerned, a fortiori, they cannot claim any legitimate expectation concerning the commercial exploitation of those titles. In these circumstances and in accordance with Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, the Court considers that the applicants’ complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken alone and under Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 must be dismissed as being incompatible ratione materiae with those provisions.”
The non-recognition of the said title – and always save what is provided in the said Article 28(2) – also brings as a consequence that the Articles 6(1) and 13 of the Convention are not applicable – see, of note the decisions of the Court of Strasbourg in the names Wolff Metternich v.Netherlands (18 May 1999) and Bernadotte v. Sweden (3 June 2004). In the latter judgment in particular it is said as follows: “The applicant complained that it was not possible for him
under Swedish law to challenge the current King’s refusal to restore his title of prince. This entailed a violation of his right to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal under Article 6 of the Convention. In the alternative, he submitted, this state of affairs amounted to a violation of his right to an effective remedy as guaranteed by Article 13. In addition, the applicant alleged that the manner in which his case had been handled amounted to discrimination on grounds of “birth or other status”, in breach of Article 14 taken together with Articles 6, 8 and 13.
“The Government invited the Court to declare inadmissible the complaints under Articles 6 and 13, as being incompatible “ratione materiae”, as well as the complaint under Article 14.
“The Court, for its part, bearing in mind its findings above with respect to Article 8, considers that the dispute in question did not concern a “right” that could arguably be said to be recognised under domestic law or an arguable claim of violation of the Convention. Articles 6 and 13 too were therefore inapplicable and so was Article 14.”
The first court, however, explained that when there is a contractual tie brought about by a statute of a committee, club or other body, there is a basis for a “judicial review” simply to see whether the agreed procedure was followed by which certain decisions were to be taken, as well as to assure that there were observed the rules of natural justice. This, and only this, was decided by the Court. And what it decided is correct. The judgment Golder, which is really, as well stated by the appellant, an important one for determining the parameters of Article 6(1) of the Convention, is not relevant to the case being considered today. It is one matter of a judgment which elaborates general principles and another matter of the application of those principles to the concrete case.
Nor may the appellant raise an argument in his favour based on the judgment of the First Hall of the Civil Court of the 30 January 2004 in the names Corinne Ramsay et v. John Bugeja et. In that cause the plaintiffs demanded that the court declares null and without effect a contract made on the 14 January 1985 by which a person was claiming to, in the exercise of the power given to him by proclamation of the Grand Master de Vilhena nominating in the title of Baron of Tabrija, another person. The plaintiffs had contested this contract precisely because according to them the proclamation of the Grand Master de Vilhena did not give this power.
The First Hall simply decided that it had no jurisdiction to decide the plaintiffs’ demand because of the provisions of Article 29(4) of Chapter 251. It does not result – at least from the acts available to this court – whether an appeal was made from that judgment. That what was decided in the judgment Ramsay v. Bugeja is in agreement with that decided by the appealed judgment namely that:-
“[The applicant] may not expect the State to intervene and decide on who is the baron, count or other grade of nobility. The Maltese State took a political decision to become a Republic, and that, therefore titles of nobility (which are derived from a monarchy) are not to be recognized officially in Malta. The applicant may not, therefore, expect something which the state does not recognize in principle.”
Therefore the principal appeal is manifestly unfounded.
In regard to the cross appeal of the Attorney General, this is simply a frivolous one, because apart from that this court agrees with all the motivations and arguments of the first court, it is difficult for one to understand how one may make an appeal from the “motivation” of the judgment instead of the “decide”.
Decide:
For the premised reasons, denies both the principal appeal with the costs of this principal appeal to be paid by the appellant Philip Bugeja Viani, and also denies the cross appeal, with the costs of this cross appeal to be borne by the Attorney General, and confirms “in toto” the appealed judgment.
The title of “Barone della Tabria” was conferred by Grand Master Vilhena, by patent of the 11th December 1728, on Isidoro Viani. The title is purely nominal and does not have any property attached to it. In their general observations, the Royal Commissioners observed that most of the titles granted by the Grandmasters were merely honorary and had no relevance on property tenure “although it appears that those titles (granted by the Grand Masters) have derived their different denominations from several feudal lands existing in these islands, this annexation, however, is in most cases purely nominal, for those lands were never in reality conveyed to the grantees, but they remained as they are still Government Property.” The Commissioners also identified the only three exceptions to this purely nominal phenomenon, where tenure of property was a prerequisite namely Bahria, delle Catene, and Senia, the last being a divisible property. See:- ‘Correspondence and Report of the Commission appointed to enquire into the claims and grievances of the Maltese Nobility’, May 1878, presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty (C.-2033.) (See Report Paras. 82).
This title was conferred on Isidoro Viani with power given to him and his descendants of nominating a successor, and in failure of such nomination with automatic transmission to the first born descendant in the primogenial line. The grant is precisely as in the title San Marciano (See:- “Correspondence and Report of the Commission appointed to enquire into the claims and grievances of the Maltese Nobility”, May 1878, presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty (C.-2033.) (See Report Paras. 31-32).
Altogether the Grand Masters created six titles which are disposable by nomination, namely Gomerino (Perellos), Budack (Perellos),San Marciano (Vilhena); Tabria (Vilhena), Culeja (Despuig) and Benuarrat (Despuig).
The actual report says the following:
“The fourth title is that of ‘Barone della Tabria’, granted by Grand Master Manoel, by patent, on the 11th December 1728, to the nobleman Isidoro Viani, and to one of his male or female descendents, with power to each holder of the title to name his successor, precisely as in the preceding title ‘barone di San Marciano’ – Tibi Nobili Isidoro Viani et post tui obitum uni ex filiis vel filiabus legitimis et naturalibus ex telegitime procreatis vel procreandis, quem vel quam omni futuro constitutus seu respective constituta, malueritis eligendum vel eligendam. Et in casu tui vel tuorum in infinitu decessus absque ulla nominatione vel elctione successoris in dicto titulo, ex nunc censeatur nominatus et electus primogenitus, nisi erit ad sacros ordines promotus et in religione professus, et in defectu marium, foemina primogenita…”
This title is held by Dr. Giuseppe Testaferrata Viani a lineal descendent of Isidoro Viani, first baron, as appears from documents exhibited by him. He does not however, uninterruptedly descend from a male line, for Barone Isidoro was succeeded in the title by Barone Gio Battista Viani, his son. Barone Gio Battista having left on his death no male issue the title was inherited by his daughter, Anna Viani, who married Mario Testaferrata, the claimant’s great-grandfather. It is for this reason that the real claimant’s family name is Testaferrata and not Viani. But as in the grant it is provided that in default of male issue the title is inheritable by female descendents, the said Dr. Giuseppe, although he descends from the grantee through a female line, is entitled to enjoy the present barony. No person having appeared to dispute his claim, he will be therefore included in the list, under the name of Dr. Giuseppe Testaferrata, “Barone di Tabria” This gentleman claims also the title of “Marchese” as one of the descendents of Mario Testaferrata. This point will be considered in another part of the present Report when we shall inquire into the titles granted by foreign sovereigns.
It is to be remarked that after the Commissioners Report a court case took place between Testaferrata Viani’s nephews ex sorore. It appears that Testaferrata Viani decided to nominate his younger nephew to succeed him in the barony. The elder nephew claimed that the nomination was invalid. However the court did not enter the merits of the validity of the nomination because it held that at that time, the only person who could exercise such an action was the parties aunt because she was older than their predeceased mother and therefore the primogenita. The court thus concluded that unless the action was exercised by Isidoro Viani’s primogenialdescendant, the nomination is to take effect.
Atteso che, inoltre lo stesso Gran Maestro, dopo di avere disposto dell’ annua consegna di un fucile che doveva essere fatta a lui e a tutti i suoi successori nel Magistero, si i expresso nei termini seguenti: Qua stante recognitione tam Te Nobilem Isidorum Viani quam tuos in hujusmodi Baroniae titulu successors ex te descendentes ab omni alio onere eximus et liberamus. Il Gran Maestro adunque contemplr tutii i discendenti dal concessionario, come persone capaci a posedere la detta Baronia, e le quali egli esentava da qualunque uleteriore prestazioneannua. Or se i vero, come i verissimo che quella Baronia pur essere posseduta da tutti i discendenti di esso Isidoro, come i altresi vero checiascun successore per regola generale ha da esere eletto e nominato, egli i sufficiente che siffatto successore per potere essere valildamentenominato appartenga alla discendenza di detto Isidoro, quantunque talora non sia discendente dal nominante. Atteso che, quindi qualunquerestrizione del diritto di nominare accordato ad ogni possessore della Baronia a favor dei discendenti die so Isidoro Viani, sarebbeinconciliabile coi termini liberi della concessione del Principe, secondo la quale la sola volontdel possessore doveva regolare chi dovessegodere il detto Titolo di Nobilt, tra i discendenti del detto concessionario, senza veruna distinzione di grado, di et` e talora di sesso di talidiscendenti elilgibili: salvo il provvedimento dato pel caso di eventuale mancanza di nomina. Atteso che, stante quanto precede in riguardoal detto Titolo Baronale, non i necessario ni utile di esaminare se sia anche di ostacolo alle proposte istanze dell’ attore, la esistenza di dettaNobile Orade Testaferrata Viani supposta la legittima succeditrice nel Titolo suddetta, come primogenita nella discendenza di Isidoro Viani.Poichi il primogenito o la primogenita avrebbe diritto a succedere nel detto titolo nel difetto di nomina da parte del possessore, ovveroqualora la fatta nomina fosse riconoscuta inefficace; e la nomina dall’ ultimo possesore fatta in persona del convenuto relativamente al dettoTitolo Baronale, ha, per le ragioni che precedono, da produrre il suo effetto.
Today it is no longer possible to effect any nomination. In the Gieh ir-Repubblika Act (ACT XXIX of 1975), the law dictates that it is “the duty of every public officer or authority, and of every body established or recognised by law and of every member thereof, to refrain from recognising in any way, and from doing anything which could imply recognition of, any title of nobility”. A similar duty is imposed in regard to other foreign honours which have not obtained approval by the local authorities.
Sources: Jean Tulard, Napoléon et la noblesse d’Empire. Bibliothèque napoléonienne. Paris, Tallandier, 1979; and MaltaGenealogy.com.
Jean Tulard (born 22 December 1933, Paris) is a French academic and historian, specialising in the history of cinema, of the French Consulate and the First French Empire. He is a member of the Académie des sciences morales et politiques since 1994. Tulard was one of the experts involved in verifying the heart believed to be that of Louis XVII of France, actually the Dauphin of France as the heir apparent to the throne, who died in 1795 in imprisonment. Scientists using DNA samples from Queen Anne of Romania, and her brother Andre de Bourbon-Parme, maternal relatives of Louis XVII, and from a strand of Marie-Antoinette’s hair, proved the young royal’s identity. Historic evidence as to the location of the heart over the decades was also considered. In a summary of the investigation in 2004, Tulard wrote: “This heart is … almost certainly that of Louis XVII. We can never be 100 per cent sure but this is about as sure as it gets“. In April 2010, he became Commander of the Légion d’honneur.
First Empire under Napoleon I (18 May 1804 – 11 April 1814; 20 March – 22 June 1815)
List of Honours granted in the First Empire.
1. Signes Interieurs
Princes de L’Empire – Chef d’Azure a’ l’aigle d’oro, les ailes etendues empietant un foundre du meme.
1. Avout d’Auerstaedt, Louis-Nicolas, created Duc d’Auerstaedt 2 July 1808, Prince d’Eckmulh 25 November 1809, (1770 Auxonne – 1823 Paris, married with issue.
2. Bacciochi, Felix-Pascal, created Prince de Lucques et de Piombino 2 June 1805, Prince de Massa-Carrara et de la Garfagna 30 march 1806, married with issue.
3. Bonaparte, Marie-Anne-Elisa, created Princesse de Lucques et de Piombino 19 march 1805, Grand Duchesse de Toscane 3 March 1809, married to Bacciochi.
First Empire under Napoleon I (18 May 1804 – 11 April 1814; 20 March – 22 June 1815)
List of Honours granted in the First Empire.
1. Signes Interieurs
Princes de L’Empire – Chef d’Azure a’ l’aigle d’oro, les ailes etendues empietant un foundre du meme.
1. Avout d’Auerstaedt, Louis-Nicolas, created Duc d’Auerstaedt 2 July 1808, Prince d’Eckmulh 25 November 1809, (1770 Auxonne – 1823 Paris, married with issue.
2. Bacciochi, Felix-Pascal, created Prince de Lucques et de Piombino 2 June 1805, Prince de Massa-Carrara et de la Garfagna 30 march 1806, married with issue.
3. Bonaparte, Marie-Anne-Elisa, created Princesse de Lucques et de Piombino 19 march 1805, Grand Duchesse de Toscane 3 March 1809, married to Bacciochi.
On 11 October 2014, Dr. Gary Brian O’Sullivan (California, 1955) was elected as the Hereditary Chief of the Name of the Ó Súilleabháin Clan of Munster by the derbhfine (male descendants of a common great-grandfather) at Dunderry Castle (1) in the village of Gravier, near Nevers, France (source: minutes of the meeting). He is since then designated as GarraíEoin Brian Ó Súilleabháin MhicRaith:
Dr. Ó Súilleabháin is a certified, direct, male, descendant of MeicRaith, the Chief of the Ó Súilleabháin Clan c. 1400 AD.
(…)
On October 11, 2014, Dr. Ó Súilleabháin was elected as the Hereditary Chief of the Name of the Ó Súilleabháin Clann of Munster by the derbhfine of the clan, upon the abdication of his older brother, Donal Seosamh Ó Súilleabháin MhicRaith III, (Hereditary Chief of the Name of the Ó Súilleabháin Clann of Munster 2004 – 2014).
This article addresses the question to what extent the claims of Dr. O’Sullivan are, from a historical and legal perspective, legitimate.
I start by addressing the nature of ancient Irish society, since this puts the older genealogy of the O’Sullivan family in a broader perspective. Then, I explain the main characteristics of Irish family history in order to understand the difficulties that Irish genealogists face. Subsequently, I describe Dr. O’Sullivan’s line of succession, which is the core of the study.
The relations between the Spanish and Irish nobility need to be mentioned in order to understand the relevance of the registration of the coat of arms of Dr. O’Sullivan by Don Alfonso de Ceballos-Escalera y Gila, Marques de la Floresta, as Chronicler of Arms for Castile and León.
The aforementioned paragraphs form the basis for the conclusions of this study.
Ancient Irish society
In Gaelic Ireland, society was organized around traditional kinship groups. The terms “tribe”, “clan” and “sept” refer to such groups. Due to a lack of historical sources, it is impossible to exactly define the nature of these entities. As Irish nationalist politician and lawyer Laurence Ginnell (1852-1923) put it: “Knowledge of the real nature of the Ireland’s clan or tribal system would be a master-key to much connected with ancient Ireland that is now mysterious, and would remove many stumbling-blocks, if not all.” He explains:
Tuath, Cinel, and Clann, were the words used interchangeably to denote what we now call indifferently a clan or tribe. It resembled the Gens of ancient Rome in that all the members of it claimed descent from a remote fine, and from a common ancestor as head of that fine, and were therefore kinsfolk, were entitled severally to various rights dependent on the degree of relationship and other facts, and formed collectively a state, political and proprietorial, with a distinct municipal individuality and life, with a legislature of its own and an army in gremio; but in these two latter respects slightly subject to, and forming a member of, a superior state consisting of a federation of similar communities. Each clan was composed of a number of septs, and each sept was composed of a number of fines. Kinship was the web and bond of society throughout the whole clan; and all lesser rights whatsoever were subject to those of the clan.
Theoretically, it was a true kinship of blood, but in practice it may have been to some extent one of absorption or adoption. Strangers settling in the district, conducting themselves well, and intermarrying with the clan, were after a few generations indistinguishable from it. A chief or a flaith also occasionally wished to confer on a stranger the dignity and advantages of clanship—practically meaning citizenship—and when he had obtained the sanction of the clan assemblies, the stranger was adopted in the presence of the assembled clan by public proclamation.
In the course of time the name Tuath came to be applied to the district occupied by a clan, and Cinel (pronounced Kinnel) was then the word used to denote the clan itself. Fine (pronounced Finna) was also sometimes used in the broad sense of clan, and this was not strictly incorrect since every clan originated in a small fine; but the word fine properly meant one of a number of sub-organisms of which the clan consisted. It was a miniature clan, and in fact the germ of a clan and the real social and legal unit.
It was considerably more comprehensive than our word family. It has been compared with the Roman familia, but it was more comprehensive than even that. When complete it consisted of the Flaith-fine (also called Ceann-fine), and sixteen other male members, old members not ceasing to belong to it until sufficient new members had been born or adopted into it, upon which event happening the old were in rotation thrust out to the sept, and perhaps began to form new fines. Women, children, and servants did not enter into this computation. The flaith-fine, or paterfamilias, was the head and most important member of the group, in some sense its guardian and protector, and was the only member in full possession and free exercise of all the rights of citizenship. All the members had certain distinct and well-recognised rights, and, if of full age, were sui juris and mutually liable to and for each other; but so long as they remained in the fine, the immediate exercise of some of their rights was vested in the flaith-fine, who should act for them or in whose name they should act. “No person who is under protection is qualified to sue.”
There are various conflicting theories as to the persons of whom and the manner in which this organism was composed, and even as to whether it was in fact ever composed or ever existed except as a legal fiction; and no explanation of it or conjecture about it is free from difficulty. Having regard, however, to the frequent mention of it, and of the “seventeen men” of whom it consisted, by various legal and other writers at times far apart and in various connections, it is quite impossible to believe that it was fictitious; but in practice it may not often have attained or long retained that perfect organisation which the law contemplated; and the law itself may have contemplated different things at different times. Whether the members of it became members on their birth, or on attaining manhood and acquiring property; whether they included or represented all within the fifth degree of relationship, or all within the seventeenth degree, are matters in dispute.
Laurence Ginnell, The Brehon Laws: A Legal Handbook. Husain Press, 2013.
The Book of Ballymote (Irish: Leabhar Bhaile an Mhóta) is a 14th century Irish manuscript, beautifully written on vellum. The original Book was presented to the Royal Irish Academy in 1785. Many scholars have studied its content and form. Its size and extent, the range of material it contains and its beautiful illumination, show that this manuscript is an important work of late medieval learning. Its 251 folios contain, among many other works, texts such as the Book of Invasions (Irish: Lebor Gabála Érenn), the Book of Rights (Irish:Lebor na Cert), the dinnshenchas of Ireland (Irish: Dindshenchas Érenn), the prose ‘Lore of women‘ (Irish: Banshenchas Érenn), the Fitness of Names (Irish: Cóir Anmann), and extensive genealogical material, including the pedigrees of some of the most prominent Irish groups and families. These lineages are highly detailed, certainly when compared with the genealogies of the Merovingian king and Empower Charlemagne (source: lectureThe Book of Ballymote: a genealogical treasure trove; range and purpose, Academy House, 6 February 2015 by Donnchadh Ó Corráin, MRIA, emeritus Professor of Medieval History at University College Cork).
The (Great) Book of Leacan (Irish: Leabhar (Mór) Leacáin), named after Castle Forbes, Leacan, where it was composed between 1397 and 1418, is one of the greatest and most authentic works in Irish history. It contains a large amount of genealogical material, especially relating to the families with which the Mac Firbisigh, with their family castle, in the parish of Laeckan, Tireragh, County Sligo, were associated. The manuscript is voluminous and written on vellum. The original Book of Leacan is preserved at the Royal Irish Academy, and a copy is stored in the Royal Library at Windsor.
Both aforementioned works contain copies of the Book of Munster (Irish: An Leabhar Muimhneach). The manuscript was written in 1709 by Diarmuid Ó Conchubhair (Dermod Connor) for Muiris Ó Sobháin (Maurice Sovane or Savage) in the latter’s house at Ballineedora, parish Ballymacelligot, barony of Trughanacmy, County Kerry. The work is principally compiled from the ancient record; the Psalter of Cashel, containing notices of the History of Ireland from the earliest period to the end of the fourteenth century; in particular, relating to the history of Munster. It gives an account of its kings, chiefs, clans, and principal families, and includes important information on the ancient Irish laws, arts, agriculture, commerce, and customs.
The source of the first generations is the forementioned Book of Munster. Copies of the Book of Munster are inserted in the Books of Leacan and Ballymote. The dates of births are estimates, based on the fact that in medieval Irish genealogies three generations invariably equal almost precisely 100 years (source: Professor Nollaig Ó Muraíle).
Modern Irish genealogy
Modern Irish family history can also be challenging, because of (a combination of) three main reasons:
Administrative districts in Ireland have changed over time. It is therefore required to distinguish between a parish, townland, civil registration district, barony and county;
Most of Ireland’s 19th-century census records (population reports) were destroyed in the 1922 fire at the Public Records Office of Ireland. Only fragments survive;
In Ireland, non-Catholic marriages were registered from 1845. Catholic marriages begin in 1864. Ireland’s parish records are the main source of information before 1864.
Ireland was one of the first places in Europe to adopt hereditary surnames (since circa the early 900s). Medieval Irish society was organized around the extended family, that determined a person’s daily life. This continues to be an essential part of today’s Irish society. There are certain interesting anomalies associated with Irish first names. Traditionally, most Irish families named their children as follows:
The eldest son is often named after his paternal grandfather;
The second son is often named after his maternal grandfather;
The third son is often named after his father;
The fourth son is often named after his father’s oldest brother;
There was also a similar, but less closely followed, pattern for naming Irish girls.
These circumstances require specific expertise when conducting Irish genealogical research.
Irregularities
In recent times, some irregularities regarding the genealogies of ancient Irish families have been exposed:
One area which caused the writer particular concern was that of spurious ‘Clans’ and bogus ‘Chiefs’. In the first place, as Edward MacLysaght and other authorities were at pains to point out, Ireland never had a clan system like that of Scotland, and MacLysaght advised that the term ‘sept’ is more appropriate in the Irish context. (1) In the second place, the thorough destruction by the English of Gaelic political structures in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, allied with the loss of so many Irish records over the centuries, mean that only a handful of families can truly trace their lineages back to a duly inaugurated Chief. Nevertheless, Government and tourism interests required that Irish ‘Clan’ organisations should be brought into being, and that new ‘Chiefs’ should be found. Thus although it regularly pleaded lack of resources adequate to perform basic genealogical tasks, in 1989 the State’s Genealogical Office/Office of the Chief Herald of Ireland found space in its new premises in Kildare Street, Dublin, for the organisation known as the ‘Clans of Ireland’. It would be fair to say that most Irish genealogists acquiesced in the face of this tourism-driven ‘clansterism’, or indeed actively supported it. (2) For his pains in opposing the march of pseudo-genealogy and pseudo-heraldry and attempting to assert some kind of standards, the writer found himself isolated from most of his professional colleagues and effectively barred from contract work in the Genealogical Office from 1993.
Sean Murphy, Irish Historical Mysteries: The MacCarthy Mór Hoax, Centre for Irish Genealogical and Historical Studies
Under these circumstances, it is important to investigate claims, like Dr. O’Sullivan’s, very carefully.
Genealogy of The Ó Súilleabháin MhicRaith
The first nine generations are based on the aforementioned Book of Munster. The subsequent generations are based on research by Riobard O’Dwyer, a genealogical expert on the history of the Béarra peninsula, County Cork, Ireland. O’Dwyer has recently completed theAnnals of Beara; a three-volume, 2,000-plus-page monumental set in which all the parish records of the Beara peninsula are recorded.
I. MeicRaith (Cragh), The Ó Súilleabháin Mór
MeiccRaith, mic Dúnlaing in The Book of Munster. He was the last Ó Súilleabháin Mór to enjoy the rights of primogeniture. MeicRaith had a younger brother, Ruairi, from whom descend the cadet “Ó Súilleabháin Mór Sept.
Ó Donnchadha, Tadhg (ed.), An Leabhar Muimhneach maraon le suim aguisíní (The Book of Munster). Produced for the Irish Manuscripts Commission / Baile Átha Cliath: Foillseacháin Rialtais. 1940, p. 219.
II. Dónal (* ca. 1394 -), The Ó Súilleabháin MhicRaith
Domhnaill, mic MeicRaith in The Book of Munster.
Ó Donnchadha, Tadhg (ed.), An Leabhar Muimhneach maraon le suim aguisíní (The Book of Munster). Produced for the Irish Manuscripts Commission / Baile Átha Cliath: Foillseacháin Rialtais. 1940, p. 219.
III. Conor (* ca. 1430 -), The Ó Súilleabháin MhicRaith
Conchubhair, mic Domhnaill in The Book of Munster.
Ó Donnchadha, Tadhg (ed.), An Leabhar Muimhneach maraon le suim aguisíní (The Book of Munster). Produced for the Irish Manuscripts Commission / Baile Átha Cliath: Foillseacháin Rialtais. 1940, p. 219.
IV. Eoin (* ca. 1466 -), The Ó Súilleabháin MhicRaith
Eoghain, mic Conchubhair in The Book of Muster.
Ó Donnchadha, Tadhg (ed.), An Leabhar Muimhneach maraon le suim aguisíní (The Book of Munster). Produced for the Irish Manuscripts Commission / Baile Átha Cliath: Foillseacháin Rialtais. 1940, p. 219.
V. Buodach (* ca. 1502 -), The Ó Súilleabháin MhicRaith
Buadhaigh, mic Eoghain in The Book of Munster.
Ó Donnchadha, Tadhg (ed.), An Leabhar Muimhneach maraon le suim aguisíní (The Book of Munster). Produced for the Irish Manuscripts Commission / Baile Átha Cliath: Foillseacháin Rialtais. 1940, p. 219.
VI. Donogh (* ca. 1538 -), The Ó Súilleabháin MhicRaith
Diarmada, mic Buadhaigh in the Book of Munster.
Ó Donnchadha, Tadhg (ed.), An Leabhar Muimhneach maraon le suim aguisíní (The Book of Munster). Produced for the Irish Manuscripts Commission / Baile Átha Cliath: Foillseacháin Rialtais. 1940, p. 219.
VII. Conor (* ca. 1574 -), The Ó Súilleabháin MhicRaith
Conchubhair, mic Diarmada in the Book of Munster.
Ó Donnchadha, Tadhg (ed.), An Leabhar Muimhneach maraon le suim aguisíní (The Book of Munster). Produced for the Irish Manuscripts Commission / Baile Átha Cliath: Foillseacháin Rialtais. 1940, p. 219.
VIII. Eoin (* ca. 1610 -), The Ó Súilleabháin MhicRaith
Eoghain, mic Conchubhair in the Book of Munster.
Ó Donnchadha, Tadhg (ed.), An Leabhar Muimhneach maraon le suim aguisíní (The Book of Munster). Produced for the Irish Manuscripts Commission / Baile Átha Cliath: Foillseacháin Rialtais. 1940, p. 219.
IX. Dermot (c. 1646 -), The Ó Súilleabháin MhicRaith
Diaraid mac Eoghain in The Book of Munster.
Ó Donnchadha, Tadhg (ed.), An Leabhar Muimhneach maraon le suim aguisíní (The Book of Munster). Produced for the Irish Manuscripts Commission / Baile Átha Cliath: Foillseacháin Rialtais. 1940, p. 219.
X. Eoin Ó Súilleabháin MhicRaith (* ca. 1682-), the Ó Súilleabháin Mór
Documentation for Eoin (Owen / John) (John Greath) Ó Súilleabháin MhicRaith (born c. 1682) was found in Account Books B & C of the Bantry House Collection of the University College Cork (Coláiste na hOllscoile Corcaigh), B. Estate Administration, 1. Rentals, 1.1 Ledgers, 440, 441; 1740 – 1775. He is also recorded in O’Donovan’s Ordnance Survey in a letter from Thomas O’Connor of Killarney, dated August 29, 1841, listing the genealogical line of the Ó Súilleabháin MhicRaith sept.
Bantry House Collection of the University College
Upon the death of ‘The Ó Súilleabháin Mór’ (MhicRuairi) in Tomies (County Kerry), on 16 April 1754, the official title, ‘The Ó Súilleabháin Mór’, reverted to the descendants of MeicRaith:
Another branch of the O’Sullivan clan resided at the castle of Cappanacushy [sic]. They were often called the Mac Crah, as being descendants of a chief called Mac Crah. They were, it appears, the senior branch of the O’Sullivan race, but had been deprived of the chieftanship through the workings of the law of Tanistry. The younger brother of Mac Crah had succeeded him as chief and had managed to secure the succession of his own sons, excluding his nephews, who had the best right to the chieftanship. The Slíocht Mac Crah had to content themselves with an estate of twenty ploughlands, and the reversionary right to the chieftanship, if the ruling house should become extinct.”
William F.T. Butler, Gleanings from Irish History, Longmans, Green, and Co., 1925, p. 47. A history of the ancient Kingdom of Desmond (the western districts of Cork and the southern half of Kerry), the clans of the area, with a special emphasis on the MacCarthy family, who ruled the kingdom of South Munster.
XI. Dermot Ó Súilleabháin MhicRaith (* ca. 1718)
Documentation for Dermot (Darby a Sheáin) Ó Súilleabháin MhicRaith (born c. 1718) was also found in Account Book C of the Bantry House Collection. He is also recorded in O’Donovan’s Ordnance Survey in a letter from Thomas O’Connor of Killarney, dated August 29, 1841, listing the genealogical line of the Ó Súilleabháin MhicRaith sept.
Account Book C of the Bantry House Collection and O’Donovan’s Ordnance Survey
XII. Eoin (Owen / John), The Ó Súilleabháin Mór (* ca. 1749)
Documentation for Eoin/Owen (John Darby) Ó Súilleabháin MhicRaith (born c. 1749) was found in the 1827 Tithe List for Doire Chonaire where he is listed as John Darby (Eoin, son of Dermot).
1827 Tithe List for Doire Chonaire
XIII. Séamus Ó Súilleabháin MhicRaith (* ca. 1770)
Documentation for Séamus (James Crath) Ó Súilleabháin MhicRaith (born c.1770) was also found in the 1827 Tithe List for Doire Chonaire where he is listed as James Crath. James had two sons, Muircheartach [Murty Cragh (I)] and Dermot (Jerem), the two progenitors of the Ó Súilleabháin Murts and Ó Súilleabháin Jers of Doire Chonaire.
Tithe List for Doire Chonaire
XIV. Muircheartach Mór I (Murtagh Cragh), The Ó Súilleabháin Mór (* ca. 1791)
Documentation for Muircheartach Mór [Murty Cragh (I)] Ó Súilleabháin MhicRaith (born c. 1791) was also found in the 1827 Tithe List for Doire Chonaire where he is listed as Murty Cragh. He is an adult property owner, according to this document. His estimated birth year was 1791, making him about 36 years old at this time. He is also registered in the Adrigole Parish Records as the father of John McGrath, who was baptized in Doire Chonaire on March 16, 1834. Murty Cragh (I) was about 43 years old when John was born. The wife of Murty Cragh (I) is identified as Ellen Shanahan in the Adrigole Parish Records. Murty Cragh (I) was about 25 years old when he sired his oldest son, Muircheartach Mór [Mort Crath (II)] in 1816. Murty Cragh (I) is also listed in Griffith’s Valuation for Kilcasken Parish (1848 – 1864).
Tithe List for Doire Chonaire, Adrigole Parish Records and Griffith’s Valuation for Kilcasken Parish.
XV. Muircheartach Mór II (Murtagh Cragh), The Ó Súilleabháin Mór (* 1816-1882)
Documentation for Muircheartach Mór [Mort Crath (II)] Ó Súilleabháin MhicRaith (born 1816) was also found in the Adrigole Parish Records where his marriage to Mary Crath was recorded on May 4, 1841. He is listed as Mort Crath. He died on October 5, 1882 at the age of 66. He had suffered with stomach cancer for about one year prior to his death. His daughter-in-law, Catherine Sullivan (nee Daly) was present at his death. From this Kilcasken Parish Record obituary, we know that Mort Crath (II) was born in 1816. He is also listed in Griffith’s Valuation for Kilcasken Parish (1848 – 1864).
Tithe List for Doire Chonaire, Adrigole Parish Record and Griffith’s Valuation for Kilcasken Paris.
XVI. Muircheartach Mór Ó Súilleabháin MhicRaith III (* 1857-1940)
Documentation for Muircheartach Mór [Mortimor James (III)] Ó Súilleabháin MhicRaith (born 1857) is found in the Kilcasken Parish Records. His birth is registered as July 6, 1857. He married Catherine Daly. He died on February 7, 1940. His youngest son Liam (Willie) was present at his death. Mortimor James (III) had three older siblings, all of whom died in childhood. Mary was born in 1847, known as “Black ‘47” since it was the worst year of An Gorta Mhóir (the Great Hunger). John was born in 1850 and Michael was born in 1854, which were still bleak years for the people of Doire Chonaire.
Kilcasken Parish Records
XVII. Donal Seosamh I (Daniel Joseph), The Ó Súilleabháin Mór (1889 – 1954)
Documentation for Donal Seosamh [Daniel Joseph (I)] Ó Súilleabháin MhicRaith (born 1889) is found in the Kilcasken Parish Records. His birth is registered in the Civil Records as March 30, 1889 but Mr. O’Dwyer is certain that this date is wrong. His correct birthdate is February 9, 1889. He was baptized on February 10, 1889 by the Very Reverend Father John Mangan P.P., No. 498 in the Baptismal Book. His Godparents were Daniel Sullivan and Johanna Crowley. Daniel Joseph (I) had two older brothers: John, who died without issue in a lumberjack camp in Washington State, U.S.A., purportedly during an “axe fight”; and Patrick, whose youngest son, John, had a son named Ray, who had a son named Brady. Both Ray and Brady serve on the Derbhfine of the clan.
Kilcasken Parish Record, Civil Records
XVIII. Donal Seosamh II (Daniel Joseph), The Ó Súilleabháin Mór (1920 – 2004)
Documentation for Donal Seosamh [Daniel Joseph (II)] Ó Súilleabháin MhicRaith (born 1920) is an American birth certificate. Birth Record # 983 filed in Manhattan, New York City, New York, January 6, 1921 documenting the live birth of Daniel Joseph (II) on December 28, 1920.
American birth certificate
Children:
Donal Seosamh III (Daniel Joseph), The Ó Súilleabháin Mór (1949 – 2014)
Dr. Garraí Eoin Brian Ó Súilleabháin MhicRaith (Gary), The Ó Súilleabháin Mór (1955 -)
Irish nobility
From an Irish perspective, historical nobility was not restricted to titled nobility. It could descend by inheritance, or be obtained by creation (O’Donnell 2019, p. 322).
In 1169, Henry II, king of England and duke of Normandy (1133-1189), was allowed by Pope Adrian IV (ca. 1100-1159) to initiate an expedition of barons from South Wales to establish Anglo-Norman supremacy in Leinster. In the following centuries, English authority seldom extended beyond the capital, Dublin, a narrow corridor of land around Dublin and the eastern seaboard, and a few ports strung along the coast.
By devising the 1541 Act for the Kingly Title (which was subsequently accorded by the Dublin parliament), the English monarch tried to gain full control over Ireland. The Act formally declared Ireland to be a distinct kingdom in its own right. It made all inhabitants of Ireland subjects of the English monarch, but separate from the kingdom of England.
The Treaty of Limerick of 3 October 1691, ended the war in Ireland among William III of England (known as William of Orange) and the Irish followers of his Father in Law, King James II, and their French allies. By the time of the Treaty, most Gaelic nobles had lost the power in their (former) domains.
Gaelic aristocrats were, when they submitted to the authority of the English monarch, formally recognised as members of the peerage. Since then, the character of the Irish nobility changed:
When we think about aristocratic titles we have to go back to 1541. Because prior to that period you have in Ireland English nobles who happen to live in Ireland, so the Earls of Kildare, Earls of Desmond, so on and so forth. And then you also have Gaelic nobles.
And these people have rather different titles. So if you are a Gaelic noble, you’re known as the name of your family. So you are the O’Neill or the O’Brien.
So in 1541 when Ireland becomes a kingdom, this is the first revolutionary moment, because Gaelic nobles are then allowed to transfer their traditional titles into English style titles. So we see a number of examples of this. So The O’Neill becomes the Earl of Tyrone. The O’Brien becomes the Earl of Thomond and so on and so forth.
Now when we get to James I, we see an attempt to really recreate the Irish nobility. And there are a number of reasons for this. And it works out in a number of different ways. And one of the reasons for this is that we have to remember how important hierarchy is to this society.
Elizabeth is incredibly stingy with her nobility. So when titles die out she doesn’t renew them. She doesn’t reward people who’ve served her well with a new title.
There’s a real push to try to get the luster of the nobility brought back. And James I does this and everybody knows this. So when he comes from Scotland there’s a problem of integrating the Scottish and the English nobility. But there’s also the issue of what to do with the Irish nobility.
So one of things that he does is he attempts to make people happy at court by creating new titles. You have plantation land in Munster, than in Ulster. And the King can actually use that land and attach it to titles, and then give it to the highest bidder.
And his favorite, the Duke of Buckingham, is the one who oversees this market in Irish titles. So you see a creation of basically a new Irish nobility made out of people who are willing to pay the price.
Know the purpose for the creation of Irish titles of nobility between 1541, when Henry VIII of England made himself king of Ireland and during the reign of James I. Video on britannica.com
In the Republic of Ireland, the Irish Constitution precludes the State from conferring titles of nobility, and prevents citizens from accepting titles of nobility or honour – except with the prior approval of the government. Existing holders of aristocratic titles continue to use them, but they are not recognised by the Irish government. While some representatives of clans and families had obtained “courtesy recognition” as Chiefs of the Name from the Chief Herald of Ireland, this practice was discontinued by 2003. The Attorney General stated that such recognitions were unconstitutional and without basis in law. In Northern Ireland, as part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, certain titles are still used and awarded.
Currently, the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland continues to exercise jurisdiction over the Peerage of Ireland. The matter is different in the Republic of Ireland. Article 40 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ireland states:
ARTICLE 40 1 All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law. This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.
2 1° Titles of nobility shall not be conferred by the State. 2° No title of nobility or of honour may be accepted by any citizen except with the prior approval of the Government.
Dr. O’Sullivan is a citizen of the Republic of Ireland. He was educated at Creighton University and Rutgers Medical College (now Robert Wood Johnson Medical School). He successfully completed postgraduate studies at Harvard Medical School; Johns Hopkins Medical School; and the University of South Carolina. After establishing a successful career as a gynaecological surgeon, Dr. O’Sullivan dedicated twenty years of his life finding, collecting, reading, and noting all the extant material relating to the history and culture of the Ó Súilleabháin clan. He published his discoveries and conclusions in The Oak and Serpent (2007) and A History of the O’Sullivan Clan (2007). There is a striking physical resemblance between Dr. O’Sullivan and his 17th-century forefather; Donal O’Sullivan Beare (see above).
The term “title of nobility or of honour” in Article 40.2.2° is interpreted as an award that entitles the recipient to use a prefix, such as “Sir” or “Lord”, before a name. An award that provides for the use of letters or marks of distinction after the name, such as “OBE” or “MBE”, is not regarded as a title of nobility or of honour in this context. In case of foreign awards, it is the normal protocol for a foreign government that wishes to make the award to an Irish citizen to inform the Government. Such notifications are considered on a case by case basis to see if they are subject to Article 40.2.2° of the Constitution. The vast majority of these notifications are of a routine nature and in the absence of any constitutional requirement that they be brought to the Government are dealt with at the official level. (Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Cowen, Dáil Éireann Debate, 2 March 2004).
The question arises whether Dr. O’Sullivan can be designated as a member of the Gaelic nobility. The Gaelic nobility consists of those who are a descendent in the male line of any historical grade of a king or who qualified under the rules of tanistry.
The main title of the clan was: “The O’Sullivan Mór”. The title “O’Sullivan” means “Of the House of Sullivan”. This identifies the bearer of the title as a descendant of the Eóganachta kings of Ireland. My conclusion is that – based on the family lineage – Dr. O’Sullivan belongs to the ancient Gaelic nobility. Although since 1943, courtesy recognition as Chiefs of the Name could be obtained from the Irish government, this practice ceased in 2003. The status of the title is that of a courtesy title. It has no legal significance, but is used in the context of tradition and culture.
Relations between the Irish and Spanish nobility
The first known relations between Ireland and Spain developed in both nations were through stories about Celtic relations between the two people, noted in the 11th Century AD Lebor Gabála Érenn (The Book of the Taking of Ireland):
§24. Four ships’ companies strong came the Gaedil to Spain: in every ship fourteen wedded couples and seven unwed hirelings. Brath, a ship’s company. Ucce and Occe, two ships’ companies: [Two brethren were they, the sons of Allot s. Nenual s. Nemed s. Allot s. Ogamain], Mantan [s. Caicher the druid s. Ercha s. (Coemthecht)] a ship’s company. So they broke three battles after going into Spain: a battle against the Tuscans, a battle against the Langobardi, and a battle against the Barchu. But there came a plague upon them, and four and twenty of their number died, including Occe and Ucce. Out of the two ships none escaped, save twice five men, including En s. Occe and Un s. Ucce.
Lebor Gabála Érenn (The Book of Invasions), The Book of Leinster Redaction
The Lebor Gabála Érenn created a legendary Biblical origin story for the Irish people that was comparable to that of the Israelites. It is a pseudo-historical collection of poetry and prose narrative. The Lebor Gabála describes the history of Ireland from the Biblical Flood narrative to the Middle Ages. The work is not an accurate account of ancient Irish history, but combines elements of Christian narrative with surviving threads of oral history and Irish mythology.
In April 1529, the first formal diplomatic contact between the Irish and Spanish nobility took place. In that year, the Spanish ambassador of King Charles V of Spain, Don Gonzalez Fernandez, stepped ashore in Dingle on the south-west coast on Ireland’s Wild Atlantic Way, in the territory of the Earls of Desmond, where he met with James FitzGerald (abt. 1480-1529), 10th Earl of Desmond (Wills, James. Lives of Illustrious and Distinguished Irishmen from the Earliest Times to the Present Period Arranged in Chronological Order, and Embodying a History of Ireland in the Lives of Irishmen. MacGregor, Polson, 1847, pp. 452-3). The two men signed an agreement, known as the Treaty of Dingle.
The Earl himself is from 30 to 40 years old, and is rather above the middle height. He keeps better justice throughout his dominions than any other chief in Ireland. Robbers and homicides find no mercy, and are executed out of hand. His people are in high order and discipline. They are armed with short bows and swords. The Earl’s guard are in a mail from neck to heel, and carry halberds. He has also a number of horses, some of whom know how to break a lance. They all ride admirably, without saddle or stirrup.
Report by Charles V’s ambassador Gonzalo Fernández, who visited Ireland in April 1529, cited in: James Froude, History of England, from the Fall of Wolsey to the death of Elizabeth. 12 vols. London, 1862-70.
The treaty had a serious positive impact on the lives of many Irish exiles and émigrés, as it provided a legal and constitutional basis for the rights of citizenship and other privileges in Habsburg Spain, Habsburg Austria and Habsburg Netherlands from the 16th to the early 20th centuries (see also: Hiram Morgan, The establishment of the Irish-Spanish relationship, in Eduardo Peduelo Martin & Julia Rodriguez de Diego, eds, Los Irlandeses y la Monarquia Hispanica (1529-1800): vinculos in espacio y tiempo. Madrid, 2013).
From 1554 until 1558, King Philip II of Spain (1527 – 1598), also known as Philip the Prudent, was jure uxoris (by right of his wife) King of England and Ireland from his marriage to Queen Mary I in 1554 until her death in 1558. The presence of a significant Irish community in Spain dates back to the 1560s. The void left by the evictions since 1609 of the Moriscos (Christian descendants of Spain’s Muslim population) created opportunities for the Irish immigrants. The first wave of immigrants occupied influential positions in both the Church and the Spanish armies.
A new era in relations between Spain and Ireland began in the early seventeenth century, when Philip III (1598-1621) had the opportunity to incorporate the island into the monarchy, as the majority of the Irish nobles proffered their support to him and recognized him as the ‘King of Ireland’. The King duly dispatched an expeditionary force of 4,000 troops to the south of Ireland, leading to the famous battle of Kinsale of 1602, in which the Catholic army was defeated by an English force.
This loss did not harm the links between Spain and Ireland. On the contrary, the Irish immigrant community in Iberia dramatically increased in size and significance as the Habsburg government welcomed Irish nobles who, like true Spaniards, had pledged themselves as loyal subjects of the King. In this context, numerous exiled nobles were enlisted in the Spanish military orders and obtained Spanish noble titles.
The Irish migration to the Spanish empire was an ongoing, complex process that took place from 17th-century Habsburg Spain to 18th-century Bourbon Spain, and from Europe to the New World. The Irish played a key role in the army, commerce, medicine, literary life and 18th-century Spanish Enlightenment.
In this context, it is perfectly in order for Dr. O’Sullivan to register (15 December 2014, no. 62/2014 and 13 December 2017, no. 44/2017) his coat of arms with Don Alfonso de Ceballos-Escalera y Gila, Marques de la Floresta, as an alternative to registration with the Office of the Chief Herald.
Conclusions
The personal coat of arms of Garraí Eoin Brian Ó Súilleabháin, The Ó Súilleabháin MhicRaith, Count of Knockgraffon (title issued by the head of the Royal House of Georgia), with the collar of Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Eagle of Georgia. Artwork by Carlos Navarro, who created the official coat of arms of Philip VI, King of Spain.
The legitimacy of Dr. O’Sullivan’s claims requires sufficient openness and honesty about evidence, arguments, and research design to level the discursive playing field. Dr. O’Sullivan made his sources, analysis, methods, and interpretive choices underlying their claims visible in a way that allows others to evaluate them. The research process is therefore sufficiently transparent.
The primary and secondary sources of Dr. O’Sullivan’s research should be placed in their historical context. The reliability of the family relations in the Book of Munster for example, cannot be compared to modern DNA-based matches. In the era that the Book of Munster covers, its content and reliability were the gold standard. The internationally accepted principle of non-retroactivity applies, which means that laws do not apply retroactively. This means that it is unfair to judge the reliability of the family trees recorded in the Book by nowadays standards. The genealogical relations, as recorded in the book, should be considered sufficient. The same is true for the more recent sources. This means that the material evidence is sufficiently coherent and reliable to support Dr. O’Sullivan’s conclusions.
Another factor that should be taken into account when judging Dr. O’Sullivan’s claims, is that much crucial evidence has been destroyed. This is witnessed by Count O’Connell in his book: Last Colonel of the Irish Brigade (p. 53):
The last O’Sullivan Mor died at Tomies in 1762. He left an illegitimate son, whose grandson is a fisherman at Killarney. This grandson told me that when a gossoon some thirty years ago, he went to see his grandfather lying dead at Tomies. He saw not only his departed ancestor, but also a great pile of old papers, “maybe three feet high, mostly written on skins in Latin and Irish; and faith I was in dread they might fall into the hands of the Mahonys or some other new people in the country, and they might get more of the old O’Sullivan estates, so I burned them all myself”.
Bianconi, O. C. M. A. (1982). The last colonel of the Irish Brigade: Count O’Connell and Old Irish life at home and abroad, 1745-1833. Filmed by the Library of Congress Photoduplication Service.
Dr. O’Sullivan’s research is thorough and complete, and he has commissioned independent experts to review his claims. It is important, that there are no indications that contradict Dr. O’Sullivan’s publications. The refusal of the Office of the Chief Herald to grant or confirm Dr. O’Sullivan’s coat of arms cannot be seen as such, since the Herald’s jurisdiction is limited to researching, granting and confirming coats of arms. The Herald has no jurisdiction regarding succession to nobiliary titles or territorial designations. Apart from that, no jurisdiction is in force that discourages people from designing and using a coat of arms, without the interference of the Herald. In view of the foregoing, Dr. O’Sullivan’s claims are legitimate.
Note
One branch of the O’Sullivan MacCragh sept of Cappanacush Castle acquired Dunderry Castle in the village of Gravier, near Nevers, France. It remains the family home of this sept and serves as the international headquarters of the O’Sullivan MacCragh Clan. This is in line with many noble families of Ireland who settled in Catholic France after losing their estates in Ireland: O’Connor: Chateau du Bignon-Mirabeau; O’Mahony: Chateau de Pont Bellanger; O’Kelly Farrell: Chateau La Soriniere; Walsh: Chateau de Serrant; Hennessy: Chateau de St. Brice; Phelans: Chateau Phelan-Segur; O’Byrne: Chateau La Houringue; Lynch: Chateau Lynch-Bages; MacCarthy Reagh: Chateau St. Gery; MacMahon-O’Sullivan Beara: Chateau Sully-sur-Loire; O’Sullivan MacCragh: Chateau du Gravier (Dunderry Castle). In addition to the nobles, there was in the seventeenth century also a large immigration of Irish soldiers to the continent romantically known as the Flight of the Wild Geese; the departure of the Irish Jacobite army under the command of Patrick Sarsfield, Earl of Lucan, from Ireland to France, as agreed in the Treaty of Limerick on 3 October 1691. These men formed the various regiments of the Irish Brigades. Variations of Irish surnames can still be found throughout France as a result of this exodus.
O’Donnell, Francis Martin. Irish Nobility and Armigerous Families, chapter in Actas – Il Coloquio Internacional Sobre La Nobleza (2nd International Colloquium on Nobility, Madrid 20-21 October 2017), Real Asociación de Hidalgos de España, Madrid 2019 (paperback, ISBN978-84-948410-5-7).
Ginnell, Laurence. The Brehon Laws: A Legal Handbook. Husain Press, 2013.
Ohlmeyer, Jane H. Making Ireland English: The Irish Aristocracy in the Seventeenth Century. Yale University Press, 2017.
Bradshaw, Brendan. The Irish Constitutional Revolution of the Sixteenth Century. Cambridge University Press, 2008.
O’Higgins P., The Treaty of Limerick 1691. In: Alexandrowicz C.H. (eds) Studies in the History of the Law of Nations. Springer, Dordrecht, 1970.
Schwartz, Stuart B. “The Voyage of the Vassals: Royal Power, Noble Obligations, and Merchant Capital before the Portuguese Restoration of Independence, 1624-1640.” The American Historical Review, vol. 96, no. 3, [Oxford University Press, American Historical Association], 1991, pp. 735–62, https://doi.org/10.2307/2162429.
Morales, Oscar Recio. Ireland and the Spanish Empire, 1600-1825. Four Courts, 2010.
In de heraldiek verwoorden wapenspreuken (ook motto’s genoemd) vaak op kernachtige wijze de ideologie van de familie. Wapenspreuken moeten worden onderscheiden van leuzen. De wapenspreuk wordt op een bandelier of lint onder het wapen geplaatst. Een leus wordt boven het familiewapen of op de rand van de wapentent geplaatst.
In Nederland bestond nog geen naslagwerk waarin de wapenspreuken van geslachten en families systematisch waren opgenomen. De bekende Nederlandse historicus en heraldicus C.E.G. ten Houte de Lange heeft hier verandering in gebracht. In zijn laatste boek, Wapenspreuken van Nederlandse geslachten, worden op systematische en overzichtelijke wijze zo’n 430 wapens en motto’s beschreven van families die in Nederland tot de adel of het patriciaat worden gerekend. Aan het boek hebben ook Alle Diderik de Jonge (voorzitter van Stichting Het Blauwe Boekje, uitgever van Nederland’s Patriciaat) en Jan Spoelder (classicus) een belangrijke bijdrage geleverd. Beide heren hebben zelf reeds een aantal indrukwekkende publicaties op hun naam staan.
Ten Houte de Lange et alia zijn uitgegaan van de wapenspreuken van de Nederlandse adel sinds 1813 en van de Nederlandse patriciaatsfamilies. De genealogieën van deze families zijn gepubliceerd in Nederland’s Adelsboek, Nederland’s Patriciaat, Stam en wapenboek van aanzienlijke Nederlandsche familiën en Repertorium familiewapens van bekende Nederlandse geslachten. De auteurs gaan in hun werk in op de aard van de wapenspreuken en op de bronnen waaraan deze zijn ontleend. Daarnaast onderzoeken zij in hoeverre een wapenspreuk een toespeling op de familienaam e/of het familiewapen maakt. Tenslotte wordt nagegaan welke families een gelijkluidende wapenspreuk voeren en welke wapenspreuken een vergelijkbare versie in andere talen hebben. De uitgave is mooi vormgegeven en overzichtelijk opgezet. Het werk vormt een belangrijke bijdrage aan de ontwikkeling van de Nederlandse heraldiek.
In het boek van Ten Houte de Lange et alia zijn de wapenspreuken op alfabetische volgorde vermeld met een afbeelding van het betreffende familiewapen, de familienaam en een korte verwijzing naar een van de genealogieën. Een fragment uit Wapenspreuken van Nederlandse geslachten is hier opgenomen. Via de link hieronder kan het werk worden besteld.
Christoph E.G. ten Houte de Lange ; Alle Diderik de Jonge ; Jan Spoelder | Wapenspreuken van Nederlandse geslachten | Taal: Nederlands | ISBN 9789462584631 | Bindwijze Hardback | Aantal pagina’s 192.
During state visits, it is common for heads of state to exchange national honours. The guests are invited by the foreign country, which acts as the official host for the duration of the state visit. An exchange of honours took place during the state visit of the Queen to the United Arab Emirates and Oman in November 2010:
British State Visit to Abu Dhabi and Oman, 2010
The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh were in the midst of a State Visit to Abu Dhabi and Oman on this day in 2010, their last State Visit to the Middle East, three decades after their monumental Tour of the Gulf States
The Tour started in Abu Dhabi, one of the seven Emirates of the United Arab Emirates, where notable events included a visit to the Sheikh Zayed Mosque and a formal luncheon with Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan that was followed by an exchange of honours, at which the Queen (in the Order of the Garter) received the Order of Zayed, and members of the Abu Dhabi Royal Family received the Order of the Bath and the Order of Saint Michael and Saint George.
royalwatcherblog.com, 25 November 2018
This article examines the tradition of exchanging honours in a political context and compares this tradition to the conventional requirements for the granting of official honours. The article focuses on The Netherlands, but it is reasonable to assume that its findings are applicable to many countries across Europe.
The honours system in The Netherlands
VIDEO CLIP NOS Journaal of 8 October 1994 – Heading a conservative Dutch government from 1982 to 1994, Lubbers’ policies were in step with his counterparts in Washington and London, President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, as he trimmed back the Dutch welfare state, persuaded powerful labor unions to rein in their demands and ushered in years of growth.
Official personal honours are divided into orders of chivalry and orders awarded for services rendered to the Royal House. The King is Grand Master of the chivalric orders.
Article 111 of the Constitution of The Netherlands stipulates that national honours can be created by act of parliament only. The only Dutch civilian orders of chivalry, created by act of parliament are the Order of the Lion of The Netherlands and the Order of Orange-Nassau.
These honours are conferred on persons who have rendered outstanding service to Dutch society. Candidates are nominated via the mayor of the municipality where they reside. Foreigners are nominated via the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Case study: well-deserved awards
The Order of the Lion of the Netherlands is the oldest and highest civilian order of chivalry in The Netherlands. The Order of the Netherlands Lion has been primarily used to recognise merit in the arts, science, sport and literature. The second order of chivalry, the Order of Orange-Nassau, is awarded for longstanding meritorious service to society, the State or the Royal House:
To continue on from that idea of respect being so important in society, this brings us to another position that you’ve held since 2014, chairman of the Civil Honours Advisory Commission. To many this might sound formal and ceremonial, but it is an important institution that bestows recognition on as many people as possible who have made an outstanding contribution to Dutch society. How do you perceive this formal and ceremonial image?
Everyone is familiar with the birthday honours list, or ‘lintjesregen’ as we call it in Dutch. The vast majority of people are rightly proud if a royal honour is conferred on them or a family member. The basic principle is that for someone to qualify for an honour they must be of impeccable character. It is, after all, a royal honour bestowed by the king. It is something special. The commission advises the minister. There are of course those honours that can be awarded without discussion, but there are also matters that need to be considered, including the ‘grade’ at which the honour should be awarded. Every two weeks the Advisory Commission, along with the chancellor of the Netherlands Orders of Knighthood, meet to discuss these matters. As I mentioned, we advise the minister, and our role is to protect the integrity of the system and its proceedings.
The following examples show the extent of merit required to be awarded the Order of the Netherlands Lion and the Order of Orange-Nassau.
Hendrik Johannes “Johan” Cruijff (1947 – 2016) was a Dutch professional football player and coach. As a player, he won the Ballon d’Or three times, in 1971, 1973, and 1974. Cruyff is widely regarded as one of the greatest players in the history of the sport, and one of the greatest football managers. BBC broadcaster and former England striker Gary Lineker, regarded Cruyff as Europe’s best ever player. Upon hearing of the death of Cruijff, former UEFA president Michel Platini said: “Today football has lost one of its best ever players and ambassadors. I am very sad because Johan was my childhood hero, my idol and my friend.”. Cruijff was appointed Officer in the Order of Orange-Nassau (10 April 2002).
Jelle Zijlstra (1918 – 2001) was a Dutch politician and economist who served as Prime Minister of the Netherlands from 22 November 1966 until 5 April 1967. He was chief of the Dutch Central Bank serving from 1 May 1967 until 1 January 1982. Zijlstra was granted the honorary title of Minister of State on 30 April 1983 and continued to comment on political affairs as a statesman until his death. His legacy as a Minister in the 1950s and ’60s and later as President of the Central Bank continues to this-day. Zijlstra was awarded the Knight Grand Cross in the Order of the Netherlands Lion (18 November 1981); and Knight Grand Cross in the Order of Orange-Nassau (27 April 1967).
Andreas Antonius Maria “Dries” van Agt (1931-) is a Dutch politician, diplomat and jurist who served as Prime Minister of the Netherlands from 19 December 1977 until 4 November 1982. Following his retirement, Van Agt continued to be active in the public sector and worked as an advocate, lobbyist and activist for several non-profit organisations. He is currently advisor for the International Forum for Justice and Peace. Van Agt was awarded the Knight Grand Cross in the Order of Orange-Nassau Netherlands (9 December 1982).
Maximilianus “Max” van der Stoel (1924 – 2011) was a Dutch politician, diplomat and activist who served as High Commissioner on National Minorities of the OSCE from 1 January 1993 until 1 July 2001. From 1973 to 1977 and 1981 to 1982 he was the Netherlands Minister of Foreign Affairs. Van der Stoel was granted the honorary title of Minister of State on 17 May 1991 and continued to comment on political affairs until his death. Van der Stoel was a Knight in the Order of the Netherlands Lion Netherlands (5 December 1966) and a Grand Officer in the Order of Orange-Nassau Netherlands (9 September 1982).
Rudolphus Franciscus Marie “Ruud” Lubbers (1939 – 2018) was a Dutch politician and businessman who served as Prime Minister of The Netherlands from 4 November 1982 to 22 August 1994, and as United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees from 1 January 2001 until 20 February 2005. Lubbers was granted the honorary title of Minister of State on 31 January 1995. He is both the youngest Prime Minister of the Netherlands at 43 years, and the longest-serving with over 11 years, and is consistently ranked both by scholars and the public as one of the best post-war Prime Ministers. Lubbers was awarded the Knight Grand Cross in the Order of the Netherlands Lion Netherlands (8 October 1994) (see: Financial Times).
Case study: undeserving recipients
In diplomatic circles, it is customary to award high-ranking Dutch awards to foreign diplomats:
Do you see the exchange of honours during a state visit as a way of strengthening the bond between two countries and showing respect for one another?
Definitely, the exchange of honours plays an important role during state visits. The ‘high grades’ that are often awarded are sometimes criticized, but people should remember that this is where the idea of ‘reciprocity’ comes into play, which is extremely important in international diplomacy. When country x uses the occasion of a state visit to present the equivalent of a Grand Cross of the Order of Orange-Nassau to someone in the Dutch entourage, then reciprocity requires that the Netherlands does the same. There are those who say that the level of the award should be reduced slightly, and some countries do that; some countries are ready to discuss it, but there needs to be a clear understanding. However, reciprocity remains the key principle.
De Hoop Scheffer’s comments are incorrect. It is an insult to the Dutch people to let reciprocity become the main consideration for awarding high-ranking Dutch awards to useless foreign diplomats and politicians. A few examples of undeserved high-ranking Dutch awards are listed below, but there are many more cases.
All foreign ambassadors in The Netherlands receive the Knight Grand Cross in the Order of Orange-Nassau at the end of their term. Between May 2019 and March 2020 (11 months) Dutch police recorded 12.971 traffic offences of which 37 were severe traffic offences, committed by about 10.000 diplomats (source: Kamerbrief over verkeersveiligheid en medewerkers die in Nederland immuniteit genieten, 10 July 2020). This is apart from about 20 criminal offences per year, committed by diplomats (source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs). Russian and Chinese diplomats are notorious offenders but there are many more countries that misbehave in The Netherlands. Colombia once recalled a diplomat because he had links with the drugs trade. The diplomats remain out of the range of the justice system because they enjoy diplomatic immunity. In some cases, the ministry asked for the immunity to be lifted. Statistics show that diplomats are often delinquents. They should be banned from receiving any official awards.
Coen baron Schimmelpenninck van der Oije was a chamberlain of the Queen. He was also chairman of the Association of Archivists in the Netherlands and a member of the Archiefraad. From 1991 to 2015, Schimmelpenninck was chairman of the Supreme Council of Nobility. He enjoyed a salary from the taxpayer for these jobs. Schimmelpenninck was appointed Officer in the Order of Orange-Nassau although no exceptional achievements have been recorded.
Maarten Willem van Boven was, until his retirement in 2008 General State Archivist and director of the National Archives in The Hague. Sometime between 2003 and 2005, during the sorting phase of the archive material by the National Archives, a large part of the historical documents disappeared without a trace. Of the total number of records to be recovered, only 600 pieces remain. There is no conclusive explanation for the loss of 1.300 records. Following the case, the National Archives commissioned an investigation into the cause of the disappearance. The professional research agency gave three possible explanations: theft by employees of the National Archives, loss of the documents in the depots of the National Archives or possible destruction of the material (sources: letter of Wethouder The Hague dated 16 October 2007; letter of minister Plasterk 5 October 2007, NA/2007/2441). In the period 1997-2007, M.W. van Boven was General State Archivist. He was granted an early resignation, shortly after the report was published. Van Boven was “rewarded” for his “caring” about national heritage with Officer in the Order of Orange-Nassau.
Elena María Isabel Dominica de Silos de Borbón y de Grecia (1963-) is the first child and elder daughter of King Juan Carlos I of Spain and Queen Sofía of Spain, and third in the line of succession to the Spanish throne. She has a younger sister, Cristina, and a younger brother, King Felipe VI. Infante Elena has done nothing significant for the Dutch people, but was nonetheless awarded the Knight Grand Cross in the Order of Orange-Nassau.
Hassanal Bolkiah (1946-) is the 29th and current sultan and Prime Minister of Brunei. He is one of the few absolute monarchs in the world. The sultan has been ranked among the wealthiest individuals in the world. In 2008, Forbes estimated the sultan’s net worth at around EUR 20 billion. Scandals associated with Bolkiah include the Shannon Marketic Incident (pre-1998), involving sex abuse and drugs), the Amedeo crisis (1983-1998, involving financial fraud of around USD 40 billion); Anti-LGBT and death by stoning legislation (2019) and the Car collection controversy (involving a financial crisis due to overspending). In 2013, Bolkiah was awarded the Knight Grand Cross in the Order of the Netherlands Lion, although he made no contribution to Dutch society.
Bert Jozef Herman Vic Anciaux (1959) is a Belgian politician and Vooruit faction leader in the Belgian Senate. He served as Minister for Culture, Youth and Sport in the Flemish Government from 2004 until 2009, he was also Minister for relations with the Brussels-Capital Region and the Brussels Parliament. Without any serious contributions to The Netherlands, Anciaux was awarded the Knight Grand Cross in the Order of Orange-Nassau (2008).
Armand De Decker (1948 – 2019) was a Belgian politician and member of the French-speaking liberal party Mouvement Réformateur (MR). In 2018, De Decker was indicted for influence-peddling as part of the wide-ranging “Kazakhgate” probe into allegations of corruption in 2011 linked to a trade agreement between France and Kazakhstan. The case led to charges against several people in France and raids on the offices of European aviation giant Airbus (source: France24.com). Without any serious contributions to The Netherlands, De Decker was awarded the Knight Grand Cross in the Order of Orange-Nassau.
Sven Otto Julius Littorin (1966-) is a former Swedish politician and architect of major structural reforms in his country. On 7 July 2010, Littorin announced his immediate resignation. The day before, he been confronted by a reporter for Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet whether it was true or not that he had purchased sex. Littorin denied the allegations, but nevertheless resigned from the government. His official reaction was the harshness of the media against him and his children, as well as “for private reasons”, following divorce and a custody battle over his children (source: Aftonbladet.se). In 2009, Littorin was awarded the Grand Cross in the Order of Orange-Nassau, without having contributed anything of significance to the Dutch people.
Conclusions
Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Orange-Nassau (Dutch: Orde van Oranje-Nassau); a civil and military Dutch order of chivalry founded on 4 April 1892 by the Queen regent Emma, acting on behalf of her under-age daughter Queen Wilhelmina (Photo: lintjes.nl)
Official statistics show, that in The Netherlands, diplomats generally have a low standard of ethics. However, they are systematically awarded the highest honours, The Netherlands can give. All parting ambassadors in The Netherlands receive the Knight Grand Cross in the Order of Orange-Nassau. This practice is an insult to the men and women who built up our country, like for example Olympic gold medalists, who receive the lowest rank (knighthood) in the Order of the Netherlands Lion. It is also insulting to the Dutch people that heads of state and other officials receive the Order as a matter of political courtesy, without any compensation. It is disgraceful that 99% of all foreign holders of the highest ranks in the Dutch honour system have obtained their honours based on political considerations only. The highest rank of the Dutch orders of chivalry has thus become a cheap giveaway. Foreigners who do not contribute to Dutch society are issued the highest honours but Dutch residents who make serious sacrifices, receive the lower ranks.
There is a good alternative to deal with this matter: the already existing Order of the Crown. This award is conferred on ‘foreign nationals who have rendered meritorious service to Us or Our House’. It is divided into five classes: Grand Cross, Grand Cross of Honour with Plaque, Grand Cross of Honour, Cross of Honour with Rosette and Cross of Honour. Although some adjustments to the statutes might be necessary, the Order of the Crown can be awarded as a courtesy gift to foreign diplomats and the like. It should replace the conferring of the Order of the Netherlands Lion and the Order of Orange-Nassau to foreign diplomats and politicians. This would stop the regular insults inflicted on the Dutch people, by issuing the country’s state orders to diplomats and politicians who – even in the most deserving cases – have invariably made no worthy contribution to The Netherlands. Often, the opposite is true.
35300 V 40 BRIEF VAN DE MINISTER VAN BUITENLANDSE ZAKEN
Vergaderjaar 2019-2020
Nr. 40
Aan de Voorzitter van de Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal
Den Haag, 12 november 2019
In de antwoorden op de vragen van de leden Sjoerdsma en Sneller van 20 juni 2019 (Aanhangsel Handelingen II 2018/19, nr. 3117) heb ik toegezegd een evaluatie van decoratie uitwisseling bij staatsbezoeken uit te laten voeren. Hierbij ontvangt u de resultaten van deze interne evaluatie. Doelstelling van de evaluatie is een appreciatie te geven van het huidige functioneren van decoratie uitwisseling bij staatsbezoeken en te bekijken of aanpassingen aan de huidige praktijk wenselijk zijn.
Staatsbezoeken hebben in het diplomatieke verkeer tussen landen een bijzondere functie en waarde. De praktijk van uitwisseling van onderscheidingen bij staatsbezoeken kan hier -in voorkomende gevallen- deel van uitmaken. Dit onderscheidt zich van de overige delen van het decoratiestelsel in de zin dat het niet gaat om beoordeling van de merites van een persoon, maar om het uitdrukken van wederzijds respect en het versterken en bekrachtigen van de goede relaties tussen twee landen. Het Kapittel voor de Civiele Orden geeft daarom ook geen advies over voorstellen tot decoratieverlening bij staatsbezoeken. De Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken neemt als politiek verantwoordelijke Minister het definitieve besluit over decoratie uitwisseling. Hier spelen internationaal gebruik, onderlinge verhoudingen, verwachtingspatronen en gevoeligheden een bijzondere rol.
Het besluit om al dan niet over te gaan tot uitwisseling van decoraties tijdens staatsbezoeken wordt voorafgegaan door een zorgvuldige afweging door het Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken in overleg met het Ministerie van Algemene Zaken en vertegenwoordigers van het Koninklijk Huis over de opportuniteit van een bezoek op het allerhoogste niveau. Het besluit over een eventueel staatsbezoek wordt gemaakt op basis van politieke (inclusief o.m. vraagstukken van goed bestuur, mensenrechten en internationaal recht), diplomatieke en economische argumenten, waarbij tevens rekening wordt gehouden met een zekere regionale spreiding, aandacht voor buurlanden, economische relevantie, relaties met andere monarchieën en de bilaterale relatie. Indien een staatsbezoek opportuun wordt geacht op basis van deze criteria, volgt hieruit dat er geen principiële bezwaren zijn tegen het uitwisselen van koninklijke onderscheidingen met het betreffende land als uiting van wederzijds respect.
Het uitwisselen van decoraties is zeker geen automatisme. Er is geen staande praktijk van het standaard uitreiken van decoraties bij staatsbezoeken. Belangrijk om hierbij voor ogen te houden is dat uitwisseling tussen twee landen plaatsvindt ter versterking van de bilaterale relaties en niet op basis van merites van individuele personen. Centrale uitgangspunten bij de besluitvorming omtrent decoratie-uitwisseling bij staatsbezoeken zijn, naast de hierboven genoemde zorgvuldigheid in de afweging van de opportuniteit van een staatsbezoek op zich:
Geen automatisme: per staatsbezoek en per land wordt bekeken of uitwisseling van decoraties toegevoegde waarde heeft voor de bilaterale betrekkingen en voor de uitstraling van het bezoek.
Reciprociteit: zowel het ontvangende als het gevende land moeten een systeem van decoratie uitwisseling hebben en er dient een goede balans te zijn in de decoraties over en weer.
Soberheid, vooral waar het gaat om de aantallen uit te wisselen decoraties.
Op basis van bovenstaande uitgangspunten zijn de afgelopen vijf jaar bij sommige staatsbezoeken in het geheel geen decoraties uitgewisseld (Zuid-Korea, Canada, China, Australië, Nieuw-Zeeland, Ierland, Singapore en India), zijn bij een aantal andere alleen op het niveau van staatshoofden decoraties uitgewisseld (Portugal, Argentinië, Verenigd Koninkrijk, en Kaapverdië) en bij de rest (Japan, Polen, Denemarken, Frankrijk, België, Italië, Vaticaanstad, Luxemburg, Estland, Letland en Litouwen) is soberheid in de aantallen betracht.
De werkwijze die door andere EU-lidstaten wordt gehanteerd voor decoraties bij staatsbezoeken verschilt weinig van de Nederlandse werkwijze. Navraag bij onder meer het VK en Duitsland leert dat ook bij hen bij staatsbezoeken uitwisseling geen automatisme is en dat reciprociteit, soberheid, zorgvuldigheid en politieke opportuniteit ook daar belangrijke uitgangspunten zijn.
Volgens de Nederlandse wetgeving vervalt een onderscheiding alleen als de gedecoreerde persoon onherroepelijk is veroordeeld tot een gevangenisstraf van minimaal één jaar. Dit is geregeld in artikel 12, lid 2 van de Wet instelling van de Orde van de Nederlandse Leeuw en in artikel 11, lid 2 van de Wet instelling van de Orde van Oranje-Nassau. Na het vervallen van de onderscheiding wordt de onderscheiding opgevraagd. Dit is nog nooit gebeurd ten aanzien van onderscheidingen uitgewisseld bij staatsbezoeken. In mijn antwoorden op de vragen van de leden Sjoerdsma en Sneller van 20 juni 2019 (Aanhangsel Handelingen II 2018/19, nr. 3117) heb ik al aangegeven dat het verruimen van intrekkingsgronden van onderscheidingen niet zal bijdragen aan een betere inhoudelijke discussie met het betrokken land over het respecteren van het internationaal recht en zodoende niet betekenisvol is.
In de praktijk worden de hierboven genoemde centrale uitgangspunten van het systeem van decoratie uitwisseling zorgvuldig gehanteerd en bieden deze voldoende aanknopingspunten om per staatsbezoek een weloverwogen en voor dat land passende keuze te maken waar het gaat om uitwisseling van decoraties. Deze praktijk voorziet in de nodige flexibiliteit om per geval een zorgvuldige afweging te kunnen maken van wat in het belang is van de bilaterale relaties met het andere land. Ook in de toekomst zullen deze centrale uitgangspunten leidend blijven, juist in het belang van het aanzien en de maatschappelijke waardering van Koninklijke onderscheidingen. Graag wil ik het belang benadrukken van het feit dat decoratieverlening tijdens staatsbezoeken, op basis van de Nederlandse normen en waarden, als logisch wordt ervaren.
De Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, S.A. Blok
Appendix B
The following is an interesting quote by Mr. Matthew Palmer, who is a veteran of the U.S. Foreign Service. While on the Secretary of State’s policy-planning staff, Palmer helped design and implement the Kimberley Process for certifying African diamonds as “conflict free.”. It is too interesting not to mention.
We [the US diplomats] cherry-pick our facts, omit the inconvenient from our narratives and manipulate language without mercy to make our point.
Matthew Palmer, The Dishonest Diplomat: How a Critical Profession Got a Bad Rap, Time, 23 July 2014
Most Orders of Knighthood are formulated as charities with or without a national outlook, and often – though not always – regulated within the territory they were founded in. This is in line with the spirit of their ancient and original predecessors, that also focused on protecting the vulnerable. In many cases a person of royal descent is attracted as a patron to give the Order more cachet. This article provides recommendations regarding these Royal Patrons. In a case study, the article focuses on the Orléans obedience of the Order of Saint Lazarus, although more branches of this international Order of Knighthood exist, each recognising their own Grand Master.
In a 2015 BBC News article, Professor Catherina Pharoah, Co-Director of the Centre for Charitable Giving and Philanthropy, at Cass Business School at City University, London, states that royal patronage changes the public perception of a charity:
“It’s an endorsement that their work is reputable and high quality,” she says, adding that royal patrons are highly sought-after.”
“The support of the royal princes for services and ex-services charities has been hugely important. Those areas were very much seen as a legacy of the past, but they’ve brought a new awareness to it and made it a more immediate cause.
“It was like when William and Kate chose charitable causes as part of their wedding celebrations, they chimed in with the mood of the moment.”
However, recent research concludes that royal patronages provide no discernible financial benefits to charities:
We found that charities should not seek or retain Royal patronages expecting that they will help much.
74% of charities with Royal patrons did not get any public engagements with them last year. We could not find any evidence that Royal patrons increase a charity’s revenue (there were no other outcomes that we could analyse), nor that Royalty increases generosity more broadly. Giving Evidence takes no view on the value of the Royal family generally. The findings are summarised in this Twitter thread.
We investigated this mindful that some donors help charities much less than they think they do. Some help a lot; some create so much work that dealing with them consumes the entire donation, meaning that their net contribution is nil; and some are even worse, creating a net drain. (Having been a charity CEO myself, I wrote an entire book for donors, about how charities really function and how donors can help them and avoid hindering them.) Equally, some well-intentioned programmes run by charities are great, some achieve nothing, and some are counter-productive and harmful.
Royal patronages can create costs for charities. For example, The Telegraph newspaper claimed that the Outward Bound Trust flew Prince Andrew, its then-patron, to New York to attend a fundraising event.
Charities often seem to think that a Royal patron will visit them, or enable events at palaces which they can use to attract press coverage or donors. In fact, most UK charities with Royal patrons did not get a single public engagement with their Royal patron last year: 74% of them got none. Only 1% of charities with Royal patrons got more than one public engagement with them last year. {In this video, it transpires that Kate hasn’t visited one of her patronee charities for eight years.} Some got many more, but they are mainly charities set up by the Royals. We found that same pattern when we analysed a three year period, 2016-19. Charities set up by the Royals are 2% of the patronee charities but last year got 36% of the Royals’ public engagements with patronee charities. (Later, Prince William took over two patronages from the Queen and Prince Philip. One of those charities had had one official engagement from their Royal patron in the last ten years: the other had had none in ten years. Data here.)
Charities cite various benefits of Royal patronages e.g., on staff morale, on beneficiaries. We do not deny these. But we are trying to do science, so needed reliable and comparable data about the large number of charities that we needed to analyse. The sole such data are revenue, so we used that. The potential to raise a charity’s revenue appears to among the Palace’s criteria for selecting charities.
Just by looking at graphs (see below) of the revenue over time of the patronee charities versus that of comparable charities it is looks as though revenue is not affected when a Royal patronage starts.
We also looked in much more complicated ways. We used several sophisticated analytical methods: econometric regressions using various combinations of comparator groups and outcome variables. None convincingly found an effect.
In the videos below, we explain what we researched, why, how, and what we found. We had three research questions: what are Royal patronages; which charities have them; and what difference do they make?
Charities seem to matter to the Royal family. ‘Charities and patronages’ is the first permanent item on the Royal website below an article about the Monarch.
As well as finding no evidence that Royals bring revenue to their patronee charities, we also found no reason that donors should assume that a charity with a Royal patronage outperforms its peers. Take air ambulances. The UK has 21 air ambulance charities, each serving a different ‘patch’. The ones with senior Royal patrons are: Cornwall (Camilla: Duchess of Cornwall), London (William: who lives in London), Wiltshire (Camilla, who has a house in neighbouring Gloucestershire), and Yorkshire (Andrew: Duke of York). It seems likely that these selections are driven less by quality than by history and geography.
We found no evidence that a concentration of Royal patronages of charities in a geographic area increases the generosity of people in that area. (We compared English regions on (i) the number of Royal patronages they have, and (ii) the proportion of people who have given recently). And looking internationally, we found no evidence that a resident Royal family makes a nation more generous. In short, we looked from many angles, and did not find evidence of a beneficial effect from any of them.
Most Orders of Knighthood are international charities that attract donations from their members and subsequently distribute these funds among worthy causes. They often have a Royal Patron as they think this adds value to their organization. In certain cases, this is true. In other cases the opposite is true.
Dynastic Orders should be connected to the original dynasty that was involved in the formation of the Order to add historical legitimacy. This places the Order in its dynastic context, which certainly adds historical value to the Order. A good example in this respect is the French branch of the Order of Saint Lazarus, which attracted the Count of Paris (the head of the French Royal Family) as their patron.
Case study: the Order of Saint Lazarus
On Sunday 12 September 2004 in the Cathedral of Orléans, the Military and Hospitaller Order of Saint Lazarus was restored to its traditional Protector – the Royal House of France. This event restored the status of the Order which it formerly enjoyed and which had been lost to the Order since 1830. In the presence of numerous witnesses His Royal Highness the Count of Paris, Duke of France and Head of the House of France, declared before the High Altar that the Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem would once again be given the Protection of the House of France (photo: OSLJ).
Since 12 September 2004, the Protection of the Order of Saint Lazarus has been assumed by the Royal House of France. By offering its Protection, the Royal House of France has restored the Order to the status it had lost in 1830, when a royal decree caused the order to lose its royal protection after both King Louis XVIII, the Order’s protector, and the duc de Châtre, the Order’s lieutenant-general, had died in 1824. Confirmation of the Royal Protection was given (see Appendix) in the Cathedral of Orléans, during the Investiture of Prince Charles-Philippe d’Orléans, Duc d’Anjou, as Grand Master of the Military and Hospitaller Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem. The installation of the Prince was solemnly witnessed and validated by His Royal Highness the Count of Paris and by His Eminence Cardinal László Paskai, Primate Emeritus of Hungary. The document was also signed and witnessed in the Chapel dedicated to St Joan of Arc in the Cathedral of Orleans by the leaders and delegates of 19 National Jurisdictions of our Order. In addition, the ceremony was attended by representatives of the Catholic, Greek Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Anglican and Reformed Churches. Also present were members of the diplomatic corps, dignitaries of the French Republic and the City of Orléans and Military Officers of France, The Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and Ireland. It should be noted that Wikipedia’s statement “The Orléans obedience claims the protection of Henri d’Orléans, Count of Paris.” is false as it suggests that this claim might in fact not be true. The statement is based on a negatively biased source.
The Order of Saint Lazarus is an international confraternity of Christians who profess their commitment to Jesus. Its three pillars are charity, spirituality and tradition (source: Order of Saint Lazarus). The Order of Saint Lazarus offers financial support to, for example, the Society for Uplift and Rehabilitation of Leprosy Affected People, based in Sri Lanka. It offers assistance primarily to people with leprosy, but it also works to help children orphaned because of leprosy and those affected in any way by this terrible disease (source: Order of Saint Lazarus). The combination of historical authenticity and genuine good works strengthen the legitimacy of this important charitable institution enormously.
When the Royal House of France took the Order of Saint Lazarus under its wings again, the question regarding the formation date of the Order was reduced to an academic question. The fact that it is an Order of the Royal House of France, revives the Order’s full legitimacy.
Recommendations
I have five recommendations for organisations that consider attracting a Royal Patron.
There is a difference between a Fons Honorum and a Royal Patronage. A Fons Honorum is the legitimate and legal authority of a person or institution to grant titles and awards to other parties (see e.g.: Versélewel de Witt Hamer, 2017, p. 100). The Fons Honorum is needed to create a new legal entity, like reviving an ancient Order of Knighthood or granting a title of nobility. A Royal Patronage is in fact only a formal act of support. Therefore, there is no need for a Royal Patron to hold the Fons Honorum. In the exceptional case of the Order of Saint Lazarus, the Fons Honorum and the Royal Patronage have merged when the Count of Paris became the Order’s patron and endorsed the appointment of his nephew as Grand Master. But in general, it is not necessary to attract a Royal Patron who is the head of a dynasty. Other members of dynastic houses can very well carry out the task of patron. Although a head of a dynastic house will often be the first choice, Orders should not limit themselves to one person when this is not feasible. Selecting a specific member of a Royal Family can also be the result of a process where the person with the best abilities is chosen to become the Order’s patron. In fact, this is a much better strategy than to just aim for the Head of the Family. In addition, other persons of achievement, like celebrities or successful business leaders, can act as a valuable patron of the Order.
In general, it does not help the funding activities if a Royal Patron gives her/his blessing to an organisation. In case of Orders of Knighthood, this is different. These organisations gain reputation when an influential patron endorses the Order. As a consequence, the Order will attract more members and is therefore better equipped to perform charitable activities. Finding a good patron is therefore an important task for an Order.
Royal Patrons who do not have a historical relation with the Order, are in a way a red flag for becoming a member. It shows that the Order is unable to find a historically relevant patron. Unintentionally, it sends out a signal of illegitimacy. The Royal Patron sends out the wrong signal as well because her/his irrelevant background supports the idea that something is not right.
It is peculiar that the Order of Saint Lazarus sought (e.g.L’Osservatore Romano of 21 March 1952) and possibly still seeks some kind of recognition from the Pope. Such a recognition is irrelevant and will never come. Being a Roman Catholic Order of Knighthood means a breach with the ecumenical principles, which is one of the most important pillars of the success of the Order. The Order of Saint Lazarus should remain fully independent and focus on interfaith dialogue. It should not become involved in the Roman Catholic church hierarchy. For the same reasons, I advise against the formation of local entities of the Order in the form of Catholic lay organisations, as has become a regular practice.
I noticed that some more recent dynastic claimants enter into so-called ‘friendship treaties’ with exotic Royal Houses (e.g. in Asia) in order to become more accepted within nobiliary circles. This serves the same purpose as attracting a Royal Patron. I strongly advise against this practice because it shows the opposite: a lack of acceptance. When a claimant needs to reach out to Royal Houses in other continents to substantiate her/his case, it shows that more obvious ‘royal friends’ decline to engage in joint activities. It should be kept in mind that a genuine dynastic claim does not need recognition from anyone, because of the sovereign character of a dynasty. In most cases, it is enough when the claim is transparent and reasonably embedded in a historical context. The perfect claim does not exist.
Acknowledgement
An anonymous reviewer is thanked for critically reading the manuscript and suggesting substantial improvements. His suggestions helped improve and clarify this article.
Appendix
Déclaration de Monseigneur le Comte de Paris, Duc de France, Chef de la Maison Royale de France
Henry, par la grâce de Dieu, Chef de la Maison de France, faisons savoir à tous, tant présents que futurs que,
Considérant les lettres patentes données à Poitiers, en juillet 1308, par le Roi Philippe IV le Bel qui déclara “prendre sous notre garde spéciale et notre protection le Maître Général et les frères de l’Ordre de Saint-Lazare de Jérusalem” afin de leur éviter toute spoliation,
Considérant les origines pontificales et l’organisation canonique de l’ordre de Saint-Lazare de Jérusalem rappelées, notamment, par le Pape Alexandre IV (bulle donnée à Naples le 11 des calendes d’avril 1255) et par le Pape Clément XIV (bulle Militarium Ordinum Institutio du 10 décembre 1772),
Considérant les différents accords conclus entre les Chefs de la Maison Royale de France et les Souverains Pontifes complétant l’exercice de ce Protectorat depuis le concordat du 15 aoùt 1516,
Considérant que ce Protectorat a été assumé par les Chefs de la Maison Royale de France jusqu’en 1830,
Considérant la titulature de Protecteur Temporel de l’Ordre Militaire et Hospitalier de Saint-lazare de Jérusalem comme faisant intégralement partie de l’héritage que nous assumons en tant que Chef de la Maison Royale de France,
Nous déclarons perpétuer cet engagement en garantissant le caractère authentique et unique, dans sa dimension juridique et traditionnelle, de cette antique Institution.
Orléans, le 12 septembre 2004
Declaration by H.R.H. the Count of Paris, Duke of France, Head of the Royal House of France
We, Henri, by the Grace of God, Head of the House of France, make known to all persons, for now and the future, that,
Whereas pursuant to letters patent given at Poitiers, in July 1308, by King Philippe IV the Fair, who declared that he took “under Our special guard and protection the Master General and brethren of the Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem” in order to prevent their suffering any despoilment;
Whereas pursuant to the pontifical origins and canonical structure of the Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem, as recalled in particular by Pope Alexander IV in a Bull given at Naples on the eleventh day of the calends of April 1255, and by Pope Clement XIV in the Bull Militarium Ordinum Institutio of 10 December 1772;
Whereas pursuant to the various agreements entered into between the Heads of the Royal House of France and the Sovereign Pontiffs setting out in full the exercise of that Protectorship following the Concordat of 15 August 1516;
Whereas pursuant to this Protectorship being assumed by the Heads of the Royal House of France until 1830;
And whereas the title of Temporal Protector of the Military and Hospitaller Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem being an integral part of the heritage that we have entered into as Head of the Royal House of France;
We declare our perpetuation of this commitment, guaranteeing as we do, in terms both of the law and of tradition, the authentic and unique character of this ancient Institution.
Versélewel de Witt Hamer, T. J. (2017). Geloven verplicht: Een elite-onderzoek naar ridderlijke orden in het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden (1965-2015). Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
This article focuses on the traditions of the nobility in Portugal during the rule of the Bragança-dynasty (1640 to 1910). In particular, the article investigates to what extent these traditions have survived since Portugal became a republic in 1910.
The Headship of the House of Bragança is claimed by the Duke of Bragança and the Duke of Loulé, who share a common ancestor: king John VI of Portugal (1767-1826). This issue is addressed in my article Lines of succession to the former Portuguese throne. The current article only addresses the honours that are issued by the Duke of Bragança.
Fidalguia
The upper social class in fifteenth-century Portugal was the fidalguia (nobility), corresponding perhaps to one percent of the population. The ancient Portuguese nobility was defined by the medieval lineages of noblemen (fidalgos or in Spanish: hidalgos). An early definition of this term can be found in the Book of Laws that was issued by King Alfonso X of Leon and Castile in the mid-thirteenth century (Ley 3ª, Título XXI, Partida 2ª de las Siete Partidas del Rey Alfonso X el Sabio). Hidalguía (Portuguese: fidalguia) is the nobility that comes to men through their lineage:
…es nobleza que viene a los hombres por linaje, y por ello deben mucho guardar los que tienen derecho en ella, que no la dañen ni la mengüen, y pues que el linaje hace que la tengan los hombres así como herencia, no debe querer el hidalgo que él haya de ser de tan mala ventura que lo que en los otros se comenzó y heredaron, mengüe o se acabe en él, y esto sería cuando él menguase en lo que los otros acrecentaron, casando con villana o el villano con hijodalgo. Pero la mayor parte de la hidalguía ganan los hombres por la honra de los padres, pues cuando la madre sea villana y el padre hijodalgo, hijodalgo es el hijo que de ellos naciere, y por hidalgo se puede contar, mas no por noble, mas si naciere de hijadalga y de villano, no tuvieron por derecho que fuese contado por hijodalgo.
…it is nobility what comes to men by lineage, and for this reason those who have a right to it should be very careful not to damage or diminish it, and since lineage causes men to have it as an inheritance, the nobleman should not wish that he should be so unfortunate that what was begun and inherited in others should diminish or end in him, and this would be when he diminishes in what others have increased, by marrying a woman-villain or a villain despite a nobleman. But the greater part of nobility is gained by men through the honour of their parents, for when the mother is a villain and the father is a nobleman (Fidalgo), nobleman (Fidalgo) is the son born from them, and he can be counted as fidalgo but not as noble, but if he is born of a son of a noblewoman (Fidalga) and of a villain, he has no right to be counted as nobleman (hijodalgo).
Libro de las Siete Partidas (Book of Laws), P. II, Tít. XXI, l. III (modernized spelling).
The lineages of the ancient Portuguese nobility are recorded in the unique work of Pedro Alfonso de Portugal, 3º Conde de Barcelos(before 1289 – 1350), an illegitimate son of King Denis of Portugal and Grácia Frois: Livro de Linhagens do Conde D. Pedro; Quintilhas aos brasões de armas das famílias de Portugal / João Rodrigues de Sá e Meneses [1601-1700].The original nobility was supplemented by persons who were elevated to the noble status by the monarch, based on their personal achievements and their services rendered to the House of Bragança. The structure of the Portuguese nobility is complex. Luiz da Silva Pereira Oliveira distinguishes eight different qualities of noblemen: (i) noblemen of a well-known manor; (ii) noblemen by lineage; (iii) noblemen listed in the Livros d’El Rei (the King’s Books); (iv) noblemen created by the special grace of the King, which are different from those listed in the Livros d’El Rei; (v) notable noblemen; (vi) noblemen with great estates, or of great quality; (vii) principle noblemen; (viii) noblemen entitled to coats of arms (see: Luiz da Silva Pereira. Privilégios da Nobreza, e Fidalguia de Portugal. Lisboa – Na oficina de João Rodrigues Neves, 1806, p. 224.). However, there were many more kinds of nobility at the time of the monarchy and one person could have several qualities.
Rule of the House of Bragança
During the turbulent years between 1640 and 1910, the House of Bragança ruled as kings and queens over Portugal. The family played a key role in establishing Portuguese independence from its powerful Spanish neighbors and saved Portugal from total destruction by the vast armies of Napoleon. The Braganças also ruled over the huge empire of Brazil from 1822 to 1889 and created a unified nation, thus preventing the country from splitting into small warring states (see: Professor Malyn Newitt: 2019).
When Portugal abolished the monarchy in 1910, it also abolished the nations’s prosperity. As a monarchist, I agree with Dom Duarte Pio, Duke of Bragança, when he states:
Kings are always better heads of state than presidents. We rule for life and don’t represent particular interest groups. Our influence as kings is evident. People normally don’t know who the president of Italy is but everyone knows the name of the princes of Monaco and Liechtenstein, two of Europe’s smallest nations.
Dom Duarte has proven the correctness of his statements. In 1997, he suggested to the Indonesian Vice-President Jusuf Habibie to hold a referendum on the independence of East Timor. After Habibie became president of Indonesia in 1999, a referendum was held that resulted in the independence of East Timor. As a token of gratitude, president Ramos-Horta conferred the Timorese citizenship upon Duarte Pio and awarded him the Grand Collar of the Order of Timor-Leste.
Traditions at the Bragança-court
The Bragança-court was a closed institution with a very stable inner circle. At the Court, the family traditions and values of the Portuguese aristocracy played a crucial role in keeping up its cultural identity. Not living in accordance with these traditions and values, lead to revoking of an individual’s status and that of his descendants:
(…) the central core of family values, expressed in the discipline of the aristocratic house, an essential secular aspect of the fidalgo “ethos”, was maintained until the end of the eighteenth century. This last aspect cannot be dissociated from the spread of culture or the forms used for the construction of nobiliary identities in Portugal in the period of the dynasty of Bragança, which began with the rebellion of 1640. Contrary to the well-known models based on Norbert Elias and the French case, but which has been questioned by the historiography (cf. especially Duindam 1995, Adamson 1999), the extremely closed society of the court of the new Portuguese dynasty only promoted the spread of a cosmopolitan culture within its circles in a very limited fashion. Even in this select and restricted universe, it was the traditional standards of family behaviour, linked to the institution of entailed estates, which continued to prevail.
Dom Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza, Head of the House of Braganza, issues the insignia belonging to the Hereditary Knight of the Royal House of Portugal, with the privilege of the Grand Collar, to Prof. Dr. phil. h.c. Dr. rer. nat. h.c. Moritz Hunzinger, one of the most senior founding entrepreneurs in the German media sector (Kiev, 2021). Hunzinger is a well-known philanthropist and communications expert who has successfully brought together leaders from the worlds of politics and business.
In ancient times, Portugal had no tradition of titled nobility. The nobility consisted mainly of ricos homens (rich men), infanções (infants) and cavaleiros (horsemen). Between the 13th and 15th centuries, the ricos homens formed the highest category within the Portuguese nobility. In former Portuguese colonies, like the Moluccan Islands, the Malay translation, Orang Kaya (=rich man), of Rico homem is still used to designate members of the regional nobility (see: Ellen, 1986). The next category was formed by the Infanções, and finally the Cavaleiros. From the 14th century onward, the different categories of nobility and the equivalent titles began to formalize under royal authority (António Manuel Hespanha, A Nobreza nos Tratados Jurídicos dos Séculos XVI a XVIII; Vol. Nobreza e Aristocracia, Edição Cosmos, Lisboa). The 1806 monumental work Privilegios da nobreza, e fidalguia de Portugal, by magistrate (Almanach do anno de 1805, Lisboa, Impressão Regia, 1805, p. 414) Dr. Luiz da Silva Pereira Oliveira, analyzes and explains the system of the Portuguese nobility. His work shows how complex the Portuguese system is.
In 1572, King Sebastião (1554 – disappeared in 1578) ordered the reform of the status of the noblemen who resided at his Court. Since 1572, the hierarchical foro (=privilege)-system listed 12 degrees of distinction (Olival 2002, p. 80). Only the first three were associated with noble birth (fidalguia): noble knight (fidalgo cavaleiro); noble squire (fidalgo escudeiro) and page (moço fidalgo):
(…) deu ele regimento ao mordomo mor, datado de três de Janeiro de 1572, e nele ordenou que os Cavaleiros Fidalgos fossem em diante nomeados Fidalgos Cavaleiros, e que os escudeiros Fidalgos passassem à denominação de Fidalgos escudeiros; e não havendo nisto mais diferença que a de antepor o vocábulo Fidalgo ao de Cavaleiro, ou de escudeiro, há contudo hoje uma notável distinção e desigualdade entre uns e outros, e vem a ser: que o Fidalgo Escudeiro, ou Cavaleiro, é verdadeiro Fidalgo, e o Escudeiro, ou Cavaleiro Fidalgo não o é ell e fica diferindo tanto um do outro, como o ouro do dourado.
(… ) he gave a regulation to the chief steward [of the royal house], dated three January 1572, and in it he ordered that the Knights Nobleman were henceforth called Noble Knights, and that the Squires Nobleman passed to the denomination of Noble Squires; and there is no more difference than putting the word Noble before the word Knight, or Squire, there is however today a notable distinction and inequality between one and the other, which is: that the Noble Squire, or Knight, is a true Nobleman, and the Squire, or Knight Nobleman is not and is different so much one from the other, as gold from golden.
After the abolition of ricos homens, the King introduced the titles of infanções, cavaleiros and escudeiros. The grandees (Grand noble) were (among others) the hereditary dukes and counts. Bishops and Cardinal-abbots were also given the status of grandee by elevation or inheritance. Other titles did not include the dignity of grandee. Titles were created “de juro e herdade” (forever), for two or even three generations, through the male or female line, or “em sua vida” (for life). Extinguished titles reverted to the Crown. Fidalgos da Casa Real were created by the House of Bragança (Fidalgo da Casa de Bragança) already before the family became the rulers of Portugal. Subsequently, these titles were created by the Crown. Transmission was only possible through the male line.
The rare titles of Senhor (=Lord, for example Senhor do Caniço in the Ornelas family), Dom, or lesser titles as Cidadão do Porto, were granted by royal warrant. In modern times, the Conselheiro de Sua Magestade Fidelíssima (king’s counsel) was a title granted for life. Other titles, such as Fidalgo de cota de armas por sucessão (armigerous nobleman) or mercê nova (newly created nobleman) were granted by the King. The recipient of such titles became a nobleman. During the monarchical period, it was forbidden to carry a coat of arms without authorisation. The Instituto da Nobreza de Portugal still registers coats of arms, which are inherited through male or female succession, according to the rules in force at the time of Dom Manuel II, the last king of Portugal (source: Prof. Dr. Dr. h. c. António da Costa de Albuquerque de Sousa Lara). The website of the Instituto da Nobreza de Portugal provides a good an complete overview of the structure of the complex Portuguese nobiliary system.
Fidalgo was a right that was inherited through birth. The Kings had no power over this dignity. The king could neither abolish nor create a Fidalgo. Therefore, it is said: the King can create a noble person but not create a Fidalgo (source: Prof. Dr. Dr. h. c. António da Costa de Albuquerque de Sousa Lara).
The aforementioned renewed structure of the Fidalgos da Casa Real was the inspiration for establishing the institution of the Hereditary Dames and Knights of the Royal House of Portugal by the Duke de Bragança.
Legal aspects
The current Portuguese government correctly states that monarchs in exile do not lose their dynastic rights:
Mesmo em exílio, a sucessão real mantém-se, com todos os privilégios, estilos e honras que cabem ao chefe da Casa Real não reinante.
Even in exile, the royal succession is maintained, with all the privileges, styles and honours befitting the Head of the non-reigning Royal House.
The government has stated that Dom Duarte is the legal successor to the Headship of the Royal House of Portugal, although a second line of succession exists:
De acordo com aquele direito costumeiro, a sucessão na chefia da Casa Real Portuguesa deu-se do seguinte modo:
• D. Pedro IV de Portugal, I do Brasil, irmão de D. Miguel, abdicou do Trono Português.
• D. Maria II, seguinte na linha de sucessão, assumiu o trono.
• A descendência de D. Maria II manteve o Trono até 1910, aquando da Implantação da República. • D. Manuel II, último Rei de Portugal, morreu no exílio, sem descendentes, nem irmãos legítimos.
• A linha colateral mais próxima, mantendo a nacionalidade portuguesa, de acordo com as normas sucessórias era a linha que advinha de D. Miguel, irmão de D. Pedro IV. Desse modo, o filho de D. Miguel, Miguel Maria de Assis Januário tornou-se legitimamente o novo chefe da Casa Real de Bragança por sucessão mortis causa de D. Manuel II.
• Ainda no exílio, sucedeu a D. Miguel [agora, de Bragança], seu único filho varão D. Duarte Nuno de Bragança e a este o actual chefe da Casa Real, D.Duarte Pio de Bragança.
• Em 1950, por Lei da Assembleia Nacional, a Família Real portuguesa foi autorizada a retornar.
According to that customary law, the succession to the Head of the Portuguese Royal House took place as follows:
• Dom Pedro IV of Portugal, I of Brazil, brother of Dom Miguel, abdicated the Portuguese Throne.
• Maria II, the next in line, assumed the throne.
• The descendants of Maria II retained the throne until 1910, when the Republic was established.
• Manuel II, the last King of Portugal, died in exile, without descendants or legitimate brothers.
• The closest collateral line, maintaining Portuguese nationality, according to the rules of succession was the line that came from Miguel, brother of Pedro IV. Miguel’s son Miguel Maria de Assis Januário legitimately became the new Head of the Royal House of Braganza by succession upon the death of Manuel II.
• Miguel was succeeded in exile by his only son, Duarte Nuno de Bragança, and by the current Head of the Royal House, Duarte Pio de Bragança.
• In 1950, by Law of the National Assembly, the Portuguese Royal Family was allowed to return home.
The government also confirmed that, based on consuetude, Dom Duarte has the prerogative to bestow titles and honours, although these are not recognised by the Portuguese state:
Do mesmo modo, a mestria das ordens nobiliárquicas e honoríficas monárquicas compete ao legítimo sucessor dos Reis de Portugal, o Duque de Bragança. Apenas a ele compete conferir foros de nobreza e títulos honoríficos. Deve, porém, ressalvar-se que, para efeitos de documentação oficial, apenas são reconhecidos pelo Estado os foros e títulos conferidos antes de 5 de Outubro de 1910 e desde que o direito ao seu uso seja devidamente provado, nos termos do Decreto n.º 10537, de 12 de Fevereiro de 1925.
In the same way, the Duke of Bragança, the legitimate successor to the kings of Portugal, has the authority to confer noble ranks and honorary titles. He alone has the authority to confer nobility and honorary titles. It should, however, be noted that, for the purposes of official documentation, only those conferred prior to 5th October 1910 and provided that the right to use them is duly proven, under the terms of Decree no. 10537 of 12th February 1925, are recognised by the State.
Only the titles of nobility granted by a reigning monarch before 5 October 1910 are given legal recognition and protection by public law, because they are part of a person’s name:
33. Salienta Menezes Cordeiro que ” o nome ou nome civil serve a individualização das pessoas mas, além dele, a sociedade reconhece fórmulas complementares de designação, que completam essa individualização” (“Títulos Nobiliárquicos e Registo Civil: a Inconstitucionalidade da Reforma de 2007″,R.O.A., Ano 69, 2009, pág. 19-57). Assim, a lei concede proteção ao pseudónimo ( artigo 74.º do Código Civil) e, se assim sucede, por maioria de razão há de ser concedida proteção ao título nobiliárquico a que a pessoa legitimamente tenha direito, tratado como complemento do nome que pode anteceder o nome do comerciante individual (artigo 38.º/3 do Regime do Registo Nacional das Pessoas Coletivas aprovado pelo Decreto-Lei n.º 129/98, de 13 de maio). No entender do mencionado Professor os títulos nobiliárquicos constituem figuras equiparadas ao nome – ou, no dizer de Carvalho Fernandes, ” figuras afins do nome civil” (Teoria Geral do Direito Civil, Lex, 1995, Vol I, 2.ª edição, pág. 156) – que ” de acordo com a posição hoje pacífica […] é apresentado como um direito de personalidade” (loc. cit., pág. 54).
Menezes Cordeiro points out that “the name or civil name serves to individualise persons but, in addition to this, society recognises complementary designation forms, which complete this individualisation” (“Titles of Property and Civil Registration: the Unconstitutionality of the 2007 Reform”, R.O.A., Year 69, 2009, pp. 19-57). Thus, the law grants protection to the pseudonym (article 74 of the Civil Code) and, if this is the case, there is even more reason to grant protection to the title of nobility to which the person is legitimately entitled, treated as a complement to the name that may precede the name of the individual trader (article 38/3 of the Regime of the National Register of Companies approved by Decree-Law no. 129/98 of 13 May). According to the referred Professor the titles of nobility are equivalent to the name – or, in the words of Carvalho Fernandes, “figures similar to the civil name” (General Theory of Civil Law, Lex, 1995, Vol I, 2nd edition, page 156) – which “according to the current position of undisturbed us […] is presented as a personality right” (loc. cit., page 54).
Therefore, the fons honorum of Dom Duarte is embedded in the Portuguese legal system. This includes the right to bestow the honours of Hereditary Dames/Knights of the Royal House of Portugal.
The concept of Hereditary Dames/Knights of the Royal House of Portugal includes, among others, explanations, descriptions, medals, drawings, ceremonies and diplomas. It is protected by intellectual property law because it concerns an original work of literature and art, in accordance with the Berne Convention and the Portuguese Decreto-Lei n. 334/97, de 27 de Novembro de 1997. The latter is the implementation of the Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonising the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights.
Cultural preservation: the Hereditary Knight of the Royal House of Portugal
In monarchical Portugal, services rendered to the Crown were essential in ensuring social achievement (Olival 2002, p. 80). In line with this tradition, the Royal House of Portugal still bestows awards to loyal contributors to charitable activities of the Royal House.
Today such a privilege is usually only granted upon those in proven, continued, dedicated service to the Portuguese Royal House who normally have already been awarded the highest ranks of Knighthood in one of the Dynastic Orders or else as a gift granted directly from the Duke of Bragança Motu Proprio in recognition of extraordinary services rendered.
(…)
Donations received from the Knights and Dames of the Portuguese Royal House help the Royal Charities actively supporting organizations operating in impoverished locations in Portugal and also in the Diocesan Missions of former Portuguese Oversea Territories such as São Tomé e Príncipe, Angola, Mozambique and East Timor. They also help support various cultural and historic projects in Portugal.
The designations of Hereditary Knight of the Royal House of Portugal and Hereditary Dame of the Royal House of Portugal, issued by the current Duke of Bragança,are part of the aforementioned Foros of the Royal House of Bragança. These honours do not fit into any of the categories of the post-1572 (after the reform) nobiliary classes, because the legal structures in which the privileges were embedded at the time have been abolished by the Republic of Portugal. However, they are modern versions of a much more ancient institution of the House of Braganca: Fidalgos da Casa de Bragança and Fidalgosda Casa Real. An example is Fernão de Souza, mayor of Montalegre, in Trás-os-Montes, born around 1421, who in 1451 was created nobleman of the House of the Duke of Bragança and in 1473 of the Royal House of Aviz (mentioned with other examples in: Manuel Abranches de Soveral, Machado de Vila Pouca de Aguiar. Ascendências e parentescos da Casa do Couto d’Além, em Soutelo de Aguiar, Porto 2000. Ed. MASmedia. ISNB 972-97430-2-9. DL 152876/00. 202 pp. Integra uma 2ª parte sobre os Borges da Mesquita, de Atei). Another example is D. Gomes de Melo (c. 1580-1645), who was a nobleman of the House of Bragança, Portuguese Ambassador in Holland and England, and Commander of the Order of Christ (mentioned with other examples in: Susana Varela Flow, D. Francisco de Melo Manuel da Câmara: biografia, património, estatuto social e fidelidades (1626-1678), Análise Social, 215, l (2.º), 2015 ISSN online 2182-2999).
This privileged class was created by the House of Bragança (Fidalgo da Casa de Bragança) already before the family became the rulers of Portugal (pre-1640). During the Bragança-monarchy, Fidalgos da Casa Real belonged to a more prominent form of nobility than the ‘normal’ nobility. They were registered in the “Livros d’el-Rei“, like, for example, Manoel Rodrigues da Costa, in the mid-seventeenth century one of the richest and most authoritative noblemen of the kingdom (Caso n.º 2 N R 67 – Manuel Rodrigues da Costa Pr. n.º 9948 L – 11/11/1658-27/6/1672 A d F de 21-6-1671; cited in: Saraiva, A. J., Salomon, H. P., & D., S. I. S. (2001). The Marrano factory. The Portuguese inquisition and its new Christians, 1536-1765. Brill, p. 66). As the principal nobility of the realm, Fidalgos da Casa Real also had the capacity to obtain charters of coats of arms:
Segundo o direito heráldico português, as cartas de brasão de armas não estavam ao alcance de todos os nobres. Somente mereciam a distinção os fidalgos hierarquicamente superiores ao fidalgo de cota de armas. Ou seja, somente poderiam pleitear a distinção os fidalgos de grande qualidade, fidalgos de solar, fidalgos de linhagem, fidalgos notáveis e fidalgos assentados nos livros d’El Rei, denominados “fidalgos principais” ou “nobreza principal do reino”. Nesse grupo seleto ainda estavam os fidalgos do conselho, fidalgos cavaleiros, fidalgos escudeiros, fidalgos capelães e moços fidalgos. Embora pudessem ter brasões, os fidalgos de cotas de armas se localizavam na segunda ordem, onde estavam os nobres de linhagem (com quatro avós nobres), os cavaleiros fidalgos, desembargadores de El Rei, os cavaleiros das Ordens Militares, as pessoas denominadas por dom. Por fim, a terceira ordem se compunha de “pessoas de nobreza ordinária”, como os simples letrados, pessoas de grau de letras, professores régios de gramática latina e grega, de retórica e os cavaleiros, escudeiros e homens bons.
According to Portuguese heraldic law, charters of coats of arms were not attainable by all nobles, rather those fidalgos who were hierarchically superior to the fidalgo of arms. In other words, only high status fidalgos could ask for the distinction, namely the fidalgos de solar (fidalgos who were the direct successor of an old noble house), fidalgos by lineage, ‘notable fidalgos,’ and fidalgos entered in the King’s Books, who were called the ‘principal fidalgos‘ or the ‘principal nobility of the kingdom.’ Also included in this select group were the fidalgos of the council, fidalgos cavaleiros, fidalgos escudeiros, fidalgos capelães (chaplains) and moço fidalgo. Although they could have coats of arms, the fidalgos of arms were of the second rank, along with nobles by lineage (with four grandparent nobles), cavaleiros fidalgos, the judges of the High Courts, the knights of the Military Orders, and those granted the title of Dom. Finally, the third order was composed of ‘people of ordinary nobility,’ such as those who were educated, people with degrees, royal professors of Latin and Greek grammar and rhetoric, squires, and ‘homens bons’ (city councilmen)
In order to be registered in the Livros d’el-Rei, Fidalgos da Casa Real had to provide four documents: (i) their baptism certificate, (ii) their parents’ marriage certificate, (iii) a certificate proving that their father or grandfather already had this status and (iv) a sworn attestation by two nobles, proving the nobleman’s identity, birthplace and residence, his filiation and that of his parents and grandparents, and finally that his father or grandfather was already a Fidalgo da Casa Real (Luís da Silva PereiraOliveira, Privilegios da Nobreza, e Fidalguia de Portugal, Lisbon, 1806, pp. 229-230).
The designations of Hereditary Knight of the Royal House of Portugal and Hereditary Dame of the Royal House of Portugal do not enjoy state recognition and bestow no privileges as in ancient times, but nonetheless, remain monuments of Portugal’s monarchical history and part of its rich cultural heritage. The current Portuguese government confirmed that, based on custom and tradition, Dom Duarte still has the prerogative to bestow titles and honours, although these are not recognised by the Portuguese state. Therefore, the fons honorum that creates Hereditary Knights of the Royal House of Portugal, is recognized by the Portuguese government. This places the modern designation Hereditary Knight/Dameof the Royal House of Portugal in a unique position. Their character and legal status are more or less comparable to the Dutch orders awarded for services rendered to the Dutch Royal House. However, the Portuguese variant implies that the holder of the award also belongs to the traditional, hereditary nobility of the Royal House of Bragança.
Conclusions
Dom Duarte’s role in continuing the cultural and historical heritage, passed on to him by his ancestors, can be appreciated. One way of keeping these traditions alive is to bestow honours and titles upon worthy individuals. The institution of Hereditary Dames/Knights of the Royal House of Portugal is an exponent thereof. I have examined a diploma (diploma no. 7, issued on 8 May 2021) and noticed that it underlines the bond between the Royal House and the recipient of the honour.
I advise individuals who wish to publicly express their affiliation with the House of Bragança, to designate themselves as “Jane Smith, Dame of the Royal House of Portugal” or “John Smith, Knight of the Royal House of Portugal “. The fact that the title is hereditary is an internal (family) matter: “with the right of succession to his designated heir and his heirs, forever“, as the diploma stipulates. Post-nominals are not advised, since it would be hard to find the exact meaning of the letters for persons not familiar with the designation.
Recommendations
In my opinion, it is necessary to draw up statutes for the Dames and Knights of the Royal House of Portugal. It should be perfectly clear what the rights and obligations are of both the issuer and the recipient. Some essential articles could include for example:
I. The Institution of Dames and Knights of the Royal House of Portugal is a knightly order of the House of Bragança.
II. The Dames and Knights of the Royal House of Portugal are under the jurisdiction of Dom Duarte Pio, duke of Bragança and count of Ourém.
III. Membership of the knightly order is based on proven, continued and dedicated service to the House of Bragança.
IV. The degrees are divided as follows: Knight-Grand Collar, Knight-Grand Cross, Knight-Grand Officer, Knight-Commander, Knight-Officer, Knight.
V. The members of the Order belong to the nobility of the House of Bragança.
R.A.U. Juchter van Bergen Quast
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Prof. Dr. Dr. h. c. Humberto Nuno Lopes Mendes de Oliveira, Universidade Lusíada de Lisboa, as well as Prof. Dr. Dr. h. c. António da Costa de Albuquerque de Sousa Lara, Academia de Letras e Artes de Portugal, for their insights and their editing work.
Sources
Olival, F. (2002). The Military Orders and the Nobility in Portugal, 1500-1800. Mediterranean Studies,11, 71-88. Retrieved June 5, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41166939
Newitt, Malyn (2019). The Braganzas: the rise and fall of the ruling dynasties of Portugal and Brazil, 1640-1910. Reaktion Books Ltd.
Cunha, Rui Vieira da: Studies of the Brazilian Nobility . Rio de Janeiro – s/d.
Olival, F. (2006). An Elite? The Meaning of Knighthood in the Portuguese Military Orders of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Mediterranean Studies,15, 117-126. Retrieved June 4, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41166995
Cunha, Mafalda Soares da (2000), A Casa de Bragança (1560-1640). Práticas senhoriais e redes clientelares, Lisbon: Ed. Estampa.
Marques, A.H. de Oliveira (sd), Nobreza – época medieval, in J.Serrão (dir.), Dicionário de História de Portugal, Iniciativas Ed.
Cabral, J. d. P., & Lima, A. P. d. (Eds.) 2000. Elites : Choice, Leadership and Succession. Etnográfica Press. doi :10.4000/books.etnograficapress.1278
Monteiro, Nuno Gonçalo (1987). Notas sobre nobreza, fidalguia e titulares nos finais do Antigo Regime. In Ler História, 10: 15-51.
León Jorge Pérez, & Martínez Martínez Carmen. (2012). Hidalgos indianos ante la Real Chancillería de Valladolid: el caso peruano en época de los Borbones. Universidad de Valladolid, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Departamento de Historia Moderna, Contemporánea y de América, Periodismo y Comunicación Audiovisual y Publicidad.
Marcus, G. (2001). A Report on the Contemporary Portuguese Nobility: A Document as “Bait” in an Ongoing Ethnographic Inquiry. Anthropological Journal on European Cultures,10, 59-101. Retrieved June 6, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43234885
Ellen, R. (1986). Conundrums about Panjandrums: On the Use of Titles in the Relations of Political Subordination in the Moluccas and along the Papuan Coast. Indonesia, (41), 47-62. doi:10.2307/3351035
It is my understanding that the use of “Sir” in the UK was exclusively reserved for domestic knighthoods only. For example, even the Royal Guelphic Order, founded by the Prince Regent, viz. Hanover, conferred on a fair few British military personnel, did not entitle the recipient to use “Sir”. Many were then subsequently dubbed as Knight Bachelor so they could be entitled to use the prefix. Permission to wear a foreign order does not grant permission to use “Sir”. The question must be why would Levett Hanson be so entitled? The College of Arms cannot confer such a right. Why would the UK make an exception for him is surely the question?
This article investigates to what extent British nationals need(ed) permission to officially wear foreign orders and titles of nobility. I have listed the regulations regarding the acceptance of foreign orders below. Subsequently, I will demonstrate how these regulations have been applied in four particular cases. I will do the same for the regulations regarding foreign titles of nobility. From this, I will draw conclusions regarding the research question.
Regulations regarding foreign orders
Prior to 1812, British subjects often assumed foreign titles and honorific prefixes, the exception being that persons in the military (like Vice-Admiral Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, 1st Duke of Bronté and General Sir Charles Imhoff) required the King’s warrant to accept and wear a foreign decoration and assume the honorific prefix, which included “Sir” (source: communication from Mr. Stephen Lautens GCJ, B.A., J.D.). Since then, the regulations regarding these matters have become stricter.
His Royal Highness the Prince Regentdeemed it expedient to announce, in the Year 1812:
5. That no Subject of His Majesty could be allowed to accept the Insignia of a Foreign Order from any Sovereign of a Foreign State except they shall be so conferred in consequence of Active and distinguished services before the Enemy, either at Sea or in the Field; or unless he shall have been actually employed in the service of such Foreign Sovereign.
In March 1813, the Prince Regent was pleased to command that the following Proviso should bethereafter inserted in all Royal Warrants for the acceptance of Foreign Orders:
6. That His Majesty’s License and Permission doth not authorize, and shall not be deemed or construed to authorize, the assumption of any style, appellation, rank, or privilege, appertaining unto a Knight Batchelor of these Realms.
1. That no British Subjects shall accept a Foreign Order, or wear its Insignia, without having previously obtained a Warrant under the Royal Sign Manual (directed to the Earl Marshal of England), granting them His Majesty’s permission to accept and wear the same.
1. No subject of Her Majesty shall accept a Foreign Order from the sovereign of any foreign country, or wear the insignia thereof, without having previously obtained Her Majesty’s permission to that effect, signified by a Warrant under Her Royal Sign Manual.
2. Such permission shall not be granted to any subject of Her Majesty, unless the Foreign Order shall have been conferred in consequence of active and distinguished service before the enemy, either at sea or in the field ; or unless he shall have been actually and entirely employed, beyond Her Majesty’s dominions, in the service of the foreign sovereign by whom the Order is conferred,
1. It is The King’s wish that no subject of His Majesty shall wear the Insignia of any Foreign Order without having previously obtained His Majesty’s permission to do so, signified either:
a. By Warrant under the Royal Sign-Manual, or
b. By private permission conveyed through His Majesty’s Private Secretary.
2. Permission given by Warrant under the Royal Sign-Manual will enable the Insignia of the Foreign Order to be worn at all times and without any restriction. Private permission will only enable the Insignia to be worn on the occasions specified in the terms of the letter from The King’s Private Secretary conveying the Royal Sanction.
Notice is hereby given that, in line with the long-established convention concerning foreign titles, British nationals who have been awarded an honour by another country may not use any associated title, that the award might bestow, in the United Kingdom.
Only those British nationals, including dual nationals, awarded a British Knighthood or appointed to a British Order of Chivalry as a Dame, may use the title ‘Sir’ or ‘Dame’ in the United Kingdom.
Birmingham Museums, Samuel Colman, Portrait of Sir Edward Thomason (1769-1849), date: 1840-1849, Sir William Thomason; The Birmingham manufacturer Is here shown wearing decorations awarded to him by foreign sovereigns.
Sir Levett Hanson (1754–1814) lived in an era before formal regulations regarding the use of the prefix Sir became into force. Based on the fact that in 1780 Hanson received the Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Saint Philip (German: Orden Sankt Phillipps zum Löwen) from the (sovereign) Counts of Limburg-Stirum and in 1800 became Knight Vice-Chancellor of the Order of Saint Joachim, the College of Arms confirmed his entitlement to the prefix of Sir (source: Calendar of Knights; Containing Lists of Knights Bachelors, British Knights of Foreign Orders, Also Knights of the Garter, Thistle, Bath, St. Patrick and the Guelphic and Ionian Orders). In fact, Hanson was a double-Sir and not a self-styled Sir, as has been suggested by some individuals. Hanson’s use was in line with tradition, which was confirmed by the College or Arms. The College did not constitute a legal fact (creating a ‘Sir’), but only declared that the use of the prefix was legitimate (a declaratory judgment).
The first known British subject to be invested into the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George was Captain William D’Arley, who received the decoration from King Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies in 1801. D’Arley was authorized to use the title Sir with the King’s permission (sources: Sainty, G. S. (2019). The Constantinian Order of Saint George: And the Angeli, Farnese and Bourbon families which governed it. Madrid: Boletín Oficial del Estado, 2018; Sir Levett Hanson, An Accurate Historical Account of All the Orders of Knighthood at Present Existing in Europe, volume 1, London, 1802). D’Arley was a captain of marines and therefore needed official permission to wear the decoration.
Sir Edward Thomason, British inventor and manufacturer, was knighted by King William IV (source: The Edinburgh Gazette, 3 July 1832, Issue 4081, Page 189). In addition, Thomason received a number of foreign decorations: Gold Medal of Merit (Prussia, 1823); Cross and decoration of the Order of Merit of Francis I (Naples,1830); Order of the Dutch Lion (1831); Order of the Red Eagle of Prussia, fourth class (1831); Cross of the Order of Isabel the Catholic (Spain, 1833); Order of the Lion and Sun (Persia, 1833); Constantinian Order of Saint George (Naples, 1833); Order of the Saints Maurice and Lazarus, Sardinia, 1834); Order of Christ (Portugal, 1835); Royal Guelphic Order (Hanover,1838). No permission for any of these foreign Orders was found (source: Edward Thomason, Sir Edward Thomason’s Memoirs During Half a Century, London 1845).
King George V (front, centre) with his prime ministers at the 1926 Imperial Conference. Standing (left to right): Monroe (Newfoundland), Coates (New Zealand), Bruce (Australia), Hertzog (Union of South Africa), Cosgrave (Irish Free State). Seated: Baldwin (United Kingdom), King George V, William Lyon Mackenzie King (Canada). Photo: WikiCommons.
On 2 November 2014, Mr. B. – a British citizen and Magistral Delegate for Inter-Religious Relations of the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of St George and Secretary General of the Royal Order of Francis I – was knighted in recognition of the longstanding charitable and inter-religious work undertaken through his institutional roles within the charitable Sacred Military Constantinian Order of St George. HE Sir Rodney Williams, KGN, GCMG, Governor General of Antigua and Barbuda and official representative of HM Queen Elizabeth II in her right as Queen of Antigua and Barbuda, acting on advice of Her Majesty’s Antigua and Barbuda Ministers, invested and presented to Mr. B. the insignia of Knighthood in the rank and dignity of Knight Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of the Nation (KGCN). The Most Distinguished Order of the Nation is an Order of Chivalry instituted by Queen Elizabeth II in right of Antigua and Barbuda through the National Honours Act which received Royal Assent on 31 December 1998. The award gives to recipients the right to use the prefix Sir. Mr B. used the prefix during public events in England. On 1 June 2016, a joint statement was published in the London Gazette by Buckingham Palace, the College of Arms and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stating that British citizens could not use the title of Sir without being knighted by the Queen. In July 2016, the Grenadian government cancelled the awards issued to Mr B. and the other recipients. The Antiguan government followed with a similar act, published the Gazette, of 21 July 2017. Obviously, both governments acted under pressure of the aforementioned 2016 statement. These politically inspired actions are a violation of the Balfour Report, issued by the 1926 Imperial Conference of British Empire leaders in London, which declared that Britain and its Dominions were constitutionally equal to each other, rather than subordinate. The report defines the group of self-governing communities composed of Great Britain and the Dominions as “autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.”. The findings of the report were made law by the British Parliament in the 1931 Statute of Westminster. In Mr. B.’s case, this law was violated.
Policies regarding foreign titles
In addition to his excellent research regarding the acceptance of foreign orders by British nationals, François Russel Velde carried out an thorough investigation into the British governmental recognition of foreign titles. In this section I will summarize his findings and add relevant facts, images and legal considerations.
The College of Arms in London has a complete record of all the Royal Grants going back to Stuart times with very elaborate and well kept indices of the original foreign Letters Patent. In each case these are accompanied by a copy of the Royal Warrant issued (source: Home Office 45/13725, 440302/2, quoted by FV). Velde’s research shows that throughout history there have not been many applications for recognizing foreign titles in Britain and the approval has been very restrictive. Approval was mostly based on financial considerations (the wealth of the applicant). Being of ancient noble descent was hardly relevant. This can be shown by the following cases.
Jonkheer Frans Izaak van Haeften (1876-1964), Lieutenant Scots Guards. The family was ennobled in 1844 by King William II of the Netherlands. Van Haeften’s application was turned down in 1912 (Home Office 144/1206/222229), although the family was well-established in Britain: Arthur Patrick William Seely, 3rd Baron Mottistone (1905-1966), married on 2 Sep 1939 (div. 1949) Wilhelmina Josephine Philippa van Haeften, daughter of Jonkheer Frans Izaak van Haeften, of The Hague, Netherlands, by his wife Mabel Annie Brocklehurst, only daughter of Sir Philip Lancaster Brocklehurst, 1st Bt., of Swythamley Park, Macclesfield, co. Cheshire.
Velde’s research reveals that there are only three applications that were approved between 1832 and 1882. Lionel Nathan Freiherr von Rothschild(1808 – 1879) was a Jewish banker and politician. In 1838, Queen Victoria authorized him to use the Austrian imperial title in Britain (source: Bulletins of State Intelligence 1838, p. 220) that was issued to his father Nathan Mayer Freiherr von Rothschild (once the richest man on earth) in 1822 (Schembs, Hans-Otto: Rothschild, Nathan Mayer (von). Artikel aus der Frankfurter Biographie (1994/96) in: Frankfurter Personenlexikon (Onlineausgabe), http://frankfurter-personenlexikon.de/node/949).
Isaac Lyon Goldsmid was a partner in bullion dealer and refiner Mocatta & Goldsmid and made a large fortune. In the 18th and 19th centuries, ″Mocatta″ was a broker to the Bank of England and the East India Company (Bloomberg, 2019). After settling a monetary dispute in South America at the instruction of Queen Victoria, Goldsmid was ennobled (on an individual basis) in 1846 by Queen Maria II of Portugal with the title Baron da Goldsmid e da Palmeira. His ninth child Rachel Goldsmid was married to Count Henry D’Avigdor, who was created Duke d’Acquviva by the San Marino government on 21 April 1861. On 15 October 1841, the Goldsmid Baronetcy, of St John’s Lodge in the County of Surrey, was created on behalf of the aforementioned Isaac Lyon Goldsmid.
Salomon Benedict Worms (1801-1882) was a banker and head of the bank G. & A. Worms in London. Emperor Francis Joseph I of Austria conferred upon Worms the Imperial Order of the Iron Crown, 2nd class (German: Kaiserlicher Orden der Eisernen Krone) on 27 June 1870 for defending the interests of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. The Imperial Order of the Iron Crown was one of the highest orders of merit of Austria and Austria-Hungary until 1918. Until 18 July 1884 the recipient of the 2nd Class in the Order was ennobled with the title Freiherr (Baron) in the Austrian or Hungarian nobility. Because Worms was a foreigner, he could not apply for ennoblement on the basis of the Order’s statutes. The baronage was therefore granted by the emperor himself by special pardon in his decision on 27 March 1871. By deed of 23 April 1871, Worms was granted the title Freiherr and the predicate von. On 10 August 1874, Queen Victoria allowed Worms to use his Austrian title in Great Britain (more information can be found in: Jewish Chronicles and Jewish World, 27 Oct. 1882).
Conclusions
Regulations regarding the recognition of foreign decorations and titles in Britain have evolved. Sir Levett Hanson (1754–1814) lived in an era when there were no formal regulations regarding the use of the prefix Sir. It was common practice to assume the prefix when a foreign knighthood was granted. Hanson’s use of the prefix was confirmed by the College of Arms. It is irrelevant whether the College had authority to confer the right to use the prefix (which was not the case). The College simply recorded and accepted the use of the prefix by Hanson. This declarative legal action proves that Hanson obtained official and relevant approval; nothing more and nothing less.
Regarding the incorporation of foreign titles of nobility in Britain, the aforementioned examples show that there was no transparent policy to predict the outcome of an application. This changed in July 1930, when George V abolished the use of foreign titles by British Subjects. The King revoked the Royal Warrants listed in the fourth column of the linked Annex which had allowed the use of the foreign dignitaries and titles set out in the second and third columns of the Annex. The current holder of the permission, his son and grandson where named could continue to use the title for his own lifetime. Apart from these exceptions, official recognition is not given to the use of foreign titles by British citizens and the government does not address any British citizen (whether by naturalisation or otherwise) by such a title.
While there is nothing to prevent a British citizen in the United Kingdom from using a foreign title for private purposes, such a title cannot be officially recognised. When the Secretary of State receives an application from a person who appears to hold a foreign title, the official (caseworker) is instructed to:
Seek confirmation of its authenticity from the Honours Department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; and
Write, as follows, addressing him by his title, to warn him that the Office will not receive official recognition: “The Secretary of State thinks it right to point out that if you become a British citizen your foreign title will not receive official recognition in this country and that in accordance with the established practice it will be omitted from the certificate. I am to request that you will specifically acknowledge your acceptance of this position.“.
Enquiries will not be put in hand until the applicant has acknowledged his acceptance of his legal position. Similarly, if an alien who uses a foreign title enquires about becoming naturalised and appears to be residentially qualified, the answer to his enquiry will include a warning about the use of his title if naturalisation is granted and a request for a letter confirming that he accepts the position (Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk).
The fact that someone receives the aforementioned warning implies that his foreign title is officially recognised: after checking the authenticity of the foreign title, the applicant is addressed by his title, and warned that when he become a British citizen, his foreign title will not be incorporated in official (British) documents. This means that the British officials accept that the applicant holds an authentic foreign title.
Sainty, G. S. (2019). The Constantinian Order of Saint George: And the Angeli, Farnese and Bourbon families which governed it. Madrid: Boletín Oficial del Estado, 2018
Webster, Joseph Samuel; Sir Levett Hanson, Kt (1754-1814), Traveller; St Edmundsbury Museums.
I have always been surprised by the fact that discussions about the legitimacy of Orders of Knighthood trigger so much emotion. Although the topic is quite interesting, it does not have a great impact on society as a whole. Personally, I prefer to approach questions regarding legitimacy with a liberal view. In my opinion, Orders of Knighthood are legitimate when they do not misrepresent themselves to the public. This is not a widely accepted view. In many cases, specialized groups of internet participants have more radical views. Within such groups, witch hunts often evolve, whereby entire religious and ethnic groups are discredited. The forms of aggression are manifold and vary from expressions of disgust and contempt, to threats, slander, insults, and hatred. If the aggression is met with approval by other users, it can escalate and elicit a so-called online firestorm; a wave of negative and angry online comments in social media (Pfeffer et al. 2013).
It is interesting to see to what extent the judgments of such groups are reliable.
Wikipedia
Wikipedia uses the term ‘self-styled’ regularly to discredit Knightly Orders and related topics. Wikipedia defines ‘self-styled orders’ as follows:
A self-styled order or pseudo-chivalric order is an organisation which claims to be a chivalric order, but is not recognised as legitimate by countries or international bodies. Most self-styled orders arose in or after the mid-18th century, and many have been created recently. Most are short-lived and endure no more than a few decades.
Obviously, the anonymous writers (‘Wikipedians‘ as they are called) of the aforementioned article think that they have enough authority to approve or disapprove the legitimacy of Knightly Orders. Labeling entire groups and entities as ‘self-styled’ implies claiming such authority:
If you describe someone as a self-styled leader or expert, you disapprove of them because they claim to be a leader or expert but they do not actually have the right to call themselves this. [disapproval] Two of those arrested are said to be self-styled area commanders. He fiercely criticised self-styled educational experts for ignoring Shakespeare. Synonyms: so-called, would-be, professed, self-appointed.
Wikipedians consider themselves experts regarding Orders of Knighthood and related topics. It is hard to verify their expertise, but this does not hinder Wikipedians to label a number of groups, entities and persons as ‘self-styled’, or even ‘illegal’, as shown in the three examples below:
Levett Hanson (1754–1814), who styled himself as ‘Sir’ Levett Hanson, was an English-born author and courtier who was active at a number of European courts.
The Vilatte Orders are awards or decorations associated Joseph René Vilatte which include the Order of the Crown of Thorns (OCT) and the Order of the Lion and the Black Cross (OLBC). Both are condemned by the Holy See and Italy lists both as illegal decorations.
Wikipedia
Social media
On Facebook, discussions about the legitimacy often escalate and become very aggressive and emotional. A recent post in a group called Orders of Knighthood and Merit shows that the atmosphere in this group is often very unpleasant:
Dear chivalrous Friends,
I thought about writing something here for a long time, but in the last few days the tone in the posts in this group has become unbearable.
Facebook is supposed to be fun and the first rule of this group is that you should be friendly with one another. But now I have the feeling that I am in a kind of police state.
I am a member of the SMOM and the PMM and the tone here is not acceptable. I will leave this group and I advise some people here to be more humble. In my opinion the most important of the chivalric virtues. That’s the problem today. Everyone talks about chivalry but doesn’t live it. That’s annoying.
I wish everyone here in the group all the best, a little humility and charity. Because charity also begins here in facebook.
A member of the Facebook group Orders of Knighthood and Merit, a private group with 668 members (4 April 2021)
Both Wikipedians who write about Knightly Orders and the members of the Facebook group Orders of Knighthood and Merit are supposed to have a more than average knowledge about their subject of interest. This article investigates to what extend the opinions produced by these individuals can be seen as reliable in light of the theory that a crowd possesses more knowledge than an individual.
‘Wisdom of the crowds’?
The wisdom of the crowds is the combined opinion of a group of individuals. It is believed by some that this ‘wisdom’ outperforms the opinion of a single expert (Surowiecki, 2004). Crowds wisdom works best when there is a single correct answer to a question:
Groups will do better than individuals in choosing a correct answer, and big groups better than little ones, as long as two conditions are met: the majority response “wins,” and each person is more likely than not to be correct. Social scientists have extended Condorcet’s theorem to questions having more than two possible answers. If people—workers, managers, customers—are more likely to choose the right answer than any of the wrong ones, then the plurality’s answer is highly likely to be right if the group is large enough.
However, when each individual in a group is more likely to be wrong than right because relatively few people in the group have access to accurate information, the likelihood that the group’s majority will decide correctly falls toward zero as the size of the group increases. Adding more Wikipedians to an article can improve article quality only when Wikipedians use appropriate coordination techniques, which often is not the case. In most cases, no coordination techniques are applied, which degrades the article severely (Kittur, 2008). This is why designations of anonymous Wikipedians regarding ‘self-styled orders’ are probably always incorrect. Wisdom on social media does not come from the crowds, but from a few experts (Baeza-Yates, 2015). To put it simply: I prefer to undergo medical treatment by one qualified doctor instead of by ten Wikipedians. The following two case studies show that crowds can produce unreliable articles.
Case study 1: meaning of the term ‘knight’
Wikipedians describe an “Order of chivalry” more or less correctly.
An order of chivalry, order of knighthood, chivalric order, or equestrian order is an order of knights typically founded during or inspired by the original Catholic military orders of the Crusades (circa 1099–1291), paired with medieval concepts of ideals of chivalry.
Since the 15th century, orders of chivalry, often as dynastic orders, began to be created in a more courtly fashion that could be created ad hoc. These orders would often retain the notion of being a confraternity, society or other association of members, however, some of them were ultimately purely honorific, consisting of a medal decoration. In fact, these decorations themselves often came to be known informally as orders. These institutions in turn gave rise to the modern-day orders of merit of sovereign states.
Wikipedia’s definition of a ‘knight’ however is incorrect.
A knight is a person granted an honorary title of knighthood by a head of state (including the pope) or representative for service to the monarch, the church or the country, especially in a military capacity.
(…) knighthood is generally granted by a head of state, monarch, or prelate to selected persons to recognise some meritorious achievement, as in the British honours system, often for service to the Church or country.
This description contradicts Wikipedia’s aforementioned description of Order of Knighthood that correctly implies that knights in the European Middle Ages were formally professed cavalrymen.
A more accurate description is given by Britannica:
Knight, French chevalier, German Ritter, now a title of honour bestowed for a variety of services, but originally in the European Middle Ages a formally professed cavalryman.
The contributors of an article in Britannica are fully traceable and the article’s history is transparently recorded. The additions of each author are specified. There is no ‘wisdom of the crowd’ involved, but instead, Britannica applies – in line with Baeza-Yates’ findings – the wisdom of a few experts. This is why Britannica is far more reliable than Wikipedia.
Case study 2: Disqualification of persons and groups
Sir Levett Hanson
Wikipedia’s labeling of Sir Levett Hanson (1754-1814) as a “self-styled Sir” is unreliable. Instead, there are good reasons to accept that Levett Hanson correctly used the prefix of “Sir”:
In 1780 Hanson became the Councillor to the Prince of Limbourg, the Duke of Holstein, at Ghent. He was made a Knight Grand Cross of the Duke’s Order of St. Philip, from which he derived his title “Sir”. His “diploma” recording his knighthood and entitlement to the title “Sir” was duly registered with the English College of Arms, an extract of which can be seen below, taken from the 1828 book by Francis Townsend, FSA, the “Calendar of Knights; Containing Lists of Knights Bachelors, British Knights of Foreign Orders, Also Knights of the Garter, Thistle, Bath, St. Patrick and the Guelphic and Ionian Orders“, listing all knighthoods and orders of knighthood recorded in the English College of Arms’ records. Townsend served as the English College of Arms’ Windsor Herald. Hanson, a serious student of knightly orders, would have been careful to make sure any honours of dignities bestowed upon him were carefully recorded with the proper authorities.
Francis Townsend W. Pickering, 1828 – Knights and knighthood – 224 pages, Calendar of Knights: Containing Lists of Knights Bachelors, British Knights of Foreign Orders, Also Knights of the Garter, Thistle Bath, St. Patrick and the Guelphic and Ionian Orders; from 1760 to the Present Time, P. xxxiii. The work shows the prefix of “Sir” in Hanson’s entry.
Traditionally, the prefix of Sir is used for men who are titled “knights” of, for example, orders of chivalry, and later also to baronets, and other offices. The first known British subject to be invested into the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George was Lieutenant Colonel John Pritchard in 1798. Captain Sir William D’Arley was also invested in 1801, receiving the decoration from King Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies. In the same year, he obtained a Royal Licence from King George III of Great Britain which permitted him to be styled as “Sir William” and to wear the Order’s decoration at Court (source: freiherrvonquast.wordpress.com).
In addition, Burke’s Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage(1848, p. 261) also designates Hanson as “Sir”: “SIR THOMAS GERY, F.R.S. and F.S.A.; b. 30 Nov. 1741 ; m. 1 Sept. 1774, Mary, dau. of Robert Hanson , Esq. of Normanton, co . York , and heir of her brother, Sir Levett Hanson, Knt., by whom (who d. 13 Sept. 1830) he had issue (…)“.
Hanson is not a self-styled ‘Sir’ but a knight, styled as ‘Sir’ by the College of Arms and by Burke’s Peerage.Wikipedia’s article should be revised.
Hanson was not the only member of the Order who was allowed the prefix “Sir”. General Sir Charles Imhoff was granted the Royal Warrant to accept and wear the Grand Cross of The Order of Saint Joachim on 18 May 1807 on recommendation of the English College of Arms. In addition, Imhoff obtained the right to use the prefix “Sir” in England by virtue of the award (source: The London Gazette, 30 May 1807; issue:16033; page:731). Other British subjects who were members the Order of Saint Joachim and recognized as such can be found in (among others). The Peerage of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland: In Two Volumes. Scotland and Ireland, Volume 2, p. 1211 by John Debrett, 1812.
Sovereign Military Order Temple of Jerusalem (OSMTH)
The OSMTH cannot be seen as a self-styled or pseudo-order, as Wikipedia states. Its direct predecessor (the Order of the Temple) was approved by the emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, in his imperial decree of 1807. On 13 June 1853, it was given recognition by Napoleon III. In 1918, the Order was re-registered in France in accordance with French law. The former Grandmaster of the OSMTH, Dom Antonio Campelo Pinto de Sousa Fontes (1878-1960) was the direct link with the Order that was founded by Bernard-Raymond Fabré-Palaprat (1773-1838) and that was recognized by Napoleon. In my opinion, it is therefore a legitimate commemorative order. Wikipedia’s description of the OSMTH is incorrect and should be revised (source: freiherrvonquast.wordpress.com).
Vilatte Orders
Wikipedia states that the Orders, associated with Archbishop Joseph René Vilatte (1854 – 1929) are “illegal” in Italy (see above). To back-up this statement, Wikipedia refers to Italian law:
A 1981 Italian law punishes violators who use honors with a fine of up to L. 2,500,000 (€ 1,291.14); and punishes violators who confer honors with imprisonment from six months to two years and a fine from L. 1,250,000 (€ 645.57) to L. 2,500,000 (€ 1,291.14)
Obviously, the Wikipedians who wrote the article are not lawyers, but nevertheless, claim authority to discredit a religious group as being illegal. The legal framework that governs honors in Italy is rather complicated as I have shown in an earlier article. Regarding the Valette Orders, Italian law does not apply since the Orders are located in the United Kingdom. Wikipedia refers to the general law defining administrative offences (Legge 24 novembre 1981 n. 689, in Gazzetta Ufficiale 30 novembre 1981, n. 329) that regulates the apparent and formal complicity of administrative sanctions, the former to be resolved with the application of a special provision (even in the event of complicity between penal and administrative sanctions), the latter with the application of the more serious sanction, increased up to threefold (Arts. 8 and 9). The Valette Orders are not “listed” by the Italian government as illegal. Therefore, Wikipedia’s disqualification is an act of defamation. The whole article should be rewritten in a neutral and professional manner. Also, modern research should be taken into account.
For over 70 years Archbishop Vilatte has often been caricatured as a charlatan and religious opportunist. However, modern scientific research by theologist Dr. Alexis Tancibok shows that, based on the discovery of new historical documents, a reevaluation of Vilatte’s reputation is justified. These documents show that – contrary to the traditional narratives – Archbishop Vilatte was above all a missionary, and a campaigner for his vision of Catholic orthodoxy. These new insights show that Vilatte was a renowned preacher, an inspiring leader, and published books and papers on the subjects of theology, liturgy and church history. Based on his teachings, the Abbey-Principality of San Luigi issues Orders to worthy individuals, of which The Chivalrous and Religious Order of the Crown of Thorns or L’Ordre Souverain, Chevaleresque, Nobilaire et Religieux de la Couronne d’Epines and The Sovereign, Knightly and Noble Order of the Lion and the Black Cross or L’Ordre Souverain, Chevaleresque, et Noble du Lion et de Croix Noire, are the most prominent. Both orders are at least 130 years old and well-documented. Therefore, they have a respectable history and tradition and should not be defamed as self-styled. Although criticised by some individuals, mostly regarding their foundation narratives, both orders can legitimately claim a historical background in the context of the development of the Independent Catholic churches (source: freiherrvonquast.wordpress.com).
Case study 3: Deliberately misleading the public
The headship of the House of Savoy is disputed by two cousins: Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples, who claims the title of King of Italy, and Prince Amedeo, Duke of Aosta, who claims the title of Duke of Savoy. The most prestigious order of chivalry of the House of Savoy is the Supreme Order of the Most Holy Annunciation. The status of the Order is comparable to the Habsburg Golden Fleece, the English Order of the Garter and the Papal Supreme Order of Christ. The Order of the Annunciation was reserved exclusively for distinguished persons who, apart from exemplary service, have to be Roman Catholic. The Wikipedia-article concerning the order is quite detailed and obviously written by a person with insight knowledge:
Because the Wikipedian who wrote the article is obviously well-informed, it is misleading that the article does not mention the fact that the fons honorum for issuing the Order of the Annunciation is claimed by the Prince of Naples. I find it hard to see how the Duke of Aosta even has a claim, since the Prince of Naples is the only son of the last King of Italy. The Duke is not. The last will and testament of the King makes no mention of another successor than his own son. The late Queen Maria Jose always acknowledged that her son was head of the dynasty. In other words, there is no reason for transmitting the succession to anyone else than the Prince of Naples. This is also the general view and the view of persons familiar with the matter.
Conclusions
Wikipedia is sometimes a good starting point for further research, but often the information provided is unreliable, since it is produced by anonymous and unorganized Wikipedians. Although the information on Wikipedia may be correct, it may also be incorrect. This is the case in the article about so-called self-styled orders. Perfectly legitimate persons, groups or entities are discredited by Wikipedians as ‘self-styled’. This is probably inspired by the admiration of some Wikipedians of certain individuals who are considered thought leaders in their communities.
Instead of using the term ‘self-styled’ it is better to specify a formation date and describe a group as factual as possible. The Wikipedia article about the Order of Saint Lazarus is an example of a more neutral contribution to the body of knowledge regarding Knightly Orders. It starts as follows:
The Military and Hospitaller Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem (Latin: Ordo Militaris et Hospitalis Sancti Lazari Hierosolymitani) is a Christian ecumenical fraternal order statuted in 1910 by a council of Catholics in Paris, France, initially under the protection of Patriarch Cyril VIII Jaha of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. In the 1920s it expanded its jurisdiction enrolling members from other countries in Europe and in the Americas. It re-established the office of grand master in 1935 linking the office to members of the Spanish royal family. It assumed an ecumenical dimension in the 1960s to expand its membership to individuals of other Christian denominations in British Commonwealth countries.
Other articles about less-established knightly orders should be rewritten in the same, neutral style.
The same is true for contributions in Facebook groups regarding nobility and orders of knighthood. Instead of launching aggressive attacks on rival groups, contributors should realize that nobody has the ultimate authority when it comes to legitimacy, simply because their is no ultimate framework to derive such conclusions. Even in physics, there is no final theory of unifying the whole of physics, let alone in social sciences; there still is no explanation that needs no other explanation to support it (Weinberg 1994). Do certain Facebook contributors think that their opinion is some kind of ‘God particle’ (Lederman 1993); a vital missing opinion that is needed to describe the world of knighthood and nobility?
Sources
Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. New York: Anchor Books.
Kittur, Aniket & Kraut, Robert. (2008). Harnessing the wisdom of crowds in Wikipedia: Quality through coordination. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW. 37-46. 10.1145/1460563.1460572.
Baeza-Yates, Ricardo & Saez-Trumper, Diego. (2015). Wisdom of the Crowd or Wisdom of a Few?. 69-74. 10.1145/2700171.2791056.
Pfeffer, J., Zorbach, T., Carley, K. M. (2013). Understanding online firestorms: Negative word of mouth dynamics in social media networks. Journal of Marketing Communications, 20, 117–128. doi:10.1080/13527266.2013.797778
Weinberg, S. (1994). Dreams of a final theory. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Lederman, L. M., & Teresi, D. (1993). The God particle: If the universe is the answer, what is the question? Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Comments
In questions of legitimacy, every commentator draws the line of acceptability immediately beneath his own feet.
The attacks on other orders are born of insecurity. In any group, identity is created not only by internal cohesion, but by comparison with out-groups. By continually saying that they are better than others, and reinforcing this by attacks, the group increases its sense of identity. Members also know that as long as they remain within the group’s boundaries of acceptability, they are safe, but if they go outside what the group finds acceptable, they too will be attacked. In this way, the group keeps control of its members.
For some people, the brokering of Orders through introduction fees and passage fees is a lucrative business. There are some formerly reigning Royal Houses that will award membership of Orders and even titles of nobility in return for donations of large sums of money, sometimes towards their charities, sometimes towards their own purposes. This gives rise to an element of protectionism. Firstly, they do not want competition because the value of their product depends on its scarcity and perceived high value. Secondly, they do not want competition to undercut them and bring the price for the product down. This again is a big reason behind a number of the attacks.
I will add that it is not usually the Heads of Royal Houses who get involved in this but the agents or middlemen who they appoint to represent them. One Royal House has several competing agents all of whom are authorized to introduce members to the Royal Orders. They will of course pay a fee to the charities of the Royal House. But they will also pay a fee to the agent, and that will be quite significant.
This article focuses on the Order of Christ, a very prominent and ancient order of knighthood. The article gives special attention to the Kongolese Royal Order of Christ, because of its very compelling history.
The original Order of Christ was a military order, which originates from the famous Order of the Temple (Knights Templar). The order of the Knights Templar was founded by Hugh de Payens, a French nobleman from the Champagne region, along with eight of his companions, in Jerusalem around 1119. The Knights Templar, in their distinctive white mantles with a red cross, became an important charity throughout Christendom, thus growing rapidly and becoming a very powerful Christian institution. The knights were prominent in international finance and were among the most skilled fighting units of the Crusades. Their spread of properties all across Europe and presence in almost every kingdom made them very powerful. The knight were not subjected to the authority or policies of any particular king. They were tax exempt in many jurisdictions across Europe. This unique power concentration attracted the negative attention of the King of France.
In 1307, Philip IV of France arrested the Knights Templar on charges of blasphemy, idolatry, and sodomy. The investigation and trial into the alleged misdeeds of the Knights Templar took place in Rome between 1307 and 1312. On 18 March 1314, the Grandmaster and other knights of the Order were burned alive by order of King Philip. In September 2001, Barbara Frale, an Italian paleographer at the Vatican Secret Archives, found a copy of a document, known as the ‘Chinon Parchment’ in the Vatican Secret Archives. The document explicitly confirms that in 1308 Pope Clement V absolved Jacques de Molay and other leaders of the Order including Geoffroi de Charney and Hugues de Pairaud (Barbara Frale 2004, “The Chinon chart – Papal absolution to the last Templar, Master Jacques de Molay”, Journal of Medieval History 30 (2): 109–134). Another Chinon parchment dated 20 August 1308 addressed to Philip IV of France, stated that absolution had been granted to all those Templars that had confessed to heresy “and restored them to the Sacraments and to the unity of the Church” (Pierre Dupuy, Histoire de l’Ordre Militaire des Templiers, Foppens, Brusselles 1751; Étienne Baluze, Vitae Paparum Avenionensis, 3 Volumes, Paris 1693. (source: freiherrvonquast.wordpress.com).
Nonetheless, the Pope Clement V suspended the order in 1312, by papal bull Vox in excelso under pressure from King Philip. All of its assets were handed over to Hospitallers across all Christian territories (Barber 1995; Martin 2005). A reliable Italian translation of the bull Vox in excelso, which is important to determine the exact historical events, can be found here (source: OSMTH).
Portugal. A Military Order Of Christ, 1st Class Grand Cross Star, C.1920. A superb, likely of French manufacture, hand filed star with a silver gilt 8 pointed star burst, with gold centre exhibiting a red and white enamelled cross, an enameled flaming heart on silver gilt backing, affixed to star by single rivet, measuring 96.5 mm (w) x 104.7 mm (h), vertical pinback flanked by dual stays, small flake to heart, otherwise near extremely fine. Photo: eMedals.com.
This papal bull Vox in excelso was not honored by King Diniz of Portugal (1261-1325), The Portuguese Templars had contributed to the conquest of Algarve from the Muslims. The Order of the Temple had been present in Portuguese territory since 1128, even before the official foundation of the kingdom (1144), and over time had become a military and economic power. They were feudal lords of several cities and owners of land, castles and other properties and were still defending the conquest when their order was suppressed. The Templars of Portugal had been declared innocent by the ecclesiastical court of the Bishop of Lisbon. In order to protect these valuable warriors, King Diniz annexed all the Templar assets to his Crown . He then negotiated with the Pope to create a new religious militia, that was needed to defend Portugal from the threats of Islam. On 19 March 1319, after long negotiations, characterized by intensive diplomatic negotiations, tensions and clashes, in and out of the kingdom of Portugal, Pope John XXII granted King Diniz permission to form a new military religious order, based on the original Templars: the Ordo Militae Jesu Christi, or Military Order of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The Pope placed the new order under the rule of the Knights of Calatrava (formed around 1164) and put them under the control of the CistercianAbbot of Alcobaca in Portugal. The Vatican claims that the Pope also reserved to right to appoint members of the Order. While the Bull in itself does not explicitly grant to the Pope the right to issue the Order, successive popes since Pope John XXII (1316-1334) have done so. These appointments had a religious character. The cross was distinctive from the cross then born by the knights of the Military Order of Christ. Several documents from the archives of the Order or from those of the Mesa da Consciência e Ordens(Court of Conscience and Orders, created by King João III in 1532 to deal with particular matters concerning the discharge of the King´s conscience) show a systematic refusal of the Portuguese Crown to recognize or accept this practice as valid. With Papal Bull of 1323, Pope John XXII authorized King Diniz to turn over the Portuguese estates of the former Templars to the Order of Christ; thus effectively finalizing the incorporation of the Knights Templar in Portugal into the newly formed Order.
Initially this new militia had its base close to the river mouth of Guadiana, in Castro Marim. The new order´s mantle was similar to the one worn by the original Knights Templar – white with a red cross; although it differed slightly in shape. In 1357, the headquarters of the Order of Christ was set up in the former Knights Templar headquarters, the castle of Tomar. Therefore, it can be concluded that the Knights Templar survived in Portugal in a slightly amended form: the Order of Christ. Contrary to popular belief, the Knights Templar are not extinct.
The five Orders of Christ
Today, there exist five Orders of Christ that all originate from the Knights Templar. Each of them has a relation with the original Order of Christ, that was formed to protect the remaining Knights Templar in Portugal.
Papal Supreme Order of Christ
The papal Supreme Order of Christ is extremely rarely awarded. Currently, there are no living persons who have obtained the Order in a public ceremony. According to the Catholic Church, the Pope is the head of every religious order and may appoint, at his discretion and without the permission of its superior general, any individual he deems worthy. Therefore, it may be the case that there are persons, to whom the Order has been granted by the Pope in a private ceremony.
The Supreme Order of Christ is the highest order of knighthood awarded by the Pope. As part of the re-structuring of papal honours by Pope Pius X, the Order of Christ was made the senior-most Papal honour. Traditionally, it was awarded to senior Catholic Heads of State, but may be awarded to anyone as a personal gift of the Holy Father. The usage of the Supreme Order of Christ was restricted under the pontificate of Pope Paul VI in his 1966 Bull Equestres Ordinis, to Catholic Heads of State to whom it might be given only to commemorate very special occasions at which the Pope himself was present. It is now rarely awarded. The last public award was made by Pope John Paul II in 1987 to Frà Angelo de Mojana, 77th Prince and Grand Master of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. With the death of King Baudouin of the Belgians in 1993 there are no living members of the Order of Christ who were awarded the order publicly. However, there may be members who were awarded the order privately. There are no official records .
Without doubt, the head of the Portuguese Royal Family has the historical and legal right to issue the Order of Christ upon worthy individuals. However, I have not seen recent examples of such grants. Just as the Pope can issue the Order of Christ at his discretion, the head of the Portuguese Royal Family can choose to grant the honor without permission from any other party, since the historically inherited fons honorum is invested in him personally.
It should be noted that there exists a long-going dispute between the Pope and the head of the Portuguese Royal Family regarding the right to issue the Order of Christ.
In late XVIth century, already under the Spanish Dual Monarchy, D. Jorge de Ataíde – president of the «Mesa da Consciência e Ordens», in a report to the King in Madrid, commenting on the fact that the Pope had given in Rome, the “habit” of the Order of Christ to a certain Papirio Picedi, recommended that the King should protest at once and request the Pope to abstain from such practices (1).
Another known example of this controversial papal practice, dates from the XVIIth century, when after a papal brief a habit of Christ was given at Valladolid by the local bishop. The «Mesa da Consciência e Ordens» having heard of it, immediately reacted (February 20th, 1627), considering the fact a very serious one and at once recommended that the King should prohibit the false knight from wearing the insignia within its realms, and that the Bishop should be censured for having carried out a papal brief without the King’s consent (2).
Again in the XVIIIth century, it is also recorded an incident that took place in the reign of King John V, involving an Italian architect named Giovanni Servandoni, who had been called to Portugal, in 1745-1746, for the drawing of the plans for the construction of the Royal Palace and Convent of Necessidades (3), in Lisbon. Servandoni, who had allegedly been made by the Pope a knight of the Order of Christ, unduly bore the insignia of the Order in Lisbon.
However, King John V, considering that the only legitimate “fons honoris” was the king of Portugal, being as he was the Order’s Grand-Master, forbade Servandoni to wear the insignia and had him arrested. As late as 1825, the Portuguese Crown sent its protest to Rome reacting to the Pope’s award of the Order of Christ “motu proprio” to several people, considering it unlawful and requesting the immediate cessation of that practice (4).
(1) cf. Fernanda OLIVAL, Para uma Análise Sociológica das Ordens Militares no Portugal de Antigo Regime (1581-1621), I Vol., (Master’s degree thesis at the University of Lisbon), Lisboa, 1988, unpublished, p. 148, note 72.
(2) in ANTT, Mesa da Consciência, Lº. 29, fl. 99; this information was kindly given by our friend Dra. Fernanda Olival, a scholar in the modern history of the military orders, to whom we wish to express here our gratitude and valuable comments on the subject. Dra. Olival, lecturing at the University of Évora, is presently preparing a doctoral thesis on the military orders, and has written many crucial papers on the subject.
(3) Cf. Marques POLIANO, Ordens Honoríficas do Brasil, Inprensa Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, 1943, pp. 68-69; Ambassador Dr. Miguel H. CORTE-REAL, O Palácio das Necessidades, Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros, Lisboa, 1983, p. 18.
(4) Diplomatic Note by the Count of Funchal, Portuguese Ambassador to the Holy See, addressed to the Cardinal Secretary of State, July 6th, 1825.
Currently, the Duke of Braganza and the Duke of Loulé are the main claiments to the defunct throne of Portugal. They share a common ancestor: King John VI of Portugal. I concluded earlier, that both have a transparent claim to the headship of the Royal Family of Portugal. I have not seen any indication that the Duke of Braganza executes his fons honorum regarding the Order of Christ. The same is true for the Duke of Loulé. Perhaps, they want to avoid a discussion with the Republic of Portugal, that also issues the Order of Christ (see below).
Brazilian Imperial Order of Christ
The Brazilian Order of Christ is issued extremely rarely. After the formation of the independent Brazilian empire in 1822, the de facto and de jure monarch, Dom Pedro I, exercised the fons honorum which was transmitted by his father, King Dom João VI of Portugal. In addition, the emperor continued to issue titles of nobility and the granting of the three ancient Portuguese orders of chivalry:
The Orders of Christ, Aviz and St. James were awarded in its Brazilian design from September 7, 1822 on. This date marked its independence from Portugal. The orders coexisted and originated in Portugal. The order was awarded to citizens and foreigners under Dom Pedro I and his son Dom Pedro II. until 1889, when Brazil became a republic. Wishing to resolve the question of the Grandmaster ship of the Portuguese Ancient Military Orders in Brazil, Peter I (IV of Portugal) asked the Pope, through the Brazilian Ambassador to the Holy See, to recognize the rights in Brazil, which once belonged to the Kings of Portugal. This gave way to the Bull Praeclara Portugaliiae Algarbiorumque Regum, on May 15 1827, given by Pope Leo XII, by which was created a Brazilian branch of the Order of Christ.
Notwithstanding, the Bull provoked a great political dispute and was never ratified by the Imperial Parliament. From this point one might say, following Marques Poliano, that the Portuguese Orders ceased to exist as such, in the Empire of Brazil. In 1843, under Emperor Dom Pedro II, the Orders of Christ, Aviz and of St. James were recognized in Brazil as National Orders having the Emperor as its Grandmaster. The insignia was basically the same with the addition of the Imperial Crown to the Star and altering the ribbon to distinguish it from the Portuguese Orders of the same name. These Brazilian Orders lasted till the Republican Constitution of 1891 abolished them. Even though the order seam to be awarded over a long period of time, actual decorations are quite rare. Fred Atlmann points out only 2 known knight cross decorations, a star and a grandmaster cross, which seamed to be build on the base of a cross of the Order of the Southern Cross.
The current claim to the headship of the Brazilian Imperial Family is disputed between two lines of succession from the original Brazilian emperors: the Petrópolis line and the Vassouras line. The Grand Mastership of the Brazilian Order of Christ is also disputed between these two branches. Prince Pedro Carlos of Orléans-Braganza (born 1945) is the head of the Petrópolis line. He is forest engineer and, according to Spanish newspaper Público (9 Jan. 2008), supports a republican form of government: “Yo soy republicano. La monarquía en Brasil no funcionaría”. Prince Pedro Carlos’ second cousin, Prince Luiz of Orléans-Braganza is the head of the Vassouras branch. He is a claimant to the fons honorum regarding to the Imperial Order of Christ.
Kongolese Royal Order of Christ
In 1483, the Portuguese arrived in Kongo, then a vast kingdom in west-central Africa, located south of the Congo River (now Angola and Democratic Republic of the Congo). Back then, the kingdom was already a powerful and centralised state, which made a strong impression on its visitors. In 1491, the Milanese ambassador in Lisbon compared the capital Mbanza Kongo to the prestigious city of Évora, the royal residence in Portugal. At that time, Nzinga a Nkuwu was the manikongo; ruler of the Kingdom of Kongo. In 1491, both he and his son, Mvemba a Nzinga, were baptized by Portuguese clergymen. Both assumed Christian names; João I Nzinga a Nkuwu and Afonso I Mvemba a Nzinga, respectively. Afonso, who became manikongo around 1509, extended Kongo’s borders, centralized administration, and developed sustainable ties between Kongo and Portugal. King João I’s son Afonso was sent to Portugal to study theology and amazed the catholic hierarchy with his intelligence and intense piety.
It seems to me from the way he speaks as though he is not a man but rather an angel, sent by the Lord into this kingdom to convert it; for I assure that is he who instructs us, and that he knows better than we do the Prophets and the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and the lives of the saints and all the things concerning out Holy Mother the Church? For he devotes himself entirely to study, so that it often happens that he falls asleep over his books, and often he forgets to eat and drink in talking of the things of Our Lord.
The Franciscan missionary, and Portuguese royal chaplain sent to assist Kongo’s religious development, Rui d’Aguiar, writing to King Manuel of Portugal about the piety of the Mani Kongo, King Afonso of the Kongo, 25 May 1516.
During his reign (1509 to late 1542 or 1543) as Afonso I, he established good relations with the Vatican. In 1513, he sent his son Henrique to the Vatican to become a bishop. Afonso I wanted to make the Kongo church independent and self-sufficient. In 1518, Henrique became bishop, with the status ‘in partibus infidelium’ (‘in infidel areas’). When Henrique returned to the Kongo kingdom, his status enabled him to appoint Kongolese priests and to spread Christianity within the kingdom. Henrique died in 1531. In 1534, the papacy turned the Kongo church into a branch of the Diocese located on the Portuguese island of São Tomé, giving the Portuguese greater political influence.
When King Nzinga of Kongo converted to Christianity in 1491, the Portuguese supplied him with everything necessary for the maintenance of the Catholic faith, including priests, crosses, and devotional panel paintings bearing images of the Virgin Mary and various saints. The same counts for the red cross of the Order of Christ that frequently appeared on the sails of Portuguese vessels, as recorded in the Livro de Lisuarte de Abreu in The Morgan Library and Museum. This striking symbol was soon incorporated into Kongo’s visual culture (source: The Metropolitan Museum of Art).
The Order of Christ was introduced to central Africa in the first moments of contact with Europe and soon became a staple of the kingdom’s political life. Early modern depictions and archeological evidence placed the Order’s insignia, a cross with hollow branches of equal length, among the most prominent regalia of the central African elite. Precious metal medallions such as the one recovered at the eighteenth century cemetery of Ngongo Mbata or depicted on the chest of the Kongo king Portuguese chronicler Cadornega painted in the 1680s, embroideries on the coats of the rulers as seen in the Missione in Prattica vignettes, wax seals and signatures in the autograph correspondence of the elite, rock painting and engravings all heralded the emblem of the Order. Attached to the cap as lion claws or other badges of prestige, they turned the mpu into an emblem of Christian nobility. Placed on the central African cap, they also became central African metaphors of the power and legitimacy that the cap’s wearer derived from Christianity and its invisible realm. Here again, in successive, cumulative strokes, ideas and motifs linked to both Kongo and European religious and political thought met, blurred and, eventually, redeployed into a single, cohesive object.
Fromont, Cécile. (2017). Foreign Cloth, Local Habits: Clothing, Regalia, and the Art of Conversion in the Early Modern Kingdom of Kongo. Anais do Museu Paulista: História e Cultura Material, 25(2), 11-31. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-02672017v25n02d01-2
Dom Nicolau I Misakai mia Nimi, prince of Kongo (c. 1830-1860), wearing the Order of Christ. Dom Nicolau was the son of King Henry II of Kongo. He protested against Portuguese commercial and political activity and military expansion by publishing a letter published 1 December 1859 in a Portuguese newspaper in Lisbon. The letter stated that he was the only person of royal blood from the kingdom with an education and understanding of both the Kingdom of Kongo and the Portuguese. These two qualities put him in a position to rightfully lead and protect the kingdom rather than bow in fear for the sake of protection.
One of the fundamental laws of the Kingdom of Congo is that the King is not subsequent but elective, that women cannot reign, and the children of the King cannot reign immediately to the father, but they can on other occasions. The election of the King belongs to the Marcheze Manivunda, and to the Councilors of State. The line of succession to kingdom of Kongo was often disputed, especially, in 1509, when, instead of the usual election among the nobles, a hereditary European-style succession was introduced.
In 1568, King Álvaro I came to the throne during one of these disputes. He was not a blood relative of any of the previous kings. Like his predecessors, Álvaro also promoted the westernization of Kongo, for example, by gradually introducing European style titles for his nobles: Manuel Jordão became the Duke of Nsundi; Pedro Nkanga a Mvika became Marquis of Wembo and subsequently Duke of Mbamba; Álvaro’s brother Felix de Espirito Santo became Marquis of Mpemba in 1619, and Daniel da Silva became the Count of Soyo. Álvaro and his son Álvaro II Nimi a Nkanga (crowned in 1587) issued the Order of Christ to prominent and loyal subjects, effectively creating a new Order of Christ, by incorporating the original Portuguese Order into their regional culture. This practice continued well into the nineteenth century. It also included distinct armorial elements:
Even more significant was the award of a coat of arms to King Afonso I of Congo [c. 1456–1542 or 1543], in which all the symbolic and legendary elements relating to Ourique and the ideal of the crusade were boldly transposed to equatorial Africa (Rosa 2006: 19-36). The heraldic acculturation that was started at this time also included the sending of 20 grants of arms to the Congolese sovereign authorizing the setting up (and control) within his kingdom of a heraldic representation of the nobility, together with their respective titles (Seixas 1996: 330-334). It is revealing that the new coat of arms of the Congolese sovereign converted to Christianity was included in the chapters of both Livro do Armeiro-mor and Livro da Nobreza e Perfeiçam das Armas dedicated to the heraldry of all the kingdoms existing in the world. By including such insignia, the compiler incorporated into this list a kingdom that was assumed as a subsidiary of the Portuguese Crown, which, in this way, strengthened its imperial dimension (..).
Pedro VII and Elizabeth, pretenders to the throne of Kongo, in 1934; photograph in the collection of the Lisbon Geographic Society. Other pretenders were: Alvaro XV of Kongo, António III of Kongo, Isabel Maria da Gama and Pedro VIII of Kongo.
Catholic paraphernalia functioned within the early modern Kongo as precious rarities alluding to privilege, wealth, and power. According to the Capuchin missionary Raimondo da Dicomano, missionary between 1791 and 1795, knights of the Order of Christ in the Kingdom of Kongo enjoyed “the privilege to put lots of crosses made with pieces of cloth in several colors on their capes or on the cloths made out of straw which they use to cover themselves” (“il privilegio di potere mettere molte croci fatte di ritagli di panno di diversi colori nel ferraiolo ò in quel panno di paglia con che ordinariamente si coprono”). Source: Arlindo, Correa. [1798] 2021. “Informazione sul regno del Congo di Fra Raimondo da Dicomano (1798).” Lisbon, Arquivo Histórico Ultramarino, Diversos, caixa 823, sala 12.
After a revolt (1913–1914), Portugal abolished the title of king of Kongo. The title was restored from 1915 until 1975, as an honorific without material power. Portugal opposed the decolonization of its overseas territories until April 1974. Then, a left-wing military coup in Lisbon, known as the Carnation Revolution, initiated the independence of Portugal’s overseas territories in Africa and Asia, and the restoration of democracy.
Current successors to the defunct throne of Kongo, could legitimately claim the fons honorum regarding this Order of Christ. However, determining a successor is complicated because the traditional customs have to be taken into account. Dr. Mambi Tunga-Bau has examined how these traditional customs are embedded in modern Democratic Republic of Congo law (one of the legal successors of the former Kingdom of Kongo). Although not directly applicable to the past, his findings can analogously serve as a reference to judge current claims. Mambi Tunga-Bau states that birthright is not an absolute right in succession, explaining that in practice, the eldest becomes the person who has the greatest virtues for assuming power. Therefore, it is the noble candidate who socially justifies more assets who assumes power. The election is organized between the right holders, excluding widespread competition in the population, as well as in terms of the eligibility of candidates and the elective population. Dr. Mambi Tunga-Bau adds that it goes without saying that it is not possible for individuals outside of a chieftain family to assume power (Tunga-Bau, Héritier Mambi. Pouvoir Traditionnel Et Pouvoir D’État En R.D. Congo Contemporaine: Esquisse D’une Théorie D’hybridation Des Pouvoirs Politiques. Kinshasa: Médiaspaul, 2010, pp. 26-29).
Coat of Arms (c. 1528–1541) of the Kingdom of Kongo. António Godinho, Livro da Nobreza e Perfeiçam das Armas dos Reis Christãos e Nobres Linhagens dos Reinos e Senhorios de Portugal, Casa Real, Cartório da Nobreza, liv. 20, fl. 7, PT/TT/CR/DA/001/20. Source: Seixas 2007.
To my knowledge, Dom Jose Henrique Da Silva born 1942 or 1944, is a potential claimant. He is said to live in Cabinda, northern enclave of Angola. In addition, an American citizen, originally named Dom Manuel Alvaro Afonso Nzinga, grand duke of Nzinga, has a legitimate claim. Considering the complicated traditional customary laws, that have to be applied from a historical perspective, and the fact that there is no authoritative institution in this respect, it is impossible to single out one successor to the former Kings of Kongo. However, it is possible to determine transparent claims in this respect, that legitimize new awardings of the Kongolese Order of Christ.
It should be noted that since the second half of the 16th century, Africans were also able to become members of the Portuguese Order of Christ (Olival 2002, p. 78-79). Naturally, they had to be Christians.
Portuguese Republican Order of Christ
On 1 February 1908, King Carlos I of Portugal and his eldest son and heir, Prince Luís Filipe, Duke of Braganza, were brutally murdered in Lisbon by Portuguese republican revolutionaries. Under the King’s rule, Portugal had been declared bankrupt twice (1892 and 1902). This caused civil unrest and the rise of anti-monarchy sentiment. Dom Carlos’ second and youngest son, Manuel II of Portugal, became the new king, but was overthrown on 5 October 1910 by a revolution, which abolished the monarchy and installed a republican government in Portugal. Dom Manuel and the royal family fled to England.
In 1917, the new republic incorporated (currently: Lei das Ordens Honoríficas Portuguesas) the Military Order of Christ, together with the Military Orders of Aviz and of St. James of the Sword, into the group of Ancient Military Orders, which became part of the national republican honours system. The Order is still awarded to prominent individuals.
Conclusions
The Order of Christ is the only historical extension of the ancient Knights Templar. Its current manifestations however, cannot be compared to the ancient order of warriors. Throughout history, the Order of Christ has recognized people who have made achievements in public life and committed themselves to serving and helping the Catholic faith. It is one of the most high-ranking orders of knighthood in Christian history. I think it is good that successors to former monarchs who can prove transparently that they possess a legitimate fons honorum, continue to award the Order. The Order of Christ should only be awarded, based on the deeds and merits to the benefit of the Holy See and should not be degraded.
The fact that the Republic of Portugal adopted the name and medals of the Order of Christ, does not mean that the Portuguese Royal Family has lost the authority to issue the Order. When a monarch is involuntarily deposed, the monarch and the state are not entwined anymore, but the two are separated. It is in line with longstanding international legal principles that (ex-)rulers continue to possess their sovereign rights (see Hugo Grotius’ De iure belli ac pacis; English: On the Law of War and Peace. Paris 1625), and therefore still hold the fons honorum to create nobiliary titles and issue awards:
That is called Supreme, whose Acts are not subject to another’s Power, so that they cannot be made void by any other human Will. When I say, by any other, I exclude the Sovereign himself, who may change his own Will, as also his Successor, who enjoys the same Right, Cacheranus Decis Pedem. 139. n. 6. and consequently, has the same Power, and no other.
Based on Grotius’ book of authority, the Portuguese Royal family still has the legitimate right to issue the Order of Christ. The Republican version exists separately from the historical, royal version. The latter is based on a centuries old relation between the Order and the Royal Family. The same is true for the successors of the Brazilian and Kongolese Royal families. Their sovereign, dynastic rights regarding the Order of Christ remain in place and are not affected by their constitutional position.
Literature
Guimaräes, Vieira José. A Ordem De Cristo. Lisboa: Imprensa Nacional, 1936.
Olival, F. (2002). The Military Orders and the Nobility in Portugal, 1500-1800. Mediterranean Studies,11, 71-88. Retrieved June 5, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41166939
Barber, Malcolm (1995). The new knighthood: a history of the Order of the Temple (Canto ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. xxi–xxii.
Dutra, F. (1970). Membership in the Order of Christ in the Seventeenth Century: Its Rights, Privileges, and Obligations. The Americas,27(1), 3-25. doi:10.2307/980616.
Matthews, Herbert Lionel (2015). The Yoke and the Arrows: A Report on Spain / Herbert L. Matthews. Place of Publication Not Identified: LiteraryLicensing.
Heywood, Linda, and John Thornton. 2013. “The Kongo Kingdom and European Diplomacy”. In Kongo across the Waters, edited by Susan Cooksey, Robin Poynor, Hein Vanhee, and Carlee S Forbes, 52–55. Gainesville FL: University Press of Florida.
Thornton, John K. 2015. “The Kingdom of Kongo”. In Kongo: Power and Majesty, edited by Alisa LaGamma, 97–117. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Thornton, John K. “Elite Women in the Kingdom of Kongo: Historical Perspectives on Women’s Political Power.” The Journal of African History, vol. 47, no. 3, 2006, pp. 437–460. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4501072. Accessed 18 Feb. 2021.
Gray, Richard. “A Kongo Princess, the Kongo Ambassadors and the Papacy.” Journal of Religion in Africa, vol. 29, no. 2, 1999, pp. 140–154. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1581869. Accessed 18 Feb. 2021.
Vanhee, Hein. & Vos, J. 2013. “Kongo in the Age of Empire”. In: Susan Cooksey, Robin Poynor, Hein Vanhee & Carlee S. Forbes (eds), Kongo across the Waters. Gainesville, FL : University Press of Florida, pp. 78-87.
MacErlean, Andrew Alphonsus (1912). The Catholic Encyclopedia: An International Work of Reference on the Constitution, Doctrine, Discipline, and History of the Catholic Church, Volume 4. Robert Appleton Co. pp. 667–668.
Gilmour-Bryson, Anne. “Templar Trial Testimony: Voices From 1307 to 1311.” On Land and By Sea 2008: 163-174.
Rosa, Maria de Lurdes (2006). “Velhos, novos e imutáveis sagrados… Um olhar antropológico sobre formas ‘religiosas’ de percepção e interpretação da conquista africana.” In Lusitania Sacra, 18: 13-85.
Martin, Sean (2005). The Knights Templar: The History & Myths of the Legendary Military Order. New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press.
Seixas, Miguel Metelo de (1996). As armas do rei do Congo. In Os Descobrimentos e a Expansão Portuguesa no Mundo. Lisbon: Universidade Lusíada: 317-346.
Malcolm Barber, The Trial of the Templars. Cambridge University Press, 1978.
Nicholson, Helen J. The Knights Templar: A Brief History of the Warrior Order. London: Robinson, 2010.
A fons honorum (English: source of honour) can be defined as the legitimate and legal authority of a person or institution to grant titles and awards to other parties (see e.g.: Versélewel de Witt Hamer, 2017, p. 100).
In earlier articles, I examined the fons honorum of certain historical dynasties, like the former monarchs of Georgia, Rwanda and Hawaii. This article investigates, from a legal perspective, the fons honorum of religious organizations to grant titles and awards. I will demonstrate that this fons honorum is based on religious freedom and the freedom of association. Although international law does not define religion, it does identify religion with conscience, and enumerates a number of manifestations of religion that are to be protected.
The freedom of religious manifestation
European legal perspective
Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), guarantees the freedom of thought, conscience and religion in relation to the State. From a European law perspective, there are three aspects to the aforementioned freedoms: internal, external and collective aspects.
Regarding the internal aspect, the aforementioned freedom is absolute. This freedom concerns deeply held ideas and convictions that are forged in a person’s individual conscience and therefore cannot in themselves prejudice public order. Therefore, these ideas and convictions cannot be subject to restrictions by State authorities.
With regard to the external aspect, the freedom is not absolute but relative. This freedom to manifest a person’s beliefs is limited, because it can affect or even threaten a country’s public order. While religious freedom is primarily a matter of individual conscience, it also implies, inter alia, freedom to “manifest [one’s] religion” alone and in private or in community with others, in public and within the circle of those whose faith one shares. Article 9 lists a number of forms which manifestation of one’s religion or belief may take, namely worship, teaching, practice and observance (European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v Moldova, judgment of 13 December 2001, ECHR Reports 2001-XII, § 114 et seq. and case-law cited).
Most of the rights recognised under Article 9 are individual rights that cannot be challenged. However, some of these rights may have a collective aspect. Accordingly, the ECtHR has recognised that a Church or ecclesiastical body may, as such, exercise on behalf of its members the rights guaranteed by Article 9 of the Convention (ECtHR, 12 June 2014, Martinez Fernandez v. Spain, Comm. 1104/2002, U.N. Doc. A/60/40, Vol. II, at 150 (HRC 2005).
Freedom of conscience and of religion does not protect each and every act or form of behaviour, motivated or inspired by a religion or a belief. In other words, Article 9 of the ECHR protects a person’s private sphere of conscience, but not always any public conduct inspired by that conscience. It does not allow general laws to be broken (Pichon and Sajous v. France (dec.), no. 49853/99, ECtHR 2001-X).
As religious communities traditionally and universally exist in the form of organized structures, Article 9 ECHR has to be interpreted in the light of Article 11 ECHR which safeguards associative life against unjustified state interference. Seen in this perspective, the believer’s right to freedom of religion includes the right of a religious community to function peacefully; free from arbitrary State intervention. This autonomous existence of religious communities is indispensable for pluralism in a democratic society and is thus an issue at the very heart of the protection which Article 9 affords (Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, § 62, ECtHR 2000-XI; Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others, cited above, § 118; and Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (Metropolitan Inokentiy) and Others v. Bulgaria, nrs. 412/03 and 35677/04, § 103, 22 January 2009).
There exist a vast number of cases where the ECtHR decided regarding the wearing of religious clothing and the use of symbols. Under Article 9(2) ECHR, the right to freely manifest one’s religion can only be restricted under certain cumulative conditions. These restrictions must (i) be prescribed by law; (ii) be necessary in a democratic society by fulfilling a pressing social need; (iii) have a legitimate aim (these aims are mentioned in Article 9(2) ECHR); and, (iv) the means used to achieve that aim must be proportionate and necessary. The right not to be discriminated against can, according to the ECHR, also be restricted under certain circumstances, where a similar justification test is applied. In addition, article 51(2) Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (EUCFR), is a similar test that also applies to restrictions on the rights in Articles 10 and 21 EUCFR. The bans on the wearing of religious clothing or symbols are justified under Article 9(2) ECHR.
Global legal perspective
The freedom of religion or belief is also guaranteed by article 18 of the (mondial) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. Regarding the use of religious expressions, the United Nations issued the following statements:
Art. 6 (c): The right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief includes the freedom, “To make, acquire and use to an adequate extent the necessary articles and materials related to the rites or customs of a religion or belief;”.
4 (b): The Commission on Human Rights urges States, “To exert the utmost efforts, in accordance with their national legislation and in conformity with international human rights law, to ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and religious expressions are fully respected and protected and to take additional measures in cases where they are vulnerable to desecration or destruction;”.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Resolution 2005/40 on Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, 19 April 2005
Para. 4: “The concept of worship extends to […] the display of symbols”. Para. 4: “The observance and practice of religion or belief may include not only ceremonial acts but also such customs as […] the wearing of distinctive clothing or head coverings […].”
The aforementioned legal frameworks show that religious freedom and the liberty to manifest this freedom by symbols is a fundamental human right and protected by international law, that is incorporated by states in national law. In my opinion, religious freedom also includes the freedom to grant titles and awards when issued in the context of religious customs, symbols and honorifics. Therefore, the fundamental human rights of religious freedom combined with the freedom of association are the source of authority of religious groups for legally and legitimately granting such titles and awards.
Case studies
Roman Catholic Church
The so-called “Bologna Mozart” was copied 1777 in Salzburg (Austria) by a now unknown painter from a lost original for Padre Martini in Bologna (Italy), who had ordered it for his gallery of composers. Today it is displayed in the Civico Museo Bibliografico Musicale in Bologna in Italy. Leopold Mozart, W. A. Mozart’s father, wrote about this portrait: „Malerisch hat es wenig wert, aber was die Ähnlichkeit anbetrifft, so versichere ich Ihnen, daß es ihm ganz und gar ähnlich sieht.“ (Letter of Leopold Mozart to Padre Martini in Bologna from Dec 22, 1777, MBA II, pp. 204f, No. 396).
At the age of 14, the famous composer Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-1791) left Salzburg to go on tours to Italy, accompanied by his father, the musician Leopold Mozart (1719-1787). Their principal destinations were Verona, Mantua, Cremona, Milan, Parma, Bologna, Florence and finally Rome, which he reached on 10 April 1770. When Pope Clement XIV was informed of the child prodigy, he received Mozart and his father in a private audience on their return from Naples two months later, on 4 July 1770. On that occasion, the Pope conferred the Order of the Golden Spur on young Mozart (Jahn, 1856, pp. 199-205; Cardinale 1983, pp. 35-42), thus making him a Papal Knight of the Golden Spur. The following day, Mozart received his official insignia, consisting of ‘a golden cross on a red sash, sword, and spurs,’ emblematic of honorary knighthood. In 1777, Mozart had his portrait painted with the star-encircled cross of the order on his coat.
The papal patent of 4 July 1770 for the award stated:
Inasmuch as it behoves the beneficence of the Roman Pontiff and the Apostolic See that those who have shown them no small signs of faith and devotion and are graced with the merits of probity and virtue, shall be decorated with the honours and favors of the Roman Pontiff and the said See.’
Vatican secret archives 2009, p. 183
It is interesting to examine the capacity in which the pope issued the diploma. Roman Pontiff refers to the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. An apostolic see is an episcopal see (a bishop’s ecclesiastical jurisdiction) of which the foundation is attributed to one or more of the apostles of Jesus or to one of their close associates. In Roman Catholicism, the apostolic see refers to the See of Rome. Therefore, both references to the fons honorum are of a religious nature. Although the Papal States on the Italian Peninsula were under the direct sovereign rule of the pope at that time, the fons honorum for the diploma is based on religion, instead of public law. It has an internal character within the church structures.
Currently, the Pontifical Orders of Knighthood are secular orders of merit of which the membership is conferred by a direct decision of the Pontiff. The diplomas given to recipients of the most popular Pontifical Orders, the Pontifical Equestrian Order of Saint Sylvester Pope and Martyr (reorganised by Pope Pius X on his own initiative, motu proprio, “Multum ad excitandos” on 7 February 1905), and the Pontifical Equestrian Order of Saint Gregory the Great (established on 1 September 1831, by Pope Gregory XVI), are issued in the capacity of pontifex maximus. Although this designation has been used in inscriptions referring to the Popes for some centuries, it has never been included in the official list of papal titles, which is published yearly in the Annuario Pontificio. The official list of titles of the Pope given in the Annuario Pontificio mentions “Supreme Pontiff of the whole Church” (in Latin, Summus Pontifex Ecclesiae Universalis) as the fourth title, the first being “Bishop of Rome“. The title pontifex maximus appears in inscriptions on religious buildings and on coins and medals. Awards are gazetted in Acta Apostolica Sedis, the Gazette of the Holy See. Diplomas of appointment are issued by the Secretariat of State. Papal knighthoods are personal. Perpetual succession is no longer granted.
The Order of Saint Sylvester is intended to honour Roman Catholic lay people who are actively involved in the life of the church, particularly as it is exemplified in the exercise of their professional duties and mastership of the different arts. According to Pope Gregory XVI’s Papal Brief of 1 September 1831, the Order of Saint Gregory is an order of merit to be bestowed on gentlemen of proven loyalty to the Holy See who, by reason of their nobility of birth and the renown of their deeds or the degree of their munificence, are deemed worthy to be honoured by a public expression of esteem by the Holy See (see: appendix 1, underlined sentence).
The Order of Saint Sylvester, originally united with the Order of the Golden Spur, was formally constituted on 7 February 1905 by Pope Saint Pius X in his motu proprio, Multum ad excitandos. From that time, the united order became two orders, the Order of Saint Sylvester and the Order of the Golden Spur. Since the 1905 reforms of Pope Saint Pius X, the grades are, from highest to lowest, Knight Grand Cross (1st class), Knight Commander with Star (2nd class)*, Knight Commander (3rd class), and Knight (4th class). Since 1994 women have been admitted to the Order as Dames in the same grades and divisions as men. It was also Saint Pius X who gave Papal knights a place of honor in Papal processions and ecclesiastical ceremonies (source: papalknights.org)
Clearly, the orders of knighthood focus on religious merit and are issued in a religious capacity. I have not seen an explicit reference to the capacity of the pope as sovereign of the Vatican State. The latter capacity is referred to as the temporal power of the church: the rule of the Church in earthly possessions and the authority of the Pope over civil territories belonging to the Church, as in the former Papal States. This power is an addition to his dominion in spiritual matters and becomes necessary if freedom from civil power is to be assured. The church’s temporal power is presently exercised in relation to the Vatican City State since the Lateran Treaty of 1929. The term may also refer to the exercise of political influence by the bishops formerly through landed estates and currently through financial and other means. The aforementioned orders of knighthood are not issued as part of the Vatican’s temporal power; they are awards, issued for religious merit and therefore have a religious nature.
Considering the foregoing, from both a historical and a legal perspective, for centuries, Popes have exercised their religious fons honorum to grant titles and awards. These awards have an internal effect. They are part of the religious structure of the Roman Catholic faith and are logically recognised as such by the Vatican City State. Other states may choose to either allow their citizens to wear them or to forbid them. The latter could be in breach of religious freedom, as guaranteed by international law.
Abbey-Principality of San Luigi
Since 1970, the Catholic population has nearly doubled, growing from about 650 million in 1970 to about 1.3 billion in 2020. The Church has circa 415.000 priests. As the world’s oldest and largest continuously functioning international institution, it has played a prominent role in the history and development of Western civilization. It is interesting to compare this huge organization to a small religious group, like for example the Abbey-Principality of San Luigi, based in the United Kingdom.
The history of the Abbey-Principality, is described on its webpage:
The Abbey-Principality of San Luigi is an international Christian religious organization, originally founded in 1883 as a sovereign theocratic principality in the Fezzan. Within an overall humane and charitable ethos, the Abbey-Principality carries out its mission today through churches, religious orders, nobiliary, chivalric and scholarly institutions.
The Abbey-Principality is a church in its own right, led by the Prince-Abbot who is its Archbishop. In the spirit of ecumenism, it has over the years also absorbed other churches and religious orders leading to an international ministerial outreach, which are organized under the federation of the Catholicate of the West.
Background
The name of the Abbey-Principality commemorates St Louis, King of France (1214-70), and continues several medieval traditions connected with the Knights Templar and the Crown of Thorns. It was established by a group of Catholic Benedictine monks as a self-governing sovereign religious principality in the Fezzan in 1883 and ruled there for eleven months. In 1884, the Abbey was overthrown and the Prince-Abbot murdered. The remaining monks came to the Bunyoro-Kitara Kingdom (today part of Uganda) where the Abbey-Principality was re-established and the new Prince-Abbot was granted the additional chiefly title of Mukungu (Prince-Governor). After the end of this second establishment in 1888, the title of Prince-Abbot passed to successors in France and the United States.
The designation Abbey-Principality, once prevalent within the Roman Catholic Church along with that of prince-bishop, reflects the fact that in the Fezzan, the Prince-Abbot exercised temporal power as a sovereign prince over its abbey and surrounding area. Today, having been exiled from its former lands (which were subsequently incorporated into present-day Libya), the Abbey-Principality no longer has responsibility for territorial governance, but continues to hold the jus honorum deriving from its former sovereign status as well as preserving for its head the rank of a Prince of the Church.
On 22 March 1962, the then-Prince de San Luigi was the recipient of Letters Patent issued by His late Majesty King Peter II of Yugoslavia. The King’s act recognized the status of the Prince de San Luigi and further appointed the Prince to the ranks of the Royal Yugoslav nobility. The King had in 1960 accepted the High Protectorship of the senior chivalric Order of the Abbey-Principality, the Order of the Crown of Thorns.
The Abbey-Principality awards decorations, in the tradition of Archbishop Joseph René Vilatte (1854 – 1929). Vilatte, also religiously known as Mar Timotheus I, was a French–American Christian leader active in the United States and in France. He was associated with several Christian denominations before his ordination as a priest by a Christian Catholic Church of Switzerland (CKS) bishop at the request of a Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (PECUSA) bishop for service in a PECUSA diocese. Vilatte’s orders include the Order of the Crown of Thorns (OCT) and the Order of the Lion and the Black Cross (OLBC).
Bishop René Vilatte was born Paris, 24 January 1854, Île-de-France, and died Versailles, Departement des Yvelines, Île-de-France, 1 July 1929. He was buried Cimetière des Gonards (No. 133540, Canton J, Alley I, Rank 3G, Tomb 15) Versailles, Departement des Yvelines, Île-de-France. He was raised by his paternal grandparents, who were members of the Petite Église (PÉ), an independent church separated from the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) after the Concordat of 1801. The PÉ had about 4,000 adherents.
Vilatte led a hectic religious life. His dealings with the local Roman Catholic and Episcopal churches are well-documented and detailed in many biographies. His conviction and his challenge to the establishment attracted many followers, who were estranged from the established churches. Most Independent Catholic and Old Catholic bishops in the United States trace at least one of their lines of Apostolic Succession through Archbishop Vilatte. His spiritual successors carry on his work in a variety of ministries which serve especially those disenfranchised from their original church. Vilatte was a principal founder of Independent Catholicism.
For over 70 years Vilatte has often been caricatured as a charlatan and religious opportunist. However, modern scientific research by theologist Dr. Alexis Tancibok shows that, based on the discovery of new historical documents, a reevaluation of Vilatte’s reputation is justified. These documents show that – contrary to the traditional narratives – Vilatte was above all a missionary, and a campaigner for his vision of Catholic orthodoxy. In line with other Old Catholics, Vilatte believed that Rome was an advocate for Catholic unity, and that Rome’s centralized ecclesial model blocked Christian liberty, and hindered missions. Rome’s centralization was largely the product of the First Vatican Council (1870) objectors to which formed the Old Catholic movement of which Vilatte would be such a prominent part. The pre-1870 model of the Church is centred upon the bishop as the principal authority, whereas after 1870, that authority was subordinate to a much greater centralized dogma and bureaucracy.
Under the influence of the famous French preacher Hyacinthe Loyson (1827-1912), Vilatte initially believed that Anglo-Catholics could work together with the Old Catholics in the new mission field of America. After 1889, however, Dutch Old Catholics convinced Vilatte to break his relations with the Episcopalians in Wisconsin. This not only forced Vilatte to clarify the differences between Old Catholicism, Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism, but it resulted in the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch authorising his consecration as a missionary metropolitan in Colombo, Ceylon. In 1892, he changed his mission to a national Independent Catholic movement in the United States (source: early Independent Catholicism in Context: A re-examination of the career of Archbishop Joseph René Vilatte (1884-1929)). From the wording of his consecration certificate, he was consecrated there as Metropolitan of the Old Catholics in the United States. That was an integral and initial part of his episcopate and not a later addition. He was never intended to be a bishop in Ceylon or an ordinary bishop of the Syrian patriarchate.
In his 2020 thesis, Tancibok describes some challenges Vilatte faced as a missionary, because he was unsupported by traditional institutions. Tancibok’s thesis examines Vilatte’s view of Christian reunion, which he believed could only happen through Catholic unity, led by the universal episcopate rather than one church or individual. The most puzzling aspect of Vilatte’s career was his relationship with the Roman Catholic Church. On three occasions he negotiated reconciliation, but the available evidence shows that on all three occasions he did not abandon his belief in Catholic reform, nor did he intend to not function as a missionary (source: early Independent Catholicism in Context: A re-examination of the career of Archbishop Joseph René Vilatte (1884-1929)).
These new insights show that Vilatte was a renowned preacher, an inspiring leader, and published books and papers on the subjects of theology, liturgy and church history. Based on his teachings, the Abbey-Principality issues Orders to worthy individuals, of which The Chivalrous and Religious Order of the Crown of Thorns or L’Ordre Souverain, Chevaleresque, Nobilaire et Religieux de la Couronne d’Epines and The Sovereign, Knightly and Noble Order of the Lion and the Black Cross or L’Ordre Souverain, Chevaleresque, et Noble du Lion et de Croix Noire, are the most prominent.
According to its statutes, the Order of the Crown of Thorns, is religiously focussed:
The chief Aims of the Order are: (1) to defend the Christian Ideology, Tradition and Cultural Inheritance; (2) to preserve the best ideals of Knighthood of past centuries and the noble spiritual virtues of the Knights Templar; and (3) to help forward any charitable works under the Patronage of the Order.
The Order also has the aim of rewarding persons who have distinguished themselves in defence of the Church, of humanity, or in philanthropic work initiated by the Order and have shown a Christian spirit, a clean life and a noble example. The Order seeks to encourage in its members a spirit of active Christian charity and service.
The Order of the Lion and the Black Cross is focussed on merit and charity (statutes sub 6 and 7):
The chief Aims of the Order are (1) to unite together those who accept the ancient standards of Chivalry; (2) to help forward any charitable works under the Patronage of the Order; (3) to reward those who have distinguished themselves in the service of mankind or of the San Luigi Orders, without distinction as to race or creed.
The Order seeks to encourage in its members a spirit of active charity and service. In contrast to the Order of the Crown of Thorns, which is open to Christians only, it is open to members of all religions as well as those who do not profess any religious belief.
Both orders are at least 130 years old and well-documented. Therefore, they have a respectable history and tradition. Although criticised by some individuals, mostly regarding their foundation narratives, both orders can legitimately claim a historical background in the context of the development of the Independent Catholic churches. The church’s titles, awards and other religious elements do not enjoy state recognition and bestow no privileges, but they remain nonetheless monuments of the church’s history and part of its religious and cultural heritage. Branding them as ‘self-styled’ is a form of religious intolerance. Therefore, the Prince-Abbot processes the legitimate and legal fons honorum to issue religiously-inspired honours. This fons honorum is protected by the freedoms of religion and association, embedded in national and international law.
Royal Brotherhood of Sao Teotonio
HRH Prince Dom Miguel Gabriel Rafael Xavier Teresa Maria Felix de Braganca (Bern, 3 December 1946), Duke of Viseu, Infante of Portugal, in the uniform of Bailiff Grand Cross of Honour and Devotion of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta.
Another religious organization that issues chivalric-like awards, is the Royal Confraternity of Saint Teotonio (RCST). This group was formed in Portugal on 2 November 2000, under the Royal Protection of Dom Miguel de Bragança, Duke of Viseu, Infante of Portugal (Versélewel de Witt Hamer, 2017, pp. 86-87). Dom Miguel (1946) is a member of the Portuguese Royal Family. He is the second child of Duarte Nuno (1907-1976), Duke of Braganza, and Princess Maria Francisca of Orléans-Braganza (1914-1968). Dom Miguel is fourth in the line of succession to the former Portuguese throne, behind his elder brother, Dom Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza, and his three children. He is a noted patron of the arts and painter. Dom Miguel is the founder and sponsor of the Annual Luso-Brazilian Week of Aldravist Art, held in Portugal and in Brazil. He is also an active member in various orders of chivalry, notably the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George.
From a legal perspective, the RCST is a secular association of the Christian faithful (Latin: consociationes christifidelium); a group of baptized persons, clerics and laity, who, according to Cann. 313-319 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, jointly foster a more perfect life and promote public worship and Christian teaching. The RCST focusses in particular on maintaining and honouring the Portuguese saint Theotonius of Coimbra (c. 1082 – 1162).
Theotonius was the nephew of the Bishop of Coimbra in Portugal and educated at the University of Coimbra. He became a parish priest and was assigned to work in Viseu, Portugal. Theotonius was a trusted advisor of Portugal’s first king, Afonso Henriques (ruled 1139-85). The king attributed his success at the Battle of Ourique to the prayers of Theotonius, who was thus able to persuade the king to release Mozarabic Christians captured during forays into land held by the Moors.
Theotonius had a great devotion to the poor, and to souls in purgatory. Each Friday, he combined these devotions by singing a Solemn Mass for the dead, leading a large procession to the cemetery to pray for the local dead, collecting alms there, and distributing the money to the local poor. He was twice a pilgrim to the Holy Lands and an Augustinian Canon Regular, which order he helped bring to Portugal in 1131, entering the monastery at Coimbra. Theotonius spent his last 30 years there as monk and prior. He devoted to the daily offices, never allowing the monks to hurry through them. Theotonius is celebrated as the reformer of religious life in Portugal, and is the first Portuguese saint (Bangley, 2005).
Anyone who has an interest in the development of the mission of the Confraternity can be admitted by the Grand Prior. An applicant is required to present a baptism certificate or a parochial certificate. An applicant is required to present a signed Petition for Admission, supported by two sponsors, and a documented Curriculum Vitae.
RCST’s main purposes are recorded in the statutes of the Confraternity (see: Appendix 2):
Help in all possible ways the works of charity and assist the Dioceses of the Universal Church;
Diffuse the cultural and historical aspects that surrounded the figure of Saint Teotonio (first Portuguese Saint);
Lend help and mutual aid between confrères, in case of need and with the necessary discretion; Relate among themselves holders of Titles of Nobility, members of Confraternities, of Military Orders and of Chivalry and Nobiliary Corporations; those distinguished with Orders and Medals of Merit and Commendation, Civil and Military; Members of Academies and Institutes, National or International.
The RCST is led by a Grand Prior, Ulisses Pauleta Rolim, Comte de Rolim et Reigada (Peerage of Rwanda, 2007). Its members are designated as Confrades and Confreiras in different grades (knight, commander, grand cross, see article 3 of the statutes).
The RCST is affiliated with several prominent royal dynasties (amongst others):
In addition, several high-ranking religious leaders have supported the Confraternity (amongst others):
HH Patriarch Abune Paulos +, former Patriarch of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
HEm Cardinal Don Carlos Amigo Vallejo, OFM, Cardinal Priest and Archbishop Emeritus of Seville in the Roman Catholic Church
HEm Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, SJ, Luxembourgeois prelate of the Catholic Church, who has served as the Archbishop of Luxembourg since 2011. He has been the president of the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Union (COMECE) since March 2018.
The RCST has chosen to be very transparent about their formation date, statutes, structure and affiliations. This contributes to the legitimacy of the RCST and to its international success.
In light of RCST’s religious foundations and therefore protected by the legal principles of freedom of religion and association, the Grand Prior of the RCST processes the legitimate and legal fons honorum to issue religiously-inspired honours. The fact that these honours look like chivalric honours (knight, commander, grand cross) does not affect their legitimacy and legality, because these honours have been clearly stipulated in RCST’s statutes and are therefore part of RCST’s religious perception.
Conclusions
The fons honorum for issuing honours and decorations of religious organizations is protected by the religious freedom and the liberty to manifest this freedom by symbols. In addition, the freedom of association ensures that every individual is free to organise and to form and participate in (religious) groups, either formally or informally. Both freedoms are embedded in national and international law. They include the freedom to grant titles and awards, issued in the context of religious customs, symbols and honorifics.
Religious ceremonies where titles and awards are issued have meaning and sacred value for the believers if they have been conducted by religious authorities empowered for that purpose in compliance with pre-specified rules. The personality of the religious leaders is undoubtedly of importance to every member of the community. Participation in the life of the community is thus a particular manifestation of one’s religion, which is in itself protected by Article 9 of the Convention (Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, and Perry v. Latvia, no. 30273/03, § 55, 8 November 2007).
Defaming or condemning less popular religious orders, like the Order of the Crown of Thorns, is in breach with religious freedom and the freedom of association. It implicates religious intolerance. On an international level, EU law does not precludea remedy against private parties in case any such remedies would be available as a matter of national law (opinion of Advocate General Bobek, delivered on 25 July 2018, Case C‑193/17, Cresco Investigation GmbH, vs. Markus Achatzi, Paragraph 185). Therefore, the freedoms of religion and association can be upheld against national governments as well as against private parties. The legal principles on which the aforementioned freedoms are based, protect the fons honorum of religious organizations to issue orders, titles and awards to manifest its participants’ thoughts and convictions.
Value of religious titles and awards
In the context of religion, the value of titles and awards, is mostly a matter of personal opinion and religious conviction. However, there are parameters that help determine the value of honours, issued by religious organizations. I suggest the following parameters:
Legal structure, financial transparency (Hoegen Dijkhof 2006, pp. 427-432);
Versélewel de Witt Hamer, T. J. (2017). Geloven verplicht: Een elite-onderzoek naar ridderlijke orden in het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden (1965-2015). Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Council of Europe, Overview of the Court’s case-law on freedom of religion (2011).
Cardinale, H. E. (1983). Orders of knighthood and the Holy See. Gerrards Cross, UK.
Jahn, O. (1856). W.A. Mozart. Leipzig: Breitkopf.
Vatican secret archives. (2009). Brussels: VdH.
Duchesne, M. Confraternité Royale de Saint Téotonio, Une Chevalerie contemporaine, Oteppe, 2016.
Johnson, Glenn D. “Joseph René Vilatte: Accidental Catalyst to Ecumennical Dialog.” Anglican and Episcopal History, vol. 71, no. 1, 2002, pp. 42–60. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42615377. Accessed 26 Dec. 2020.
Tancibok, A. Early Independent Catholicism in Context: A re-examination of the career of Archbishop Joseph René Vilatte (1884-1929). Doctoral thesis, Durham University 2020.
De Cesare, R. “The Pope and the Temporal Power.” The North American Review, vol. 172, no. 535, 1901, pp. 863–866. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25105174. Accessed 26 Dec. 2020.
Watt, J.A. “Spiritual and Temporal Powers.” The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought C.350–C.1450, edited by J. H. Burns, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1988, pp. 367–423. The Cambridge History of Political Thought.
Appendix 1. Papal Bull founding the Pontifical Order of Saint Gregory the Great
BREVE GREGORII PP. XVI PRO INSTITUTIO EQUESTRIS ORDINIS S. GREGORII MAGNI
GREGORIUS PP. XVI
AD perpetuam rei memoriam.— Quod summis quibusque Imperatoribus maximae curae est praemia virtutis et insignia honoris et monumenta laudis iis decernere, quos optime de re publica meritos noverint, id et Romani Pontifices Praedecessores Nostri praestare pro personarum, temporum, actuumque ratione consueverunt erga eos, qui Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae imperium ope, armis, consiliis, aliisque recte factis iuvarent. Haec reputantibus Nobis, ac de honore iis habendo deliberantibus, qui fidelem assiduamque asperioribus etiam temporibus operam Principatui navarunt, placuit ex more institutoque maiorum Ordinem Equestrem constituere, in quem homines spectatae in Sedem Apostolicam fidei ex Summorum Pontificum auctoritate cooptentur, quos vel praestantia generis, vel gloria rerum gestarum, vel insignum munerum procuratione, vel demum gravibus aliis ex causis dignos ipsi censuerint qui publico Pontificiae dilectionis testimonio honestentur.Inde enim nedum praemium virtuti conferri, sed et stimulos addi ceteris palam est quibus ad bonum rectumque impensius in dies excitentur. Quare hisce Nostris Apostolicis Literis Equestrem Ordinem constituimus, quem, et ex praecipuo Nostrae in Sanctissimum Praedecessorem Gregorium Magnum venerationis affectu, et ob assumptum ipsius Nomen quando Humilitati Nostrae impositum Pontificatum suscepimus, a Sancto Gregorio Magno volumus nuncupari; reservantes Nobis ac Romano Pontifici pro tempore existenti ius eligendi Equites Equites, quos constet virtutum laude, conditionis honestate, splendore munerum, atque eximia in rebus gerendis sedulitate, communi demum bonorum suffragio commendari. Erit porro peculiare Ordinis Insigne Crux octangula ex auro artificiose elaborata, rubram superficiem habens, in cuius medio, veluti parvo in numismate, extet affabre caelata imago S. Gregorii Magni. Taenia ad eam sustinendam erit serica rubra, cuius extrema ora flavo colore distinguatur. Cum vero stati quidam in Equestribus Ordinibus gradus dignitatem illorum, qui iisdem accensentur, designent, quatuor in Gregoriano Ordine gradus Equitum praefinimus; quorum primi Equites Magnae Crucis primae classis, secundi Equites Magnae Crucis secundae classis, tertii Equites Commendatores, quarti Equites simpliciter nuncupabuntur. Serica fascia praelonga binis Ordinis coloribus picta, dextero humero imposita, transversaque ad latus sinistrum propendens, et magnam Crucem sustinens, Insigne erit Equitum primi generis; qui insuper medio sinistro latere pectoris innexam vestitui gestabunt alteram maiorem Crucem radiis undique ac gemmis circumornatam, opereque magnifico caelatam. Equites secundae classis Crucem magnam, instar Numismatis, latere pectoris sinistro habebunt, praeter Crucem alteram grandem collo ex fascia serica appensam. Equites Commendatores Crucem magnam gerent, quae e fascia collo inserta dependeat; privilegio tamen carebunt ferendi pracdictum numisma seu Crucem alteram in latere pectoris sinistro. Equites quarti ordinis Crucem parvam, iuxta communem Equitum morem, ad pectus apponent in parte vestis sinistra. Ceterum eos omnes, qui publico hoc Pontificiae voluntatis testimonio sint honestati, monitos volumus ut animadvertant sedulo praemia virtutibus addici, nihilque diligentius curandum ipsis esse quam ut rebus praeclare gestis expectationem ac fiduciam quam excitarunt cumulate sustineant, delatoque sibi honore dignos sese in dies magis exhibeant. Haec quidem suscepti huiusce consilii ratio est, haec praecipua muneris ipsius conditio, cui apprime satisfiet constanti erga Deum et Principem fide, prout in aversa Crucis parte scriptum est; atque ita boni omnes et ii praesertim, quorum maxime interest ob Ordinis coniunctionem, de fausto felicique Nostri Instituti progressu gratulabuntur. Haec statuimus ac declaramus non obstantibus in contrarium facientibus, etiam speciali mentione dignis, quibuscumque. Datum Romae apud Sanctam Mariam Maiorem sub Annulo Piscatoris die I Septembris MDCCCXXXI, Pontificatus Nostri anno primo.
TH. CARD BERNETTI
BREVE GREGORII PP. XVI PRO TRIBUS TANTUM GRADIBUS IN EQUESTRI GREGORIANO ORDINE SERVANDIS ET PRO INSIGNIBUS SINGULORUM GRADUUM PROPRIIS STATUENDIS
GREGORIUS PP. XVI
AD perpetuam rei memoriam.—Cum amplissima honorum munera iure meritoque parta hominum mentes atque animos ad virtutem amplectendam, gloriamque assequendam vel maxime excitent atque inflamment, tum Romani Pontifices provide sapienterque praecipuos honorum titulos iis tribuere ac decernere semper existimarunt, qui egregiis animi ingeniique dotibus praestantes nihil non aggrediuntur, nihilque intentatum relinquunt, ut de Christiana et Civili Republica quam optime mereri conentur. Hac sane mente in ipso Pontificatus Nostri exordio, ob tantam temporum asperitatem iniucundo ac permolesto, singulare praemium rectefactis impertiri, itemque ad suas cuique partes demandatas impensius oboundas quoddam veluti incitamentum addere in animo habentes illis praesertim viris, qui singulari studio, consilio, fide, integritate Nobis et Romanae Petri Cathedrae omni ope atque opera adhaererent, novum Equestrem Ordinem instituere decrevimus, quem ob praecipuum Nostrae in Sanctissimum Praedecessorem Gregorium Magnum venerationis affectum, et ob assumptum ipsius Nomen quando ad Universae Ecclesiae regimen evecti fuimus, a Sancto Gregorio Magno voluimus nuncupari. Quapropter Apostolicas dedimus Literas die primo Septembris Anno MDCCCXXXI Annulo Piscatoris obsignatas, quarum vi omnibus notam perspectamque fecimus novi Gregoriani Ordinis institutionem, simulque praescripsimus eius Insigne Crucem esse octogonam exauro affabre elaboratam, rubra superficie imaginem S. Gregorii Magni in medio referentem, tacnia serica rubra, extremis oris flava, sustinendam. Clare insuper significavimus quibus dotibus viros hoc honore decorandos praeditos esse oporteat, Nobisque et Romanis Pontificibus Successoribus Nostris ius reservavimus eiusmodi Equites renuntiandi, quos virtutis et religionis laude, conditionis honestate, muneris splendore, eximia in rebus gerendis sedulitate, communi denique bonorum suffragio pateat esse commendatos. Ad desinandam autem eorum dignitatem, qui huic Ordini sunt adscribendi, Nobis opportunum vide sapienterque praecipuos honorum titulos iis tribuere ac decernere semper existimarunt, qui egregiis animi ingeniique dotibus praestantes nihil non aggrediuntur, nihilque intentatum relinquunt, ut de Christiana et Civili Republica quam optime mereri conentur. Hac sane mente in ipso Pontificatus Nostri exordio, ob tantam temporum asperitatem iniucundo ac permolesto, singulare praemium rectefactis impertiri, itemque ad suas cuique partes demandatas impensius obeundas quoddam veluti incitamentum addere in animo habentes illis praesertim viris, qui singulari studio, consilio, fide, integritate Nobis et Romanae Petri Cathedrae omni ope atque opera adhaererent, novum Equestrem Ordinem instituere decrevimus, quem ob praecipuum Nostrae in Sanctissimum Praedecessorem Gregorium Magnum venerationis affectum, et ob assumptum ipsius Nomen quando ad Universae Ecclesiae regimen evecti foimus, a Sancto Gregorio Magno voluimus nuncupari. Quapropter Apostolicas dedimus Literas die primo Septembris Anno MDCCCXXXI Annulo Piscatoris obsignatas, quarum vi omnibus notam perspectamque fecimus novi Gregoriani Ordinis institutionem, simulque praescripsimus eius Insigne Crucem esse octogonam ex auro affabre elaboratam, rubra superficie imaginem S. Gregorii Magni in medio referentem, taenia serica rubra, extremis oris flava, sustinendam. Clare insuper significavimus quibus dotibus viros hoc honore decorandos praeditos esse oporteat, Nobisque et Romanis Pontificibus Successoribus Nostris ius reservavimus eiusmodi Equites renuntiandi, quos virtutis et religionis laude, conditionis honestate, muneris splendore, eximia in rebus gerendis sedulitate, communi denique bonorum suffragio pateat esse commendatos. Ad designandam autem eorum dignitatem, qui huic Ordini sunt adscribendi, Nobis opportunum visum est eumdem ipsum in quatuor classes dividere; quarum altera Equitibus Magna Crucis primi ordinis, altera Equitibus Magnae Crucis secundi ordinis, tertia Equitibus Commendatoribus, quarta Equitibus tantummodo constat. Praescripsimus idcirco, ut Equites a Magna Cruce primi ordinis magnam Crucem e serica fascia praelonga binis Ordinis coloribus picta, dextero humero imposita, transversaque ad latus sinistrum descendente sustineant, ac praeterea medio sinistro pectoris latere innexam vesti gestent alteram maiorem Crucem radiis undique ac gemmis circumornatam: ut Equites a Magna Cruce secundae classis praeter magnam Crucem, ut supra appensam, medio sinistro pectoris latere alteram Crucem nullis coruscantibus gemmis refulgentem deferant: ut Equitibus Commendatoribus liceat Crucem magnam gerere, quae e fascia collo inserta dependeat, haud tamen Crucem alteram in latere pectoris sinistro: ut Equites demum quarti ordinis Crucem parvam ex communi Equitum more in parte vestis sinistra ad pectus apponant. Quin etiam ac removendum quodcumque discrimen, quod in hoc gestando Insigni posset contingere cuiusque Crucis shema typis excudi mandavimus, novis quibusque Equitibus una cum Di plomate tradendum. Iam vero, cum honoris ac dignitatis splendor eo magis refulgeat quc minor est eorum numerus quibus confertur, Nostris profecto fuisset in votis in Gregorianc Ordine constituendo eorum numerum praefinire, qui in singulas illius classes essent coop tandi. Sed quoniam eo tunc praecipue spectavimus, ut praemium iis potissimum repende remus, qui incorrupta fide et egregio in Nos atque hanc Sanctam Sedem studio et obse quio effervescentes id temporis seditionis impetus propulsarent, et Religionis causam a Civilem Apostolicae Sedis Principatum pro viribus tuerentur, haud potuimus extemple consilia Nostra certis quisbusdam limitibus circumscribere. Nunc vero rebus divini Numinis ope conversis, atque exoptato in Pontificiis Nostris Provinciis ordine restituto, cum fi dis fortibusque viris mercedem proposuerimus, in eam venimus sententiam, aliquid ircommemoratis Nostris Literis immutare, pluraque etiam ab integro decernere, quae ac eiusdem Ordinis splendorem augendum maiestatemque amplificandam pertinere posse vi dentur. Hisce igitur Literis statuimus atque mandamus, ut posthac ex utraque classe Magnae Crucis una tantum constet, cui nomen erit primae classis. Nobis vero et Romanic Pontificibus Successoribus Nostris reservamus Magna Cruce gemmis ornata in peculiaribus quibusdam casibus eos decorare, qui Nostro eorumdemque Successorum Nostrorum iudicio singulari ratione honestandi videantur. Quapropter eos omnes qui Magnam Crucem secundae classis iam fuerint adepti, ad primam classem pertinere omnino volumus et declaramus. Itaque deinceps Gregorianus Ordo tribus tantummodo constabit classibus, nempe Equitibus a Magna Cruce, Commendatoribus et Equitibus. Numerum autem cuiuslibet ex tribus iis classibus praefinire volentes, quemadmodum in pluribus Militiis vel Equestribus Ordinibus provide sapienterque factum est et Nos ipsi vehementer optabamus. plena Auctoritate Nostra edicimus atque praecipimus ut Equites a Magna Cruce numerum triginta non praetergrediantur: Commendatores septuaginta, Equites demum tercenti esse possint. Quem quidem singularum classium Equitum numerum pro iis tantum viris, qui Civili Apostolicae Sedis Principatui subsunt praescriptum volumus; proptereaquod ad Nostrum et Successorum Nostrorum arbitrium semper pertinebit homines etiam exterarum gentium in cuiusque classis coetum praeter hunc numerum adlegere. Praeterea, ut huius Ordinis ratio perpetuo servetur neque temporis lapsu diuturna vetustate ullatenus immutetur, mandamus ut Summus ab Actis Gregoriani Ordinis seu, ut dicitur, Magnus Cancellarius sit S. R. E. Cardinalis a Brevibus Apostolicis Literis; penes quem Equitum nomina, gradus, admissionis dies, ac numerus diligenter servetur. Haec decernimus atque statuimus, non obstantibus editis Nostris Literis, de quibus habitus est sermo, nec etiam speciali mentione dignis in contrarium facientibus quibuscumque. Nobis quidem sperare fas est novam hanc consilii Nostri instaurationem optatum exitum assequuturam, eosque simili honore auctos vel in posterum augendos votis Nostris ac fini, ad quem referentur, quam cumulatissime responsuros, ac Pontificia benevolentia magis magisque dignos futuros, praesertim quod ipso in Insigni inscriptum legant hoc munus eorum potissimum esse, qui PRO DEO ET PRINCIPE vel maxime praestant. Datum Romae apud S. Petrum sub Annulo Piscatoris die xxx Maii MDCCCXXXIV, Pontificatus Nostri anno quarto. PRO DOMINO CARD. ALBANO A PICCHIONI substitus
EX CANCELLARIA ORDINUM EQUESTRIUM
DIE 7 FEBRUARII 1905
SS.mus Dominus Noster Pius PP. X, animo repetens omnia, quae sive ad homines virtute formandos sive ad praemia eisdem pro rectefactis rependenda ab Apostolica Sede proveniunt, iis legibus iugiter moderanda esse, quibus et decori eiusdem S. Sedis et congrue rationi consultum sit, opportune mentem suam ad Equestres Ordines admovit. Hinc est quod re acta cum infrascripto Cardinali a Brevibus, magno Equestrium Ordinum Cancellario, praeter ordinationes de ceteris Equestribus Ordinibus hoc ipso die latas, volüit ut quae etiam de Gregoriani Ordinis vestibus et Insignibus propriis illorumque usu adhuc non satis certa et definita viderentur, servata eiusdem Ordinis, quae hactenus usu venit, in Civilem unam et Militarem alteram Classem partitione, omnia forent adamussim statuta per leges quae hic sequuntur:
PRO EQUITIBUS COMMENDATORIBUS CUM NUMISMATE CLASSIS CIVILIS
Vestis e panno viridi nigrante siet in longos post tergum producta limbos. Opera phrygia, omnia acu picta ex argento, circa collum, extremas manicas et supra peras laciniae sint quernea folia referentes, et dentata tacniola quae extremas totius vestis oras circumeat. Novem pectori globuli: tres vero sint, minoris moduli, manicis. Posteriores vestis limbi inter utramque peram duobus maioribus globulis, nec non corona querna decorentur; ipsisque peris tres subsint globuli minores. Femoralia praelonga sunto e panno viridi nigrante; fascia ornentur ex argento querneis foliis intexta, cuius altitudo quatuor centesimarum metricae mensurae partium siet. Galero nigro ex sericis coactilibus, duplici transversa utrinque et circum ducta limbos, ut in schemate, nigra undati operis fascia ac parvo argenteo flocco in utraque cuspide distincto, nigra superemineat pluma; eique Insigne Pontificium quatuor ex argento funiculis globulo coniunctis innexum sit. Globuli, omnes ex argento, Crucem Ordinis caelato opere referent. Item et ensis argenteo cingulo suffultus Crucem Ordinis, prout a schemate apparel, in capulo caelatam referat; capulus ipse sit e concha albida ornatus auro, cum aureo dependente fimbriato funiculo; vagina e corio nigro aureis fulcro et cuspide terminetur. Praeter Crucem, non aliter ac serica taenia e collo dependentem, Numisma Ordinis argenteum sinistro pectoris lateri ingestum deferre fas esto. Crucem corona laurea ex enchausto viridi ut in schemate, parve taenia ex auro inferius vincta, superemineat. Crux, Numisma, globuli quoad formas et modulos, sic et tacnia quo ad colores et altitudinem a schemate non different.
ALOISIUS CARD. MACCHI MAGNUS CANCELLARIUS ORDINUM EOUESTRIUM
Appendix 2. Statutes of the Royal Confraternity of Saint Teotonio (English version)
“Article 1st
OF THE NATURE, IDENTITY AND ENDS
The Royal Confraternity of Saint Teotonio, founded the 2nd of November of 2000, under the Royal Protection of Dom Miguel de Bragança, Duke of Viseu, Infante of Portugal, is a secular organization of the faithful with common ends, a group of men willingly desiring to defend the origins and Christian values, maintain and honor the spirit of and remember and promote devotion to Saint Teotonio;
Help in all possible ways the works of charity and assist the Dioceses of the Universal Church;
Diffuse the cultural and historical aspects that surrounded the figure of Saint Teotonio (first Portuguese Saint);
Lend help and mutual aid between confreres, in case of need and with the necessary discretion; Relate among themselves holders of Titles of Nobility, members of Confraternities, of Military Orders and of Chivalry and Nobiliary Corporations; those distinguished with Orders and Medals of Merit and Commendation, Civil and Military; Members of Academies and Institutes, National or International.
Article 2nd
OF THE MEMBERS Anyone may join who is of age and has an interest in the development of the ends and who are admitted by the Grand Prior.
One is required to present a Baptism Certificate or, in its absence, a Parochial Certificate may take its place. In exceptional cases and based on his own knowledge, the Grand Prior or respective Prior General can excuse such presentation.
One is still required to present a properly signed Petition for Admission with two sponsors, Curriculum Vitae, a photograph of equal kind, and copies of documents judged necessary in support of the statements made.
It is the responsibility of the respective Priors General and/or Commanders to propose to the Grand Prior the Class and Category in which the applicant will be admitted them; they should deliver the documents referred to above and be in the possession of all of the Civil Rights.
Those will not be able to be admitted who have incurred some canonical penalty ferendae or latae sententiae.
Article 3rd
OF THE CLASSES OF MEMBERS The Royal Confraternity of Saint Teotonio is established with Three Classes of Confrades, as follows:
• Brothers Confreres of Justice (holders of Title or Titles of Nobility) • Brothers Confreres of Merit • Brothers Confreres Honorary
The Ladies will be designated Sisters Confreiras in identical Classes. The categories established under these classes:
The Grand Prior is the delegate of all the Authority and Power. The Organ of Government is the Grand Priory, presided over obligatorily by the Grand Prior, that will have vote of quality. The Grand Priory is composed of the Grand Prior, Vice Grand Prior and Grand Chancellor.
The Consultative Organ of the Grand Priory, the Capitulo of Priors General, will be able to be called whenever the Grand Priory understands.
It is competent for the Grand Prior to nominate the Priors General, Priests and Commanders, as well as to create National or International Priories. For formation of a Priory, there should be a Commandery in operation with a minimum of seven Confrades. It is competent still for the Grand Prior to nominate Commanders, as well as to create the respective Commanderies, and decide of their eventual passage to Priories. Each Priory should have a Chaplain, competent for the respective Prior to nominate.
The Grand Prior is nominated “AD VITAM” [for life]. Upon his death he should be replaced by the Vice Grand Prior or Chancellor, who will ascend to the maximum charge, should be confirmed by the Spiritual Protector. The new Grand Prior will nominate a new Vice Grand Prior and Chancellor. It is mandatory Condition that the Grand Prior be of Portuguese Nationality.
Article 5th
OF THE LOSS OF THE CONDITION OF MEMBER
The quality of Brother Confrade or Sister Confreira will be lost: • By voluntary renunciation. • By the public conduct of the Confrade, that be judged by the Grand Prior as being able to bring dishonor upon the Royal Confraternity of Saint Teotonio, or by actions or offenses against other Confrades.
Article 6th
OF THE RIGHTS
It is a right of all of the Confrades to watch all of the actions of the Royal Confraternity and to use the respective Insignia inherent to their Class and Category, as well as the cloak Capitular, or another Uniform that be established for internal regulation.
Article 7th
OF THE REQUIREMENTS
It is required of all of the Confrades to fulfill the statutes and internal regulations, as well as the decrees emitted by the Grand Priory or their respective Priors, to honor the quotas that are established and give maximum contributions to the Royal Confraternity of Saint Teotonio, looking to spread the principles that brought about its foundation.
Any contingency not covered by law will be dealt with in a meeting of the Grand Priory.
Article 8th
OF THE OFFICIAL DATES
These are the official dates of this Royal Confraternity: • Anniversary of the Birth of Saint Teotonio (unknown date) • Anniversary of the Death of Saint Teotonio -18th of February • Anniversary of the Conference of Zamora 1123 – 4th of October • Anniversary of the Restoration – 1st of December
Article 9th
OF THE CEREMONIES
They must, whenever possible, be commemorated with a Eucharistic Celebration, followed by a Lunch or Gala Dinner.
The Ceremony of reception of new Confrades should be carried out following the Holy Mass whenever possible and be governed by internal regulation.
Article 10th
OF THE INVESTITURES
The Grand Prior is the only legitimate authority for investing new members, rewarding their merits, and promoting their promotion in Class and Category. He will be able to delegate his prerogatives, when the circumstances so advise him, to the Vice Grand Prior or to the Grand Chancellor.
Article 11th
OF THE INSIGNIAS
The Insignia of the Royal Confraternity of Saint Teotonio, by excellence, is a golden, oval shield, within a laureate frame at the center the figure of Saint Teotonio holding the right hand of Dom Afonso Henriques to whom, facing, he genuflects the left knee to the ground, under a background of blue. Above is the golden Royal Portuguese Crown with a cap of red.
Article 12th
OF THE MOTTO
SURGE REX MEUS, ERIGE REGNUM TUUM
(Rise Up My King and Build Your Kingdom)
Article 13th
OF THE COLORS The colors are the Blue and White of the first Flag of Portugal.
Article 14th
FINAL AUTHORITY Final authority – To the Spiritual Protector, as provided in the Code of Canon Law and in the present Statutes, belong the following powers: • The Right to Visit and Inspect the activities of this Royal Confraternity. • The approval of statutory modifications. • The conformation and destitution of the Grand Prior. • The dissolution of the Confraternity in conformity with the Code of Canon Law. • Everything else that Canon Law attributes to him. *************************************** I confirm as a Secular Organization of the Faithful the Royal Confraternity of Saint Teotonio, and, according to the Canon 314 of the Code of Canon Law, I APPROVE the present Statutes by which it is dictated that the Royal Confraternity be governed. I exhort all of the Members to fulfill its ends with generosity and the spirit of Faith, trusting that this will contribute efficiently to their Christian formation and apostolic action. Done in Lisbon the 7th day of the Month of May of the year of the Grace of Our Lord 2005. The Spiritual Protector
Dom Abílio Rodas de Sousa Ribas By the Grace of God and of the Holy Apostolic See Bishop of the Diocese of São Tomé e Príncipe”
In early 19th-century Italy, members of secret societies (called “the Carboneria“; English: “charcoal makers”) were the main source of opposition to the conservative regimes imposed on Italy by the victorious allies after the defeat of Napoleon in 1815. Following the Congress of Vienna that year, a political and social Italian unification movement, the “Risorgimento“, emerged to unite Italy by consolidating the different states of the peninsula and liberating it from foreign control. Before the unification, Italy did not exist as a state, but consisted of numerous kingdoms and other sovereign entities, each ruled by separate dynasties. The Carbonari were spread across Europe. They all had patriotic and liberal goals and were republican and anticlerical.
The activities of the Italian unification movement eventually lead to the Encounter of Teano (L’Incontro di Teano) on 26 October 1860; the meeting between general, patriot, republican and Freemason Giuseppe Garibaldi and the King of Sardinia, Vittorio Emanuele II, at a bridge in the town of Teano (in the province of Caserta), after the successful Expedition of the Thousand, during which the forces of the Bourbon Kingdom of the Two Sicilies (Naples) were defeated. This meeting paved the way for the union of southern Italy and Sicily with the north of the peninsula. The Expedition of the Thousand was one of the most dramatic events of the unification.
During the meeting, Garibaldi hailed Vittorio Emanuele II as king of Italy, covering the whole Italian peninsula, reaching from the Alps to Sicily. Garibaldi sacrificed his republican aspirations for the Italian unity under a monarchy. On 17 March 1861, the deputies of the first Italian Parliament in Turin, assembled by king Victor Emmanuel, proclaimed the latter King of Italy.
“The Encounter of Teano (L’Incontro di Teano)”, Carlo Ademollo (1825-1911), Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Most historians agree that the unification of Italy has commenced with the acquisition of most of Northern Italy by Victor Emmanuel II of Sardinia, and subsequently developed over several years as diplomacy and Garibaldi’s conquests extended the new kingdom. Italian unity was finally achieved, largely through the efforts of three Freemasons; the revolutionary Giuseppe Mazzini, the soldier Garibaldi and the statesman Camillo Benso, Conte di Cavour, Isolabella e Leri (his godparents were Napoleon’s sister Pauline, and her husband, Prince Camillo Borghese, after whom Camillo was named). It is interesting to note that for Garibaldi, Freemasonry, especially after 1860, was a meeting place which he more than once used to carry out his political and cultural strategies (Gustavo Raffi 2002). By 1870, nationalists had destroyed the Pope’s earthly dominion. In 1871, Rome was made the capital of Italy, being an independent secular nation state. The Papacy was reduced to 109 acres around Saint Peter’s.
To summarize: the birth of the Kingdom of Italy was the result of efforts by Italian nationalists and monarchists loyal to the House of Savoy to establish a united kingdom encompassing the entire Italian peninsula. The new Kingdom of Italy was structured by renaming the old Kingdom of Sardinia and annexing all the ancient dynastic entities into its structures.
Historical nobility in Italy
Italy has four royal families: Savoy, Bourbon-Sicilies, Bourbon-Parma and Habsburg-Tuscany. Before the Italian Unification, the Kingdom of Sardinia, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies (which before 1816 was split into the Kingdoms of Naples and Sicily), the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, the Duchy of Parma, the Duchy of Modena, the Duchy of Savoy, the Duchy of Milan, the Papal States, various republics and the Austrian dependencies in Northern Italy, all had their own nobiliairy systems with different traditions and rules. The nobility of the Italian Kingdom was expanded into Africa with the creation of the Italian Empire in conquered Ethiopia and East Africa. The structure of the noble titles in Italy is listed below.
m
f
Re d’Italia/King of Italy
Regina d’Italia/Queen of Italy
Principe/Prince
Principessa/Princess
Duca/Duke
Duchessa/Duchess
Marchese/Marquis
Marchesa/Marchioness
Conte/Count (Earl)
Contessa/Countess
Visconte/Viscount
Viscontessa/Viscountess
Barone/Baron
Baronessa/Baroness
Nobile, or Nobiluomo/Nobleman
Nobile, or Nobildonna/Noblewoman
Cavaliere ereditario/Baronet (hereditary knight)
Dama/Dame
Patrizio of certain cities/Patrician
Patrizia of certain cities/Patrician
Italian titles of nobility and their English translations
Before the Italian unification, official publications of families with noble titles existed in many states and cities and were often named “Libro d’Oro” (golden book). Examples of golden books were the Libro d’oro of Venice, the Libro d’Oro of Murano, an island in the Venetian Lagoon and the Genoese Libro d’Oro.
In 1869, the Consulta Araldica (College of Arms) was established in the Kingdom of Italy to give advice to the government regarding noble titles, coats of arms and other public honours. The Consulta Araldica was established to avoid abuses and usurpations of noble titles, already existing in the pre-unification states. The ConsultaAraldica was instructed to register the nation’s noble titles. In 1896 the Consulta Araldica published the “Libro d’Oro della Nobiltà Italiana“, in which the families were registered that had obtained a noble title from the king or had been recognised by the king as being noble. Currently, members of historical Italian noble families are mainly listed in two publications:
The Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana is a genealogical repertory, containing Italian noble families and Italian notable families. The series was originally created in 1878 in Pisa by writer and scholar Giovan Battista di Crollalanza. The typography of the word was inspired by the nineteenth-century editions of the Almanac of Gotha. The series was published by the Italian Academy of Heraldry, in twenty-seven editions (until 1905), first in Pisa, then in Bari and finally in Mola di Bari. In 1998, the new series of the annuario was established by the well-known scholar Andrea Borella in Milan, in two volumes. From 2000 until her death in 2007, Mrs. Onda di Crollalanza, great-granddaughter of Giovan Battista Crollalanza, accepted patronage of the series. Subsequenbtly, Araldo di Crollalanza, Onda’s half-brother became patron of the series. The current patron is the latter’s son, Goffredo di Crollalanza (* 1974). The latest edition (XXXII) was published in December 2014. The structure of the original work is preserved in its five main sections:
Part I: the Royal House of Italy and the sovereign families in the ancient Italian states;
Part II: noble families officially registered in the Kingdom of Italy;
Part III: noble families divided into papal titleholders after 1870, families ennobled or accepted by the Grand Master of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta; families ennobled by the king of Italy, Umberto II, after 1947 or persons who obtained recognition from the Corpo della nobiltà italiana; families accepted in knightly orders with evidence of nobility issued after the fall of the Kingdom of Italy;
Part IV: families adorned with “nobiltà generosa“, especially from the pre-unification states, which were not recognized by the Kingdom of Italy and therefore are not included in the other sections;
Part V: Italian “notable” families, for example families in possession of a coat of arms and with noble customs, but not formally recognized as noble.
The Libro d’Oro della Nobiltà Italiana was first published in 1910. The book brings together the families that were listed in the Golden Book of the Consulta Araldica and those included in the Official Nobles Lists of 1921 and 1933. The Libro d’Oro contains 1.997 noble families. Each entry contains a brief historical note, as well as the updated family status and a black and white image of the coat of arms. For 3.859 families, there is a reference to the previous editions of the Libro d’Oro. The latest edition of the Libro d’Oro della Nobiltà Italiana (XXV edition 2015-2019) was published in 2016 and consists of two volumes (volume XXX (AL) and volume XXXI (MZ) of the series) containing about 2.000 pages in total. The next edition, the XXVI 2020-2024, is in preparation.
Legal status of the Italian nobility
Regarding the legal status of titles of nobility in Italy, Wikipedia states:
In 1946, the Kingdom of Italy was replaced by a republic. Under the Italian Constitution adopted in 1948, titles of nobility, although still used as a courtesy, are not legally recognised.
Before the Italian republican constitution entered into force, the noble and knightly titles (inherited or not) were recognised and regulated by the following laws of the Italian Kingdom:
Article 79 of the ‘Statuto albertino‘ (English: Albertine Statute; the constitution that Charles Albert of Sardinia conceded to the Kingdom of Sardinia in Italy on 4 March 1848) stated that “…the titles of nobility shall be retained by those, who are entitled to them; the King may grant new ones… “;
By Royal Decree No. 313 of 10 October 1869, the ‘Consulta araldica’ of the Italian kingdom was established (a consultative body advising the government on matters of nobility and heraldry, abolished in 1948);
Royal Decrees Nrs. 1489 of 16 August 1926 and 1091 of 16 June 1927 standardised the succession of titles of nobility throughout the Kingdom, and abolished the old rules of succession in accordance with the old legislation;
Royal Decrees Nrs. 651/1943 and 652/1943 regulated the noble titles and the ‘Consulta araldica‘.
Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana. Photo: astedams.it
The forementioned regulations have been abolished by the Republic of Italy in view of the principle of equality, referred to in Article 3 of the Italian Constitution. Further, provision XIV of ‘‘Disposizioni Transitorie e Finali della Costituzione‘ (additional special provisions set out in the Italian Constitution), explicitly states that “aristocratic titles will not be recognised (…) Noble titles granted before 28 October 1922 will become part of the family name“. Therefore, titles of nobility no longer enjoy any legal protection in Italy, and all legislation concerning their protection has been abolished. The ‘non-recognition’ of noble titles by the Italian State however, does not imply that they are illegal, in a way that someone is in a position even to use these titles illegally and thus to commit a criminal offence. These titles are simply not protected by the law (Cass. 1 July 1957, in Giust. Pen. 1958-11-15; Rep. Gen. Giur It. 1958; Usurp. Tit. no. 5). To summarize; in the Italian legal system that emerged from the Republican Constitution, the noble and chivalrous titles are neither forbidden nor recognised and are, from a legal perspective, totally irrelevant, unless they have become part of the family name, in which case they are subject to legal restrictions and provisions. They then enjoy the protection of Articles 7 and 2 c.c. (Italian Civil Code).
This means that the use of noble titles is not prohibited and that Italian law does not attribute any meaning (value or worthlessness) to such titles. Italian republican law does not prohibit the titles of nobility obtained under the abolished nobiliary laws. Only recently have the forementioned Royal Decrees nrs. 651/1943 and 652/1943, which regulated titles of nobility and the ‘Consulta araldica‘, been explicitly annulled by Italian Provisional Legislative Decree No 112/2008 (later converted into Law 133/2008) and Legislative Decree No 66/2010.
Legal status of knightly orders
Regarding knightly titles awarded in accordance with the now obsolete aristocratic legislation, specific rules apply, which are determined by law 178/1951. This law established the ‘Ordine al Merito della Repubblica Italiana‘ (Order of Merit of the Italian Republic) and gives rules regarding appointments in this Order (Art. 1 – 6). Art. 7 to 9 deal with the other knightly orders that already existed in Italy and with non-national or foreign orders:
The forementioned law explicitly abolishes the orders of the former Italian Royal House of Savoy (Art. 7 to 9) with the following provisions:
The law explicitly deals with orders with a special legal status. These are essentially the secular orders of the Vatican and orders under the protection of the Vatican. Specific legislation guarantees that these provisions remain in force. In particular Article 9. 7(2) and (3), in which:
is referred to the provisions regarding the knightly titles and the use of decorations of the Vatican and the Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem;
is stipulated that “the legal provisions in force with regard to the use of knightly titles and the use of decorations, issued by the Sovereign Military Order of Malta remain unchanged“.
Finally, the law addresses the granting and use of knightly titles and decorations by distinguishing between the granting of decorations by national orders and/or private organisations and/or individual citizens on the one hand; and the granting of decorations by non-national orders on the other hand.
Legal persons, organisations and/or individuals are not entitled to award knightly titles and decorations in any form and under any denomination (Art. 8.1);
Non-national orders are allowed, or at least it is not prohibited (see the clause “except for the provisions of Art. 7“), to award knightly titles and decorations, but the use of such titles is permitted only with the consent of the President of the Republic, on the proposal of the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Art. 7 paragraph 1).
In short, except for the chivalric orders of the House of Savoy, the national orders mentioned in art. 9, and the orders of the Holy See and the Sovereign Order of Malta, the forementioned law is only relevant in the context of two prohibitions (one as a crime, the other as a violation):
The prohibition of the granting of titles by individuals, organizations and or national orders;
The prohibition of the use of titles and decorations (except when they are granted by non-national orders and in a manner as described above).
Italian law therefore regulates (prohibits, or – under certain conditions – allows) the use of knightly titles and the granting and use of decorations. Apart from abolishing the dynastic national orders of the House of Savoy, Italian law does not prohibit nor authorize the establishment or the activities (other than the conduct described above) of national or non-national knightly orders. Italian law regulates the attribution or use of titles and decorations by knightly orders:
The use of titles and decorations conferred by a non-national order is regulated through Italian administrative law;
The use of unlawful titles and decorations (in accordance with current Italian administrative law since the abolition of the original fines imposed by the Artt. 7 and 8 of the law 178/1951) is prohibited;
The awarding of titles and decorations by national orders, citizens and/or private organisations is prohibited.
In all other cases, a chivalric order (national or not) remains irrelevant to the law, not only because a chivalric order operates in a kind of vacuum according to the Italian legal system, but also because there is no law in the republican legislation that prohibits a knightly order or attaches any particular value to it. Regarding the awarding of decorations, it is absolute necessary to distinguish national orders from non-national orders.
Conclusions
Modern Italian law is fully neutral towards titles of nobility. The historical nobility in current Italy is well-documented in the forementioned publications. In 1946, when the Italian monarchy was abolished, a number of titles used by families in the pre-unification states (Two Sicilies, Papal State, et cetera) still had not been matriculated by the Consulta Araldica. Therefore, it cannot be said that the use of certain titles of nobility is incorrect, when they are not documented in the forementioned publications It can simply be the case that they were not registered between 1861 and 1946.
Awarding knightly orders by non-national orders is not prohibited in Italy but their use is only permitted with consent of the President of the Republic.
When studying the Italian nobility, the following considerations by expert on Italian nobility, mr. Louis Mendola, should be kept in mind:
It has become something of an urban legend that most surnames beginning de or di followed by the name of a place are in some way aristocratic in origin, and that certain names are sui generis noble. Such ideas are ridiculous; numerous Italian families having no kinship to Italy’s royal Savoys are named Savoia or di Savoia.
(…)
In view of complexities that sometimes arise in ascertaining the veracity of a claim to a title of nobility, the author is occasionally queried about the simplest means of determining this. The most efficient strategy is to identify descent from an ancestor belonging to the feudal nobility (by feudal tenure) or urban patriciate in the direct, legitimate male line or, alternatively, to determine such descent from an ancestor whose name was inscribed in the Libro d’Oro del Regno d’Italia (before 1946) or the official lists of Italy’s predecessor states (before 1861). For the Kingdom of Sicily, for example, there are the works by Mango di Casalgerardo and San Martino de Spucches mentioned in the introduction to the author’s online “Sicilian Armory.” In Piedmont there are works such as Antonio Manno’s Patriziato Subalpino. Although no compilation is complete, the presence of nobiliary-heraldic information in these records, in conjucnction with an accurate, generation-by-generation pedigree, is sufficient to fulfill the researcher’s burden of proof in around ninety percent of the cases likely to be investigated.
(…)
There is nothing more ridiculous than a self-styled “expert” who petulantly proclaims that “such-and-such family is not noble because it is not listed in this-or-that book.” In documentary, archival records, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. None of the references cited in the following section is complete. In his research, the author has identified many noble families – some happily flourishing today – omitted from recent compilations, sometimes for what appear to be subjective reasons, such as political motives. Factual history is based on reality, not publication on the internet by a self-appointed “authority.” History, like science, has experts but no authorities.
Giuseppe Garibaldi Massone. Incontro delle Logge “Giuseppe Garibaldi” e convegno di studi. Relazione del Gran Maestro Gustavo Raffi. Grande Oriente d’Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani, Via di San Pancrazio, 8 – 00152 Roma. Trieste – 26 Ottobre 2002.
Ranke, L. von, & Andreas, W. (1934). Geschichte der Päpste: Die römischen Päpste in den letzten vier Jahrhunderten. Wien: Krystall-Verlag.
This information is not intended as, and should not be taken as, legal advice. Do not act or refrain from acting based upon information provided in this article without first consulting a lawyer about your particular factual and legal circumstances.
As deposed dynasties do not form part of a state any more, it might appear that holders of their nobiliary titles do not belong to the nobility of the region over which the dynasty once ruled. This article examines if this assumption is correct. I will first examine a case where the monarch is the Head of State and subsequently examine three cases where the dynasty is deposed.
British honours
July 2020, Captain Tom Moore knighted by The Queen During Outdoor Ceremony at Windsor Castle. Moore served in India, the Burma campaign and Sumatra during the Second World War, and later became an instructor in armoured warfare. After the war, he worked as managing director of a concrete company and was an avid motorcycle racer. On 6 April 2020, at the age of 99, he began to walk laps of his garden in aid of NHS Charities Together, with the goal of raising £1,000 by his hundredth birthday. On the morning of his hundredth birthday the total raised by his walk passed £30 million, and by the time the campaign closed at the end of that day had increased to over £32.79 million. On 17 July 2020, he was invested as a Knight Bachelor at Windsor Castle.
All modern British honours, including peerage dignities, are created by the Crown (analogous to all intents and purposes to the reigning Sovereign, currently HM Queen Elizabeth II). Therefore, the Crown is the fons honorum for all British honours. Every year, the final list of those nominated for honours is prepared by the Main Honours Committee at 10 Downing Street. The list incudes life peerages and knighthoods. When approved by the Committee, it is submitted, through the Prime Minister, to The Queen. The creations take effect when letters patent are issued, affixed with the Great Seal of the Realm; the chief seal of the Crown as a symbol of the Sovereign’s approval. In today’s constitutional monarchy, the Sovereign acts on the advice of the Government, but the Great Seal of the Realm remains an important symbol of the Sovereign’s role as Head of State:
The Queen is as much the Queen of New South Wales (In re Bateman’s Trust (1873) 15 Eq 355, 361) and Mauritius (R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Bhurosah [1968] 1 QB 266, 284) and other territories acknowledging her as head of state as she is of England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom. Thus the Secretary of State as a servant of the Crown exercises executive power on behalf of the Crown in whatever is, for purposes of that exercise of executive power, the relevant capacity of the Crown.
Along with the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the Crown is an integral part of the institution of Parliament. The Queen plays a constitutional role in opening and dissolving Parliament and approving Bills before they become law. When a bill has been approved by a majority in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, it is formally agreed to by the Crown. This is known as the Royal Assent. It transforms a Bill into an Act of Parliament, allowing it to become law in the United Kingdom.
Because in Britain, the State and its sovereign are entwined, the peers created by the sovereign belong to the peerage of the state. The peerage of the United Kingdom is the legal system comprising both hereditary and lifetime titles, composed of various noble ranks, and forming a constituent part of the British honours system. Therefore, a person who is granted a peerage by The Queen belongs to the British peerage.
Sovereign rights after the monarch is deposed
This situation is different when a monarch is involuntarily deposed: the monarch and the state are not entwined any more, but the two are separated. It is in line with international legal principles that (ex-)rulers continue to possess their sovereign rights (see Hugo Grotius’ De iure belli ac pacis; English: On the Law of War and Peace. Paris 1625), and therefore still hold the fons honorum to create nobiliary titles:
That is called Supreme, whose Acts are not subject to another’s Power, so that they cannot be made void by any other human Will. When I say, by any other, I exclude the Sovereign himself, who may change his own Will, as also his Successor, who enjoys the same Right, Cacheranus Decis Pedem. 139. n. 6. and consequently, has the same Power, and no other.
The character of the holder of this supreme authority is probably the most important dimension of sovereignty (source: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
King Kigeli V of Rwanda
Mutara Rudahigwa, King of Rwanda, Knight Commander with Star of the Papal Order of St. Gregory the Great, awaits the arrival of King Baudouin of Belgium. ca. 1955. Scanned postcard. Mutara III Rudahigwa (March 1911– 25 July 1959) was King (mwami) of Rwanda between 1931 and 1959. He was the first Rwandan king to be baptised. Subsequently, Roman Catholicism took hold in Rwanda during his reign. Mutara’s Christian names were Charles Léon Pierre. He is sometimes referred to as Charles Mutara III Rudahigwa.
It has been stated by some individuals that the last King of Rwanda, King Kigeli V (1936-2016), did not enjoy sovereign powers under the Belgium suppression and that therefore he did not have the competence to create a Western-style nobiliary framework after being deposed.
Rwanda existed long before European colonization. Modern human settlement of what is now Rwanda dates from, at the latest, the last glacial period, either in the Neolithic period around 8000 BC, or in the long humid period which followed, up to around 3000 BC.
Gihanga (“Creator”, “Founder”) (1081-1114) is described in oral histories as an ancient Tutsi king credited with establishing the ancient Kingdom of Rwanda. In the 15th century, the population coalesced first into clans and then into kingdoms. The Kingdom of Rwanda dominated from the mid-eighteenth century, with the Tutsi kings conquering other monarchs militarily, thus centralising power. It had its own political and socio-economic organization, its culture and customs.
The Berlin Conference of 1884 assigned the territory to Germany as part of German East Africa, marking the beginning of Rwanda’s colonial era. The German explorer Gustav Adolf Graf von Goetzen was the first European to significantly explore the country in 1894. He crossed from the south-east to Lake Kivu and met king Kigeli IV Rwabugiri at his palace in Nyanza.The Germans did not significantly alter the social structure of the country, but exerted influence by supporting the king and the existing hierarchy and delegating power to local chiefs.
The Kingdom of Rwanda was a sovereign nation. In the pre-colonial era the King of Rwanda held the supreme authority over a very complex administrative structure of interdependence of political, administration, military, social, economic and religion, based on the clan and lineage which appears behind each ruling structure:
Source: Maquet, J. J. (1954). Le système des relations sociales dans le Ruanda ancien. Tervuren, Belgique: Musée Royal du Congo Belge, p.163.
Contrary to the German occupation, during the suppression by the Belgians (1916-1962), the King of Rwanda’s executive power were limited. The colonizer institutionalized “chefferies” and “sous-chefferies” by regrouping ancient royal political – administrative entities but removed the chiefs of the land, the chiefs of pastures and the chiefs of the army. In the same occasion, the Mortehan Reform of 1926-1931 by the Belgians changed the ethnic power distribution in the new commands by removing average Hutu, Twa and Tutsi and replacing them by people from the major Tutsi lineages (matridynastic or dynastic and princes). Also, the king could no longer choose his chiefs, and he could not dismiss them. His power was weakened while that of the colonizer was reinforced. The King of the Belgians usurped the King of Rwanda’s sovereignty. During the Mortehan Reform, Rwanda was transformed inside out on political, administrative, social and culture levels. In five years time, Belgium destroyed Rwanda’s centuries old civilization.
In view of the forementioned, it is perfectly legitimate for the former King Kigeli V of Rwanda to issue Western-style nobiliary titles. His dynastic rights as a sovereign should be considered the same as in the pre-colonial era, when he had supreme authority. In my opinion, titleholders can state legitimately that they belong to the Rwandan peerage as it is perfectly clear who is the sole legitimate issuer of such titles.
The case of Prince Francesco and Prince Thorbjorn Paternó Castello
Paternò Castle, locally known as Castello di Paternò, lies on a 300 meters high rock, in the city of the same name, in the Catania province on the island of Sicily in Italy. The town of Paternò is probably the site of the Roman settlement of Hibla Gaelatis. It was a stronghold during Roman, Byzantine and Muslim times. Paternò Castle was built in 1072 by the Norman count Roger, the future King of Sicily, to fortify the area around the city of Catania, which was still in the hands of the Muslims, before laying siege. It was probably built on the site of a former Muslim tower. Under Henry VI Hohenstaufen it was made the seat of the Count of Paternò, assigned to his fellow Swabian Bartholomew of Luci. Later the castle housed kings and queens, such as Henry’s son Emperor Frederick II, Eleanor of Anjou and Blanche I of Navarre, as the castle had been included in the so-called Camera Reginale estates (“Queen’s Chamber”) by King Frederick III of Sicily. (sources: http://www.castles.nl/paterno-castle; Wikipedia). Photo: unknown, early 1960’s.
Paternò Castello is a Sicilian noble family that was very powerful and influential in eastern Sicily, especially in Catania. Between the 17th and 18th centuries, the family acquired numerous possession and titles. The family can be divided into six branches: two princely (Biscari and Valsavoia), two ducal (Carcaci and Paternò Castello Guttadauro), one marquisate (San Giuliano), and two baronial (Bicocca and Sant’Alessio).
Paternò Castello descends from the Royal House of the Counts of Barcelona, later Kings of Aragon. The House of Barcelona was a medieval dynasty that ruled the County of Barcelona continuously from 878 and the Crown of Aragon from 1137 (as kings from 1162) until 1410. They inherited most of the Catalan counties by the thirteenth century and established a territorial Principality of Catalonia. This principality was united with the Kingdom of Aragon through marriage and conquering numerous other lands and kingdoms. In 1410, the last legitimate male of the main branch, Martin the Humanist, died but cadet branches of the house continued to rule Provence from 1112 to 1245, and Sicily from 1282 to 1409. By the Compromise of Caspe of 1412 the Crown of Aragon passed to a branch of the House of Trastámara, descended from the infanta Eleanor of the house of Barcelona.
The Crown of Aragon continued to exist until 1713 when its separate constitutional systems (Catalan Constitutions, Aragon Charters, and Charters of Valencia) were disbanded by the Nueva Planta decrees at the end of the War of the Spanish Succession. The decrees effectively created a Spanish citizenship or nationality, which judicially no longer distinguished between Castilian and Aragonese with respect to both rights and law. Since then, independent Aragonese monarchs seized to exist. Nonetheless, Spanish monarchs up to Felipe VI (1968), continue to use titles that were affiliated to the defunct Crown of Aragon.
The House of Paternò is originally a cadet branch of the House of Barcelona-Aragona. This genealogical relationship is the basis for the dynastic claims of two brothers; prince Francesco Paternò Castello (*1964) and prince Thorbjorn Paternò Castello (*1976).
I have examined the legitimacy of both claims earlier in a 2016 article. At least two individuals are of the opinion that prince Thorbjorn’s claims are not legitimate:
The fons honorum of the House of Paternò is heavily challenged by Guy Stair Sainty, stating that as a junior member of a junior branch of the family don Roberto has no right to claim any prerogative pertaining to its chief, whether or not such prerogative actually exists (Guy Stair Sainty and Rafal Heydel-Mankoo, World Orders of Knighthood and Merit 2006).
In 1973 Lt Col Robert Gayre published a booklet in which he states that “certain observations should be made which, in our opinion, destroy completely these historical claims. The Papal legitimation which is brought forward to allow the desired descent was, in itself, insufficient to transfer any title to the Crown of Aragon. Furthermore, as Aragon did not have the Salic law, the descent of the crown could pass through a female line. Consequently, even if the legitimization had put Don Pedro Sancho into the line of succession, that succession would have gone through a female line on the extinction of the male descent – and so to the house of Paternò would have been out of succession in any case.”. (…) It is clear that no matter how distinguished is the house Paternò, it cannot claim to be the heirs of the Kingdom of the Balearic Isles or of Aragon.” (Lt Col R. Gayre of Gayre and Nigg, A Glimpse of the Chivalric and Nobiliary Underworld, Lochore Enterprises (Malta) Ltd. Valetta, Malta, pp. 27-28).
R.A.U. Juchter van Bergen Quast, Legal Opinion: The Fons Honorum of the House of Paternò Castello, 2016
The forementioned statements by Sainty and Gayre are incorrect and obsolete. On 12 December 2017, the judicial court of Reggio Emilia in Italy confirmed the legitimacy and legality of prince Thorbjorn to grant titles and honours (his fons honorum). In response to the accusation of the Italian public prosecutor that prince Thorborn is not a descendent of the House of Aragon, nor a legitimate claimant to its dynastic rights, the court ruled very clearly:
There is no evidence that the crucial document for the claim, a statement issued by King Ferdinand II of the Two Sicilies (1810-1859), in whose realm the family resided, is false (as had been stated by the public prosecutor):
Judicial Court of Reggio Emilia, Judgement N. 500/17 of 12 December 2017, pp. 11-12
In ancient Sicily, titles could not only be inherited by the firstborn child, but also by other sons and daughters (the public prosecutor stated that succession could only take place through the male line):
Judicial Court of Reggio Emilia, Judgement N. 500/17 of 12 December 2017, p. 12.
The forementioned Paternò Castello-case is fascinating: it is the only case where the fons honorum of a royal claimant is sanctioned by an authoritative legal judgment in a case against the state prosecutor. The case was initiated by the SMOM. The consequence of the judgment is that the legitimacy and legality of the claimed dynastic rights of prince Thorbjorn Paternò Castello are definite.
In my opinion, holders of titles from both brothers should specify clearly that their titles originate from the house of Paternò Castello in the capacity of claimant to the dynastic rights of Aragon and Valencia because otherwise, confusion can arise about their origin as the King of Spain also claims these rights. In addition, Aragon and Valencia do not longer exist as independent regions, which also adds to the confusion. It is more practical to just refer to the House Paternò Castello, for example: Barone di Montichelvo (title issued by the Princely House of Paternò Castello).
The case of King Peter of Yugoslavia
Petar Karađorđevič (1923, Belgrade – 1970, Los Angeles, California), was the last king of Yugoslavia. He ruled the country under the regnal name of Peter II.
During his visit in New York, the King’s wish to see the great Serbian scientist Nikola Tesla came true. He visited him on 8 July at the Hotel “New Yorker”, where Tesla had spent his last days. A joint photo from that meeting was preserved, and it was taken by the King’s photographer.
Peter II was the son of Alexander I, who was assassinated during a visit to France on 9 October 1934. He became titular king at age 11, but the actual rule was in the hands of a regent, his uncle Prince Paul. After Paul was deposed by a coup of officers led by General Dušan Simović on 27 March 1941, Peter II ruled for a few weeks until Fascist troops invaded Yugoslavia. Peter II then fled into exile in London, where he led an émigré government. In 1944, he married Princess Alexandra of Greece, and, after the Yugoslav monarchy was abolished by general Tito in 1945, he settled in the United States. He wrote A King’s Heritage: The Memoirs of King Peter II of Yugoslavia (1955) and worked in the public relations sector in New York (source: Encyclopaedia Britannica).
It was not the first time that the king visited the United States. His first visit to America started on 24 June 1942 with his reception at the White House where he was accorded warm hospitality by President Roosevelt. He was welcomed with full honours that even exceeded the official protocol (source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Serbia).
Addressing King Peter in a very moving speech, President Roosevelt said that as a young man, he read about the 500-year-long Serbian struggle for national liberation and the establishment of its sovereignty, with great interest and deep emotions. In response to this warm welcome, King Peter thanked President Roosevelt and the American people for the understanding and moral support showed for the struggle of his people (source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Serbia).
Peter II died in Denver, Colorado, on 3 November 1970. He was interred in Saint Sava Monastery Church at Libertyville, Illinois, and was the only European monarch so far to have been buried in the United States.On 22 January 2013, King Peter’s remains were returned to Belgrade. The former King was buried in the Royal Family Mausoleum at Oplenac on 26 May 2013 along with his wife, Queen Alexandra. The Serbian Royal Regalia were placed over the King’s coffin. Present at the ceremonies were: the First Deputy Prime Minister of Serbia, Ivica Dačić; King Peter’s son Alexander with his family; and Serbian Patriarch Irinej, an advocate for the restoration of the Serbian monarchy.
The acts of Peter II during his period in exile (1945 – 1970) are the acts of a sovereign, who was forced by the Communist Josip Broz Tito to give up his position. According to Hugo Grotius’ principles of international law, Peter II still enjoyed sovereignty after he had been deposed. Do recipients of noble titles, issued by King Peter II belong to the Yugoslav nobility?
I will answer this question on the basis of the complicated case of Thomas Shannon Foran (born, 1925, New London, Connecticut, United States – died, 2005, Neuilly-Sur-Seine, Hauts-De-Seine, Île-De-France, France; as Thomas Foran de Saint Bar; France Death Index, 1970-2020). The New York Times reported his obituary:
FORAN–Thomas. Thomas Shannon, Baron Foran, duc de Saint Bar, died October 15, at home in Neuilly-Sur-Seine, France, after a long illness. Baron Foran was born in New Haven, CT. In 1943, he volunteered as a paratrooper and joined the 82nd Airborne division, serving in the African, Sicilian, and Italian campaigns, and parachuted behind German lines at Draguignan, France. He was wounded in France and in Belgium during the Battle of the Bulge. His medals include the Bronze Star, Purple Heart with two palms, and the Yugoslav War Cross. He was aide-de-camp to King Peter II of Yugoslavia and thereafter championed and published several books on the Yugoslav Karageorges Royal Family. After the war he lived in Paris, where he represented European wines and spirits in the US. He was a Knight Grand-Cross with sash of the Sovereign Order of Malta, an order he served in many capacities for 45 years. In recent years, his commentaries in European journals provided insights on European royalty and the breakup of Yugoslavia. He will be remembered gratefully by family and friends for his unconditional love, loyalty, and friendship; values that shaped his life. He is survived by a sister, Theodora Jones, his niece and adopted daughter, Valerie Knox Carter, their families, and by Marc Gantzer de Saint Bar. A Memorial Mass will be held at 10 am, Friday, November 4th, 2005, at Saint Patrick’s Cathedral, 213 Broadway, Norwich, CT. Entombment in the Shannon mausoleum at St. Mary’s Cemetery, 815 Boswell Ave, will follow the Mass.
New York Times, 31 October 2005. Note: Forian was a member of King Peter’s independent Order of Malta, formed by the King on 19 March 1964.
Foran was the son of John Kennedy Foran and Madeleine Valerie. King Peter II issued a diploma, dated 30 March 1941, issuing to him the title of duc de Saint Bar. Obviously, the diploma has been backdated to a period when Peter II ruled over Yugoslavia as a monarch. Is the backdating of the diploma acceptable from a legal perspective?
Clearly, Peter II wanted to explicitly backdate the effects of the diploma in his capacity as ruling monarch of Yugoslavia. The diploma could factually have been issued later in the Common Law jurisdictions of England or the United States (the King’s subsequent main residences after the war), or in France, where the King lived in the 1950’s.
In Common Law, if backdating a document misleads a third party or gives a false impression about when an action was taken, it may be fraudulent. Where both parties consent to the backdating of the document, normally the courts in common law jurisdictions will disregard the backdating of that document, and treat the rights as accruing from the date when the document was actually executed. In exceptional cases – where third party rights are not affected – the courts might treat the stated date as being the effective date. The parties’ intentions are essential when evaluating whether backdating is legal (source: Kwall, Jeffrey L. and Duhl, Stuart, Backdating. Business Lawyer, 2008, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1112845). In this case, the purpose and effect was not to mislead a third party, but to underline the sovereign powers of Peter II, and to oppose the usurpation of his throne by the fascists and communists, by attributing the legal effect of the diploma since 1943. When the diploma was factually created in France, which has a Civil Law jurisdiction, the conclusion is the same, based on the théorie de l’autonomie de la volonté (the principle of party autonomy and will). Therefore, Foran’s diploma is legal and legitimate, from a Common and Civil Law perspective as well as from an international law perspective.
On 4 December 1918, after the end of World War I and the defeat of Austria-Hungary, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was formed. In 1921, the so-called Vidovdan constitution was introduced. Under this new Constitution, the territory of the state was centralized, church authorities did not have the status of state authority, and the Church was only acknowledged the status of an autonomous organization. The Vidovdan Constitution established a constitutional monarchy. It further envisaged that the King did not have any authorities outside the Constitution, and that there were no authorities that could not be taken away from him under the Constitution. The Vidovdan Constitution followed the agreement between the Muslim party and the Serbian radicals to keep Bosnia and Herzegovina a separate administrative unit in this new kingdom. However, this constitution was not legitimate, because the provisions it rested on were not approved by the parliamentary majority of each nation separately but by the parliamentary majority of all nations together, where the three nations had unequal number of representative (source: Aksic, Sava: 2016). The Vidovdan constitution was annulled by King Alexander in 1929 and replaced by a new constitution in 1931. The name of the country was changed to Kingdom of Yugoslavia. The 1931-constitution defined the state as a hereditary and constitutional monarchy. Ministers and other high officials were dependent on the king. In 1946, after World War II, a Communist constitution was adopted (source: Constitutionnet.org).
Chapter II, Article 4 of the 1931 Constitution stipulated:
Држављанство је у читавој Краљевини једно. Сви су грађани пред законом једнаки. Сви уживају једнаку заштиту власти. Не признаје се племство ни титуле, нити икаква преимућства по рођењу.
There is but one single nationality in the whole Kingdom. All citizens are equal before the law. All enjoy equal protection from the authorities. Nobility, titles or other hereditary privileges are not recognized.
Did this article prevent King Peter from issuing nobiliary diplomas, after he left the country because it was occupied by Axis powers (since 6 April 1941)?
Art. 29. The King is the guardian of national unity and State integrity. He is the protector of their interests at all times. The King sanctions and promulgates the laws, appoints civil servants, and confers military rank, in accordance with the provisions of the law. The King is the supreme commander of all the military forces. He confers decorations and other distinctions.
Art 29, Chapter V, The Constitution of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1931)
Art. 29 allows the King to confer decorations and other distinctions. Therefore, although nobiliary titles did not carry privileges, they could still be conferred. The sovereign powers King Peter II had as a monarch were still valid after he was deposed, including his right to confer decorations and other distinctions. In my opinion, this included the right to confer titles of honour, like duc de Saint-Bar.
Considering the date of the diploma, it was King Peter’s intention to issue the title in his capacity as sovereign monarch of Yugoslavia with legal effect from 1943 onwards. It can therefore be said that the recipient of the title and his successors belong to the nobility of Yugoslavia. In this case, there is no confusion, since Yugoslavia ceased to exist as a state in 1992 and it therefore should be understood, that the title has a historical character.
Conclusions
In dynastic matters, it is inappropriate to follow the legal system of the usurper. Applying the Belgian colonial laws in the Kigali-case would be like applying the Soviet laws as criteria for judging the dynastic rights of the Russian imperial pretenders.
Recognition by a court is rarely achieved. SMOM obviously never expected the outcome of the Paternò Castello-case, when it filed its criminal complaint against prince Thorbjorn Paternò Castello.
It depends on the specific circumstances whether one can legitimately state that she/he belongs to the peerage of a country when the honour is issued by a deposed monarch. It is always important to be transparent in these matters.
Recommendations
When a title is obtained from a deposed dynasty, I recommend being fully transparent about its origin by specifying the dynasty that issued the title; for example: Comte de Saint-Anselm (Royal House of Rwanda). Although, based on the principle of sovereignty, it is not incorrect to state that a person belongs to the Rwandan nobility, it can cause confusion regarding the issuer’s capacity. The same is true for other titles, issued by dynastic claimants.
Blagojević A., Radonić, B. On the Constitution of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia of 1931, in: Journal of law and social sciencesof the Law Faculty of University J.J. Strossmayer in Osijek = Zeitschrift für Rechts-und Sozialwissenschaften der Fakultät für Rehtswissenschaften der Universität J.J. Strossmayer in Osijek = Journal des sciences juridiq, Vol. 28 No. 1, 2012.
Ranouil, V. L’Autonomie de la volonté: Naissance et évolution d’un concept, Paris, Presses universitaires de France, coll. « Travaux et recherches de l’Université de droit, d’économie et de sciences sociales de Paris », 1980.
Aksic, Sava. (2016). Legitimacy of the Vidovdan Constitution and relationships established thereby. Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta, Nis. 55. 105-116. 10.5937/zrpfni1673105A.
Saint-Bar, T. F. (1999). Les Karageorges rois de Serbie et de Yougoslavie: De l’assassinat de la monarchie et de la démocratie en Yougoslavie par Tito, avec l’aide de Staline, jusqu’à la guerre du Kosovo. Paris: Christian.
Saint-Bar, T. F. (2004). Ordres et décorations du royaume de Yougoslavie: Pierre II, le dernier souverain. Paris: Christian.
Saint-Bar, T. F. (2006). Orders and decorations of the kingdom of Yugoslavia: Peter II, the last king. Paris: Christian.
Foran, T. D. (1973). Portrait d’un roi: Pierre II de Yougoslavie. Ivry sur Seine: Ed. SERG Société d’études et de réalisations graphiques.
Mallet, G. (1994). Étude des titres nobiliaires Baron de Luis XIV, Duc de Saint Bar, portés par le citoyen americain Thomas Foran. París: S.n.
Chrétien, J. (1986). Roi, religion, lignages en Afrique Orientale précoloniale – royautés sans Etat et monarchies absolues. Paris: P.U.F.
Gahama, J. (1983). Le Burundi sous l’administration belge: La période du mandat, 1919-1939. Paris: C.R.A.
Heusch, L. D. (1966). Le Rwanda et la civilisation interlacustre. Université libre de Bruxelles: Institut de sociologie.
Maquet, J. J. (1954). Le système des relations sociales dans le Ruanda ancien. Tervuren, Belgique: Musée Royal du Congo Belge.
Grimm D.: Cooper B. (2015). Sovereignty: The Origin and Future of a Political and Legal Concept, New York: Columbia University Press.
Hoegen Dijkhof, H.J. (2006). The legitimacy of orders of St. John: A historical and legal analysis and case study of a para-religious phenomenon.
Photo
Scythian Messengers Meet the Persian King Darius I by Franciszek Smuglewicz. Creation Date: end of the 18th century – beginning of the 19th century. Provided by Lithuanian Art Museum. PD for Public Domain Marka by Franciszek Smuglewicz.
Franciszek Smuglewicz was a Polish-Lithuanian draughtsman and painter. Smuglewicz is considered a progenitor of Lithuanian art in the modern era. He was precursor of historicism in Polish painting. He was also a founder of Vilnius school of art, his most prominent students were Jan Rustem, Jan Krzysztof Damel, Gaspar Borowski and Józef Oleszkiewicz. His father Łukasz Smuglewicz and brother Antoni were also painters;
Franciszek Smuglewicz is one of the most famous Lithuanian Classicism painters, the first professor and the head of the Drawing and Painting Department established in late 18th century in Vilnius University. His artworks and educational activities made significant impact for the development of professional Lithuanian art. His ancient subject paintings were inspired by works of Antique authors, such as Herodotus, Plutarch, Homer, and Vergilius. Depicted scenes were given philosophic and moralising subtext, corresponding with the spirit of the Enlightened Classicism.
The painting “Scythian Messengers Meet the Persian King Darius I” depicts another reception scene. This time Persian king Darius I (550-486 BC) is portrayed after his unsuccessful campaign against the Scythians. Scythian messenger comes to Darius I and hands him a bird, a mouse, a frog, and five arrows. He tells that the Persians themselves must find out the meaning of these presents. King Darius is sitting in his throne, lost in his thoughts, trying to understand the meaning of gifts. His advisers gathered behind him also think intensely. In the opinion of the king, strange gifts mean the Scythians are to surrender to the Persians with soil and water. However, Gobryas, Darius’ lance carrier, one of the seven conspirators who killed the Magian usurper Gaumâta and helped Darius the Great to become the king, interprets the meaning of presents completely differently. According to him, the gifts tell this message: “Oh, the Persians! If you will not fly-away skywards like birds, or will not dig yourselves into the ground line mice, or will not jump into water like frogs, you will not return home, because these arrows will pierce you”.Both “Persian Envoys before the King of Ethiopia” and “Scythian Messengers Meet the Persian King Darius I“ promote the right of nations to be independent and to fight for their freedom. As the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth ceased to exist in the late 18th century after its’ territory was partitioned among Prussia, the Austrian Empire, and the Russian Empire these ideas were very important at the time Franciszek Smuglewicz lived in and during the following years.
Salzburg is also known as the German Rome because of its fine ecclesiastical architecture. The city is of post-Roman origin and started developing with the founding of the Abbey of Saint Peter by Saint Rupert of Worms in 696 and with the cathedral by Saint Virgil in 774. In the eighth century, the Pope elevated the bishopric of Salzburg to an archdiocese and the Archbishop of Salzburg was appointed papal legate. This church official, also known as apostolic legate, was the personal representative of the Pope. As papal legate, he was empowered on matters of Catholic faith and for the settlement of ecclesiastical matters.
In 1278, in his capacity of Roman-German King, Rudolf von Habsburg (1218 – 1291), attributed the title of Prince of the Holy Roman Empire to the archbishop of Salzburg and his successors. During centuries of relative peace, except for the Peasants’ War of 1525–6, the power and prestige of Salzburg increased. It became the most important and influential archdiocese and sacred state in German-speaking Europe. In 1700, about 55 years before the birth of Mozart, Salzburg’s boundaries stretched north and west into what is today Bavaria and east and south as far as Wiener Neustadt and Graz. Salzburg was a profoundly conservative state, predicated on a severe Catholic orthodoxy: the Jews were expelled from Salzburg in 1498 and the Protestants in 1731–2 (Eisen: 1989).
However, in the 17th century, the pious archdiocese of Salzburg was the scene of a Romeo and Juliet-like tragedy.
Wolf Dietrich von Raitenau, Prince-Archbishop of Salzburg
Wolf Dietrich von Raitenau (1559 – 1617) was Prince-Archbishop of Salzburg from 1587 to 1612. He was born at Hofen Castle in Lochau, Austria, near Lake Constance, at the border to Germany. He was the son of colonel Hans Werner von Raitenau and his wife Helene von Hohenems. The latter was a niece of Pope Pius IV and sister of Mark Sittich von Hohenems Altemps, consecrated Bishop of Constance in 1561. She was also sister-in-law of Cardinal Charles Borromeo.
Salome Alt
Miniature painting of Salome Alt. Anonymous copy, made in the first half of the 19the century, from the original, which is stored at the Kunstsammlungen der Erzabtei St. Peter; Salzburg Museum, Inv. Nr. 1469/2010.
At a wedding party at the Alte Stadttrinkstube, Raitenau spotted the beautiful Salome Alt (1568 – 1633), the daughter of high-profile and wealthy textile merchant and city councillor Wilhelm Alt and the granddaughter of Ludwig Alt, former mayor of Salzburg. The family was of the Lutheran faith. Contemporary sources describe Salome Alt as a tall grown woman and belle of the city. She became Raitenau’s mistress from about 1593 until 1617. Despite the forbidden nature of their love, they were determined to be together. Raitenau petitioned the Pope for permission to marry several times, as it was not unheard of in those times, but the prospect of Salome and the family of 15 inheriting church property prevented that from happening. Raitenau could give up his role as Archbishop, so they could be together, but that would throw away all his plans to modernize Salzburg.
He was facing a choice between his life’s work and his life’s love. Unlike many people facing two unpleasant choices, Dietrich refused to accept the situation and carved out a third way. He built the beautiful palace of Altenau for Salome Alt, which is now called Mirabell (made famous in recent times as a setting in the movie The Sound of Music). They “lived together” in an era when it was scandalous to do so. But Raitenau knew his position was powerful enough and his talents were needed enough to let him continue his irregular private lifestyle. The couple had 15 children together over 20 years and by all accounts had a loving partnership. Because Salome and their children had no privileges or standing without an official marriage, in 1600 Raitenau conferred the noble status in the form of von Altenau on her as a form of economic protection. On 28 August 1609 Alt was ennobled by Emperor Rudolf II. in Prague with the predicate von. Since then, she belonged to the nobility of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.
The same elevation took place regarding her children, who were “born out of the relation with a leading member of the clergy” (“bei einer fürnemben geistlichen Person“) with cleansing of the consequences of being born out of wedlock “aller Makel und Gebrechen ihrer unehelichen Geburt enthoben“.
Sadly, Raitenau’s rule was brought down after, in 1612, he lost a fierce dispute with his mighty neighbour, Duke Maximilian I of Bavaria. Raitenau was captured, deposed and imprisoned for life by his nephew and successor, Mark Sittich von Hohenems, first at Hohenwerfen Castle and later in Hohensalzburg. From this fort-like structure overlooking the city, he was able to see his beloved Salzburg and the former home Mirabell of his love, Salome Alt. He died five years later, never seeing Salome or their children again. He wrote on the wall of one of his rooms at the fort: “Love is suffering in the end“.
Salome rushed her children to safety, and with the money and status conferred upon her by Raitenau, she was able to secure them a safe life in Northern Austria. She died in 1631, never marrying.
Children
Wolf Dietrich von Raitenau and Salome Alt had fifteen children. Five children died young, six children reached adulthood and the names of only eleven children are known. The book Hundert Salzburger Familien (1946) contains a well-documented genealogy of the Alt-family:
Adam Anton Grundemann von Falkenberg ∞ Susanna Katharina Grüber von Grübegg,
Franz Fortunat Grundemann von Falkenberg (Benedictine monk in Kremsmünster),
Johann Erasmus Grundemann von Falkenberg († unmarried in military service),
Ferdinand Wilhelm Grundemann von Falkenberg, drowned near Linz at the age of 13.
Ferdinand Adam Rudolf Grundemann von Falkenberg († as a child).
Anton von Altenau,
Wolf Dietrich von Altenau,
Viktor von Altenau (* 1604, † 1638 in the Hoffmannsches Freihaus in Wels (also known as Haus der Salome Alt ∞ in 1634 in the Salzburg Cathedral with Katharina Götz, daughter of the kurbayerischer Kanzler in Burghausen, Dr. Johann Götz).
Johann Georg Eberhard von Altenau (* 1605,† 1675) became a Benedictine monk under the name of ‘Ägidius’ in the monestary of Kremsmünster,
Susanna von Altenau.
Conclusions
Apart from its highly romantic aspects, the story of Wolf Dietrich von Raitenau and Salome Alt, illustrates the power of sovereignty in the form of supreme authority. Raitenau’s sovereignty, combined with his willpower to take care of his beloved ones, overruled the traditional laws of succession of nobiliary titles. He refused to accept the laws of clerical celibacy and the prohibition of cohabitation. Raitenau was ahead of his time.
Nobiliary succession rules, for example regarding unmarried couples like Raitenau-Alt, have changed over time due to ever evolving legal principles. They adapted to new realities and to changing cultural and social norms. Exceptions that once proved the rule, have often become the rule in modern times:
Ancient Salic law excluded females from dynastic succession. It is still applied in modern times when succession of nobiliary titles is discussed. In contrast, gender equality is a fundamental human right that for the first time was enshrined by the United Nations in the UN Charter in 1945. Based on the principle of gender equality, Prince Carlo of Bourbon-Two Sicilies, Duke of Castro (who has no sons), broke with tradition by implementing dynastic succession to his eldest daughter. In 2010, Prince Eduard of Anhalt modified the House of Anhalt-Ascania laws by abolishing the Salic laws and recognising his eldest daughter as his dynastic heir. In addition, Prince Eduard stipulated that gender would be irrelevant in determining the line of descent in the future. In these cases, preserving tradition can only be achieved by adapting modern legal principles.
In the United Kingdom, most hereditary peerages descend the male line (known as male primogeniture), which means that the peerage can only be inherited by a male relative. There are some exceptions that enable a woman to inherit. These are: (1) Women may inherit a title which is a barony by writ (rather than the more common letters patent); (2) in Scotland most peerages may pass to a woman in families with daughters but no sons; (3) a ‘special remainder’ may be granted by the Crown to allow a woman to inherit a title; (4) a woman can be given a hereditary peerage by the Crown. The Equality (Titles) Bill, also known as “Downton Law” would end gender discrimination and allow for equal succession of female heirs to hereditary titles and peerages. The law was rejected at committee stage in the Lords and progressed no further. In this case, the exception did not yet become the rule. However, the issue is still under debate.
As in most of Europe, Spanish nobility descends to all legitimate descendants, male and female, in the male line (see e.g.: Ms. Munoz-Vargas y Sainz de Vicuna, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women 7/2005, U.N. Doc. A/62/38, at 474, 2007). The Spanish law on equality between men and women on succession to titles of nobility (Law 33/2006 of 30 October 2016) has been published in the official bulletin on 31 October 2006 and entered into force on 20 November 2006. Until 2006, hereditary titles descended by male-preference primogeniture. A woman was eligible to inherit only if she had no brother or if her brothers also inherited titles. Therefore, most of the Spanish nobility is untitled. However, since 2006, all hereditary titles descend by absolute primogeniture. Gender is no longer a criterion.
In The Netherlands, children born to unmarried parents still inherit a Dutch nobiliary title (Article 3, Wet op de Adeldom). An example is the illegitimate son of Prince Carlos de Bourbon de Parme, who has taken his father’s name, the title ‘prince’ and even the predicate ‘Royal Highness’.
Therefore, questions regarding the legitimacy of nobiliary titles cannot be judged by traditional rules only. Modern principles of law, as well as political and practical aspects, have to be taken into account.
Acknowledgement
I would like to express my very great appreciation to Mr. Ulrich Schullern of the Heraldisch–Genealogische Gesellschaft „ADLER“ for sending me genealogical information regarding the Von Altenau family.
De, P. Y. (2007). La sucesión mortis causa de los títulos nobiliarios incluye jurisprudencia actualizada (1978-2006). V. Derecho de sucesiones. Madrid: Dykinson.
Martin, F. (1946). Hundert Salzburger Familien. Salzburg: Verlag der Gesellschaft für Salzburger Landeskunde (Druck von R. Kiesel).
Stahl, E. (1987). Wolf Dietrich von Salzburg: Weltmann auf d. Bischofsthron: Biographie. Wien: Amalthea.
Dopsch H.; Robert Hoffmann (2008): Salzburg. Die Geschichte einer Stadt (2. Auflage). Universitätsverlag Anton Pustet, Salzburg, ISBN978-3-7025-0598-1.
Aufmüpfig & Angepaßt. Frauenleben in Österreich. Katalog der Niederösterreichischen Landesausstellung 1998 im Schloß Kirchstetten. Redigiert von Elisabeth Vavra. Katalog des Niederösterreichischen Landesmuseums. N.F. 419. – Wien, Köln, Weimar: Böhlau 1998. 389. 4°. Objekt-Nr.: 8.1.2, S. 209.
Götz F. (1987): Die Familie von Raitenau im Bodenseeraum und die Herrschaft Langenstein. In Salzburger Landesregierung Kulturabteilung (Hrsg.), 4. Salzburger Landesausstellung – Fürsterzbischof Wolf Dietrich von Raitenau – Gründer des barocken Salzburgs, S. 12–25. Salzburg.
Beck A. (1987): Die Familie von Raitenau in den Inventaren von Welsberg. In Salzburger Landesregierung, Kulturabteilung (Hrsg.), 4. Salzburger Landesausstellung – Fürsterzbischof Wolf Dietrich von Raitenau – Gründer des barocken Salzburgs, S. 26–31. Salzburg.
Siebmacher J. (1979): Johann Siebmachers Wappen-Buch. Band 28. Die Wappen des Adels in Salzburg, Steiermark und Tirol. Faksimile-Nachdruck der Ausgabe Nürnberg 1701–1806. München: Battenberg. Bauer & Raspe: Neustadt an der Aisch.
Stahl-Botstiber A. (1987): Salome Alt und das Frauenbild ihrer Zeit. In Salzburger Landesregierung Kulturabteilung (Hrsg.), „4. Salzburger Landesausstellung – Fürsterzbischof Wolf Dietrich von Raitenau – Gründer des barocken Salzburgs“, S. 55–58. Salzburg.
Photo
The Mirabell Palace dates back to 1606. Prince-Archbishop Wolf Dietrich von Raitenau built it to impress his beloved mistress Salome Alt. The daughter of a Jewish merchant is said to have had 15 kids with the Prince-Archbishop. However, the happy family days came to a sudden end when Wolf Dietrich was overthrown and imprisoned. He died behind bars in 1617. Photograph by Andrew Bossi.
This article investigates the legal status, under EU-law, of nobiliary titles that have been granted during a monarchy, which was replaced by a republic. It shows that the current use of a title that is not embedded in public law, like Fürst zu Mindelheim, originally issued in Germany to General John Churchill in 1705, can be perfectly in harmony with modern, fundamental legal principles. On the other hand, there are examples of ancient titles, like Fürst von Sayn-Wittgenstein, that are currently well-embedded in public law, but sometimes lack regularity. Based on these two cases, I will derive conclusions regarding the current legal status of ancient titles that are no longer embedded in public law.
On 28 August 1704, Emperor Leopold I created General John Churchill des heiligen römischen Reichsfürst (roughly translated: Prince of the Holy Roman Empire). Churchill subsequently was created Prince of Mindelheim on 18 November 1705 by Emperor Joseph I. His only son, John Churchill, had died in 1703 and the imperial titles became extinct after the death of his daughters. His descendent trough the female line was the 11th duke of Marlborough, John George Vanderbilt Henry Spencer-Churchill (1926-2014), duke of Marlborough (England 1702), marquess of Blandford (England 1702), earl of Sunderland (England 1643), earl of Marlborough (England 1689), baron Spencer (of Eyemouth, England 1603), and baron Churchill (of Sandridge, England 1685). In addition, Burke’s Peerage describes him as “Prince of Mellenburg“. Noel Cox’ excellent paper “Property law and imperial and British titles: The Dukes of Marlborough and the Principality of Mindelheim“, addresses whether this is correct:
The title of prince of the Holy Roman Empire was conferred in 1704 upon all the children heirs and lawful descendants, male and female, of John Churchill, the first duke of Marlborough. The title of prince of Mindelheim was granted in 1705 to all male descendants and daughters of the first duke. But following the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 and the Treaty of Rastatt in 1714 the principality passed to Bavaria. The right of the dukes of Marlborough to use the style and title was thus lost, and any residual rights would have expired in 1722 on the death of the duke, as they could not pass to a daughter (unlike his British titles). Despite this it is still common practice to describe the Duke of Marlborough as a Prince of the Holy Roman Empire and Prince of Mindelheim. This paper considers the differences in the treatment of the descent of the British and imperial titles
(…)
The present duke of Marlborough enjoys his British titles, not because of any special remainders in the patents of creation, but because of an Act of Parliament. This Act had no bearing upon the imperial titles conferred upon the first duke, which thus descended in accordance with their original instruments of creation.
The title of prince of the Holy Roman Empire, conferred in 1704 upon all his children heirs and lawful descendants, male and female, expired in 1751 with the death of his younger daughter, Lady Mary Churchill, duchess of Montagu (who was this also entitled to be known as Princess Mary Churchill). The imperial titular principality was not what would be called in English law an estate in tail general. It is rather a titular honour held by grant which contained a limitation to all male descendants and daughters, or what might be called an estate in tail male general.
Similarly, the title (and principality) of prince of Mindelheim, granted in 1705 to all male descendants and daughters, would have reverted to the emperor in 1722, as it could not pass to a daughter without a special remainder. However, the principality had already passed to Bavaria. The right of the duke of Marlborough to use the style and title was thereupon lost. Even the title of prince of Mellenburg would have expired in 1722.
As recipients of unprecedented imperial honours, it is fitting that the greatest monument to the great duke in England, Blenheim Palace, should be entailed to the dukes of Marlborough for all time. But it is a pity that the imperial honours were not subject to special remainders, so that the current duke might enjoy them too.
Cox, N. (2009). Property law and Imperial and British titles: The Dukes of Marlborough and the Principality of Mindelheim, pp. 1 and 25.
Coat of Arms of the Fürsten zu Mindelheim. Trier, J. W., Feustel, C. J., Krügner, J. G., Brühl, J. B., & Jacobi, K. L. (1744). D. Johann Wolffgang Triers Einleitung zu der Wapen-Kunst Nebst einem Vorbericht von der gesammten Herolds-Wissenschafft. Leipzig: Jacobi.
After the Treaty of Utrecht (1713-1714) led to the loss of his Principality of Mindelheim, it was discussed between England and Germany to create the 1st Duke of Marlborough, Fürst of Nellenburg (not ‘Mellenburg’, see Coxe 1822). Nellenburg was originally a county or landgraviate (German: Landgrafschaft) in southwestern Germany. It passed to Austria in 1465, when the Counts of Nellenburg (House of Tengen) sold the county to the Habsburg’s. Austrian law did not allow for the elevation into a sovereign jurisdiction though, and the plan to compensate Churchill with Nellenburg was dropped in or after 1717. Nellenburg, therefore, never became a sovereign part of the Holy Roman Empire.
Cox thinks that the imperial honour is lost forever: “it is a pity that the imperial honours were not subject to special remainders, so that the current duke might enjoy them too.”. I think, however, that it would be very easy for the family to obtain a ‘declaration of no-objection’ (German: Nichtbeanstandung) from the German Association of Nobiliary Law (German: Deutscher Adelsrechtsausschuß) of the regional German nobility associations. The extinction of a branch, like in the Churchill-case, is a classic occasion for granting such a declaration. This would lead to inclusion of the family with their imperial titles in the German nobiliary handbooks (German: Gothaisches genealogisches Handbuch). I cannot explain why Charles Spencer, 3rd Duke of Marlborough, KG, PC (1706-1758), the second son of Charles Spencer, 3rd Earl of Sunderland and Lady Anne Churchill, the second daughter of forementioned John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough and his wife Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough, is mentioned on page 401 in the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels (GHdA), Fürstliche Häuser Band III (1955) as Fürst of the Holy Roman Empire and Fürst von Mindelheim. On the same page, the GHdA correctly states that the diploma does not provide in a succession of the title in the female line.
The foregoing leads me back to the Cox’ initial question: ‘is it correct to describe the Duke of Marlborough as a Prince of the Holy Roman Empire and Prince of Mindelheim?‘. As mentioned earlier, the extinction of a family branch under German pre-1919 law was a classic example of allowing another branch of the family to continue the use of the title. This is in accordance with the intention of the issuer to create a hereditary title. The Deutscher Adelsrechtsausschuß does not confirm the use of a nobiliary title, but only issues declarations of no-objection. It is therefore perfectly in line with nobiliary traditions (see Heiner Baron v. Hoyningen gen. Huene, Der Deutsche Adelsrechtsausschuss) to continue using – with or without the forementioned declaration – the imperial titles of Prince of the Holy Roman Empire and Prince of Mindelheim. I do not see any objections, especially because the fact that the monarchy was abolished and nobiliary privileges are no longer recognised, are unforeseen circumstances, which are of such a nature that the involved parties, according to criteria of reasonableness and equity, are entitled to use the title in a modified form. They were – and should remain – very closely attached to the family.
A subsequent question is what, according to EU law, the current legal status of such title is. I will therefore examine a second case.
The Counts of Sayn were first mentioned in the 10th century. Assumedly, they were minor Counts to the Pfaltzgraves (Counts Palatine) in the Auelgau. The proven genealogy of the family starts with the brothers Eberhard and Heinrich, Counts of Sayn in 1139. Currently, four dynastic branches of the House of Sayn have survived. Alexander Konrad Friedrich Heinrich Prince zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn (1943 in Salzburg, Austria), a German businessman, MBA (Harvard Business School 1968), is head of the House Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn. Prince Alexander is the vice-president of Europa Nostra, an NGO focussing on the preservation of Europe’s cultural and natural heritage, and the president of the Deutsche Burgenvereinigung (source: sayn.de).
In 1979, one member of the family, Elisabeth Gertrud Fürstin von Sayn-Wittgenstein (* 1927) married Bruno Lothar Koch, who subsequently started a business selling the name ‘Fürst von Sayn-Wittgenstein‘ through adult-adoption. Currently, through a chain of adoptions, the name has been transferred more than 50 times among unrelated people. The chain started with a morganatic marriage:
Hermann Eugen Adolf Bernhard Franz Ferdinand August Prinz zu Sayn-Wittgenstein–Hohenstein (1845 – 1921), renounced his membership of the House Sayn-Wittgenstein-Hohenstein on 23 January 1905, because of his morganatic marriage, but was granted the title Fürst von Sayn-Wittgenstein for himself and his issue on 30 January 1905. He married 25 January 1875 Gertrude Katharina Westenberger (1851 – 1921). Son:
Alexander Fürst von Sayn-Wittgenstein (1876 – 1947); married 1926 Albertina Schmalix (1894 – 19–). Daughter:
Elisabeth Gertrud Fürstin von Sayn-Wittgenstein (1927), married in 1979 Bruno Lothar Koch, through mediation of the notorious title broker and former window dresser Hans Hermann Weyer.
One of the adoptees in the chain was Ilona Fürstin von Sayn-Wittgenstein, an Austrian national, residing in Germany. After adoption by another German adoptee, Fürst von Sayn-Wittgenstein, her surname became “Fürstin von Sayn-Wittgenstein”. Ilona had lived for almost 15 years under the surname “Fürstin von Sayn-Wittgenstein” in Germany which had left numerous traces of a formal nature in both the public and private sphere, such as driving licences, social security records et cetera. Though in the beginning the Austrian authorities acknowledged her new surname “Fürstin von Sayn-Wittgenstein”, they later amended it as “Sayn-Wittgenstein”, notwithstanding the objection of Ilona Sayn-Wittgenstein). The lawsuit that followed is known as the Sayn-Wittgenstein v Landeshauptmann von Wien case; a landmark case before the European Court of Justice concerning the attribution of nobiliary names in case of adoption.
The Austrian law on the abolition of the nobility has constitutional status according to Art 149(1) of the Austrian Constitution. The legislation on the abolition of the nobility provides that both the use of the nobiliary particle “von” and designations of noble status, such as prince / “Fürst” should be abolished. Ilona Sayn-Wittgenstein argued that the discrepancy in her names is such as to hinder the exercise of the rights enshrined in Art 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, since she would be under an obligation to dispel doubts regularly. To force a person to use a surname which differs from the one he/she acquired in a Member State is liable to hamper the exercise of the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.
However, the EU is committed to respect the national identities of its Member States, which include the status of the State as a Republic. The European Court of Justice ruled that it is not disproportionate for Austria to protect the principle of equal treatment by prohibiting any acquisition, possession or use, by its nationals, of titles of nobility or noble elements, which may create the impression that the bearer of the name is the holder of such a rank. In such circumstances, a refusal cannot be regarded as a measure unjustifiably undermining the freedom to move and reside enjoyed by citizens of the Union.
The sale of titles as a form of business as described above, is an example of irregular use of the laws of adoption, because they breach the traditional family values, normally present between parents and their adopted child. When adoption becomes a cold business operation, the principle of family life is neglected. This form of adoption hurts the family members, because they are confronted by non-related persons, who create the appearance of belonging to their family. However, such titles are perfectly embedded within public law, contrary to the previous example. This means that whether ancient titles are embedded within public law cannot be the sole criterium for historical regularity of legitimacy.
Conclusions
In some situations, like in the Mindelheim-case, ancient nobiliary titles cannot regain an official, regulated status, because the monarchy has been replaced by a republic and revival is impossible. The Sayn-Wittgenstein-case shows that even an official status is not always an optimal situation, when it comes to protecting a family’s cultural heritage. The legal concept of ‘private life’ could provide a solution in situations where it becomes necessary to embed an unregulated nobiliary title within the law, for example in cases where others could try to usurp a title.
John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough. published by John Smith, after Sir Godfrey Kneller, Bt, mezzotint, 1705. 7 3/4 in. x 5 3/4 in. (198 mm x 146 mm) trimmed to platemark, Purchased, 1944, Reference Collection, NPG D11948, National Portrait Gallery, London
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) can be accessible in cases where an individual files a complaint against a contracting state. An example could be the prohibition to use a nobiliary title. The ECHR cannot judge cases between individuals. The Court has established that personal choices as to an individual’s desired appearance, whether in public or in private, relate to the expression of his or her personality and thus fall within the notion of private life, protected by art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Convention). The ECHR has defined the scope of art. 8 broadly, even when a specific right is not set out in the article. However, its scope is not limitless. The applicability of article 8 has been determined, in some contexts, by a severity test (Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], §§ 111-112 and 115-117 with further references). Once a legal act is found to have seriously affected a person’s private life, his complaint will be admissible and an issue of the “right to respect for private life” will arise.
These insights seem purely academic, but they are not. In 2011, the cantonal judge in Maastricht, The Netherlands, falsely sentenced the legitimate son of Countess Marion Wolff Metternich to a fine of E 300,– for using his mother’s nobiliary title. The mother was the last heiress of the family and the son had obtained a change of name by Royal Decree into Wolff Metternich. The matter was a disgusting example of abuse of power by the Dutch High Council of Nobility (Dutch: Hoge Raad van Adel). I have discussed the case earlier in detail. Another example of infringement of private life was committed by the Austrian government, in 2019, when Archduke Karl von Habsburg was found guilty of illegally using the ‘von’ predicate in the internet domain name karlvonhabsburg.at. The Austrian Constitutional Court rejectedthe Archduke’s complaints. It is a pity, that the complaint was not based on infringement of private life.
Under certain circumstances, Convention rights may also generate horizontal direct effect, that is, rights and obligations between private parties. This can be of interest when an ancient nobiliary title is usurped or when a person falsely uses another family’s title. In such cases the national courts are competent to deal with the matter and art. 8 of the Convention can be used to substantiate the legal position of the victim. A bizarre example of identity theft by falsely using noble titles can be found here.
Advice
Use ancient titles on a regular basis, even when – due to unforeseen circumstances – the rules of succession, as stated in the diploma, need to be modified according to criteria of reasonableness and equity. This tightens the connection between the title and the family and therefore, makes it more plausible that the title is part of a person’s or family’s private life.
Register the title as an internet domain name and explain on the webpage how the title is connected to the family. This way, the private use of the title is made public and it becomes hard for a person with bad intentions to defend himself by stating he did not know about the infringement of private life.
Publishing a declaration stipulating the title transfer in a government gazette is a good instrument for ruling out discussions about the specific date and content of the declaration. Publication is usually considered sufficient to comply with legal requirements for public notice. A list of government gazettes can be found here. An example of a declaration recorded in the London Gazette can be found here.
Clarity regarding the transfer of unregulated titles can also be achieved by making provisions in a will. It lets a person determine how (s)he would like the title to be used upon her/his death.
Even the German association for nobiliary law does not issue judgements disapproving the transfer of ancient titles within a family, because the association does not consider itself to be the final authority is these matters. Although everybody is entitled to an opinion, in the end, third parties do not have any authority in such matters. It is for the family itself to decide how to transfer its nobiliary titles when there are no regulations present. This also is a matter of private life.
I recommend forming a family association, which regulates the transfer in order to avoid arbitrariness and to create a legal substitute for the former, monarchical regulations. It is not strange at all that the use and transfer of titles evolves. There is no reason to stick with the defunct regulations that once applied with respect to the original diploma, when this would lead to extinction of the cultural heritage, embodied by the title. Extinction of the title is certainly not what the issuer would have wanted.
Cox, N. (2009). Property law and Imperial and British titles: The Dukes of Marlborough and the Principality of Mindelheim. Tijdschrift Voor Rechtsgeschiedenis / Revue D’Histoire Du Droit / The Legal History Review,77(1-2), 191-210. doi:10.1163/004075809×403433.
Coxe, W., Marlborough, J. C., & Hauer, F. A. (1822). Herzogs Johann von Marlborough Leben und Denkwürdigkeiten: Nebst dessen Original-Briefwechsel aus dem Familien-Archive zu Blenheim und andern ächten Quellen gezogen. Wien: Schaumberg.
Gerhard Köbler: Historisches Lexikon der deutschen Länder. Die deutschen Territorien vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart. 7., vollständig überarbeitete Auflage. C.H. Beck, München 2007.
Barber, Peter. “Marlborough as Imperial Prince, 1704-1717.” The British Library Journal, vol. 8, no. 1, 1982, pp. 46–79. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42554468. Accessed 1 Aug. 2020.
Case C-208/09 Ilonka Sayn–Wittgenstein v. Landeshauptmann von Wien, Court of Justice of the European Union (Second Chamber), 22 December 2010.
Gerards, J. (2019). Vertical and Horizontal Effect. In General Principles of the European Convention on Human Rights (pp. 136-159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108652926.006.
Phillipson, Gavin. “The Human Rights Act, ‘Horizontal Effect’ and the Common Law: A Bang or a Whimper?” The Modern Law Review, vol. 62, no. 6, 1999, pp. 824–849. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1097159. Accessed 1 Aug. 2020.
On his famous webpage Herladica.org, François Velde develops some interesting thoughts regarding the question: “When one encounters an association which calls itself an order of knighthood, how can one tell if it is legitimate or not?”. What triggered me to investigate the matter further, was Velde’s subsequent rhetorical question:
Should the Red Cross call its executive president “Grand-Master” and have its employees wear badges around their necks, would that make it ipso facto an “order of knighthood”?
Intuitively, the answer is ‘no’. However, it is interesting to research this issue more thoroughly.
Velde’s framework
Velde suggests a framework for determining if an Order can be called a legitimate ‘Order of Knighthood’.
I will argue the following. Starting from the dictionary definition of “legitimate”, I conclude that an order of knighthood can be “legitimate” in two ways:
1. it is what it claims to be, either:
1.1 a specific, historical order of knighthood: this means that it satisfies some notion of identity with or continuity with some well-defined, commonly recognized historical institution. Few organizations can make such a claims (e.g., Malta)
1.2. an order of knighthood, in the historical but generic sense. Few can make such a claim because orders of knighthood have occurred in specific historical contexts, ait is legally defined to be an order of knighthood. In this case, the legitimacy of an order is strictly a matter of national law, and various countries have, or do not have, laws regulating orders (most do not). The best one can say in such a case is that an order is recognized by a legal government.
1.2.1. as medieval military-monastic orders: but the context has completely disappeared
1.2.2. as knightly/nobiliary associations: but knighthood as a social class has disappeared
1.2.3. as monarchical or princely associations: but they must then have been created by a monarch or prince
2. it is legally defined to be an order of knighthood. In this case, the legitimacy of an order is strictly a matter of national law, and various countries have, or do not have, laws regulating orders (most do not). The best one can say in such a case is that an order is recognized by a legal government.
I think this framework is too complicated and is not well-suited to derive unambiguous conclusions. In my opinion, legitimately of a Knightly Order should simply be based on its ability to truthfully communicate information to the public. This is a more legal perspective. In order to learn if a self-proclaimed Order of Knighthood is what it claims to be, I will study two cases. The first case study concerns the fictional ‘Knightly Order of the Red Cross’, inspired by Velde’s forementioned question. The second case study concerns seven traditional Orders of Knighthood.
Case study: the ‘Knightly Order of the Red Cross’
Suppose, the president of the Red Cross would be called ‘Grandmaster’, its members ‘knights’, and the organization would reinvent itself as the ‘Knightly Order of the Red Cross’ (KORC). Also, imagine the organization would have membership grades, specials membership categories for persons with a nobiliary background, uniforms and medals. Would that make the KORC an Order of Knighthood? The name sounds very intriguing and the organization surely brings an incredibly high added value to society. Suppose we would add the impressive Red Cross history to the concept:
The Red Cross idea was born in 1859, when Henry Dunant, a young Swiss man, came upon the scene of a bloody battle in Solferino, Italy, between the armies of imperial Austria and the Franco-Sardinian alliance. Some 40,000 men lay dead or dying on the battlefield and the wounded were lacking medical attention. (…)
The Red Cross was born in 1863 when five Geneva men, including Dunant, set up the International Committee for Relief to the Wounded, later to become the International Committee of the Red Cross. (…)
The Federation now numbers 192 National Societies worldwide, operating through some 166,000 branches, and nearly 14 million volunteers. Its sole purpose is to help people in need, without fear or favour. It responds to and prepares for disaster, it brings health services to local communities, it lobbies for best humanitarian practice, it ensures the dignity of people on the move.
Website International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC)
The KORC does not have a historical knightly heritage. But is this heritage crucial for designating its members as ‘knights’? I do not think so, since knights in the original sense of mounted warriors, ceased to exist half a millennium ago. Knighthood lost its martial purpose and, by the 16th century, had been reduced to an honorific status. Modern British Royal Orders of Knighthood, for example, are a means of rewarding individuals’ personal bravery, achievement, or service to the United Kingdom and the British Overseas Territories. The word ‘knight’ currently has several meanings, one of them being “a member of an order or society” (Merriam-Webster).
If KORC represents itself as an Order, formed as a society in 1863 and operating in the spirit of the modern idea of knighthood, there is no historical or legal misrepresentation and therefore, the Order could legitimately claim to be an Order of Knighthood. Calling the KORC “fake”, “pseudo”, “illegitimate” et cetera could legally be labelled as defamation, because no misrepresentation takes place.
Case study: classic Orders of Knighthood
How does the KORC compare with, for example, the SMOM, the Constantinian Order or the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre? The latter claim to be a continuation of medieval Knightly Orders, although these claims are often incorrect:
The Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre completely ceased to exist as an Order after the defeat of Acre in 1291. Its website incorrectly states: “Alexander VI declared himself the supreme moderator of the Order in 1496, and delegated to the Franciscans the power to bestow a knighthood upon nobles and gentlemen pilgrims on pilgrimage to the Holy Land (power of investiture). “. After 1342, to be enrolled among the Knights of the Holy Sepulchre, it was necessary to apply to the Franciscans, and from this period the itineraries of pilgrims mention frequent receptions into this confraternity. The confraternity is improperly called an ‘Order’, because it had no monastic rule, regular organization, or community of goods (source: NewAdvent). After almost 600 years, the fraternity was transformed into an Order again when it was re-founded and modernized by Pope Pius IX in 1847. These facts are not described truly, correctly and completely on the website of the Order.
The Sovereign Military Order of Malta lacks a continuous line of succession from the 12th century Order, with a very questionable period between 1798-1801 (see: Velde), followed by a period where there was no Grand Master between 1805 and 1879. On its website, the SMOM incorrectly claims: “The Sovereign Order of Malta is one of the oldest institutions of Western and Christian civilisation. A lay religious order of the Catholic Church since 1113 (…).“.
The Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem is a 19th century example of a private revival, that managed to be turned into an official Order in Britain in 1888 (see: Velde). On its website, the Order incorrectly claims: “The Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem originated in a hospice founded around 1070 to care for pilgrims, which was dedicated to St John the Baptist. The brothers and sisters of the Hospital, which was recognised as a religious Order by the Pope in 1113, nursed the poor and sick of any faith.”.
The Constantinian Order was formed around 1545 and has a continuous line of succession since its foundation. On its website, the Constantinian Order (Hispano-Neapolitan branch) correctly states : “Reliable documentation regarding the Constantinian Order begins in the 16th century.¨. [Note: in this example, I mention the Hispano-Neapolitan branch only, although there are three claimants to the headship of the Constantinian Orders.]
The formation history of the Order of the Saints Maurice and Lazarus is somewhat complex. After the grand mastership of the Order of Saint Lazarus (founded circa 1119) became vacant in 1572 by the death of Giovanni de Castiglione, Pope Gregory XIII united the Order in perpetuity with the Crown of Savoy. On its website, the Order of the Saints Maurice and Lazarus correctly states: “The Order of the Saints Maurice and Lazarus was officially established by the Papal Bulls “Christiani Populi” and “Pro Commissa Nobis” signed by Pope Gregory XIII on respectively 16 September and 13 November 1572; by which the Religious Military Order of Saint Maurice was placed under the Rule of St Benedict of the Cistercian Congregation first and then the one Saint Augustine. I was then merged de jure with the Hospitaller Order of Jerusalem of Saint Lazarus (…).“.
The Spanish branch of the Order of Saint Lazarus has a different view on the forementioned 1572 merger: “The French Lazarite knights continued to resist the amalgamation of the Order with the House of Savoy and maintained their own organization supported by the King Henri III. In 1608, King Henri IV combined the administration and holdings of the Order of Saint Lazarus with the newly established Order of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, both being placed under one Grand Master – Philibert, Marquis de Nérestang de Saint-Didier.“. I do not claim authority to judge which one of the versions is correct: both views could be true. Important is the fact that, on their website, the Order describes itself correctly: “The Order of Saint Lazarus is an ecumenical organization of Christian hospitallers whose spirit goes back to the Holy Land and the Crusades.”. [Note: in this example, I mention the Spanish branch only, although there are two main branches; see Versélewel de Witt Hamer, 2017.]
The Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem (OSMTH) correctly describes itself as a Non-Governmental Organization in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). On its website, OSMTH also narrates its history correctly: “OSMTH (Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem) is a successor organization to the nineteenth century Order of the Temple. This Order was established in Paris in 1804 under the patronage of Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte. Like its nineteenth century predecessor, OSMTH takes inspiration from the traditions and highest ideals of the medieval Christian military and monastic order, the Knights Templar, who were founded by Hugh de Payens around 1118, to protect and support pilgrims, and dissolved by Pope Clement V in 1312. OSMTH does not, however, claim any direct organizational descent from the medieval Templars; nor is OSMTH part of Freemasonry. OSMTH was restructured in its present form pursuant to a decision adopted by its Member Grand Priories in 1995 at a meeting in Salzburg. Today, OSMTH is an international, chivalric, confraternal and inter-denominational/ecumenical Christian Order”.
The foregoing examples show that not all the traditional ‘Orders of Knighthood’ are entirely honest about their history.
States, private entities (authoritative or not) or other Royal Families can choose to recognise or not, but that does nothing to the inherent quality of an order so-designated. This insight calls into question the purpose of international bodies, focussing on the recognition of Orders of Knighthood. In a broader perspective, the breakdown of Christendom and particularly the monarchies in Europe, have gone hand in hand with the decline of supreme authority and with the upswing of human rights, focussing on the individual.
In this context, legitimacy has another meaning, focussing more on the rights of the individual and the public interest. The economic interests of the public as well as its right to information are important principles in EU-consumer protection law (Articles 4(2)(f), 12, 114 and 169 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union). It is therefore essential, that the information communicated by Orders (nowadays charitable organizations) to the public is true, correct and complete. If this is not the case, these Orders are not ‘legitimate’, because in almost any legal system it is unlawful to solicit money in a deceptive manner. Willingly misrepresenting the historical facts or incorrectly claim state-recognition, in order to artificially create more prestige, could be seen as such deception, making such Orders illegitimate.
Almost none of the organizations that call themselves ‘Orders of Knighthood’ today, even if they are recognised or designated as such by states, by law or private bodies, can honestly claim a continuous line of succession from a genuine medieval Order of Knighthood. Perhaps the only exceptions are the (Spanish) Order of the Golden Fleece and the Order of the Saints Maurice and Lazarus.
Without exception, the current ‘Orders of Knighthood’ are NGO’s, more or less mimicking the Red Cross. There is no material connection with the ancient military Orders of Knighthood. Therefore, I do not see why there are such fierce discussions about who does and who does not have a line of succession from an ancient Order of Chivalry. In my view, they are all modern remakes, although a connection with antiquity gives more prestige. Velde tells it like it is:
The name [of an order of knighthood] has remained, and the badge, but the purpose and function is clearly very different. In a literal sense, ITT (International Telegraph and Telephone) is still the same US company it was 30 years ago, but today it doesn’t sell phone services, it runs hotels, until recently still under the name (ITT-Sheraton). Likewise, Westinghouse used to make nuclear plants, now it makes prime-time broadcasts (CBS). Is it the same company? If Coca-Cola moved to Taiwan and became a car manufacturer, would we think of it has being the same company?
Self-fabricated standards are interesting, but not objective, and therefore unsuitable for determining the legitimacy of privately-run Orders of Knighthood. However, there are alternatives. Both EU consumer protection rules and national civil law offer objective standards to address this issue. National Orders of Knighthood are almost always highly regulated and state-supervised Orders of Merit. They do not charge passage fee to enter. As such, there will be no issues concerning misinformation or questions about their legitimacy.
If a National competent authorities for consumer protection has established a violation of the EU consumer protection rules, implemented in national law, it can decide to impose a fine. The authority imposes a fine on the offender and, if necessary, on the individual(s) giving the instructions for the violation or on those who played a leading role in it. Under the relevant EU-consumer protection rules [note 1], ‘consumer’ means any natural person who is acting for purposes which are outside her/his trade, business or profession; ‘seller or supplier’ means any natural or legal person who is acting for purposes relating to his trade, business or profession [note 2]. The person who applies for becoming a member of an Order of Knighthood might be seen as a consumer and the Order that subsequently accepts the application, might be seen as a seller or supplier: applicants are charged a passage fee in return for their membership, for obtaining IP-rights to wear their regalia, for obtaining the regalia itself, the uniform and/or mantle, the diploma, the right to attend meetings and for participating in a ceremony. Additionally, the Order operates in an organized manner; has the relevant expertise and is therefore placed in a more advantageous position; has a legal status which enables it to engage in commercial activities; receives money; engages in a regular, frequent and/or simultaneous activity in comparison with its usual activity; and finally, the awards are all of the same type and more or less of the same value.
In accordance with consumer protection laws, these Orders of Knighthood, must give their applicants enough accurate information to enable them to make an informed decision, whether to join. If they fail to provide this information, either through action (giving false information, for example about state-recognition or antiquity) or omission (leaving out important information, for example that the historical headship of the Order is disputed), this may be considered an unfair practice. Victims of such unfair practices can file a complaint with the National competent authorities for consumer protection. In the United States a variety of laws at both the federal and state levels regulate consumer affairs.
EU consumer protection rules may not apply, and therefore National competent authorities for consumer protection are not competent, when, for example, the transaction purely concerns a donation and no profit making is intended. In such cases, civil contract law provides an alternative (but also an additional remedy) to filing a complaint. Apart from filing a complaint relating to (allegedly) violating consumer protection rules, under national civil contract law misrepresentation may give rise to a number of remedies. In such cases the Order fails in the performance of its obligation, and is in breach of contract. This can be the case when, for example, someone is misled by thinking she/he becomes part of an antique Order of Knighthood that enjoys state recognition. In Private International Law, an organization, domiciled in a EU-State may be sued in another EU-State, in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur. These should be understood as the place where the damage (for example, reputational of financial) occurs and the place where the event that caused the damage occurred. Therefore, Orders of Knighthood risk to be sued before courts in other jurisdictions than their country of origin, when they make dishonest representations. Using solid membership agreements, made by a professional, is crucial for reducing such risks.
In light of the foregoing, consumer protection laws and civil contract law are the standard for determining the legitimacy of Orders of Knighthood. This comes down to making correct representations about the Order. When Orders fail to do so, they risk administrative fines and/or civil legal actions. The answer to Velde’s question therefore is: ‘An Order of Knighthood is legitimate when the organization is what it claims to be‘. Essentially, this is the way legitimate organizations distinguish themselves from illegitimate organizations. Financial and historical honesty are essential indicators to be examined. The term ‘knight’ is too broad to be claimed only by the Orders, listed by the International Commission for Orders of Chivalry and, on closer examination, it could well be that some Orders, mentioned on the ICOC-list, are not entirely legitimate.
Heated discussions about the legitimacy of other Orders and personal attacks on the people running them, are not uncommon. Wikipedia’s definition of illegitimate Orders fuels such discussions. It states: “A self-styled order or pseudo-chivalric order is an organisation which claims to be a chivalric order, but is not recognised as legitimate by countries or international bodies.“. This definition is erroneous. Recognition is not a constitutive legal act, but a declaratory legal act. A lack of ‘recognition’ does not mean anything. Even without any recognition, an Order of Knighthood can be perfectly legitimate. Orders become illegitimate when they knowingly make misrepresentations. Recognition is irrelevant in this respect.
Orders of Knighthood should send a signal to donors that they are credible recipients of funding, instead of triggering the image of being a medal mill. Modern aid work is technical and complex and needs to be resourced accordingly. There are challenges to fraud prevention and detection to address. Financial reporting practices should make a clear distinction between ‘operations’ and ‘overheads’. Such transparent financial reporting should be a major focus of legitimate Orders of Knighthood. In addition, branches of legitimate Orders of Knighthood should combine forces and work together. Who the ‘legitimate grandmaster’ is, should be less important than saving lives.
As mentioned, Orders of Knighthood should be perfectly honest and transparent about their history. In general, the sources of historical knowledge can be separated into three categories: what is written, what is said, and what is physically preserved. Sometimes, the only evidence relating to a historical event or person was written or copied decades or centuries later. Generally, historians remain cautious when working with evidence recorded years, or even decades or centuries, after the event has taken place. This category of evidence reduces the reliability of historical accounts. Therefore, hardly any historical evidence can be seen as objective. It is always a product of particular individuals, times, and dominant ideas. It is therefore important to find as many records of an event as possible. Subsequently, these documents should be cited and the relevance to the event should be clearly mentioned. Like in legal matters, it is not unusual to find contra-evidence during the investigation. It is important to specify this, instead of camouflaging the truth. In light of the foregoing, I advise Orders of Knighthood to be more honest in their internet presentations about their history and to point out the weaknesses in their historic evidence. This makes them more legitimate and shields them from legal claims.
Notes
Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directives 98/6/EC, 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the better enforcement and modernisation of Union consumer protection rules.
In its judgment of 4 October 2018, Case C-105/17, the European Court of Justice provides a set of criteria to determine whether a person falls within the concept of a “trader” under the Consumer Rights Directive (Directive 2011/83/EU) and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (Directive 2005/29/EC).
Sources
Schueller, B. (2012) The definition of consumers in EU consumer law. In: Devenney J, Kenny M (eds) European consumer protection: theory and practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 123–142
Hobsbawm, E. J., & Ranger, T. O. (2019). The invention of tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Parks, Thomas. “The Rise and Fall of Donor Funding for Advocacy NGOs: Understanding the Impact.” Development in Practice, vol. 18, no. 2, 2008, pp. 213–222. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27751904. Accessed 24 July 2020.
Crack, A.M. The Regulation of International NGOS: Assessing the Effectiveness of the INGO Accountability Charter. Voluntas 29, 419–429 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-017-9866-9
Kaestle, Carl F. “Standards of Evidence in Historical Research: How Do We Know When We Know?” History of Education Quarterly, vol. 32, no. 3, 1992, pp. 361–366. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/368550. Accessed 24 July 2020.
King, E. J., & Luke, H. (1967). The Knights of St. John in the British realm: Being the official history of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem. St. John’s Gate, London: Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem.
Quaresmio, F. (1639). Historica theologica et moralis Terrae Sanctae elucidatio: In qua pleraque ad veterem & praesentem eiusdem terrae statum spectantia accuratè explicantur, varij errores refelluntur, veritas fideliter exacteque discutitur ac comprobatur. … Auctore Fr. Francisco Quaresmio Laudensi, ordinis Minorum theologo … Tomus 1. Antuerpiae: Ex officina Plantiniana Balthasaris Moreti.
Teyssier, F. D. (1985). L’Ordre du Saint Sépulcure de Jérusalem. Versailles: Ordre du St. Sépulcre.
Moeller, C. (1910). Knights of the Holy Sepulchre. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved July 22, 2020 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07427c.htm
Pasini-Frassoni, F. F., Bertini, C. A., & De, O. Y. (1909). Histoire de l’Ordre Militaire du Saint-Sépulcre de Jérusalem. Rome: Collège Héraldique.
Alias, J. (2008). L’ordre de Saint-Lazare la chevalerie au service des lépreux. Turquant: Cheminements.
The sovereign military and hospitaller Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem: A short history of the most ancient order of chivalry, past and present. (1941). Los Angeles, CA: Grand priory of the western United States of America.
Archduke Ferdinand II (1529–1595) systematically collected armour from famous personalities of his time. He presented this armour “to the eternal memory” of these – mostly military commanders – in the “Heldenrüstkammer” (Heroes’ Armoury). Some pieces still are on display in their original 16th century showcases. His “Rüstkammern” (Armouries) contain very rare examples of arms and armour from the 15th century which originally came from the collections of Emperor Maximilian I and Archduke Sigismund. Armour for tournaments like the German joust or the German course, and the armour of the court’s Italian giant Bartlmä Bon, who took part in the tournament in Vienna in 1560, are part of the collection. The “Leibrüstkammer” (Court Armoury) includes the archduke’s private armour and the armour of the court of Innsbruck. Ferdinand’s collection of armour is one of the most important of its kind, not only because of the collection idea, but also because of the quality and quantity of his objects. Selected objects are exhibited at the Hofjagd- und Rüstkammer (Imperial Armoury) of the Kusthistorisches Museum, Vienna (Source: Wikipedia).
In 1662, the French King Louis XIV issued the nobiliary title of Baron of Tobago tothe slave traders and merchants Cornelius Lampsins (pictured here) and his brother Adrian Lampsins. The Order of Saint Michael was added years after the painting was finished. Their passage fee was paid with money from their slave trade.
In February 2007, a conversation on a Google platform devoted to heraldry developed into a discussion about the titles that were awarded by former King Kigeli of Rwanda (1936-2016). The eminent Dr. Pier Felice degli Uberti, president of the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry, a private academic body, asked the attendees on 19 February 2007 to form an opinion regarding the idea of King Kigeli to grant “honours” using “European nobiliary titles”. I have addressed this issue in the past, but I wish to elaborate on the matter by giving examples of the opposite; exotic nobiliary titles (mostly victory titles), issued by European monarchs. Its purpose is to determine whether the issuance of European titles to by non-European monarchs, is acceptable or not. The examples below are selected because of their exotic character. There are many more examples, but for the purpose of this article, these six cases are sufficient.
Bernard Law Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein (1887-1976), was a British Field Marshal and war hero. ‘Monty’, as he was nicknamed, served during the First and Second World Wars. He was awarded the Distinguished Service Order after the first Battle of Ypres in 1914, in which he had been left for dead, and continued in active service on the Somme and at Passchendaele.
The title Viscount Montgomery of Alamein commemorates Montgomery’s crucial victory in the Second Battle of El Alamein (23 October–3 November 1942). The Allied victory was the beginning of the end of the Western Desert Campaign, eliminating the Axis threat to Egypt, the Suez Canal and the Middle Eastern and Persian oil fields.
During the Second World War, Mountbatten was Supreme Allied Commander, South East Asia Command (1943–1946). He successfully conducted the campaign against Japan that led to the recapture of Burma (Myanmar). Mountbatten was the last Viceroy of India (1947). He proved to be a nimble negotiator, extracting agreements from Hindus and Muslims to form an interim joint government pending partition of the subcontinent into the states of Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India. Mountbatten thus administered the transfer of power from Britain to the newly independent nations of India and Pakistan at the partition of the subcontinent that took effect at midnight 14–15 August 1947.
Both Lord and Lady Mountbatten cultivated the friendship of Muslims and Hindus, a new pattern of social behaviour for a viceroy and his wife. Indians who had once languished in the viceroy’s jails were invited to parties at Government House.
In 1946, Mountbatten was made a Knight of the Garter and created Viscount Mountbatten of Burma, of Romsey in the County of Southampton. The title of Earl Mountbatten of Burma was created in 1947 to supersede that of Viscount Mountbatten of Burma.
His obituary in the New York Times sums up the achievements of this great man:
Few people of royal lineage played more versatile and colourful role than Lord Mountbatten, who refused to live the idle life of the royal and the rich. Instead, he became a daring sailor and military strategist, a suave political negotiator, a trusted adviser to prime ministers. He was a major planner for the invasion of occupied Europe in World War II, later the Supreme Allied Commander for Southeast Asia, the Viceroy to India who ended British rule there, First Sea Lord of the Royal Navy, Admiral of the Fleet and chief architect of the overhaul of Britain’s defense system
José Malcampo, 3rd Marquess of San Rafael, Prime Minister of Spain in 1871, during the reign of King Amadeo I, was granted the titles of Count of Jolo and Viscount of Mindanao after he victoriously took the city of Jolo from the Sultanate of Sulu during his governorship-general (1874-1877) of the Philippines.
As newly appointed Governor General of the Philippines, a critical situation awaited him. The peninsulars and the native-born, Indios (indigenous Filipino population of the Philippines) and Criollos (Latin Americans who are of sole or of mostly Spanish descent), eyed each other with hostility. The latter complaining that high government positions were reserved to the former, who suspected the latter of seeking separation from Spain. Two years into his term as governor-general, Malcampo led the famous and daring campaign of Joló, causing the sultan of Sulu to submit to the authority of the Spanish monarchy, for which he received the titles Count of Jolo, (after the city of Joló) and Viscount of Mindanao (nowadays, commonly known as Southern Philippines).
With another naval officer, Casto Mendez Nuñez, he founded the first Masonic Lodge in the Philippines, “La Luz Primera de Filipinas,” in Kawit, Cavite. However, only Spanish military and naval officers, as well as government officials were admitted as members. Not much later, a Lodge for Filipinos was organized in Pandacan, Manila.
Duke of Addis Ababa (1936)
This title was issued by King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy on 5 May 1936 to Pietro Badoglio, for conquering Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia. On the same day, fascist leader Benito Mussolini declared the King the new Emperor of Ethiopia and usurped Ethiopia as an Italian province.
Pietro Badoglio (1871 – 1956), was a Field marshal and unconvicted war criminal during the dictatorship of Benito Mussolini (1922–43). In 1940 he differed with Mussolini over Italy’s preparations for entering World War II. On 4 December 1940, in the midst of Italy’s disastrous campaign in Greece, he resigned as chief of staff. Badoglio governed Libya from 1928 to 1934 and was given the title of marquis of Sabotino.
In 1935, Badoglio assumed command of the Italian forces in Ethiopia. He asked for and was given permission to apply chemical warfare. He employed mustard gas to destroy the Ethiopian armies confronting him on the northern front. “This isn’t war,” one Red Cross worker remarked, “it isn’t even slaughter. It’s the torture of tens of thousands of defenseless men, women and children with bombs and poison gas.”. In September 1943 he extricated Italy from World War II by arranging an armistice with the Allies. Badoglio was never tried for the war crimes committed in Ethiopia, but instead became the first viceroy of Italian East Africa.
Between 1930 and 1934, Graziani was the fascist commander of the Italian forces in Lybia and suppressed the Senussi rebellion. Italy committed multiple war crimes during the conflict, including the use of chemical weapons, episodes of executing surrendering combatants, and the mass killing of civilians. Italian authorities forcibly expelled 100,000 Bedouin Cyrenaicans, half the population of Cyrenaica, from their settlements. Many of their properties were then given to Italian settlers. In this conflict, called “pacificationof Libya” by the Italians, Graziani was responsible for the construction of several concentration camps and labor camps, where thousands of Libyan prisoners died. Some prisoners were publicly hanged, such as Omar Mukhtar, the rebel leader, or shot. Most prisoners died of starvation or disease. His deeds earned him the nickname “the Butcher of Fezzan“.
Before WWII, the League of Nations did not prosecute Graziani nor the Italian authorities for war crimes in Ethiopia. During the Second Italo-Abyssinian War in 1935 and 1936, Graziani was the commander of the southern front. In one case, Graziani had ordered his troops to use chemical weapons against Nasibu Zeamanuel’s troops in Gorrahei on 10 October 1935. Although the Ethiopian Minister of Foreign Affairs gave the League of Nations irrefutable evidence of what the Italian military had done from within a few hours of its invasion on 3 October 1935 to 10 April of the following year, no action was taken. Incidents included the use of poison gas and the bombing of Red Cross hospitals and ambulances.
Graziani suffered a humiliating defeat in Libya in 1940-41, when a small British force destroyed the vast Italian army in Libya.
After the war, Graziani was made Viceroy of Italian East Africa and Governor-General of Shewa and Addis Ababa. After an unsuccessful attempt by two Eritreans to kill him on 19 February 1937, Graziani ordered the killing of up to thirty thousand civilians of Addis Ababa. Another 1.500 people were summarily executed by the end of the next month, and over one thousand Ethiopian notables were imprisoned and then exiled from Ethiopia. Graziani became known as “the Butcher of Ethiopia“.
In 1948, an Italian military tribunal sentenced Graziani to 19 years in jail for his collaborating with the Nazis, but this conviction was not executed.
Cornelis Lampsins also obtained the Order of Saint Michael (French: Ordre de Saint-Michel), a French dynastic order of chivalry, founded by Louis XI of France on 1 August 1469, in competitive response to the Burgundian Order of the Golden Fleece, founded by Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy, who was Louis’ chief competitor for the allegiance of the great houses of France, the Dukes of Orléans, Berry, and Brittany. The ‘passage fees‘ for these honours were paid with money obtained from the Lampsins’ slave trade.
The Lampsins brothers were born to a wealthy Dutch family of slave traders and merchants. The family owned a trading house in Vlissingen, and was involved in the early colonization of the Caribbean. In the 1630’s, Cornelius Lampsins owned a fleet of over three hundred trading ships, in both the East and West Indies. The Lampsins merchant house was the first employer of the famous Dutch admiral Michiel de Ruyter, who, later in his career, was created a Spanish Duke and Danish Baron.
Cornelius Lampsins helped found the colonies of Martinique and Saint Thomas. In 1654, the Lampsins brothers led a Dutch colonial expedition to Tobago, which was then New Courland. This colony was owned by the Duchy of Courland, which was the second smallest state to colonise the Americas (after the Knights of Malta), with a colony on the island of Tobago from 1654 to 1659, and intermittently from 1660 to 1689.
There was much dispute between the Couronian and Dutch colonists, and when Courland surrendered to Sweden in 1659, the Lampsins brothers took control of the colony. The family reigned over Tobago until the English invaded the island in 1666. Cornelius Lampsins had two sons, Jan and Geleyn, who participated in running the settlement on Tobago with their uncle. The descendants of the Lampsins brothers maintained many rights to the island until 1749, when Britain and France agreed to keep the island neutral.
The Lampsins family played a significant role in the international slave trade. For the Lampsins family, the slave trade had three stages and was called a ‘triangular trade’: (i) West African slaves were exchanged for trade goods such as brandy and guns; (ii) slaves were then taken via the so-called ‘Middle Passage’ across the Atlantic for sale in the West Indies and North America; (iii) finally, a cargo of rum and sugar taken from the colonies, was taken back to Europe to sell.
Journeys lasted from as little as six weeks to several months, depending on the weather. The ships were often too small to carry the hundreds of slaves on board. Slaves were tightly packed into cramped spaces with one person’s right leg chained to the left leg of another person. Conditions on the ships were terrible and slaves died from diseases such as smallpox, scurvy and measles. We can only imagine the sort of memories and visions that may have haunted these slaves, from the moment they were seized in Africa and marched in shackles towards the Atlantic coast, to the hour at which their eyes were closed forever.
The United Nations Slavery Route Project was initiated to study the causes, the modalities and the consequences of slavery and the slave trade, seeking to enhance the understanding of diverse histories and heritages stemming from this global tragedy. In commemoration of the memory of the victims, the General Assembly, in its resolution 62/122 of 17 December 2007, declared 25 March the International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade, to be observed annually.
The Lampsins family was incorporated into the Dutch nobility, but died out in 1848. In March 1847, Jhr. Jan Jacob van den Velden, obtained permission by Royal Decree to add the surname of his mother, Johanna Margaretha Lampsins, to his family name, creating the name Lampsins van den Velden. This family died out in 1953.
Conclusions
It is sometimes being argued that African and Asian rulers do not have the fons honorum to issue European-style titles of nobility. Examples of (ex-)rules who have issued such titles are King Kigeli V of Rwanda, Prince Ermias Sahle Selassie of Ethiopia (in his capacity of president of the Crown Council) and tribal King Togbe Osei III in Ghana. Former King Peter II of Yugoslavia and Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich of Russia issued titles referring to countries outside their original jurisdiction, but these were European-style titles. The examples in this article show that European monarchs have set the standard by issuing titles, referring to America, Africa and Asia. It is in line with the sovereignty of (ex-)rulers (see Hugo Grotius’ De iure belli ac pacis; English: On the Law of War and Peace. Paris 1625) of these continents to ‘return the favour’ and issue European titles. It is not for private bodies to judge this sovereignty and I do not see why European monarchs should have the monopoly on this practice.
It could be said that the titles issued by European monarchs point to historical events (sometimes genocide and slave trade). Newer titles do not have that characteristic. However, I do not see how this makes the latter less legitimate. They remain part of the cultural and historical heritage of the issuer. Russian Legitimist puts it correctly:
The titles and coats of arms of the Russian Imperial House, its dynastic orders and awards, patents of nobility, and other elements of the historical and symbolic system of monarchical institutions no longer enjoy state recognition and bestow no privileges, but they remain nonetheless monuments of the nation’s history and part of the cultural heritage of Russia.
“It is not for private bodies to judge this sovereignty and I do not see why European monarchs should have the monopoly on this practice.” Well said! I don’t understand why some “experts” downplay the value of nobiliary titles issued and patterned after European tradition by heads of non-reigning families outside Europe. As sovereigns in their own right whether they are ruling or not, they did not lose their fons honorum and may do almost anything as they please within the confines of international law. The titles they grant are certainly not illegal and their usage is solely dependent on those that receive such titles. In comparison, the Nobel Peace Prize itself is granted by a private institute on behalf of Alfred Nobel’s estate and yet world leaders covet this more than the awards of their own countries. Nobiliary titles and honours from legitimate pretenders and heads of non-reigning families are as valid as any international private award. No person has the right to degrade them just because of their personal opinions and biases lest they want to be branded as bigots and such.
Anderson, Edgar. “The Couronians and The West Indies The First Settlements.” Caribbean Quarterly, vol. 5, no. 4, 1959, pp. 264–271. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40652728. Accessed 17 July 2020.
Emmer, P.C.: De Nederlandse slavenhandel 1500-1850, Amsterdam en Antwerpen 2000, De Arbeiderspers. ISBN 9029515090.
Heijer, H. den: De geschiedenis van de WIC, Zutphen 2002 [derde gewijzigde druk], Walburg Pers. ISBN 978-90-5730-478-1.
Heijer, H. den: Goud, ivoor en slaven. Scheepvaart en handel van de Tweede Westindische Compagnie op Afrika, 1674‑1740, Zutphen 1997, Walburg Pers.
Boomert Arie., Ortiz-Troncoso O.R. Van Regteren Altena H.H. 1987. “Archaeological-historical survey of Tobago, West Indies”, Journal de la Société des Américanistes (Paris), 73, 1987, p. 246-258.
The Geopolitical Legacy. (2014). In M. Van Groesen (Ed.), The Legacy of Dutch Brazil (pp. 23-102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosenbaum, Alan S., and Israel W. Charny, Is the Holocaust Unique?, 2001, pp. 98–99.
Bush, Barbara (March–June 2010). “African Caribbean Slave Mothers And Children: Traumas Of Dislocation And Enslavement Across The Atlantic World”. Caribbean Quarterly. 56 (1–2).
The principles which the International Commission identified were that only states have the right to create Orders of chivalry; that these Orders [of chivalry] cannot be abolished by republican governments, that exiled Sovereigns retain control of royal Orders [of chivalry], that no private individual can create Orders [of chivalry], that no state or supranational organisation without its own [chivalric] Orders can validate [chivalric] Orders, and that the only sovereign Order is the Order of Malta.
Cox, The principles of international law, p. 1
Cox’ concludes the following:
Firstly, every sovereign prince (or, subject to their respective constitutions, the president or other official in a republican state) has the right to confer honours, in accordance with the constitutional framework of the state. These honours should be accorded appropriate recognition in all other countries under the usual rules of private international law.
Secondly, an exiled Sovereign retains the right to bestow honours, dynastic, state or whatever else they may be styled. This right extends to their lawful successors in title, even for several generations. Appointments may continue to be made, unless this has been expressly prohibited by the successor authorities of the state, or the Order has become obsolete. It also follows that an exiled, or former Sovereign may continue to make appointments to an Order which is also governed by the new regime, thus creating a separate, though related, Order. Whilst an exiled Sovereign may in some circumstances establish a new Order of chivalry, he or she may only do so whilst they remain generally recognised by the international community as the de jure ruler of his country. His or her successors will not have this right to create new Orders, excepting in those rare instances where the son or further issue of an exiled Sovereign has been generally recognised by the international community as the rightful ruler of their country. Only de jure Sovereigns (including their republican equivalents) may create Orders of chivalry.
Thirdly, the international status of an Order of chivalry depends upon the municipal law of the country in which it was created. There can be no international Orders as such, shorn of dependence upon the municipal laws of a state.1 Principles four, five and six together indicate that sovereign Orders are not generally possible, with recognition however being extended to the Sovereign Military Order of Malta.2 The Order of Malta depends upon its own unique history, and, at least in part, its recognition by the Holy See and by secular princes. Any pretended “sovereign” Order is nothing more than a voluntary society or association, and members should not wear any insignia or use any styles or titles to which they may be entitled outside the private functions of such groups
1 “Thus, the “Sovereign Order of Saint Stanislaus” created 9 June 1979 by Count Juliusz Nowina Sokolnicki, President of the Republic of Poland (in exile), is not, and never could have been, sovereign, irrespective of the regularity of Sokolnicki’s own status as titular President.“
2 “Noel Cox, “The Continuing question of sovereignty and the Sovereign Military Order of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta”, 13, Australian International Law Journal (2006): 211-232.“
Cox, The principles of international law, p. 8
I disagree with both the principles of the ICOC and with Cox’ conclusions, as I shall explain hereafter.
The freedom to create Orders of Chivalry and Knighthood
“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.”
Article 11 ECHR
The Roman keyhole with the viewpoint of three different sovereign states: the Sovereign Order of Malta – owner of the Magistral Villa on the Aventine hill – the Vatican and the Italian Republic.
The right to freedom of peaceful association and assembly is both an individual right and a collective right. It is a fundamental right in a democratic society and, like the right to freedom of expression, is one of the foundations of such a society. Thus, it should not be interpreted restrictively (ECHR, Djavit An v. Turkey, § 56; Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], § 91). In view of the fundamental nature of this right, the European Court of Human Rights has been reluctant to accept objections that the applicants have suffered no “significant disadvantage” and to dismiss Article 11 complaints with reference to Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention (ECHR, Berladir and Others v. Russia, § 34; Öğrüv. Turkey, § 18. The protection of opinions and the freedom to express them is one of the objectives of the freedoms of assembly and association enshrined in Article 11 (ECHR, Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP) v. Turkey [GC], § 37). The link between Articles 10 and 11 is particularly relevant where the authorities have interfered with the right to freedom of peaceful assembly in reaction to the views held or statements made by participants in a demonstration or by members of an association (ECHR, Primov and Others v. Russia, § 92; Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, § 85).
The mentioned fundamental rights are not only relevant in the relation between individuals and states. They also dictate a responsibility among civilians and private entities within the constitutional order when interacting with each other. This is called the horizontal effect of fundamental rights, pointing at the relations of private parties among each other.
The mentioned freedom of assembly and association is the legal foundation for any person to create an Order (=Merriam-Webster: a group of people united in a formal way). The freedom of expression is the basis for designating such an Order as an Order of Chivalry (=Merriam-Webster: the system, spirit, or customs of medieval knighthood) or Knighthood (=Merriam-Webster: the qualities befitting a knight). Therefore, in principle, any individual living in a democratic state has the fons honorum to create an Order of Chivalry or Knighthood.
The ICOC itself does not interfere with the right of associations of other individuals by making a list of – in their view – genuine Orders, but there are individuals and entities related to the ICOC, who made it a habit to defame associations that they regard as illegitimate.
SMOM is not a sovereign Order
Situated in the heart of Rome’s historical centre, on Via dei Condotti, the Magistral Palace has been the residence of the Grand Master and seat of the Sovereign Order of Malta’s government since 1834.
The sixth principle of the ICOC states that only the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM) is a sovereign Order: “The only recognised Order with the style of “Sovereign” existing nowadays is that of St John of Jerusalem, called of Rhodes, called of Malta, whose international headquarters were transferred to Rome in 1834, and whose international diplomatic “status” as an independent non-territorial power is recognised officially by the Holy See and by many other Governments.“. This statement is incorrect. With respect to the SMOM, a distinction should be made between sovereignty in the interstate relations and sovereignty in the public-private relation.
Sovereignty in the interstate relations
The SMOM describes itself not as a state, but as a sovereign subject of international law. The Italian state recognises SMOM’s extraterritorial rights over its properties in Rome. SMOM maintains a recognized permanent observer mission at the United Nations, the European Commission and other international and multinational organizations. SMOM is not categorized by the UN as a non-member state (like e.g. the Holy See), but among entities and intergovernmental organizations having received a standing invitation to participate as observers. For interstate-sovereignty, it is generally considered that the entity should be recognised as such by other sovereign entities or states. SMOM has diplomatic relations with numerous states and thus clearly possesses such an interstate-sovereignty. From a public international law perspective, SMOM is not a ‘sovereign Order’ (as the ICOC states), but a sovereign subject of the part of public international law that governs interstate relations. This interstate law does not recognise ‘Orders’, but only organisations, entities, subjects et cetera.
Sovereignty in the public-private relation
The SMOM has obviously lost its sovereignty in the public-private relation when it recently experienced a leadership crisis and during that crisis, the Vatican City State took over control of the Order. In December 2016, Albrecht Freiherr von Boeselager protested his removal as Grand Chancellor by Grand Master Matthew Festing. In a confidential letter of 6 December 2016 (see below: sources), to Grandmaster Festing, cardinal Burke pushed the Grandmaster for cooperation and even threatened with a visitation of the Order by the Pope. In January 2017, Pope Francis ordered Von Boeselager to be reinstated and required Festing’s resignation. The Pope also named Archbishop Giovanni Becciu as his personal representative to the Order until the election of a new Grandmaster. This move ignored the Order’s Cardinal Patron Raymond Burke. In May 2017, the Order named Mauro Bertero Gutiérrez, a Bolivian member of the Government Council, to lead its constitutional reform process. In June 2017, at their annual papal audience, the leadership of the Order wore informal attire instead of the traditional full dress uniforms. In May 2018, when a new Grandmaster was elected, Pope Francis extended Becciu’s mandate indefinitely. When the Order’s General Chapter met in May 2019, the participants included three women; a novelty. OnePeterFive of 14 July 2020 revealed that the program of Boeselager and the German SMOM associations is to modernize the Order by reducing its character as a religious order and to have it run by its lay members as a kind of medical NGO.
With regard to the public-private relation, as governed by public national law, public international law and private national law, it cannot be said that the Order is still sovereign, due to the mentioned Vatican City State interventions.
Conclusions
The mentioned events show that the Pope, not the Grandmaster nor the members of the SMOM, are in charge of the Order. Because SMOM allowed interventions by a religious leader and de facto gave up control over the Order, it is not, in any respect, an autonomous or sovereign Order. In contrast, any private association (Order) that is protected by law from state-interference, can be designated as ‘sovereign’ (=Merriam-Webster: enjoying autonomy).
I think it is important that this great Order gets modernized. This way, it can adapt better to a changing world and be more effective in supplying medical care. The Frankfurter Allgemeine puts it perfectly:
Albrecht Freiherr von Boeselager führt den ehrwürdigen Malteserorden. Er bricht mit der Tradition, damit der Orden besser helfen kann.
In my opinion, the ICOC should develop a new set of principles that can be applied to answer one simple question: “Does, in the opinion of the ICOC, the Order of Chivalry in question have a historical background“? If so, it can be placed on the ICOC-list. I suggest applying an adjusted framework of the one that I used earlier to determine the value of nobiliary titles, issued by Prince David Bagration of Georgia (but this could be an interesting discussion within the ICOC):
The status of the issuer (dynasty and person);
The status of the Order (original status, current status and their compatibility);
The acceptance of the Order (acceptance by the legal successors of the dynasty, and/or by other royal houses and/or by relevant authorities).
Apart from the historical background, I would add a fourth criterium, in order to protect potential members from malversation:
Legal structure, financial transparency (Hoegen Dijkhof 2006, pp. 427-432) and contribution to society (inspired by the remarks of Freiherr von Boeselager in the Frankfurter Allgemeine of 14 July 2019).
Conclusions
The principles of the ICOC are in breach with the fundamental rights of association, assembly and freedom of speech. The ICOC should revise its task and should not concern itself with the question ‘who has the right to create orders of chivalry‘, since, in a democratic society, this is legal question that is answered by law and by independent and impartial judges; not by a commission of private individuals. From a legal point of view, the current activities of the ICOC come down to one association, judging another association. Legally, both are to the same extent protected to express their opinions by the freedom of speech. There exists no superiority in this respect.
Instead of focussing on recognition issues, I suggest that the ICOC focusses on criteria to determine that an order has historical legitimacy (a positive approach). This information could be of enormous importance to the public. It is e.g. dishonest for organizers of an Order to make false claims about the historic background in order to attract funding. In addition, members of an Order risk becoming involved in trademark and copyright disputes, when they use emblems that belong to another entity. The primary task of the ICOC should be to protect the public in this respect, since in many Orders high passage and membership fees have to be paid to become and remain a member. To achieve this, the ICOC does not need to make major adjustments. The list of the ICOC itself is, to a large extent, a list of Orders that are historically legitimate, but the pretentions of the ICOC regarding their list are incorrect.
Sources
Confidential documents. These documents include an alternative timeline of events from a number of different sources. The documents report that Cardinal Burke told Grand Master Matthew Festing, that if Von Boeselager was not removed he would “instruct the Holy Father to initiate a visitation of the order”.
Grotius, Hugo, De iure belli ac pacis, ed. Barbeyrac, Jean (Amsterdam, 1720), Prolegomena, n. 52 Google Scholar.
Hugo Grotius, The Rights of War and Peace, edited and with an Introduction by Richard Tuck, from the Edition by Jean Barbeyrac (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2005). Vol. 1. 7/15/2020. <https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1425>
Evans, M. D. (2018). International law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Evans, M. (2015). The changing nature of religious rights under international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Steinerte, E., & Wallace, R. M. (2008). International law. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
“The principles of international law governing the Sovereign authority for the creation and administration of Orders of Chivalry”, in Rory Stanley (ed.), Féil-Scríbhinn Liam Mhic Alasdair – Essays Presented to Liam Mac Alasdair, FGSI (Genealogical Society of Ireland, Dublin, 2009) 15-25 ISBN 9781898471677.
Tornielli, Andrea (26 January 2017). “The Order of Malta’s crisis”. La Stampa. Archived from the original on 26 January 2017. Retrieved 26 January 2017.
Allen J., John L. (13 May 2011). “A triptych on Benedict’s papacy, and hints of what lies beyond”. National Catholic Reporter. Retrieved on 10 July 2020. Becciu was Substitute for General Affairs of the Secretariat of State, a position akin to that of a papal chief of staff.
This article investigates the value of the nobiliary titles, issued by HRH Prince David Bagration of Mukhrani, claimant to the headship of the Royal House of Georgia. I have selected three criteria to validate the outcome:
status of the issuer;
status of the titles;
acceptance of the titles.
Status of the issuer
Status of the Bagration dynasty
By personal invitation of HM King Felipe VI of Spain, HRH Prince David, accompanied by his older sister, HRH Princess Maria Antonieta Bagrationi-Mukhraneli, attended the commemoration of the 25th anniversary of the deceased Infante Juan of Spain, count of Barcelona (Madrid, 3 April 2018).
The Bagration dynasty (Georgian: ბაგრატიონი) is a royal dynasty which reigned in Georgia from the Middle Ages until the early 19th century. It is considered to be amongst the oldest extant Christian ruling dynasties in the world. The genealogy of the dynasty can be traced back to the 8th century and the first mentioning of the dynasty may be traced as far back as the 2nd century AD. The Soviet occupation of Georgia in 1921 forced some members of the family to more modest status. Their properties were seized. Other members relocated to Western Europe and needed to start a new career from scratch. After Georgia regained independence in 1991, some family members repatriated to Georgia.
It is interesting to compare the seniority of the Georgian monarchy to the British and Spanish monarchy. The first monarch of the House of Hannover, George Louis, became king in 1714 as George I; about 1.000 years after the first Bagrationi emerged as a ruling monarch. The House of Borbón-Anjou (Spanish: Casa de Borbón) is, since 1700, the reigning family of the Kingdom of Spain, also about 1.000 years later.
Therefore, based on the seniority, the House of Bagration has an extremely high status.
Considering the foregoing, Prince David has an excellent reputation.
Status of the titles
Nobiliary system during the Bagration reign
In the kingdom of Georgia, about 5% of the population belonged to the nobility. The highest circles in society were occupied by the Bagration family. Immediately below the royal families came the princes (tavadni), organised within great clans. The most prestigious princes were heads of the five most noble clans; the Orbeliani, Amilkhvari, Tsitsishvili and the two Eristavi clans, as well as the senior Armenian melik. Members of these clans outranked other noble clans. Below the princes were the vassal gentry or aznaurni, people of status but dependent on the king, clergy, or the princes. Royal vassals, like the mouravni (local governors originally appointed by the king) outranked the vassals of the church, who in turn outranked the vassals of nobles. Many aznaurni were quite poor and lived no better than peasants, but their status carried certain privileges and exemptions from obligations (Gvosdev 2000, p. 92).
The Georgian nobility was largely organised on a military basis, the army being divided into several corps represented by “banners” (or drosha), each commanded by the great grandees of the realm. These grandees were petty sovereigns within their own domains, enjoying the power of life and death, but owing allegiance to the king (source: Christopher Buyers). It is clear that Georgia had a highly structured nobiliary system, which can serve as a basis for the modern titles.
Compatibility between ancient and current tiles
The ancient nobility in the kingdom of Georgia was organised as follows (source: Christopher Buyers)
H.M. The Most High King.
Princes of the Blood (batonishvili).
Great Officers of State
Grandees of the first class
Grandees of the second class
Junior members (tavadishvili) of the families of the grandees of the first class
Bishops of the Georgian Orthodox Church
Grandees of the third class
Junior members (mtavarishvili) of the families of the princes of the second class (mtavari)
Archimandrites of the Georgan Orthodox Church
Untitled nobility
William Charnley, lawyer, partner at King & Spalding International LLP; master (2016 – 2017) of the Drapers’ Company; created Duke of Aymer granted by letters patent 29 November 2012 and Marquess of Quarlton, Count of Darsie, Viscount of Turton granted by letters patent 12 May 2015 and appointed Knight Grand Cross in the Order of the Eagle of Georgia and the Seamless Tunic of Our Lord Jesus Christ 29 November 2012, Knight Great Star in the Order of the Crown of Georgia and Senator Grand Badge in the Order of Saint Queen Tamar 20 May 2016 by HRH Prince Davit Bagrationi Mukhran Batonishvili, Head of the Royal House of Georgia (source: Burke’s Peerage).
In recent years, Prince David Bagration conferred the title of Duke of San Jorge, to mr. Alfredo Escudero y Díaz-Madroñero, a reputable Spanish insurance broker and tax advisor. Prince David also issued the title of Duke of Aymer (a long-established surname of Anglo-Saxon origin, and derived from the Middle English male given name “Ailmar”) on behalf of mr. William Francis Charnley, a well-respected British lawyer and master (2016 – 2017) of the Drapers’ Company (est. 1361). In 2011, the title of Viscount of Portadei was conferred upon José María de Montells y Galán, historian, meticulous researcher, brilliant writer and revolutionary poet. These appointments show that Prince David carefully selects the persons to whom such honours are given.
It is clear that these titles cannot be compared to the ancient Georgian noble titles like e.g. Duke of Aragvi (Aragvi-eristavi) or Duke of Ksani (Ksani-eristavi). Both titleholders were Grandees of the first class (Sul-didibuli-tavadi) of the Kingdom of Kartli and ruled over enormous estates. Obviously, Prince David has modernised the Georgian nobility, and revised it in accordance with Western standards. This innovation is understandable, since nobility should not be a mausoleum. Apart from that, titles like aznaurni would be very impractical to use in Western Europe. Issuing titles referring to European places, is a personal choice of Prince David.
Modernisation of the titles
In ancient and medieval Georgia, the nobiliary titles were embedded in a system of personal dependence, called feudalism or patronqmoba (Georgian: პატრონყმობა from patroni, “lord”, and qmoba, “slavery”, “serfdom”). This system arose from the tribal-dynastic organization of Georgian society. This hierarchical division of the Georgian feudal society was later codified in law by King Vakhtang VI (reigned 1716–24) in an official table of “weregild” or blood money rates. The system is thought to have its roots into the ancient Georgian, or Iberian, society of the Hellenistic period.
The status of the current titles differs very much from the mentioned original status. Currently, the titles are an honorific accessory to the name. This modernisation is in line with the democratic principles that are laid down in article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The revised titles have nothing to do with the horrors of serfdom, attached to the original Georgian titles. Because they have a more humane character, the current status of the Georgian titles is higher than their original status.
No consent or confirmatory authority needed
In medieval Georgia, there existed a council of state, called Darbazi (Georgian: დარბაზი), introduced by king David IV of Georgia (c. 1073-1125). The Darbazi consisted of Didebulis (high aristocracy) and church representatives (Mikaberidze 2007). The Council was non-mandatory in the decisions of major questions of government. The king could, at his discretion, take the advice of the Darbazi into consideration. The rights and obligations of Darbazi were significantly widened after an insurrection by the 12th-century Georgian politician Qutlu Arslan and his followers. It was the result of a social struggle that marked a further step in the advancement of Georgian society.
At the time of the Russian annexation, Georgian society was rigidly hierarchical (Gvosdev 2000, p. 92). Georgian princes not only had nearly unlimited power over their estates and the enserfed peasantry, they also exercised police and judicial power (Gvosdev 2000, p. 65). In this extremely hierarchical society (even compared to imperial Russian standards) no consent was needed to elevate persons to higher ranks.
Registration
As a Republic, Georgia currently does not register titles of nobility. The work of Martínez Larrañaga et al. however, includes an overview of the Georgian nobiliary titles, issued by Prince David.
Acceptance of the titles
Likelihood of a restoration
In an article on the website Civil.ge, a project by the United Nations Association of Georgia, several politicians are asked how they feel about the idea of restoring the monarchy.
There has been a broad welcome from the opposition to Patriarch of the Georgian Orthodox Church Illia II’s call to consider establishing a constitutional monarchy. We, most opposition parties, believe that we should have a parliamentary form of government and its perfect form is a constitutional monarchy, MP Zviad Dzidziguri of the Conservative Party said on October 8. I always supported a constitutional monarchy, as an appropriate form of government for Georgia, Salome Zourabichvili, the leader of Georgia’s Way, told reporters. Labor Party leader Shalva Natelashvili said on October 8 that his party also supports the proposal. Konstantine Gamsakhurdia, the leader of the opposition Freedom Party, said the proposal was extremely positive. The New Rights Party, in a statement issued on October 8, said that Georgia should be a constitutional monarchy. A lawmaker from the ruling party, Vakhtang Balavadze, said the issue should only be considered after the restoration of the country’s territorial integrity. In his Sunday sermon, Illia II, said that today conditions exist which may help to make this dream of the Georgian people come true referring to the restoration of the Georgian royal dynasty of Bagrationi. He, however, also said it may take years. His comments come amid political confrontation between the authorities and opposition parties. A group of ten opposition parties has launched a campaign calling for the abolition of the presidency and the creation of a parliamentary system of government.
Considering this political climate, it is not unlikely that Georgia will restore the monarchy and that currently issued titles will be formalised.
Acceptance by the Russian Empire
Catherine II by Fyodor Stepanovich Rokotov (Fedor Rokotov) (Russian: Фёдор Степа́нович Ро́котов, after Roslin (c.1770, Hermitage)- Photo: WikiCommons.
With the Treaty of Georgievsk (Russian: Георгиевский трактат, Georgievskiy traktat; Georgian: გეორგიევსკის ტრაქტატი, georgievskis trakt’at’i) of 24 July 1783 between Catherine the Great of the Russian Empire and Heraclius II of Kartli-Kakheti, eastern Georgia became a protectorate under Russia, which guaranteed its territorial integrity and the continuation of its reigning Bagration dynasty, in return for prerogatives in the conduct of Georgian foreign affairs.
However, on 22 December 1800, Tsar Paul I of Russia, at the alleged request of the Georgian King George XII (sometimes known as George XIII), proclaimed the incorporation of western Georgia (Kartli-Kakheti) within the Russian Empire. The incorporation was formalised by the decree of 8 January 1801, and confirmed by Tsar Alexander I on 12 September 1801. The Bagration royal family was deported from their kingdom. In 1810, the eastern kingdom of Imereti followed a comparable faith. In 1891, Georgia was almost completely annexed by the Russian Empire. The Russians ignored Georgian habits and traditions and sought to eradicate Georgian language and culture. Almost all frescos in the Georgian cathedrals were white-washed and both the status of the Patriarch and the autocephaly of the Georgian Church were abolished (source: Georgian government). The situation became worse when – after a short period as an independent republic – the Soviet armies invaded Georgia in 1921.
In 1801, Emperor Paul I Petrovich recognized the Bagrationi-Davitishvili and the Bagration-Mukhraneli families (amongst many other princely families) as princes of the Russian Empire. This recognition was revoked shortly afterwards. A number of Georgian native nobles ignored the Russian titles, but a substantial number of nobles moved to Russia and mingled with the Russian nobility. Prince David himself, for example, is a cousin of Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia, claimant to the headship of the Russian Imperial House, as her mother was born Princess Leonida Bagration-Mukhraneli. The Russian Nobility Association in America accepts such nobles of Georgian descent as members, when they can prove that their family was listed in the Books of the Nobility of the Russian Imperial Senate between 1801 and 1917 (about 120 families). The restored relation and mutual recognition between the Georgian and Russian dynasties has been underlined recently by Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia:
Russia ceased treating the sons of King George XII of Georgia living in Russia as royal princes, even though their former royal status was a matter of historical fact. Catherine II’s great-great-great-grandson and heir Nicholas II, perhaps mindful of this history, made a private comment acknowledging the royal status of the Bagrations at the time of the first Romanoff-Bagration wedding in 1911. But it was her great-great-great-great-grandson and heir Grand Duke Wladimir who in 1946 gave effect to the underlying spirit of mutual respect between the two dynasties that was a key purpose of the treaty.
Grand Duchess Maria of Russia possesses the right to grant nobiliary titles to those she deems worthy of them, but rarely exercises that right.
Although the official recognition of Georgian titles back in the days of the Russian Empire does not apply to the newly issued titles by Prince David, it is not unlikely that there is a mutual recognition of such titles between the two Houses, considering their excellent relationship.
Conclusions
The titles issued by the House of Bagration are of high value. In my opinion, the titles will become even more valuable when they become more ancient over the course of time. They form a unique part of the grandeur of the Georgian Royal House.
Sources
Gvosdev, N. K. (2000). Imperial policies and perspectives towards Georgia: 1760-1819. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Toumanoff, Cyril, Cyril, “The Early Bagratids. remarks in connexion with some recent publications”, Le Muséon 62 (1949); “The Bagratids of Iberia from the Eighth to the Eleventh Century”, Le Muséon 74 (1961); “Manuel de Généalogie et de Chronologie pour le Caucase chrétien (Arménie, Géorgie, Albanie)“, 1976
Stephen F. Jones, Russian Imperial Administration and the Georgian Nobility: The Georgian Conspiracy of 1832. The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 65, No. 1 (Jan., 1987), pp. 53-76.
Mikaberidze, Alexander, Historical Dictionary of Georgia – Scarecrow Press, (2007 ISBN 978-0810855809.
Martínez Larrañaga, Fernando; Alfredo Escudero y Díaz Madroñero; José María de Montells y Galán; (2015), Armorial de la Orden del Águila de Georgia y la Túnica Inconsútil de Nuestro Señor Jesucristo, ISBN 978-84-943890-4-7
I offer this possibility to those who have something to say against the idea of the King Kigeli to grant “honours” using names of “European nobiliary titles” (but I repeat they are not nobiliary titles but only honours): prepare a true study supported by due documentation, historical precedents, footnotes which quote precedent studies on the matter to be published in one of my reviews or better to participate in the next III International Colloquium of Genealogy organized by Institut International d’Etudes Généalogiques et d’Histoire des Families in San Marino from 28 September to 1 October 2007.
[Felice degli Uberti] finds Kigeli V’s trade in titles “very sad”. He has warned the ex-king that the titles do not form part of his historical tradition and should not be awarded. His majesty declined to comment but his secretary-general responded: “Who has the right to question his authorities but God and his countrymen?”
Saint-David’s book, ‘Umwami: King Kigeli V and the Shattered Kingdom of Rwanda,’ the official biography of the last ruling monarch of the Nyiginya dynasty, highlights the vital role played by the nation’s kings in helping to foster the long-term peace and prosperity of its traditional society and culture. In 2017, in accordance with the last wishes of the late King, he was granted the honorific nobiliary title of Marquis of Saint-Jean-Baptiste, and was also named a Knight of the Royal Order of Saint Michael of the Wing of Portugal, an ancient chivalric institution founded in the 12th century, whose Grand Master, H.R.H. Dom Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza, has for many years been a noted friend and supporter of the Royal House of Rwanda.
Prof. Saint-David’s later study, ‘Beloved of Amun-Ra: The Lost Origins of the Ancient Names of the Kings of Rwanda,’ centers on the genetic, linguistic, and cultural links between pharaonic Egypt and monarchical Rwanda. As a recognition of this innovative work, he was named a Knight Grand Collar of the Royal Order of the Drum by King Yuhi VI Bushayija of Rwanda, and in October, 2019, he was awarded the Dragomanov Medal for European Communication by the National Dragomanov Pedagogical University of Ukraine.
In March, 2020, Prof. Saint-David was appointed official historian of the Royal House of Rwanda, with the title of Kalinga Chronicler. He has recently published an illustrated survey, ‘In the House of Eternity: A Brief History of Ancient Egypt,’ created in collaboration with his wife, the photographer E. L. J. Saint-David. His latest volume, entitled, ‘In the Presence: Eyewitness Accounts of Foreign Visitors to the Royal Court of Rwanda, 1894-1922,’ is a small collection of excerpted writings by some of the European guests presented at the courts of Kigeli IV Rwabugili (r. 1853-1895) and Yuhi V Musinga (r. 1896-1931). He is currently in the early stages of research for a historical survey of Egypt under Roman and Byzantine rule.
Saint-David’s list is copied below. It can serve as a basis for answering degli Uberti’s question. However, a truly scientific sociological study of the matter would involve a sequence of prescribed steps: defining a specific research question that can be answered through empirical observation; gathering information and resources through detailed observation (e.g. from the Belgian colonial archives); forming a hypothesis; testing the hypothesis in a reproducible manner; analysing and drawing conclusions from the data; publishing the results; and anticipating further development when future researchers respond to and re-examine the findings.
(equivalent to the) Ducal title conferred by H.M. King Mutara III Rudahigwa (1959-2016)
H.M. Baudouin, King of the Belgians, Duc du Royaume (1955). This appointment is manifested by the gift of 120 spears; literally: Ijana Namakumyabiri, or ‘120. The equivalent to the title of duke/duc in European culture.
Ducal titles conferred by H.M. King Kigeli V Ndahindurwa (1959-2016)
Sir Thomas Innes of Learney (1893–1971) GCVOWS was Lord Lyon from 1945 to 1969, following the position of Carrick Pursuivant and Albany Herald in the 1920s and 1930s. He was an active Lord Lyon, who strongly shared his views regarding the essence of his office, through his writings and pronouncements in his Court. Photo: personal collection of the author.
On 28 November 2004, the mentioned Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) Act 2000 came into force. It abolished the feudal system of land tenure (the relationship that individuals hold regarding land and related resources) on feudal baronies. The retained dignity of baron is no longer attached to land, but a floating dignity which may be bought and sold as incorporeal heritable property and may be bequeathed by will.
Baronies are not registerable in the Land Register and deeds relating to them are no longer recorded in the Register of Sasines (the oldest national public land register in the world, dating back to 1617) automatically. As a result, the transfer of dignity is no longer bound to be registered anywhere. However, ‘Burke’s Peerage and Gentry’ includes a complete list of Scottish Feudal Barons. This list can be viewed online at www.burkespeerage.com. Where the applicant provides evidence that the Lord Lyon has recognised their feudal barony, or the title is included in Burke’s Peerage, this may be accepted by HM Passport Office and subsequently be recorded on the personal details page of his/her British passport (source: HM Passport Office, 13 Januari 2012).
Registration policies of Lord Lyon
The Court of the Lord Lyon is a court of law, and applications for a coat of arms are made by a formal “Petition”. The initiative thereto is taken by the person wishing to obtain a coat of arms. He/she submits the Petition to the Lord Lyon, stating who he/she is and asking for a coat of arms to be granted to him/her. The process is not complicated. Lord Lyon, who is the Crown’s representative in all heraldic matters in Scotland, used to recognise Scottish feudal titles, but has signalled an intention to phase out this recognition. Since the 2000-Act came into force, successive holders of the office of Lord Lyon King of Arms have developed different practices in relation to the wording of formal Letters Patent, by which the Lord Lyon grants arms to those persons presently entitled to the dignity of baron.
On 17 December 2002, Lyon Blair (in office between 2001 and 2008) announced that, as a result of the Abolition of Feudal Tenures Act 2000, he would from 28 November 2004 no longer officially recognise a person as a feudal baron, nor make any grant of baronial additaments as part of armorial bearings:
COURT OF THE LORD LYON ABOLITION OF FEUDAL TENURE ETC (SCOTLAND) ACT
The Armorial Bearings of The Court of the Lord Lyon
In connection with the Appointed Day under the above Act, which has been announced to be 28 November 2004, the following Rules will apply:
1. With effect from the Appointed Day the Lord Lyon will no longer officially recognise a person as a feudal baron, nor make any grant of baronial additaments as part of Armorial Bearings.
2. Any Petition for recognition as a baron and/or for baronial additaments must be submitted to the Court of the Lord Lyon not later than 30 April 2004 in order to allow time for it to be processed before the Appointed Day. No such Petition lodged after the 30 April 2004 will be considered.
3. After the Appointed Day the Lord Lyon will be prepared to consider allowing a bleu chapeau as part of the Arms matriculated by an heir of a baron who has been recognised by the Lord Lyon prior to the Appointed Day, in a similar manner as bleu chapeaux have in the past been, and will continue to be, allowed to Representers of former owners of baronial lands.
4. After the Appointed Day a baron who has a grant of Arms with baronial additaments may continue to use the additaments for his lifetime. Use of the additaments by his heir after the death of the baron will not be permissible and all existing grants will be subject to this Rule.
In the Margaret Hamilton of Rockhall v Lord Lyon King of Arms ([2019] CSOH 85) case, Lyon Blair determined to recognise the petitioner (in 2006) only as “Holder of the Barony of Lag” and to grant the petitioner a coat of arms without any baronial additaments. The petitioner had asked for wording of the titles “the baron of …” instead of “holder of the barony of …”. In the mentioned Margaret Hamilton of Rockhall v Lord Lyon King of Arms case, it was decided that Lyon Blair was entitled to do so:
The very particular character of the royal prerogative power that is exercised by the Lord Lyon as a matter of grace is wholly inimical to the articulation of a policy or practice by him that is capable of binding successors in the office of Lord Lyon in the grant of arms. The breadth of the discretion the Lord Lyon has in such matters, which is almost unique in a modern context, arises from the origins and nature of his ancient office and the very particular character of the royal prerogative he exercises on behalf of the Monarch.
On 31 August 2014, the Lord Lyon King of Arms issued the “Note on the Petition of George Menking“, under which he determined to accept petitions for the grant arms for feudal dignities including feudal earldoms (not to be confused with an earldom, which forms part of the Peerage of Scotland) since such dignities have historically always been of the genus of a barony and as such represent a higher form of barony and fall within the jurisdiction of the King of Arms.
Recently, the Lord Lyon stated that from 1 March 2018 he will no longer make mention, in Letters Patent granting armorial bearings, of a petitioner’s ownership of a Feudal Barony and therefore status as Feudal Baron (source: letter dated 23 October 2017, addressed to Dr Michael Yellowlees of Lindsays Solicitors).
Costs
A solicitor generally charges legal fees between £2,000 – £3,000 for the acquisition of a barony and £3,000 – £4,000 for an earldom. The barony itself will cost in the region of £75,000 or more in the case of a lordship, earldom or marquisate.
Conclusions
Lyons have finally accepted that they are not conveyancers. The legal ownership of a feudal barony has never been dependent upon his recognition. The conveyancing (the legal transfer of property from one owner to another) documents should prove the ownership. Lyon will still recognize the holder of a barony as qualifying to petition for Scottish arms. What has been changed is the fact that Lyon will no longer mention the dignity of feudal baron in the letters patents, granting arms.
Johanna Bertha Julie Jenny Marx – Edle von Westphalen (12 February 1814 – 2 December 1881), a German theater critic and political activist, Painter unknown. Stiftung Deutsches Historisches Museum in Berlin.
Political theorist Karl Marx (1818–1883) was born in Trier, Germany. He is considered the father of international communism, also known as Marxism. This ideology in both its original and more orthodox guises, inspired both the Bolsheviks and the Nazis to establish their concentration camps in order to exterminate their political opponents or other ‘undesirable’ individuals. It was the Soviet Union, not Nazi Germany, where the first concentration camps in the ‘old continent’ were established (Vladimir Tismaneanu, ‘Communism and the Human Condition: Reflections on the Black Book of Communism’ (2001) 2(2) Human Rights Review 130). As early as October 1923, there were 315 of them spread all over the Soviet Union. Over that period no less than 15 million Russian people were brought into forced labour, with more than 1.5 million dying in prison. Six million people were deported on grounds of family ties and indeed ethnic identity (Nicolas Werth, ‘A State Against its People: Violence, Repression and Terror in the Soviet Union’ in Stephane Courtois et al., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (Cambridge/MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), p 73). Hitler knew about those Soviet camps, and he learned from them in order to create his own concentration camps in Nazi Germany. In his Public Speech, Munich, November 1941 (see: The Bulletin of International News, Royal Institute of International Affairs, XVIII, No. 5t, p 269) Adolf Hitler said: “Basically, National-Socialism and Marxism are the same.”.
Although both his grandfathers were rabbis, Marx’s father converted his eight children to Protestantism in 1824. The young Marx later declared himself an atheist. As a student, Marx wanted to be a poet and dramatist. At the University of Berlin, he studied Hegelian philosophy and became interested in economics. During his stay in Paris, he befriended Friedrich Engels, who supported him financially for the rest of his life. Together they published the Communist Manifestoin 1848, a radical criticism of the upper class and a call for the international cooperation of the proletariat. Following his expulsion from Brussels, Cologne, and Paris, Marx eventually settled in London. He lived there as a stateless exile until his death.
Marx was a devoted husband to his wife, Jenny Edle von Westphalen, a descendent of Prussian and British aristocrats. Jenny’s paternal grandmother, Jeanie Wishart (1742–1811), was a descendent of a Scottish nobleman. Her father, George Wishart, son of William Wishart, was Principal of Edinburgh University, and a descendant of the 9th Earl of Angus and the 3rd Earl Marischal. The latter was in turn a direct descendant of King James I, of the House of Stuart. At the depth of the couple’s long poverty, Jenny still carried calling cards identifying her as “Marx née Edle von Westphalen”. The couple had seven children, but only three lived to adulthood. Two adult daughters killed themselves because of political and marital problems.
Genealogy
Johann Ludwig von Westphalen, born on 11 July 1770 in Bornum am Elm, died Trier 3 March 1842, son of Christian Heinrich Philipp Edler von Westphalen (son of a Blankenburg postmaster who had been ennobled in 1764 as Edler von Westphalen by Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick for his military services) and of Jeanie Wishart. Johann Ludwig married (1st) Meisdorf 4 July 1798 Elisabeth von Veltheim, daughter of Karl Christian Septimus von Veltheim and Friederike Albertine von Pannwitz. Johann Ludwig married (2nd) Salzwebel 30 April 1812 Caroline Heubel, daughter of Julius Heubel, retired military horse-care expert, and Sophie Heubel. Children of Johann Ludwig von Westphalen and Caroline Heubel:
Johanna Bertha Julie Jenny Edle von Westphalen, b. 15 Jan 1814, d. 2 Dec 1881, m. 19 June 1843 Karl Heinrich Marx;
Helena Laura Cecilia Charlotte Friederike Edle von Westphalen, b. 16 Mar 1817, d. 3 Apr 1821;
Gerhard Oscar Ludwig Edgar Edler von Westphalen, b. 26 Mar 1819, d. 30 Sep 1890.
Racist views
The combination of Marxism and nobility is strange, taking into consideration the negative ideas of Marx regarding the aristocracy. Currently, another peculiar combination has arisen: Marxism and the Black Lives Matter movements (BLM).
BLM considers itself a neo-Marxist movement with various far-left objectives, including the dismantling of capitalism. The affiliation with Marxism is quite unnatural because both Marx and Engels had extremely racist views on society. In a letter to Engels, in reference to his socialist political competitor Ferdinand Lassalle, the son of a Jewish silk merchant, Marx wrote:
It is now completely clear to me that he, as is proved by his cranial formation and his hair, descends from the Negroes who had joined Moses’ exodus from Egypt, assuming that his mother or grandmother on the paternal side had not interbred with a negro. Now this union of Judaism and Germanism with a basic Negro substance must produce a peculiar product.
Engels shared Marx’s racial philosophy. In 1887, Paul Lafargue, who was Marx’s son-in-law, was a candidate for a council seat in a Paris district that contained a zoo. Engels claimed that Lafargue had “one-eighth or one-twelfth negro blood.”. In a letter to Lafargue’s wife, Engels wrote, “Being in his quality as a negro, a degree nearer to the rest of the animal kingdom than the rest of us, he is undoubtedly the most appropriate representative of that district.”
Marx was also an anti-Semite. In On the Jewish Question (1844) Marx endorsed the anti-Semitic leader of the Hegelian Left, Bruno Bauer, who demanded that the Jews should immediately abandon Judaism. Marx asked:
What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. … Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man—and turns them into commodities. … The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange. … The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.
Conclusion
Marxism is the movement that inspired Hitler. It will never be the source for inspiration to us, believing in the ideas of Dr. Martin Luther King.
Sources
Weyl, N. ‘Notes on Karl Marx’s racial philosophy of politics and history’, The Mankind Quarterly (July 1977), pp. 59–70; idem, Karl Marx: Racist (New York: Arlington House, 1979). A comprehensive catalogue of their various, ignominious racially prejudices pontificated by Karl Marx and Engels. This book is needed for those studying economics, Marxism, capitalism, wealth inequality, communism, income equality, and anthropology.
Gabriel, M. (2012). Love and capital: Karl and Jenny Marx and the birth of a revolution. New York: Back Bay Books / Little, Brown and Co.
The author opposes racism in all forms and rejects communism and socialism.
Comment
One reader wrote me: “It’s actually even worse. In the note to Engels on Ferdinand Lassalle, Marx didn’t use the word Negro. He used the derogatory American word. He propounded the same thoughts on his own son-in-law, Lafarge, who was of part Cuban mulatto and Native American stock.“
Anna Prinzessin zu Ysenburg und Büdingen (1886-1980)
Bij koninklijk besluit van 15 mei 1996 werden de vier kinderen uit het huwelijk tussen Carel Hugo van Bourbon-Parma (1930) en Irene prinses der Nederlanden (1939) op basis van de Wet op de adeldom ingelijfd in de Nederlandse adel met de titel ‘prins/prinses’ en het predicaat ‘Koninklijke Hoogheid’. Carlos prins de Bourbon de Parme (1970) is de oudste zoon uit dit huwelijk. De grond voor de inlijving in de Nederlandse adel was dat – volgens de Hoge Raad van Adel – het geslacht in Spanje werd gerekend tot de adel. Dit bleek echter, na onderzoek door Jhr. Titus von Bönninghausen bij het Spaanse ministerie van Justitie, niet het geval te zijn. De inlijving had toen al plaatsgevonden en de ontdekking van dit feit is daarom juridisch niet meer terug te draaien.
In 1997 werd Carlos Hugo Roderik Sybren Klynstra (roepnaam ‘Hugo‘), geboren uit de relatie tussen prins Carlos en Brigitte Klynstra, verpleegster (1959). Mevrouw Klynstra woont in het Gelderse Hummelo op het terrein van het landgoed van haar stiefvader, graaf van Rechteren Limpurg:
Graaf en Edele heer Ernst van Lippe-Weissenfeld (1870 – 1914, Oostfront) trouwt in 1911 in Schloss Büdingen met Prinses Anna van Ysenburg en Büdingen (1886-1980). Uit dit huwelijk:
Prinses Eleonore van Lippe-Weissenfeld (1913 in Dresden – 1964 in Den Haag), trouwt (gescheiden 1944) in 1935 in Detmold met Sweder graaf van Rechteren Limpurg (1910-1972). Uit dit huwelijk:
Adolph Roderik Ernst Leopold graaf van Rechteren Limpurg (1938-), Afdelingshoofd van de Vereniging van Natuurmonumenten te ‘s-Graveland, commandeur van de Duitse Orde, trouwt met Ingrid Pieksma (1935-2008), dochter van Dirk Pieksma en Gerardine Nicolina Alette Evers (eerder gehuwd met Sybren Bonno Klynstra (1920-2004)), moeder van Brigitte Klynstra voornoemd.
Prins Carlos en mevrouw Klynstra waren niet getrouwd en woonden niet samen. In 1999 verzocht moeder Klynstra bij de rechtbank in Zutphen om gerechtelijke vaststelling van het vaderschap van prins Carlos. Dit verzoek werd door de rechtbank ingewilligd.
Adellijke titel gaat over op Klynstra
Bij besluit van 14 september 2015 heeft de minister van Veiligheid en Justitie de aanvraag ingewilligd van zoon Klynstra om wijziging van zijn geslachtsnaam in ‘De Bourbon de Parme’, voorafgegaan door de adellijke titel ‘prins’ en het predicaat ‘Koninklijke Hoogheid’. De Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State oordeelde in 2018 dat de minister terecht heeft besloten dat Klynstra aan de voorwaarden voor naamswijziging voldoet. De vader – prins Carlos – en de entiteit ‘Koninklijk Huis De Bourbon de Parme’ hadden hiertegen bezwaar gemaakt. In een persbericht van de Raad van State van 28 februari 2018 is het volgende over de zaak opgenomen:
Hugo Klynstra krijgt achternaam De Bourbon de Parme en de titel ‘prins’
Gepubliceerd op 28 februari 2018 De toenmalig minister van Veiligheid en Justitie heeft het verzoek om de achternaam van Klynstra te wijzigen in De Bourbon de Parme terecht ingewilligd. Dat blijkt uit een uitspraak van vandaag (28 februari 2018) van de hoogste bestuursrechter, de Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State. Dat betekent dat Klynstra de achternaam van zijn vader Carlos prins de Bourbon de Parme krijgt. Ook mag hij de titel ‘prins’ en het predicaat ‘Koninklijke Hoogheid’ voeren. Om de naamswijziging officieel door te voeren, is eerst nog wel een zogenoemd koninklijk besluit nodig.
Om twee redenen heeft Klynstra recht op de wijziging van zijn achternaam in De Bourbon de Parme en de bijbehorende titel en het bijbehorende predicaat.
Wijziging van de achternaam
In het Burgerlijk Wetboek staan de voorwaarden voor een wijziging van de achternaam. De Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak is van oordeel dat de minister terecht heeft besloten dat Klynstra aan die voorwaarden voldoet. De rechtbank in Zutphen heeft in 1999 het vaderschap van Carlos prins de Bourbon de Parme ‘gerechtelijk vastgesteld’. Dat hij het vaderschap niet heeft erkend, is niet van belang.
Titel en koninklijk predicaat
Uit het Nederlandse adelsrecht volgt dat wijziging van de achternaam automatisch tot gevolg heeft dat adeldom overgaat. Klynstra mag door de naamswijziging dan ook de titel ‘prins’ en het predicaat ‘Koninklijke Hoogheid’ voeren. Carlos prins de Bourbon de Parme is in 1996 ingelijfd in de Nederlandse adel. Hierbij zijn de prinselijke titel en het koninklijk predicaat toegekend aan hem en zijn mannelijke nakomelingen. Daardoor geldt het Nederlandse adelsrecht en gaan de titel en het predicaat met de naamswijziging automatisch over op Klynstra. Voor de Nederlandse Wet op de adeldom maakt de manier waarop het vaderschap van het kind is vast komen te staan niet uit, oordeelt de Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak.
Geen lid van het Koninklijk Huis De Bourbon de Parme
De naamswijziging heeft niet tot gevolg dat Klynstra nu ook lid wordt van het Koninklijk Huis De Bourbon de Parme. Dat is een privéaangelegenheid van het Huis zelf. En daar gaat het Nederlandse adelsrecht niet over.
Achtergrond
Hugo Klynstra is geboren in 1997. Hij is de buitenechtelijke zoon van Carlos prins de Bourbon de Parme. Bij zijn geboorte kreeg hij de achternaam van zijn moeder, Klynstra. Toen hij meerderjarig werd, verzocht hij de toenmalige minister van Veiligheid en Justitie om de naamswijziging. De minister willigde dat verzoek in 2015 in. De rechtbank Den Haag bepaalde in november 2016 dat de bezwaren van Carlos prins de Bourbon de Parme en het Koninklijk Huis De Bourbon de Parme tegen de naamswijziging niet konden slagen. De Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak bevestigt dat oordeel van de rechtbank in de uitspraak van vandaag.
Lees hier de volledige uitspraak met zaaknummer 201609884/1.
“De regels van het Koninklijk Huis De Bourbon de Parme”
In het persbericht wordt uitdrukkelijk vermeld: “De naamswijziging heeft niet tot gevolg dat Klynstra nu ook lid wordt van het Koninklijk Huis De Bourbon de Parme. Dat is een privéaangelegenheid van het Huis zelf. En daar gaat het Nederlandse adelsrecht niet over.“. Het is de vraag of dit juist is.
In de uitspraak zelf wordt door de Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak, voor zover van belang, hierover het volgende overwogen (r.o. 7.1):
De Afdeling is van oordeel dat de belangen van [het Koninklijk Huis De Bourbon de Parme] rechtstreeks worden geraakt door de in het besluit van 14 september 2015 voorziene overgang van de titel prins en het predicaat Koninklijke Hoogheid. De regels van het Koninklijk Huis verzetten zich ertegen dat een buiten echt geboren kind de titel prins en het predicaat Koninklijke Hoogheid krijgt. [Klynstra] zal gelet op deze regels ook geen lid van dat Koninklijk Huis worden. Deze regels zijn evenwel niet algemeen bekend, zodat aannemelijk is dat de toekenning van de titel prins en het predicaat Koninklijke Hoogheid de schijn zal wekken dat [Klynstra] wél tot dat Koninklijk Huis zal gaan behoren.
De rechtbank heeft in zijn uitspraak van 18 november 2016 hierover – geheel terecht – overwogen dat het al dan niet tot het Koninklijk Huis [De Bourbon de Parme] behoren een particuliere aangelegenheid is die niet door het Nederlandse adelsrecht wordt beheerst. De Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak verwijst in zijn uitspraak naar regels van “het Koninklijk Huis” en overweegt dat het een juridische entiteit betreft die belanghebbende kan zijn in de zin van art. artikel 1:2, eerste lid, van de Algemene wet bestuursrecht. Deze entiteit kan dus ook bezwaar maken/beroep instellen tegen een besluit als hier aan de orde is, aldus de Afdeling.
Conclusies
De Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak kent rechtsgevolgen toe aan het bestaan van een entiteit met eigen huisregels, namelijk doordat de Afdeling de entiteit Koninklijk Huis de Bourbon de Parme (= familievereniging) als belanghebbende aanmerkt bij de vraag of een buiten het huwelijk geboren kind van iemand de naam van de vader mag krijgen (r.o. 7.1):
De Afdeling is van oordeel dat de belangen van [Koninklijk Huis De Bourbon de Parme] rechtstreeks worden geraakt door de in het besluit van 14 september 2015 voorziene overgang van de titel prins en het predicaat Koninklijke Hoogheid.
De Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak overweegt over de juridische status van dit Koninklijk Huis dat het een entiteit betreft die herkenbaar is in het rechtsverkeer (r.o. 7):
[Koninklijk Huis De Bourbon de Parme] presenteert zich naar buiten als een eenheid, thans onder meer via zijn website. Op deze website is informatie te vinden over de geschiedenis van [Koninklijk Huis De Bourbon de Parme], de leden van [Koninklijk Huis De Bourbon de Parme] en de organisatie van [Koninklijk Huis De Bourbon de Parme]. Het bestuur van [Koninklijk Huis De Bourbon de Parme] wordt gevormd door [prins Carlos] als hoofd van [Koninklijk Huis De Bourbon de Parme], een hoofd ceremoniën, een secretaris en een vertegenwoordiger. [Koninklijk Huis De Bourbon de Parme] heeft voorts aparte besturen voor de verschillende ordes die [Koninklijk Huis De Bourbon de Parme] kent. Uit naam van [Koninklijk Huis De Bourbon de Parme] worden jaarlijks evenementen georganiseerd waarbij [prins Carlos] als hoofd van [Koninklijk Huis De Bourbon de Parme] en Grootmeester van de ordes onderscheidingen, waaronder de ordes, toekent. Onder deze omstandigheden moet [Koninklijk Huis De Bourbon de Parme] naar het oordeel van de Afdeling worden aangemerkt als entiteit die herkenbaar is in het rechtsverkeer.
Het Koninklijk Huis De Bourbon de Parme voerde in de procedure aan dat het besluit van de minister om titel en predicaat op Klynstra te laten overgaan met zich brengt dat er een Koninklijke Hoogheid is die niet tot een Koninklijk Huis De Bourbon de Parme behoort (r.o. 6). Gelet hierop, vormt – volgens het Koninklijk Huis De Bourbon de Parme – het besluit in feite de aanzet is voor een nieuw Koninklijk Huis De Bourbon de Parme, dat niet te onderscheiden is van het oorspronkelijke Huis. Dit eerste is naar mijn mening juist, het tweede niet.
Klynstra kan inderdaad zijn eigen tak van het ‘Koninklijk Huis de Bourbon de Parme’ starten en ontwikkelen. Omdat Klynstra (nu ZKH Hugo prins de Bourbon de Parme) de oudste zoon is van prins Carlos, is het de vraag wie straks in historische zin de chef van het Huis De Bourbon de Parme is, aan wie traditiegetrouw de dynastieke rechten (bijvoorbeeld: troonopvolging en het uitgeven van orden en adellijke titels) toekomen (zie bijvoorbeeld: Bourbon, S. D. (1914). Le traité d’Utrecht et les lois fondamentales du royaume. Thèse pour le doctorat. Paris: Université de Paris). Naar mijn mening is dit het huis van prins Hugo (traditiegetrouw de oudste tak), maar een autoriteit om dit te bevestigen is er niet. Dit betekent dat prins Hugo alle reden heeft om ook een website op te zetten en een organisatie daar omheen op te bouwen, die bijvoorbeeld verschillende orden (in de uitspraak staat foutief ‘ordes’) kan uitgeven. In dit opzicht is er wel degelijk onderscheid aan te brengen: namelijk tussen een oudste tak en een jongere tak van het Huis De Bourbon de Parme. Het is overigens beslist niet vreemd dat er meerdere aanspraken bestaan op dezelfde dynastieke rechten. Denk daarbij aan dynastieke rechten ten aanzien van het uitgeven van de Heilige Militaire Constantijnse Orde van Sint-Joris (Italiaans: L’Ordine Costantiniano di San Giorgio), kortweg Constantijnse Orde. Zoals ik eerder schreef, worden de dynastieke rechten voor het uitgeven van deze orde geclaimd door drie families (takken), waaronder die van prins Carlos. In de toekomst kan ik daar mogelijk een vierde aan toevoegen.
Het antwoord op de vraag of ZKH Hugo prins de Bourbon de Parme behoort tot het “Koninklijk Huis De Bourbon de Parme”, dient bevestigend te worden beantwoord. Daarbij moet worden aangetekend dat met het “Koninklijk Huis De Bourbon de Parme” de oudste tak van de familie wordt bedoeld en niet de jongere tak van prins Carlos. Prins Hugo is namelijk geen lid van deze laatste entiteit.
Nawoord
Het is ongepast om een ethisch oordeel te geven over de weigering van prins Carlos om zijn zoon te erkennen. Hoewel ik hier aanvankelijk impulsief negatief over oordeelde, zijn er toch veel aspecten die niet bekend zijn. Belangrijker is het om vast te stellen dat het een privé kwestie betreft, die – hoewel deze zich in het publiek domein afspeelt – de niet-belanghebbenden niets aangaat. In dit verband wil ik onderstaand stukje citeren dat laat zien dat het gissen is naar de achtergronden van de hele affaire:
Prins Carlos werd door zijn toenmalige vriendin niet alleen voor een slechts door haar gewenste zwangerschap geplaatst, maar mocht ook geen contact hebben met de boreling, die nota bene de namen Carlos Hugo meekreeg.Meer dan een korte verklaring uit 1997 was er tot nu toe niet. Die kwam kil en koel over. Het was ‘een eigen, zelfstandige beslissing van mevrouw Klynstra geweest om moeder te willen worden.’Prins Carlos respecteerde dat, maar liet ook weten dat geen er familierechtelijke betrekking tussen hem en de pasgeborene bestond en dat ‘het uitgesloten mag worden geacht dat die er zal komen.’. Dat was de basis voor het slechte en gedeukte imago van de prins. Carlos heeft er verder nooit meer over gesproken.
Giesey, Ralph E. “The Juristic Basis of Dynastic Right to the French Throne.” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 51, no. 5, 1961, pp. 3–47. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1005867. Accessed 10 June 2020.
Foto
wikimedia.org, Caramb, Palazzo Ducale Parma. Belichting en contrast van de foto door mij bewerkt.
Carlism (in Spanish: Carlismo) is a Spanish political movement of traditionalist character, formed in the 1820’s by the extremist clerical party that developed in 1827 into the paramilitary Royalist Volunteers. This opposition to liberalism affiliated in the 1830s with the person of Carlos María Isidro de Borbón (1788-1855), count (in Spanish: conde) de Molina, younger brother of King Ferdinand VII (1784-1833). In 1970, the Carlist Party (Spanish: Partido Carlista, Catalan: Partit Carlí, Basque: Karlista Alderdia, Galician: Partido Carlista, Asturian: Partíu Carlista) was formed that considers itself as a successor to the mentioned historical movement of Carlism. The party remained illegal until 1977, when the Spanish CaudilloFrancisco Franco died.
Alfonso XIII, (born May 17, 1886, Madrid, Spain—died February 28, 1941, Rome, Italy). The notorious attempt on his life and that of his bride, Victoria Eugenia of Battenberg, on their wedding day (May 31, 1906) was followed by a constant succession of plots to assassinate him. His great personal courage in the face of these attacks, however, won him considerable admiration. Photo: britannica.com
The mentioned opposition to liberalism was triggered by the birth of the daughter of Ferdinand VII, Isabella, in October 1830. By the ancient law of Castile and Leon, women could rule as monatchs in their own right. However, this right had been abrogated by an act by Philip V in 1713, changing the rules of succession to Salic Law of Succession, which excluded females from the royal succession. This law was implemented to prevent any union of the crowns of Spain and France. Carlists are advocates of the legitimacy of this male line of succession, proclaiming the conde de Molina as the legitimate successor to Ferdinand VII. King Carlos IV (Ferdinand VII’s father) already suggested that the Salic succession law should be altered. The change would consist of giving preference to females of the main descendant line over males of collateral lines. The proposal was accepted and formally adopted as Cortes’ petition to the king, after a 1789 series of debates and decisions, taking place and adopted prior, during and after the Cortes sittings. However, a corresponding law, known as the Pragmatic Sanction, was not published until 1830. Upon her father’s death, Isabella (1830-1904) ruled as Queen of Spain from 1833 until 1868. The First Carlist War (1833–39) broke out almost immediately.
The question to whether the succession law was effectively changed in 1789 turned into a heated juridical, historical and political debate and continued well into the 20th century. Currently, most historians tend to avoid addressing the 1789 series of debates and decisions, taking place and adopted prior, during and after the Cortes sittings. In retrospective, the issue had no historical significance.
In 1833, Ferdinand VII issued the mentioned Pragmatic Sanction to ensure the succession of his daughter. Isabella came to the throne when her father died in the same year. Her succession was unsuccessfully disputed by the count of Molina (her father’s younger brother). Under the regency of her mother, Spain transitioned from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy by adopting the Royal Statute of 1834 and Constitution of 1837. In 1868, during the Glorious Revolution, Isabella II formally abdicated in 1870.
Isabella II’s son, Alfonso XII (1857-1885), became king of Spain in 1874, following a military coup against the First Republic. Alfonso XII reigned from 1874 to 1885. Alfonso XII was succeeded by his unborn son, who became king as Alfonso XIII (1886-1941). On 12 April 1931, the republican parties won a significant victory in the municipal elections, perceived as a plebiscite on monarchy. Alfonso XIII left the country on 14 April 1931 and the Second Spanish Republic was proclaimed. However, he did not formally abdicate and eventually settled in Rome. On 15 January 1941, Alfonso XIII renounced his rights to the defunct Spanish throne in favour of his third son Juan, Count of Barcelona (1913-1993). In 1933, his two eldest sons, Alfonso and Jaime, had already renounced their claims to the defunct throne, and in 1934 Alfonso XIII youngest son Gonzalo died. This left his third son Juan, Count of Barcelona his only male heir. In 1975, the Caudillo Francisco Franco Bahamonde handed over full control as head of state to Juan’s son, Juan Carlos. The Caudillo died three weeks later. Two days after Franco’s death, the Cortes Españolas proclaimed Juan Carlos King of Spain. He is the father of the current King of Spain, Felipe VI.
Current claimant
Prince Carlos of Bourbon-Parma, Duke of Parma and Piacenza, is considered by some a contested pretender to the Carlist claim to the throne of Spain under the name Carlos Javier I. In 2016 Carlos told the Spanish press that, while (like his father in 2005) he “does not abandon” his claim to the throne, it is “not a priority” in his life, and he “will not dispute” [no planteo pleito] the legitimacy of King Felipe VI (“Ser príncipe me ayuda a mejorar el bienestar común“, La Vanguardia. 11 November 2016). These vague statements do not make sense, since the Carlist succession was rejected by the Kingdom of Spain when Isabella II became queen in 1833. She was styled accordingly during her reign:
10 October 1830 – 29 September 1833: Her Royal Highness The Princess of Asturias
29 September 1833 – 25 June 1870: Her Most Catholic Majesty The Queen of Spain
25 June 1870 – 10 April 1904: Her Majesty Queen Isabella II of Spain
In 1837, Spanish legislation produced a constitutional monarchy and a new format of the title was used for Isabel: By the grace of God and the Constitution of the Spanish monarchy, Queen Isabel II of the Spains.
The underage Queen Isabella II was known by a long title that included both extant and extinct titles and claims:
Isabel II by the Grace of God, Queen of Castile, Leon, Aragon, of the Two Sicilies, of Jerusalem, of Navarre, of Granada, of Toledo, of Valencia, of Galicia, of Majorca, of Seville, of Sardinia, of Córdoba, of Corsica, of Murcia, of Menorca, of Jaén, the Algarves, Algeciras, Gibraltar, the Canary Islands, of the East and West Indies, Islands and Mainland of the Ocean Sea; Archduchess of Austria; Duchess of Burgundy, Brabant, Milan; Countess of Habsburg, Flanders, Tirol and Barcelona; Lady of Biscay and Molina.
Monter, E. W. (2012). The rise of female kings in Europe, 1300-1800. New Haven: Yale University Press.
In addition to the semi-claim to the throne of Spain, Wikipedia states that Prince Carlos of Bourbon-Parma (1970) is also the “uncontested traditional claimant to the defunct throne of the Duchy of Parma under the name Carlo V“.
Prince Carlos of Bourbon-Parma, Duke of Parma and Piacenza (born 27 January 1970) is the current head of the House of Bourbon-Parma, as well a member of the Dutch Royal Family. He is the uncontested traditional claimant to the defunct throne of the Duchy of Parma under the name Carlo V (English: Charles V). In addition, he is considered by some a contested pretender to the Carlist claim to the throne of Spain under the name Carlos Javier I (English: Charles Xavier I). In 2016 Carlos told the Spanish press that, while (like his father in 2005) he “does not abandon” his claim to the throne, it is “not a priority” in his life, and he “will not dispute” [no planteo pleito] the legitimacy of King Felipe VI.
In 1814 the Congress of Vienna gave the Duchy of Parma and Piacenza to Napoleon’s consort, Marie-Louise. Upon her death, in 1847, Parma and Piacenza were restored to the Bourbons. Louise of Bourbon-Berry (1819–1864), regent for her infant son Robert (1854-1907), transferred her powers to a provisional government on 9 June 1859. Subsequently, Parma and Piacenza were annexed by Piedmont-Sardinia in March 1860. Piedmont-Sardinia became part of the Kingdom of Italy in 1861, ruled by the Savoy Dynasty.
The Savoy’s estates extended over Aosta, Savoy, Piedmont and other territories of modern-day Italy and France, including Sicily and Sardinia. The Savoys remained Kings of a united Italy until the impact of World War II led to a referendum which in 1946 narrowly established the current Republic of Italy. The last King, Umberto II, died in 1983. His only son, Victor Emmanuel of Savoy, is the present Head of the House of Savoy. In my opinion, he is a legitimate successor to the title ‘Duke of Parma and Piacenza‘, simply by tracing the line of royal succession. Wikipedia’s statement that Carlos of Bourbon-Parma is the “undisputed claimant”, is therefore incorrect.
Conclusions
A legitimate successor to the Carlist claim does not exist, because the claim was rejected in 1833 by the Kingdom of Spain. An alternative successor to the title ‘Duke of Parma and Piacenza‘ is the head of the House Savoy, because Parma became part of the Kingdom of Italy in 1860.
Sources
Monter, E. W. (2012). The rise of female kings in Europe, 1300-1800. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Blinkhorn, Martin (1975). Carlism and Crisis in Spain, 1931–1939, Cambridge University Press.
Longares Alonso, Jesús, Las últimas Cortes del Antiguo Régimen en España (19 septiembre – 5 diciembre [sic!] de 1789), [in:] Estudis: Revista de historia moderna 3 (1974), pp. 113–165.
In history, there have been several Orders of Saint Michael. The most prominant ones are listed hereafter.
Bavarian Brotherhood and Order of Saint Michael
Guido Reni’s Michael (in Santa Maria della Concezione church, Rome, 1636) tramples Satan. A mosaic of the same painting decorates St. Michael’s Altar in St. Peter’s Basilica.
On 8 May 1693, Joseph Clemens, duke of Bavaria, then Archbishop-Elector of Cologne, formed the Bruderschaft des hl. Erzengels und Himmelsfürsten Michael, that still exists today and has about 800 members, mostly in Germany and Austria. On 29 September 1693, Joseph Clemens created the Bavarian Orden zum Heiligen Michael or Königlicher Verdienstorden vom heiligen richael, as a Military order. Initially, the latter was only open to the Catholic nobility. On 16 February 1837, the Order was abolished by king Louis I of Baviaria.
Portuguese Brotherhoods and Orders of Saint Michael
The original Knights of St. Michael’s Wing founded an order in the Cistercian monastery of Alcobaza about 1171, by Alfonzo I, King of Portugal, in commemoration of victory over the Moors, in which, according to tradition, he was assisted by St. Michael in person. The knights were placed under the jurisdiction of Abbot of Alcobaza and were pledged to recite the same prayers as the Cistercian lay brothers. Some authors state that the Order only existed briefly in the 12th century (Alston, George Cyprian “The Benedictine Order”. The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. New York: Robert Appleton Company 1907); some claim it lasted until 1732 (James Anderson. Royal genealogies: or, The genealogical tables of emperors, kings and princes, from Adam to these times; in two parts. London), and some claim it existed until 1910, the year Portugal became a republic (Rodrigues Lima, Carlos [2009-01-09]. “Nuno da Câmara Pereira ganha batalha judicial a D. Duarte”. Diário de Notícias. Archived from the original on 2011-09-28. Retrieved 2011-01-21. Juíza vinca que Portugal é uma República, desvalorizando herança. O Tribunal Cível de Lisboa acaba de dar razão a Nuno da Câmara Pereira num conflito que o opunha a D. Duarte de Bragança, obrigando este último a desistir da denominação Real Ordem de São Miguel de Ala, uma ordem que criou em 2004. (Judge stresses that Portugal is a Republic, and values heritage. The Civil Court of Lisbon had initially ruled in favor of Nuno da Câmara Pereira in a conflict with Dom Duarte de Bragança, forcing the latter to give up the name the Royal Order of Saint Michael of the Wing, an order created in 2004.)
The history of the ancient Order is obscure, but the current Order’s predecessor was revived sometime in the 19th century (Almeida, Gomes Abrunhosa Marques de and Manuel Ângelo (2007), Precedentes histórico-teóricos dos regionalismos dos Açores e da Galiza. Santiago de Compostela: Univ Santiago de Compostela) as a secret society – not as a knighlty order – with political motives, aiming to restore Miguel’s branch of the Bragança family to power in Portugal.
American Royal Brotherhood of Saint Michael of the Archdiocese for Military Services
The Royal Brotherhood of Saint Michael of the Archdiocese for Military Services was canonically erected by Decree of His Excellency Archbishop Timothy Broglio STD (2016), specifically as an Association of the Faithful for active or reserve military personnel. Dedicated to Saint Michael it is headquartered in the Military Archdiocese of the United States Armed Forces. The Commandry is a registered non profit Charity 501 C3. Its activities, fall under the canonical jurisdiction of Royal Brotherhood of the Archdiocese governed by the Canonically confirmed Judge, Col. Stephen Michael Besinaiz. The Royal Brotherhood was canonically erected in 2016 in the Archdiocese for Military Services, and is a Member of the Federation of Royal Brotherhoods of Saint Michael of the Wing. This branch of the Order is affliated with Dom Duarte Pio.
French Order of Saint Michael
The French Order of Saint Michael (French: Ordre de Saint-Michel) was a French chivalric order, founded by Louis XI of France in 1469, in competitive response to the Burgundian Order of the Golden Fleece, that was founded by Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy. As a chivalric order, its goal was to confirm the loyalty of its knights to the king. Originally, there were a limited number of knights, at first thirty-one, then increased to thirty-six including the king. An office of Provost was established in 1476. The Order of St Michael was the highest order in France until it was superseded by the Order of the Holy Spirit.
The Order was abolished by the French authorities in 1830. However, in 1929-1930 Jaime, Duke of Anjou and Madrid, and in 1960 Infante Jaime, Duke of Anjou, Segovia and Madrid, granted membership of the Order to their confidants, thus de facto reviving the Order.
Intellectual Property issues
Nuno da Câmara Pereira ganha vitória em tribunal contra D. Duarte Pio Fadista ganha em tribunal a exclusividade de título da Ordem de São Miguel da Ala. Saiba que outros temas falaram nos ‘Sem Papas na Língua’. https://www.cmjornal.pt. 29 March 2016.
On 4 August 1981, Nuno da Câmara Pereira, José da Câmara Gonçalves, Gonçalo da Câmara Pereira, António de Sousa Lara and João Ferreira Rosa established the association Ordem de São Miguel da Ala by public deed at the Instituto dos Registos e do Notariado, which was recorded in the database of the Institute, the Registo Nacional de Pessoas Colectivas. Nuno da Câmara Pereira is the great grandson of Dom Vasco António de Figueiredo Cabral da Camara, 3rd count of Belmonte. As a monarchist, Nuno da Câmara Pereira disputes the validity of the dynastic claims of the Miguelist Branch of House of Bragança, of which the current pretender is Dom Duarte Pio de Bragança, his distant cousin. Dom Nuno de Figueiredo Cabral da Câmara Pereira, is Marques de Castelo Rodrigo and President of the Council of the Portuguese Nobility and Chancellor of all Knightly Orders of the House of Loulé, the second major claimant to the dynastic rights to the throne of Portugal.
In 2004 Dom Duarte Pio de Bragança registered the association Real Irmandade (=Brotherhood) de São Miguel de Ala. In 2007, Câmara Pereira sued Dom Duarte on charges of breaching the intellectual property rights of his Ordem de São Miguel da Alaand won the case in 2009.
The judge noted that in the current legal-constitutional order, which configures Portugal as a Republic and enshrines the principle of separation between Church and State, it is irrelevant whether the association is a dynastic order, if the use of the insignia is exclusive to the putative heir of the royal house (which is not recognized in the legal order of the Republic), or if it was canonically erected. Despite the historical arguments put forward by the Dom Duarte, the judge determined the problem as “purely legal”. In this respect, the simple apposition of the word ‘Real’ (royal) before the name already used by the association “Ordem de São Miguel da Ala” is not enough to achieve an effective and objective differentiation between the two associations. In 2011, Dom Duarte, saw 17 of his properties seized as well as a bank account worth more than 260 thousand Euros, as a result of a judicial execution.
Dom Duarte appealed and on 1 October 2015, the Portuguese Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Supreme Court of Justice) finally condemned Dom Duarte, forbidding him to use the name and insignia of the “Ordem de São Miguel da Ala“, forcing him to indemnify the rightful holders and preventing him from even requesting a new appeal in the face of that process. However, the case was turned upside down when on 3 November 2015 Nuno da Câmara Pereira’s intellectual property rights to use the symbols expired. Subsequently, on 7 December 2016 Dom Duarte regained the intellectual property rights to use the insignia. Although followers of Dom Duarte, often mention that the legal procedures show that Dom Duarte is the dynastic successor to the historical Order of Saint Michael of the Wing, the matter was a legal one and solely a matter of intellectual property law.
As I understand, the revived Order currently has an upgraded legal structure (a federation of brotherhoods). It is not so much as a dynastic award of the House of Bragança anymore. However, the Order is still operating under the patronage of the House of Bragança. Many members of the Order today are Americans and citizens of the British Commonwealth.
Current holder of the intellectual property rights
The European Union Intellectual Property Office shows the IP registration for the word combination “QUIS UT DEUS” and the accompanying graphic representation in the name of “Duarte Pio De Bragança, Rua do Campo, 4, San Pedro P-2710, Sintra, Portugal” since 7 November 2016. This registration (nr. 016009748) also shows that the registered trade mark has been published for opposition, at which time one or more challenges to registration were filed but they have not yet been decided. On 23 March 2020 the case was still pending before the Board of the Office. The representative of the opposition is Mr António José Caeiro da Mota Veiga (b. Lisbon, 8 June 1951), a lawyer, who married in Sintra on 31 October 1974 to Maria José Trigueiros de Aragão Acciaioli de Avilez (b. Lisbon, Santa Maria de Belém, 21 June 1954), youngest of the only three daughters of José Maria de Avilez Juzarte de Sousa Tavares (Lisbon, 14 August 1926 -), 7th Count of Avilez, Representative of Viscount of Torre do Terrenho, of the Viscounts of Reguengo, and his wife (m. Castelo Branco, Alcains, 28 September 1947) Ana Maria de Portugal Lobo Trigueiros de Aragão (Fundão, Aldeia de Joanes, 16 August 1923-), of the Counts ofIdanha-a-Nova and Viscounts of o Outeiro.
Conclusions
Under Portuguese law, the dynastic rights to the ancient Brotherhoods and Orders of Saint Michael of the Wing are not recognised. There is a tradition of affiliation between the House of Bragança and the Brotherhood/Order, but the headship of the House is disputed. The jurisprudence in this case shows that the intellectual property rights regarding the insignia of the Order are irrelevant to the question of whom the legal successor is to the dynastic rights regarding the Order. Simply, because Portuguese law is not interested in the historical aspects, but judges the matter in terms of IP-rights only. The holder of the IP rights to the insignia can be anyone. It is only a matter of who registered the IP-rights first (or forgot to reregister them).
In my opinion, (knightly) orders or brotherhoods should not be subject to costly legal battles. Historical evidence should be the key to the question if an order or brotherhood has historical substance. An example of a total escalation is the long-running intellectual property dispute between two knightly orders: the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta on the one hand, and the Florida Priory of the Knights Hospitallers of the Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, Knights of Malta, the Ecumenical Order on the other hand.
SMOM alleged that The Florida Priory had infringed on five of its registered trademarks including its cross and shield imagery. The organization also alleged that The Florida Priory engaged in false advertising by claiming a historical background that belongs to the SMOM.
“The parties present themselves as Christian charities. The Court struggles with the parties’ characterizing themselves in that manner, however. The amounts of money each party has raised for charitable purposes are unimpressive, which leads the Court to believe that the members of both [the Sovereign Order] and the [Florida Priory] are more interested in dressing up in costumes, conferring titles on each other and playing in a “weird world of princes and knights” than in performing charitable acts.”
The Michael of the Wing-dispute has similar characteristics, but the Duke de Bragança is not to blame.
Alessandro Cont, La Chiesa dei principi. Le relazioni tra Reichskirche, dinastie sovrane tedesche e stati italiani (1688-1763), preface of Elisabeth Garms-Cornides, Trento, Provincia autonoma di Trento, 2018, pp. 19-55)
Hubert Glaser (Hrsg.): Kurfürst Max Emanuel. Bd. 1, Zur Geschichte und Kunstgeschichte der Max-Emanuel-Zeit. München 1976, ISBN 3-7774-2790-X; Bd. 2: Katalog der Ausstellung im Alten und Neuen Schloss Schleissheiml. München 1976, ISBN 3-7774-2800-0.
Thea Christians (Redaktion), Friedrich Fahr (Beitrag), Siegmund Benker, Quis ut Deus. 300 Jahre Erzbruderschaft St. Michael, Berg am Laim, München, 1693 – 1993 (= Diözesanmuseum Freising, Kataloge und Schriften, Band 13), Freising 1994. ISBN 978-3-930618-00-2.
In December 1653, Oliver Cromwell (25 April 1599 – 3 September 1658) was appointed ‘Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland, and the dominions thereto belonging’, with powers akin to those of a monarch. Cromwell was an English general and statesman who led the Parliament of England’s armies against King Charles I during the English Civil War and ruled the British Isles as Lord Protector from 1653 until his death in 1658. He acted simultaneously as head of state and head of government of the new republican commonwealth. After the Protectorate collapsed, Charles II, the eldest surviving child of Charles I of England, Scotland and Ireland and Henrietta Maria of France had very wide support for his taking of the throne in 1660. He was king of Scotland from 1649 until his deposition in 1651 and king of England, Scotland and Ireland from the 1660 Restoration of the monarchy until his death in 1685. Charles’s wife, Catherine of Braganza, bore no live children, but Charles acknowledged at least twelve illegitimate children by various mistresses. He was succeeded by his brother James II with widespread support in England, Ireland and Scotland, largely based on the principle of divine right or birth. James was not a supporter of religious tolerance, as his time in France had exposed him to the beliefs and ceremonies of the Roman Catholic Church. He and his wife Anne became drawn to the Roman Catholic faith.
In June 1688, two events triggered a constitutional crisis. First, in April 1688, James re-issued the ‘Declaration of Indulgence’ and subsequently ordered Anglican clergy to read it in their churches. William Sancroft, the archbishop of Canterbury, and six other bishops petitioned him against this and were prosecuted for seditious libel. In reaction, they were arrested and tried for seditious libel. Secondly, their acquittal almost coincided with the birth of a son, James Francis Edward, on 10 June 1688, to James’s Roman Catholic queen, Mary of Modena. Because James’s only possible successors were his two Protestant daughters, the English establishment could see his pro-Catholic policies as a temporary phenomenon. The birth, however, of his son James Francis Edward promised an indefinite continuance of his policy and brought wide discontent. Several influential Protestants had already entered into negotiations with the Protestant Stadholder William III of Orange when it became known the Queen was pregnant. In the same year, seven eminent Englishmen, including one bishop and six prominent politicians of both Whig and Tory persuasions, wrote to the Protestant Stadholder (Dutch: Stadhouder) William III of Orange, inviting him to come over with an army to redress the nation’s grievances and to help expel James II.
William was both James’s nephew and his son-in-law, and, until the birth of James’s son, William’s wife, Mary, was heir apparent. William’s chief concern was to check the overgrowth of French power in Europe. Between 1679 and 1684, England’s impotence and the emperor Leopold I’s preoccupation with a Turkish advance to Vienna had allowed Louis XIV to seize Luxembourg, Strasbourg, Casale Monferrato, and other places vital to the defense of the Spanish Netherlands, the German Rhineland, and northern Italy. By 1688, however, a great European coalition had begun to form to call for a halt to aggressions. Its prospects depended partly upon England. Thus, having been in close touch with the leading English malcontents for more than a year, William accepted their invitation. Landing at Brixham on Tor Bay (November 5 1688), he advanced slowly on London as support fell away from James II. James’s daughter Anne and his best general, John Churchill, were among the deserters to William’s camp. Thereupon, James fled to France (source: Britanica.com).
After his successful invasion, William and his wife, Mary Stuart, were crowned king and queen King of England, Ireland and Scotland. William III was sovereign Prince of Orange from birth, Stadtholder of Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Gelderland and Overijssel in the Dutch Republic from the 1670s and King of England, Ireland and Scotland from 1689 until his death in 1702. In his capacity of King of Scotland, he is known as William II and is informally also known as “King Billy” in Northern Ireland and Scotland. For the next half century, James II and his son James Francis Edward Stuart and grandson Charles Edward Stuart claimed that they were the true Stuart kings, but they were in exile, and attempts to return with French aid were defeated.
Granting of titles
The following is an examination of three cases: the ennoblement by William III of William Bentinck, of Arnold van Keppel, of and of Alexander Hume. Described below are the similarities and differences among the three cases and an analysis of the questions that arise in the line of succession of the awarded titles.
Earl of Portland
The title ‘Earl of Portland’ was created for a second time in 1689 in favour of Hans William Bentinck (20 July 1649, in Diepenheim, Overijssel – 23 November 1709, in Bulstrode Park, Buckinghamshire), the Dutch favorite and close advisor of King William III. He made Bentinck Groom of the Stole, first gentleman of the bedchamber, and a Privy Counsellor. In April 1689 Bentinck was created Baron Cirencester, Viscount Woodstock and, in its second creation, Earl of Portland. The first creation of the earldom had been made for Richard Weston in 1633, but it became extinct in 1688. On the death of Bentinck, his eldest son Henry or Hendrik in Dutch (1680-1724) succeeded as second earl. He was created marquess of Titchfield and duke of Portland in 1716.
Hans Willem Bentinck (1649 – 1709), 1st earl of Portland, created 1689
Henry Bentinck (1682 – 1726), 2nd earl and 1st duke of Portland
William Bentinck (1709 – 1762), 2nd suke and 3rd earl of Portland
Arnold van Keppel (baptized Zutphen 30 January 1670 – The Hague 30 May 1718), 1st Earl of Albemarle, became Groom of the Bedchamber and Master of the Robes in 1695. In 1696, he was created the Viscount Bury in Lancashire, and the Baron Ashford of Ashford, Kent. On 10 February 1697, William made Van Keppel the Earl of Albemarle. In 1699, he was awarded the command of the First Life Guards. After the death of William III, who bequeathed to him ƒ 200,000 and the lordship of Bredevoort, Albemarle returned to The Netherlands, took his seat as a noble in the States-General, and became a general of cavalry in the Dutch army.
1. heir apparent: Augustus Sergei Darius Keppel, Viscount Bury (2003-)
Earl of Dunbar
Sir Alexander Home of Manderston.
1. George Home, 1st Earl of Dunbar (ca. 1556 – 20 January 1611) died without male issue. In the last decade of his life, George Home, KG, PC was the most prominent and most influential Scotsman in England. He was knighted on 4 November 1590, and known as “Sir George Home of Primrose Knowe”, then in 1593, “Sir George Home of Spot” (Spott is a village in East Lothian). Upon James’s accession as James I of England in 1603, Home accompanied his sovereign to Westminster, where he became Chancellor of the Exchequer (and ex officio the Second Lord of the Treasury) from 1603 to 1606. In 1603 he was also appointed to the Privy Council of England, and on 1 June of that year, he received a grant as Keeper of the Great Wardrobe for life. On 7 July 1604, he was created Baron Hume of Berwick in the Peerage of England. In 1605 he was appointed a Knight of the Garter, and on 3 July was created Earl of Dunbar in the Peerage of Scotland.
2. John Home, de jure 2nd Earl of Dunbar (a 1628), brother of 1st Earl, according to the Lord Advocate in 1634, he “conceiving his fortune too mean, forebore to assume the dignity.” He died without male issue.
George Home, de jure 3rd Earl of Dunbar (a 1637), son of Alexander Home of Manderston and nephew of 1st Earl, certified his claim in 1634 by the same Lord Advocate.
Alexander Home, de jure 4th Earl of Dunbar (d 1675), son of 3rd Earl, is said to have been confirmed in title by Charles II in 1651, but does not appear in The Great Seal of Scotland and died without male issue.
Creation by William III
Alexander Hume, of Manderstone, de jure 5th Earl of Dunbar (b. 1651, d. 4 Jan. 1720 Aurich, Germany), nephew of 4th Earl. Capt. of a troop of horse in the service of the States of Holland, later Geheimrat in Aurich, Germany. To him 14 Oct. 1689, William III, King of England, Ireland and Scotland confirmed the Earldom of Dunbar exemplifying the previous confirmation thereof by Charles II. It is not known if Alexander Hume styled himself “Earl of Dunbar” in Germany, where he and his descendants rather are known as Grafen (Counts) Hume of Manderstone. He married the daughter of Leonard Fewen, General Steward of Emden, who inherited the manor house and estate of Stikelkamp at Hesel, East Frisia. His son – Leonard Hume (1684-1741), de jure 6th Earl of Dunbar – inherited the estate in Stikelkamp from his father. Leonard married Gesina Bruncken (1701-1763). A son of Leonard – Heero Andries Hume – was de jure the 7th Earl of Dunbar (b. 1738 in Norden). Leonard’s daughter Helena Hume of Manderstone (1722-1784) inherited the estate of Stikelkamp; she married Bebäus Scato Kettwig; their daughter Isabella (1742-1797) married Eger Carl Christian Lantzius-Beninga (1744-1798); the Lantzius-Beninga family owned the Stikelkamp estate untl 1971, when it was purchased by the Landkreis Leer. Note: No claimant has progressed his claim before the House of Lords Committee for Privileges to a satisfactory conclusion. This Committee was – until the Dissolution of Parliament on 12 April 2010 – the only body which was authorised to decide whether or not a claimant may be confirmed in the title. The Lord Advocate of Scotland, for instance, has no authority in these matters, especially in the 17th century, given the corruption and nepotism rampant at that time. The usual way to establish the right to inherit a title is to apply for a Writ of Summons to attend Parliament (a procedure that will have to be reviewed in the light of new legislation abolishing the hereditary parliamentary rights of peers). Then the Committee for Privileges examines the validity of the documentation supporting the line of descent of the claimant and his relationship to the previous holder of the peerage title. Source: Wikipedia.
G.E.C., Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and The United Kingdom, extant, extinct or dormant., Vol. III (D to F), London (1890):
“XII. GEORGE HOWME, Knt., High Treasurer of Scotlandwas on 7 July 1604, Cto II BARON HUME (Howme), OF BERWICK ” [S.], with rem. to his heirs for ever.(a) Shortly afterwards he was as ” Lord Home of Berwick in England ” [sio but query] by patent dat. at Windsor,3 July 1605, cr. EARL OF DUNBAR [S.], with rem. to his heirs male.(b) He was 4th and yet. s. of Alexander HOME, or HUME, of Manderston, co. Berwick, by Janet, da. of George HOME, or HUME, of Spot; was a Gent. of the Bedchamber to King James VI [S.], in 1585, by whom he was Knighted, in 1590 ; Master of the Wardrobe, 1590, and High Treasurer [S.], 5 Sep. 1601. Attending the King into England, he was made P.C., in 1603, and in the next year cr. a Peer as above stated. Chancellor of the Exchequer [S.] ; High Commissioner to the general essembly [S.], 1606.10, being employed by the King for the restoration of episcopacy in Scotland; el. KG. 23 April and inst. 18 May 1608. He m.. Catharine, da. of Sir Alexander GORDON, of Gight, by Mary, da. of Cardinal David BETOUN, Archbishop of St. Andrew’s [8.] He d. s.p.m. at Whitehall somewhat suddenly 29 Jany. 1611/2, since which time hia honours have remained dormant.He was bur. at Dunbar. M.I. The right to the Earldom of Dunbar, tho´ unquastionably still remaining has never been fully recoginised since the death of the grantee of 1605. It appears to be as under. XIII. JOHN (HOME), EARL OF DUNBAR [8.1, next elder br. and (more Scotico) heir, being 3d s. of his father abovenamed. He d. s.p. 1614. XIV. 1614. DAVID HOME living 1571 (but who apparently d. s.p.) was the next eldest br. while ALEXANDER HOME, of Manderston, was the elder br. of the 1st Earl, but whether either of these were alive in 1614 is unknown. Sir GEORGE HOME, of Manderston, only s. and h. of the latter was living in 1631, and one of these three must, apparently, from 1614 have been de jure EARL OF DUNBAR. On 6 Aug. 1634, the Lord Advocate [S.] certified to the King that that dignity ” lawfully descended ´to the above’ named Sir George Home, the collateral male heir, and failing him that it would devolve upon Sir Alexander Home, then at the Hague. The said George d. before 1651. XV1651 SIR .ALEXANDER HOME heir male (probably s. and h. of the(b) above); sometime in the service of the Princess of Orange at Hague. To him on 6 May 1651, Charles II. confirmed the Earldom of Dunbar. He d. s.p.m. before 1689. XVI. 1689 ALEXANDER HOME, of Manderston afsd., Capt. of a troop of horse in the service of the 8tates of Holland, nephew and h. male of the above. To him 14 Oct. 1689, King William III. confirmed the Earldom of Dunbar exemplifying the previous confirmation thereof by Charles II. The family is said to have resided in Holland and to have there become ea;tinct in the male line during the 17th century.“.
Conclusions
In the case of Keppel and Bentinck, the succession to the peerage was confirmed by the subsequent heads of state of the United Kingdom:
The Peerage of England — titles created by the Kings and Queens of England before the Act of Union in 1707; The Peerage of Scotland — titles created by the Kings and Queens of Scotland before 1707.
The Peerage of Great Britain — titles created for the Kingdom of Great Britain between 1707 and 1801.
Coat of arms Sir George Home, 1st Earl of Dunbar, KG. Artwork by R. S. Nourse on WikiCommons.
In the case of Hume, the succession to the title is not confirmed. The genealogical lines from the creation by William III to the current descendants is clear, however no state recognition, by incorporating the title to Peerage of the United Kingdom, has been granted. As the original title was created by the House of Stuart, it could be said that the current head of the House still has the fons honorum to recognize the title dynastically as an alternative to recognition by the United Kingdom.
After the Battle of Culloden, the Jacobite army of Charles Edward Stuart was decisively defeated by a British government force under William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, on Drummossie Moor near Inverness in the Scottish Highlands. The House of Stuart lost its position as a dynastic alternative to the Hanoverians. The movement of the supporters of the House of Stuart called ‘Jacobitism’ went into a rapid decline, and in 1788, with the death of Charles, the ‘Young Pretender’, the Jacobite succession lost its political importance. His younger brother, Henry, Cardinal of York, died in 1807, and the male line of the House of Stuart thereby became extinct. According to the Royal Stuart Society, the claim to the Headship of the House of Stuart takes its descent from Henrietta-Anne (1644-1670), daughter of King Charles I, and her husband Philippe, Duke of Orléans. It was inherited by their heirs, the House of Savoy. Marriages of the subsequent heirs then saw it pass to the House of Modena-Este and later to the House of Wittelsbach (Bavaria), with whom it rests today, and the Head of which is Franz Bonaventura Adalbert Maria Herzog von Bayern:
House of Savoy (Sardinia)
Charles IV
1807-1819
Victor
1819-1824
Mary II*
1824-1840
House of Este (Modena)
Francis I
1840-1875
Mary III
1875-1919
House of Wittelsbach (Bavaria)
Robert I and IV
1919-1955
Albert
1955-1996
Francis II
1996-
According to the Society, the elder daughter of King James II and VII, who was married to William III and styled herself Mary II, was not part of the de jure succession, with her father and brother being alive at the time. I do not quite agree with this statement, as Duke Franz has declined such a claim. It is therefore perfectly legitimate for other successors to come forward. The most senior living member of the House of Stewart, descending in a legitimate male line from Robert II of Scotland, is Arthur Stuart, 8th Earl Castle Stewart, who does not pursue a claim either.
An even more obvious authority who could recognize the use of the title Earl of Dunbar would be the successor of William III, since he was the most recent monarch to create the title. However, in 1702, the first House of Orange-Nassau became extinct with the death of William III. John William Friso, Prince of Nassau-Dietz, inherited part of the possessions and the title “Prince of Orange” from his cousin, William III. From then on, the rulers used the title Fürst von Nassau-Oranien in Germany and the title Prins van Oranje-Nassau (English: Prince of Orange-Nassau) in The Netherlands. When the branches of Nassau-Dillenburg and Nassau-Siegen died out in 1739 and 1743, all Nassau areas of the Ottonian Line were reunited and inherited by the branch of Orange-Nassau. The Prince of Orange-Nassau from then on had two seats in the Council of Princes of the Reichstag: Hadamar-Nassau and Nassau-Dillenburg. On 31 May 1815, Prince William VI of Orange-Nassau signed a treaty at the Congress of Vienna with his Prussian brother-in-law and first cousin, King Frederick William III. The treaty ceded the Principality of Orange-Nassau to the Kingdom of Prussia in exchange for Luxembourg which was elevated to a Grand Duchy. On the same day, the Prussian King gave most of the principality to the Duchy of Nassau (thereby uniting the areas of the Ottonian Line and the Walram Line of the House of Nassau). Only Siegen remained with Prussia. Thus, naming a single successor to the dynastic rights of William III is difficult, or even impossible. Rival claims to the title ‘Prince of Orange’ have been made by German emperors and kings of the House of Hohenzollern.
Another claimant to the title “Prince of Orange” is the head of the French noble family of Mailly. In 1673, Louis XIV bestowed the titular princedom on Louis Charles de Mailly, Marquis de Nesle, whose wife was a direct descendant, and heiress-general by primogeniture, of the original princes of Orange. After the marquis (who died in 1713), the next holder was Louis of Mailly-Nesle, marquis de Nesle (1689–1764). Although no longer descended from Louis-Charles, a branch of the Mailly family still claims the title today.
Therefore, the current claimants to the title “Prince of Orange” are: Princess Catharina-Amalia of the Netherlands (Amsberg), Georg Friedrich Prince of Prussia and/or Philip Kirill Prince of Prussia (Hohenzollern), and Guy de Mailly, Marquis de Mailly-Nesle (Mailly). In my opinion, all three have some dynastic authority to recognise the title “Earl of Dunbar” as confirmed by William III. This authority is based on dynastic succession. In addition, the Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms has the authority in her capacity of legal successor of William III. This authority is based on constitutional law. However, there is no single person who has the undisputed authority to recognise the title and therefore it is likely that it will remain a dynastic title of courtesy.
Cokayne, G.E.; with Vicary Gibbs, H.A. Doubleday, Geoffrey H. White, Duncan Warrand and Lord Howard de Walden, editors, The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant, new ed., 13 volumes in 14 (1910-1959; reprint in 6 volumes, Gloucester, U.K.: Alan Sutton Publishing, 2000), volume IV, page 511. Hereinafter cited as The Complete Peerage.
Cokayne, and others, The Complete Peerage, volume IV, page 510.
Cokayne, and others, The Complete Peerage, volume I, page 330.
Charles Mosley, editor, Burke’s Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage, 107th edition, 3 volumes (Wilmington, Delaware, U.S.A.: Burke’s Peerage (Genealogical Books) Ltd, 2003), volume 2, page 1949. Hereinafter cited as Burke’s Peerage and Baronetage, 107th edition. 2. Charles Mosley, Burke’s Peerage and Baronetage, 107th edition, volume 2, page 1951.
Koninklijk Nederlandsch Genootschap voor Geslacht- en Wapenkunde, De Nederlandsche Leeuw, Jg. 37 ( 1919), column 329.
Arbeitsgruppe Familienkunde und Heraldik, Ostfriesischen Landschaft .”Quellen und Forschungen zur Ostfriesischen Familien- und Wappenkunde, 13. Jahrgang (1964) Heft 3, Seite 26.
Herquet, Karl, Miscellen zur Geschichte Ostfrieslands, Norden 1883, S. 97, Anm. 1.
König, Joseph, Verwaltungsgeschichte Ostfrieslands bis zum Aussterben seines Fürstenhauses (Veröffentlichungen der nieders. Archivverwaltung, 2), Göttingen 1955.
Weßels, Paul, Hesel: wüste Fläche, dürre Wildnis und magere Heideplanzen, Weener 1998, S. 101; Weßels, Paul, Gut Stikelkamp, Aurich 2002, S. 128. Ostfriesische Landschaft, Biographisches Lexikon fuer Ostfriesland, 177938/622/23814.
The Right Honourable The Lord Rees-Mogg Kt. William Rees-Mogg, father of politician Jacob Rees-Mogg, was a British newspaper journalist who was Editor of The Times from 1967 to 1981. In the late 1970’s he served as High Sheriff of Somerset, and in the 1980s he was Chairman of the Arts Council of Great Britain and Vice-Chairman of the BBC’s Board of Governors. In 1988, William Rees-Mogg was made a life peer as Baron Rees-Mogg, of Hinton Blewett in the County of Avon. Photo: National Portrait Gallery London.
British politician Jacob Rees-Mogg has marked his arrival as a senior minister in Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government by issuing a detailed style edict (see appendix) for his departmental staff. Under the new rules, “untitled” men are to be described in writing as “Esquire” rather than “Mr.” In this respect, it is interesting to see who in Britain is entitled to the suffix of “Esq.” from both a modern and historical perspective.
Historically, the term “Esquire” has an exclusive bearing. An esquire (Latin: scutarius; shield-bearer) originally was a personal attendant to a knight. Over time, the title evolved into that of an apprentice knight and later into a lord of a manor. With the rise of the use of the term “Gentleman” as a rank, it became increasingly difficult to know where the lower limit should be drawn. Traditionally, Esquire ranked socially above Gentleman but below Knight.
In the post-medieval world, the title of ¨Esquire” came to be attributed to all men of the higher landed gentry. Sir John Fearn, in his Glory of Generositie of 1586, referred to four sorts of esquires; by creation, birth, dignity, and office. He commented that this title “is no less abused and profaned” than that of Gentleman, and that,
the degree of esquire is through custom tolerated to many other sorts of gentlemen, but they all, or most of them, are…in function of some offices of justice or government in the King’s palace, as…annexed to the dignities of judges and barons of the benches and courts of justice; to the advocates and procurators of the sovereign; to the degree of sergeants at the coif; to the office of sheriff, escheator, and serjeant at arms; to the eldest born of a baron and peer of the realm or of a knight, besides many others. But that the same should descend from the father to the son, as the state of gentry doth, is mere fabulous. For the title of esquire of common right doth appertain to none, except that by creation he receives the same at the sovereign’s hand, or else through the bearing of such an office as a dignity anent to the same, or else by right of birth as in cases aforesaid, and that through custom.
In the 16th century, esquires and gentlemen were not precisely defeined – the esquires ranked above gentlemen as sons of knightly families or as Justices of the Peace – but all had achieved a certain position. For those who held such positions, the Heralds of the College of Arms could issue a coat of arms for a certain fee (Corfield, p. 7).
In the 18th century, bankers, dealers, and other more modest tradesmen also started styling themselves as „Mr‟ or, more powerfully, as „Gent.‟ or „Esquire‟. For example, there were individual vintners, brewers, tanners, theatre-managers, and dancing-masters who used this title (Corfield, p. 13). Three members of the Horrocks manufacturing dynasty were designated in literature as „gent.‟ or „Esq.‟, while their cotton-spinning business was simultaneously entered under „tradesmen‟. In the Maidstone directory, the Scudamore solicitors were listed twice, both as „gentry‟ and as „attorneys‟ (Corfield, p. 36), as well as in other legal documents concerning the transfer of property (e.g. National Archives, X668/90). The monumental inscriptions, including wills (pre 1858) and other notes of the Holy Trinity Church in Maidstone dated 7 May 1856 concerning the family, do not mention „Gent.‟ or „Esquire‟.
In 1848, Burke published an article in The Patrician, that addresses the question “who is a gentleman, and who an esquire?“.
In conclusion, for the sake of clearness, we recapitulate in a tabular form, the different classes to whom the title of Esquire belongs. ESQUIRES ARE:
The sons of all the peers and lords of parliament in the lives of – their fathers; the younger sons of peers after the death of their fathers; the eldest sons of the younger sons of peers, and their eldest sons in per petual succession.
Noblemen of other nations.
The eldest (and we think, if any, all the) sons of baronets, and the eldest sons of knights.
Esquires created expressly with a collar of SS, and spurs of silver, now obsolete.
Persons to whom the Queen gives arms by her own letters patent, with the title Esquire.
Esquires of the Bath , and the eldest sons of those Esquires pursuant to the statutes of the order.
Barristers-at- law, by their office or profession.
Justices of the peace, and mayors, while in the commission, or in office.
Persons chosen Esquires to the body of the Prince, now obsolete.
Persons attending on the Sovereign ’s coronation in some notable employment, or persons employed in any superior office of trust under the Crown, or serving in some place of better note in the Queen ‘ s household.
Persons who are styled Esquires by the Queen in their patents, commissions, or appointments, such as sheriffs of counties, captains in the army and navy.
Attorneys in colonies, where the departments of counsel and attor ney are united.
Based on these observations and on other literature (e.g. Stephen Friar, Heraldry, History Handbooks. The History Press. 1996, p. 37) the entitlement to the suffix of “Esquire” included the following persons:
Category A: Esquires by birth
The eldest sons of knights and their eldest sons in perpetual succession;
The eldest sons of younger sons of peers and their eldest sons in perpetual succession;
The Eldest sons of esquires created by letters patent or other investiture, and their eldest sons;
Foreign noblemen.
In this context, the term is used to pay an informal compliment to a male recipient by way of implying noble birth.
Category B: Esquires other than by birth
Lords of the Manor;
Esquires created by letters patent or other investiture;
Esquires by virtue of their offices: as the heralds and serjeants at arms and some others, who are constituted esquires by receiving a Collar of Esses; Judges and other officers of state, justices of the peace, and the higher naval and military officers who are designated esquires in their patents or commissions; Doctors in the several faculties and barristers at law.
None of these offices or degrees convey gentility to the posterity of their holders.
Conclusions
There are protocols for identifying those to whom the suffix should properly be given, especially in very formal or official circumstances. However, no fixed criteria distinguishing those designated “Esquire” exist. They differ over time and have the character of customary law. A number of authorities have tried to create criteria, but none of these are entirely correct or complete. The use of the term “Esquire” essentially remains a matter of impression as to whether a person qualifies for this status. For example, British men have ‘Esq.’ after their names whereas all men from overseas are called ‘Mr.’ on the envelope containing an invitation to Buckingham Palace. The same counts for letters sent to employees of the Royal Household. This protocol does not convey gentility. It is different when the suffix is used in official diplomas issued under the auspices of HM the Queen. In such cases, the suffix implies noble birth (category A, above).
The context of the use is therefore crucial to establishing the meaning of the suffix and determining whether the suffix is correctly used or not. The same is true for the prefix “Sir.” This prefix is used for men titled Knights, i.e., of orders of chivalry, to baronets and other offices. Since the Late Modern era, “Sir” has been increasingly used also as a respectful way to address any commoners of a superior social status or military rank.
Therefore, the specific context can be linguistic, involving the linguistic environment of the suffix “Esquire”, as well as situational, involving extra linguistic elements that contribute to the construction of the meaning of the suffix.
Coke, E. (1642). The second part of the Institutes of the lawes of England: containing the exposition of many ancient, and other statutes: whereof you may see the particulars in a table following. London: Printed by M. Flesher, and R. Young, for E.D., R.M., W.L., and D.P.
Dod, C. R. (1992). A manual of dignities, privilege, and precedence: including lists of the great public functionaries, from the revolution to the present time. By Charles R. Dodd. London: Whittaker and Co. Ave Maria Lane.
Gough, H., & Parker, J. (1966). A Glossary of terms used in heraldry …: New edition … Henry Gough and James Parker. Detroit: Mich., Gale research Company.
Young, J. H. (1883). Our deportment or The manners, conduct and dress of the most refined society: Incl. forms for letters, invitations, etc., etc. Also, valuable suggestions on home culture and training. Comp. from the latest reliable authorities. Detroit, MI: Dickerson.
Blackstone, W., Coleridge, J. T., Strahan, A., Cadell, T., & Butterworth, J. (1825). Commentaries on the laws of England. London: Printed by A Strahan, for T. Cadell.
Appendix 1: Use of the suffix of “Esquire” by the Dutch in the East Indies (currently Indonesia) during the British period
Regerings-Almanak Nederlandsch-Indië of 1815, p. 39 (during the British period). From 1811 to 1816, Sir Thomas Stamford Bingley Raffles, FRS (5 July 1781 – 5 July 1826) was Lieutenant-Governor of the Dutch East Indies.
Appendix 2: full text of Jacob Rees-Mogg’s writing style document
RULES FOR UNDERLINGS.
To combat a shocking decline in standards, all but myself must obey the following rules. I shall not be bound by them, as evidenced in my recent excellently-written, well-received and best selling book, ‘Eminent Victorian’s’.
Do not use the Metric System. Or any other French invention, including pasteurisation, mayonnaise or aspirin. Use good, honest British alternatives or, better still, do without. Show some pluck!
Do not use decimal currency. Pounds, shillings and pence will suffice, but florins and groats for preference.
Terms of address. Untitled men are ‘Esquire’, after the totally most excellent example set by our colonial cousin Mr. Bill S. Preston, Esq, of California.
Unmarried women are ‘spinster of the parish’. Correspondence to married women should be addressed to their husband.
Use multiple spaces after a full stop. The more white space you can leave the better, in order to camouflage the lack of meaningful content.
FACT-CHECK YOUR WORK. If you find any, remove them immediately.
Certain words and phrases are strictly forbidden in communications, including
’I understand your concerns’ – I have never understood anyone’s concerns and I do not propose to start now.
’Get’, as in ‘Can I get a coffee?’ – I would immediately sack any member of the cast of Friends, and I will do the same to you if you speak like them.
’Friends’ – I watched it once. Awful moving daguerreotype ‘programme’. Do not mention it.
’Hopefully’ – There shall be no hope during my tenure.
’Unacceptable’ – Nothing is forbidden, everything is acceptable. This applies only to the actions of the Prime Minister.
’Equal’ – Equality has no place in our administration.
’Disappointment’ – this will go without saying.
‘Flaps’ – Can people please stop saying this to me? I do not understand it but makes me feel funny.
ESQUIRE (O. Fr. escuyer, Mod. Fr. écuyer, derived through the form escudier from Med. Lat. scutarius, “shield-bearer”), originally the attendant on a knight, whose helm, shield and lance he carried at the tournament or in the field of battle. The esquire ranked immediately below the knight bachelor, and his office was regarded as the apprentice stage of knighthood. The title was regarded as one of function, not of birth, and was not hereditary. In time, however, its original significance was lost sight of, and it came to be a title of honour, implying a rank between that of knight and valet or gentleman, as it technically still remains. Thus in the later middle ages esquire (armiger) was the customary description of holders of knight’s fees who had not taken up their knighthood, whence the surviving custom of entitling the principal landowner in a parish “the squire” (see Squire). Camden, at the close of the 16th century, distinguished four classes entitled to bear the style: (1) The eldest sons of knights, and their eldest sons, in perpetual succession; (2) the eldest sons of the younger sons of peers, and their eldest sons, in like perpetual succession; (3) esquires created by royal letters patent or other investiture, and their eldest sons; (4) esquires by office, e.g. justices of the peace and others who bear any office of trust under the crown. To these the writer in the 3rd edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1797) added Irish peers and the eldest sons of British peers, who, though they bear courtesy titles, have in law only the right to be styled esquires. Officers of the king’s courts, and of the royal household, counsellors at law and justices of the peace he described as esquires only “by reputation”; and justices of the peace have the title only as long as they are in commission; while certain heads of great landed families are styled “esquires” by prescription. “But the meaner ranks of people,” he adds indignantly, “who know no better, do often basely prostitute this title; and, to the great confusion of all rank and precedence, every man who makes a decent appearance, far from thinking himself in any way ridiculed by finding the superscription of his letters thus decorated, is fully gratified by such an address.”
It is clear, however, that the title of esquire was very loosely used at a much earlier date. On this point Selden is somewhat scornfully explicit. “To whomsoever, either by blood, place in the State or other eminency, we conceive some higher attribute should be given, than that sole Title of Gentleman, knowing yet that he hath no other honorary title legally fixed upon him, we usually style him an Esquire, in such passages as require legally that his degree or state be mentioned; as especially in Indictments and Actions whereupon he may be outlawed. Those of other nations who are Barons or great Lords in their own Countries, and no knights, are in legal proceedings stiled with us, Esquires only. Some of our greatest Heralds have their divisions of Esquires applied to this day. I leave them as I see them, where they may easily be found.” Coke, too, says that every one is entitled to be termed esquire who has the legal right to call himself a gentleman (2. Institutes, 688).
At the present time the following classes are recognized as esquires on occasions of ceremony or for legal purposes:—(1) All sons of peers and lords of parliament during their fathers’ lives, and the younger sons of such peers, &c., after their fathers’ deaths; the eldest sons of peers’ younger sons, and their eldest sons for ever. (2) Noblemen of all other nations. (3) The eldest sons of baronets and knights. (4) Persons bearing arms and the title of esquire by letters patent. (5) Esquires of the Bath and their eldest sons. (6) Barristers-at-law. (7) Justices of the peace and mayors while in commission or office. (8) The holders of any superior office under the crown. (9) Persons styled esquires by the sovereign in their patents, commissions or appointments. (10) Attorneys in colonies where the functions of counsel and attorney are united (in England solicitors are “gentlemen,” not “esquires”).
In practice, however, the title of esquire, now to all intents and purposes meaningless, is given to any one who “can bear the port, charge and countenance of a gentleman.” The word has followed the same course as that of “gentleman” (q.v.), and for very similar reasons. It is still not customary in Great Britain to address e.g. a well-to-do person engaged in trade as esquire at his shop; it would be offensive not to do so at his private residence. In America, on the other hand, the use of the word “esquire” is practically obsolete, “Mr” (“Mister” or “Master,” at one time the title special to a “gentleman”) being the general form of address.
Selden, Titles of Honor (1672); Camden, Britannia (ed. London, 1594); Coke, Institutes; Enc. of the Laws of England, s. “Esquire”; Du Cange, Glossarium (ed. 1886), s. “Scutarius,” “Scutifer” and “Armiger”; New English Dictionary, s. “Esquire.”
Het antwoord op deze vraag luidt: ‘nee’ als het gaat om oude familiewapens. In een vonnis van de rechtbank in Brussel uit 2017 wordt dit verder uitgelegd. Ik zal de zaak in dit artikel bespreken.
De zaak Zara Home – Damiaens
Zara Home is een Spaanse onderneming die onderdeel uitmaakt van de Inditex group, en zich richt op het produceren van betaalbare kleding, in steeds wisselende collecties, en volgens de allerlaatste trends.
Patrick Damiaens is een Vlaamse meester ontwerpsnijder, die internationale faam geniet als een vakman op het gebied van het maken van familiewapen in hout en van ornamenten en ander houtsnijwerk.
In 2012 aanvaardde Damiaens opdracht van de Nederlands familie Odink om een 3D-versie van het recent opgefriste wapenschild in hout uit te snijden. Nadat Damiaens het familiewapen in hout had uitgesneden, plaatste hij een foto van zijn handwerk op zijn website en begon hij aan een ander werk. In 2014 ontving de vakman een telefoontje uit Parijs. Een vriend deelde hem mee dat deze tijdens het shoppen in meubelketen Zara Home een versierde kaars had gezien met een afbeelding, die als twee druppels water leek op de werk van Damiaens. De ontwerpsnijder accepteerde dit niet. Samen met opdrachtgever Odink, nam hij een advocaat in de arm.
Afbeeldingen van het door Damiaens vervaarde houtwerk en de kaars van Zara Home zijn te vinden op de website van Damiaens.
De uitspraak van de rechtbank in Brussel
Uiteindelijk deed de Brusselse rechtbank op 19 juni 2017 uitspraak. Deze hield in dat Zara Home een schadevergoeding moet betalen voor het gebruik van een Nederlands familiewapen.
Damiaens en de familie Odink vorderden dat het ontwerp van het familiewapen en het beeldhouwwerk van eisers als oorspronkelijke werken worden beschermd door het auteursrecht. Verder vorderden zij dat Zara Home door de reproductie van de werken in de Zara Home kaars, de mededeling aan het publiek en de verkoop van de kaars hun auteursrechten heeft geschonden. Zara Home betwiste de originaliteit van het familiewapen.
De rechtbank verklaarde echter voor recht dat het houtsnijwerk auteursrechtelijke bescherming geniet en dat Zara Home door de reproductie van dit werk op de kaars de auteursrechten van Damiaens geschonden heeft. Zara Home werd veroordeeld tot een schadevergoeding van EUR 7.500, conform de vordering.
De rechtbank oordeelde ook dat het familiewapen van Odink als zodanig niet auteursrechtelijk beschermd is en wees de door hen gevorderde schadevergoeding van EUR 17.500 af. De wijzigingen in het origineel weerspiegelden niet de vrije en creatieve keuzes van de auteur. Het aspect van identificatie waarbij aan een lid van een familie het recht toekomt om het familiewapen te gebruiken verzet zich tegen het toekennen van exclusieve rechten aan één persoon onder de vorm van een auteursrecht. Dit zou de auteursrechthouder in staat stellen om familieleden het gebruik van het familiewapen te ontzeggen.
Ook moest het vonnis worden gepubliceerd in het Heraldisch Tijdschrift.
Nederlandse situatie
De nationale wetten in verschillende landen op het gebied van het auteursrecht kunnen van elkaar afwijken. Het Nederlandse auteursrecht is vastgelegd in de Auteurswet van 1912. Deze is voor gebaseerd op de Berner Conventie van 1886, een verdrag dat is opgesteld om auteursrecht internationaal te beschermen. Andere belangrijke internationale verdragen op dit gebied zijn het TRIPS-verdrag (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) opgesteld door de Wereldhandelsorganisatie in 1994 en de Universele Auteursrecht Conventie van 1952. Naar mijn mening is de Belgische uitspraak ook in Nederland toepasbaar.
Conclusies
Kortom: familiewapens op zich zijn niet auteursrechtelijk beschermd, maar de afbeelding wel als deze bestanddelen bevat die de uitdrukking vormen van de eigen intellectuele schepping van de auteur. De auteur moet bovendien vrij en creatief kunnen kiezen, waardoor hij een ‘persoonlijke noot’ die zijn ‘persoonlijkheid weerspiegelt’ aan het werk kan aanbrengen (gebaseerd op jurisprudentie van het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie).
In de uitspraak is een belangrijke overweging opgenomen, die tot op heden veelal over het hoofd wordt gezien (p. 17):
Ondanks de afwezigheid van enige gecodificeerde bescherming van familiewapens, ook naar Nederlands recht, lijkt prima facie zich niets te verzetten tegen de bescherming van familiewapens tegen manifest onrechtmatig gebruik door een derde (1382 BW) [onrechtmatige daad, JvBQ]. Onder onrechtmatig en dus foutief gebruik zou desgevraagd het gebruik van een familiewapen door een derde begrepen kunnen worden.
Dit laatste was echter niet gevorderd, maar de Brusselse rechtbank oordeelde dus wel dat er een mogelijkheid bestaat dat een schadeplicht ontstaat tegen een derde die een familiewapen onrechtmatig gebruikt, ook in Nederland. Hetzelfde geldt naar mijn mening ook voor heerlijkheidswapens en -titels.
Ik ben van mening dat nieuw ontworpen familiewapens wel auteursrechtelijk zijn beschermd als deze openbaar zijn gemaakt, omdat deze moeten worden aangemerkt als een werk met een eigen oorspronkelijk karakter, dat het stempel van de maker draagt. In dat geval gaat het immers – in tegenstelling tot oude familiewapens – om scheppende menselijke arbeid, waarbij creatieve keuzes zijn gemaakt.
On the prevalence and legitimacy of “free assumption” of arms in continental Europe see Pastoureau, Michel, Traité d’héraldique, 2nd edn (Paris: Picard, 1993)Google Scholar, 60, 66, 84. In some eastern European countries, notably Poland, identical coats of arms may be borne by all members of the same herb, or “clan”; see Rowell, S. C., “The Central European Kingdoms,” in Abulafia, David, ed. The New Cambridge Medieval History, Volume V (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 776Google Scholar. In Scotland, members of the same clan may bear a common badge, usually consisting of the crest and motto of the clan chief. However, Scottish coats of arms, as distinct from clan badges, are borne by individuals; see Sir Thomas Innes of Learney, Scots Heraldry, 2nd edn (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1956), 46 Google Scholar.
The Crown Jewels of Hawaii – Photo by the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii.
The formation of the Kingdom of Hawaii started in 1795 with the unification of the independent islands of Hawaiʻi, Oʻahu, Maui, Molokaʻi and Lānaʻi. In 1810, all of the Hawaiian Islands became unified in one kingdom when the islands of Kauaʻi and Niʻihau were voluntarily added. Two major dynastic families ruled the kingdom subsequently: the House of Kamehameha and the House of Kalākaua until the monarchy was abolished in 1893. This article examines the legitimacy of the current claimants regarding the dynastic rights to the former throne of Hawaii.
Monarchs of Hawaii
The following historical chronology and biographies of Hawaiian monarchs were originally documented in Encyclopedia Britannica.
Kamehameha I (1758?-1819). reigning 1795-1819 – Founder and first ruler of the Kingdom of Hawaii. A shrewd businessman, Kamehameha amassed a fortune for his kingdom through a government monopoly on the sandalwood trade and through the imposition of port duties on visiting ships. He was an open-minded sovereign who rightfully deserves his title Kamehameha the Great. Acclaimed as the strongest Hawaiian ruler, he maintained his kingdom’s independence throughout the difficult period of European discovery and exploration of the islands—a task that proved too great for his successors (source: britannica.com).
Kamehameha II (1797-1824), reigning 1819-1824 – Kamehameha resisted conversion to Christianity, allegedly because he refused to give up four of his five wives as well as rum drinking. In 1823 he sailed on a visit to England, in a delegation that included two of his wives. Stricken with measles in London in June 1824, Kamehameha and his favourite wife, Kamamalu, died there (source: britannica.com).
Kamehameha III (1813 – 1854), reigning 1825-1854 – Only 10 years of age when he succeeded to the throne, he was initially under the regency of Kamehameha I’s favourite wife, Kaahumanu, who had been regent ever since Kamehameha II had visited England in 1824 and died there. Converted to Christianity in 1824, she became known for her wise and beneficent rule. On her death in 1832 the regency fell to Kamehameha I’s daughter Kinau, but in the following year Kamehameha III assumed power in his own right. After hearing a series of lectures on government delivered by an American clergyman, William Richards, Kamehameha III promulgated the Declaration of Rights, called Hawaii’s Magna Carta, on June 7, 1839, the Edict of Toleration on June 17, 1839, and the first constitution on Oct. 8, 1840. This first written constitution for Hawaii contained several innovations, including a representative body of legislators elected by the people. It also set up a supreme court. The first compilation of laws was published in 1842. With Richards’ aid, Kamehameha also obtained diplomatic recognition of Hawaiian independence by the United States in 1842 and by Great Britain and France in 1843 (source: britannica.com).
Kamehameha IV (1834-1863), reigning 1855-1863 – Kamehameha IV, original name Alexander Liholiho, was known for his firm opposition to the annexation of his kingdom by the United States. As Kamehameha IV, he strove to curb the political power of the American Protestant missionaries in the Hawaiian Islands. Dedicated to protecting his people, who were rapidly dying out because of disease, he sponsored many social and economic reforms. He established Hawaii’s commercial and political relations with other nations on a solid base and tried to balance each country’s influence on island life. The son of Kekuanaoa, governor of Oahu, and Kinau, a woman chief who had been kuhina nui (prime minister), Prince Alexander Liholiho was adopted as a child by his uncle, Kamehameha III. He was rigorously educated by Protestant missionaries and attended the Chiefs’ Childrens’ School. To prepare him further for his future role, Prince Alexander and his brother, Lot, accompanied by the missionary-doctor Gerritt P. Judd, toured the United States, England, and France in 1849. Crowned in 1855 at the death of Kamehameha III, he became a popular monarch and was virtually an idol to the Hawaiian people. The annexation movement of 1853–54, championed by many American missionaries, caused Kamehameha to take steps to ensure the independence of his kingdom. In order to balance foreign relations, which had formerly been dominated by the United States, he invited the Church of England to establish itself in the islands. Impatient with the puritanical American missionaries and suspicious of American businessmen, he gradually removed all American members from cabinet posts and encouraged Hawaii’s commercial interests with other nations (source: britannica.com).
Kamehameha V (1830-1872), reigning 1863-1872 – Succeeding to the throne on the death of his younger brother, Kamehameha IV, he immediately revealed his intention to rule with a strong hand, refusing at his inauguration to take the oath to maintain the existing, comparatively liberal constitution. After calling and dismissing a constitutional convention, he himself wrote and promulgated a new constitution (1864), which remained in effect for 23 years. He also imported the first wave of Japanese labourers, by a contract made in 1868. Kamehameha V never married, and the Kamehameha dynasty ended with his death. The legislature elected a cousin, William Charles Lunalilo, to succeed him (source: britannica.com).
Lunalilo (1835-1874), reigning 1873-1874 – Prince William Charles Lunalilo was born to High Chiefess Miriam ʻAuhea Kekāuluohi (Kuhina Nui, or Premier of the Hawaiian Kingdom and niece of Kamehameha I) and High Chief Charles Kanaʻina. Lunalilo’s grandparents were Kalaʻimamahū (half brother of Kamehameha I) and Kalākua (sister to Kaʻahumanu). His great grandfather was Keōuakupupāikalaninui (father of Kamehameha I).Kamehameha V had not named a successor to the throne before he died on December 11, 1872. Lunalilo wanted his people to choose their next ruler in a democratic manner and requested a plebiscite to be held on New Year’s Day. Prince David Kalākaua and others not in the Kamehameha lineage chose to run against Lunalilo. The people on every island unanimously chose Lunalilo as King. At noon on January 8, 1873, the Legislature met, as required by law, in the Courthouse to cast their ballots to elect the next King. Lunalilo received all 37 votes. The coronation of Lunalilo took place at Kawaiahaʻo Church in a simple ceremony on January 9, 1873. He reigned for one year and 25 days, succumbing to pulmonary tuberculosis on February 3, 1874. As a proponent of democracy and more freedom of choice for his people, he did not name a successor before his death because he believed that the people should, again, choose their leader. His trait of “Lokomaikaʻi” followed him in death because of his desire to do what was best for the people (source: lunalilo.org).
Kalakaua (1836-1891), reigning 1874-1891 – The son of a high chief, Kalakaua was a candidate to the throne in 1873 but lost the election to Lunalilo. When Lunalilo died the following year, the legislature then elected Kalakaua, who inaugurated a decidedly reactionary and pro-American reign. In 1874 he visited the United States, and in 1881 he took a trip around the world. Although he secured a somewhat favourable reciprocity treaty with the United States in 1876, he yielded in 1887 to demands to give the United States the exclusive right to enter Pearl Harbor and maintain a naval coaling and repair station there. There was an ever-increasing endeavor by King Kalakaua to restore the ancient Hawaiian social order with its customs and ideas of absolutism and divine right, but it was accompanied by extravagance, corruption, personal interference in politics, and fomentation of race feeling, until he was compelled to promulgate (1887) a new constitution providing for responsible ministerial government and other guarantees. The struggle continued, however, not only until the end of his reign (1891), during which there was an armed insurrection (1889) by the opposition, but even more hotly during the subsequent reign of his sister, Liliuokalani. Kalakaua died on a visit to the United States, amid rumours that he was about to sell his kingdom (source: britannica.com).
Liliuokalani (1838–1917) – reigning 1891-1893. On the death of King Kalakaua in January 1891, Lydia Liliuokalani ascended the throne, becoming the first woman ever to occupy it. Kamakaeha was of a high-ranking family. Her mother, Keohokalole, was an adviser of King Kamehameha III. Reared in the missionary tradition deemed appropriate for Hawaiian princesses, she received a thoroughly modern education, which was augmented by a tour of the Western world. After a time as a member of the court of Kamehameha IV, she was married in September 1862 to John Owen Dominis, son of a Boston sea captain and himself an official in the Hawaiian government. In 1874 her brother David Kalakaua was chosen king, and in 1877, on the death of a second brother, W.P. Leleiohoku, who was heir apparent, she was named heir presumptive. She was known from that time by her royal name, Liliuokalani. Over the next 14 years she established herself firmly in that role. She served as regent during King Kalakaua’s world tour in 1881, and she was active in organizing schools for Hawaiian youth. During a world tour in 1887 she was received by U.S. Pres. Grover Cleveland and by Britain’s Queen Victoria (source: britannica.com).Victoria Ka’iulani (1875-1899) was born as the daughter of Archibald Scott Cleghorn and Princess Miriam Likelike. Her mother was a sister of King Kalākaua and Queen Liliʻuokalani, the last Queen of Hawaii. She was baptised on Christmas Day at St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church. She passed her first years with her nurse May Leleo and later her governess Miss Barnes. In 1889, Kaʻiulani was sent to England to receive a private education at Great Harrowden Hall, and although she found her lessons hard, she liked them. Her uncle died in 1891 and was succeeded by her aunt, now Queen Liliʻuokalani. Queen Liliʻuokalani immediately appointed Victoria as Crown Princess. Despite this, she continued her studies in England. In 1893, the Hawaiian monarchy was overthrown, and her aunt was deposed. Kaʻiulani released a statement to the press in England (source: historyofroyalwomen.com).
The end of the Hawaiian monarchy
Newspaper article, announcing the appointment by the King of Hawaii of Mr. J.D. van der Made as vice-consul in Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Source: “Binnenland. Rotterdam, 21 Maart.”. “Rotterdamsch nieuwsblad”. Rotterdam, 22-03-1887. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 02-07-2019, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:011009134:mpeg21:a0018
The United States began exercising direct influence over the Hawaiian monarchy with the Reciprocity Treaty of 1875. In exchange for exclusive use of Pearl Harbor near Honolulu, Hawaiian sugar would enter U.S. markets under favorable tariff rates. Sugar was suddenly the islands’ premier crop, and revenue more than tripled. This economic boom granted the Big Five sugar companies (Ladd & Company, H. Hackfeld & Company, C. Brewer & Company, Castle & Cooke, and Alexander & Baldwin) enormous leverage, that triggered them to organize a political revolution in 1887 (source: history.house.gov).
In 1893 the last monarch of Hawaii, Queen Lili’uokalani, was overthrown by a group of businessmen, who subsequently installed a provisional government. Thereupon, President Benjamin Harrison proposed the Unites States Sanete to annex the Hawaiian islands. In 1897, this initiative was blocked because the native Hawaiian Patriotic League, successfully petitioned the Unites States Congress in opposition of the initiative. In February 1898 however, at the start of the Spanish American War, the establishment of a mid-Pacific fueling station and naval base became crucial for the United States. The Hawaiian islands were an obvious choice in this respect. In July 12, 1898, a Joint Resolution to annex the Hawaiian islands passed Congress and the Hawaiian islands were officially annexed by the United States (source: archives.gov). The annexation of the Hawaiian islands marked the end of a long struggle between native Hawaiians and white American businessmen for the control over the country.
In the 1990’s, two friends, Lance Paul Larsen and David Keanu Sai prepared a strategy to fabricate a recognition of the self-proclaimed “Hawaiian Kingdom”. A classic formula for ‘recognition’ of fantasy claims is to provoke an arbitral award and then claim that this award is proof of the recognition by a judge of the desired claims. Larsen and his friend followed this strategy and managed to bring their fabricated dispute before an arbitral tribunal established under auspice of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague (Netherlands). The parties in the case were designated Lance Paul Larsen as Claimant and the “Hawaiian Kingdom” as Respondent. The appointed arbitrators were Dr. Gavan Griffith QC, Professor Christopher J. Greenwood QC and Professor James Crawford SC (President of the Tribunal). The essence of the case was the question regarding the legality of the annexation of Hawaii by the United States in 1898 and the claim of the continuing existence of the Kingdom as an independent State in international law. The arbitral tribunal did not tackle any of these issues since it concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over the dispute submitted by the Parties. It also noted that it did not recognize anything by designating the Respondent ‘Hawaiian Kingdom’ (par. 1.2):
In the Notice of Arbitration of 8 November 1999 the Respondent is expressed to be “the Hawaiian Kingdom by its Council of Regency”. Without prejudice to any questions of substance, the Respondent will be referred to in this award as “the Hawaiian Kingdom”.
In 1999, Mr. Lance Paul Larsen, a resident of Hawaii, brought a claim before the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Netherlands against the Hawaiian Kingdom by its Council of Regency (“Hawaiian Kingdom”) on the grounds that the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom is in continual violation of: (a) its 1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation with the United States of America, as well as the principles of international law laid down in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 and (b) the principles of international comity, for allowing the unlawful imposition of American municipal laws over the claimant’s person within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
In determining whether to accept or decline to exercise jurisdiction, the Tribunal considered the questions of whether there was a legal dispute between the parties to the proceeding, and whether the tribunal could make a decision regarding that dispute, if the very subject matter of the decision would be the rights or obligations of a State not party to the proceedings.
The Tribunal underlined the many points of agreement between the parties, particularly with respect to the propositions that Hawaii was never lawfully incorporated into the United States, and that it continued to exist as a matter of international law. The Tribunal noted that if there existed a dispute, it concerned whether the respondent has fulfilled what both parties maintain is its duty to protect the Claimant, not in the abstract but against the acts of the United States of America as the occupant of the Hawaiian islands. Moreover, the United States’ actions would not give rise to a duty of protection in international law unless they were themselves unlawful in international law. The Tribunal concluded that it could not determine whether the Respondent has failed to discharge its obligations towards the Claimant without ruling on the legality of the acts of the United States of America – something the Tribunal was precluded from doing as the United States was not party to the case.
Gullible people see an opera and mistake it for real life. This staged performance had the backdrop of a building used for the genuine International Court at the Hague, where disputes between nations are resolved and where international war crimes trials are held. Naturally, Keanu and Lance refer to their arbitral panel as “The International Court at the Hague,” which creates a false impression of grandeur.
Claims
In this paragraph I will discuss five claims to the dynastic rights of the former Hawaiian monarchs.
Wilcox Salazar claim
The claim to the headship of the Royal House of Hawaii by Mrs. Owana Ka`ohelelani Kahekili Mahealani-Rose La`anui Wilcox Salazar is summarized below.
The Succession to the throne is named by the sovereign under a proper royal proclamation or a ratified and approved constitution, naming the heir to the throne or a line of succession according to the law. In 1844, King Kamehameha III ignored wide claims to the dynasty from other chiefly relatives, and thereby, submitted an official list to the Legislature as the Order-in-Council of a selection of the highest ranking native ali’i eligible to rule under the pertaining Articles of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s constitutions. Article 22 states that upon failing to name an heir to the throne, and if the throne should become vacant, the Legislative Assembly, who shall elect by ballot some native ali`i of the Kingdom as successor to the throne. The Legislative Assembly calls on royal candidates of the highest ranking native ali`i from the list of eligibles to the throne submitted by King Kamehameha III. The list of the highest ranking native ali`i to be rulers was never expanded officially after Kamehameha III by any sovereign, including Kalakaua who was elected from the list in this manner and reigned for 17 years with legal heirs to the throne naming Lili`uokalani. The deposed Queen Lili`uokalani failed to secure a legal heir to the throne after Princess Ka`iulani and dies in 1917 under an illegal occupation, leaving the throne vacant. In 1917, Queen Lili`uokalani’s cousin, the High Chiefess Elizabeth Keka`aniau La`anui is the hereditary head of the royal house and now the only highest ranking ali`i alive on the list of eligibles to the throne provided for the Legislative Assembly for Article 22. Given the fact of the overthrow and that the Legislative Assembly is no more, the head of the royal house and preemptive to the throne, High Chiefess Elizabeth Keka`aniau, by the Grace of God has the natural right under international law to continue as “de jure” sovereign under the illegally occupied Hawaiian Kingdom in 1917. Princess Elizabeth Keka`aniau announces her status as head of the royal house, a direct descendant of King Kamehameha’s brother and also a cousin of Queen Lili`uokalani. Elizabeth claims the next head of the royal house by primogeniture will be her niece, Princess Theresa Owana Ka`ohelelani and then to her primogeniture descendants, which has been handed down from generation to generation to her great grand daughter, Princess Owana Ka`ohelelani Salazar (source: keouanui.org).
Baker claim
The Baker-claim is more modest and honest. The proponent of the claim, Mr. Darrick Baker, substantiates his claim as head of the House of Kamakahelei and as protector (instead of the head) of “the Royal House” as follows:
The Kingdom of Hawaii was founded by King Kamehameha I in 1795 after unifying the individual Kingdoms of the Hawaiian Islands. Then in 1893 the throne was vacated after a coup d’état against Queen Lydia Liliʻuokalani, who was the last sovereign of Hawai’i. Today there remain descendants of the pre-unication Royal Houses and prominent among them are the House of Kawananakoa and the House of Kamakahelei. H.R.H. Prince Darrick Lane Hoapili Liloa Kamakahelei Baker is the head of the House of Kamakahelei. The House of Kamakehelei is closely related to the former ruling Houses of Kamehameha and Kalakaua and also with the House of Kawananakoa, which is currently headed by Prince Quentin. And as per Hawaiian customs, both Prince Darrick and Prince Quentin are equally positioned to be elected to the Head of the Royal House of Hawaii should the Kingdom be restored.
As Ali’i and a senior member of the Royal House of Hawaii, Prince Darrick considers it his duty to be the protector of the Royal House, actively preserving its legacy and authenticity by maintaining its rich traditions and culture to the maximum extent possible (source: royalhouseofhawaii.com).
The claim is well-documented in a social-cultural study, named: Prince Darrick Baker and the Royal House of Kamakahelei. In november 2019, Prince Darrick was persueded to sign an agreement with a junior member of the family and some Spanish and Portuguese individuals, regarding the successon of his claim. In January 2020, Prince Darrick terminated this agreement by reason of the other parties’ misrepresentation, thus voiding their claim.
Mr. Quentin Kawānanakoa
Mr. Quentin Kawananakoa is a Hawaiian politician and great-grandson of Prince David Kawananakoa — who was a cousin of King David Kalakaua. His great-grandfather’s brother was Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalaniana’ole.
Some Hawaiians also consider Quentin Kawananakoa an heir to the Hawaiian monarchy. However, Mr. Kawananakoa has stated that he neither claims nor rejects the title and it has never been formally bestowed on him. Such a title would be honorific, rather than a source of actual political power, except in the sense that it emphasizes heritage and Island roots, he states in an interview with the Honolulu Advertiser in 2006:
I don’t allude to myself in that fashion, but I certainly am proud of my forefathers who in fact were of the royal family,” he said. “But today what we have is perhaps a remembrance of our culture, and in that respect, I think many Hawaiians do recognize that we do come from our prior ali’i family lines.
Mrs. Abigail Kinoiki Kekaulike Kawānanakoa
Mrs. Kawānanakoa (1928-) is the only child of Lydia Liliuokalani Kawānanakoa and William Jeremiah Ellerbrock. Her great-grandfather was James Campbell, a 19th-century Irish industrialist who made a fortune as a partner in a Maui sugar plantation. At the age of six, Mrs. Kawānanakoa was legally adopted in the Hawaiian tradition of hānai by her grandmother, Princess Abigail Campbell Kawānanakoa. It was the intention that she remain a direct heir to a possible restoration of the monarchy. As Liliʻuokalani’s great grand niece, Mrs. Kawānanakoa is seen as the heir apparent to the Hawaiian throne, should restoration of the monarchy occur. She has been described by US Senator for Hawaii and President pro tempore of the United States Senate, Daniel Ken Inouye as “a member of the family with the closest blood ties to the Kalākaua dynasty” (source: Senator Daniel Ken Inouye, “Anniversary of Coronation of King Kalākaua”, Congressional record 10,098 (27 April 1983, cited in Van Dyke, J.M. (2009). Who Owns the Crown Lands of Hawai’i?, p. 370). Mrs. Kawānanakoa has been active in various causes for the preservation of native Hawaiian culture, including the restoration of ‘Iolani Palace.
Mr. Sammy Amalu
Also worth mentioning is Mr. Sammy Amalu (1917–1986), a longtime columnist at The Honolulu Advertiser. The 1972 book by Doris Jividen describes the life of this gentleman in much detail. Amalu styled himself as High Chief Kapiikauinamoku, Prince of Keawe and Duke of Konigsberg. He attempted to buy up several Waikiki hotels with counterfeit checks in the 1940s and ended up in prison. Under the alias Kapiikauinamoku, he later wrote “The Story of Hawaiian Royalty” and “The Story of Maui Royalty” in a series of columns written for The Honolulu Advertiser. These articles include genealogies of Hawaii’s aliʻi families including his ancestress, Miriam Auhea Kekāuluohi Crowningburg Kamai (c. 1839–1899). Mrs. Auhea was a high chiefess during the Kingdom of Hawaii. She was a cousin of King Lunalilo and namesake of his mother Kekāuluohi, however was rarely referred to as Kekāuluohi II. Mr. Amalu’s claim ended with his imprisonment.
Conclusions
It is quite peculiar that the anonymous Facebook page “Prestor John Institute” defames the Baker claim on the basis of a book by Mr. Amalu (alias “Samuel Crowningburg-Amalu”), mentioned above. The page states in its Facebook post of 9 April 2019: “Princess Owana Salazar is the undisputed Head of the Royal House and Senior Heir to the Throne.“. Because there exists at least one more claimant (Mrs. Kawānanakoa, mentioned above), this statement is obviously false.
The Larsen vs. the Hawaiian Kingdom case shows that private persons or entities cannot recognize a state that does not exist. At least, such a recognition does not have legal consequences from a public law perspective. The only authoritative body that could recognize (in a sense of attributing public law consequences) one or more Hawaiian dynastic rights, is the State of Hawaii or the Federal government. Such a recognition could have the form of Act by the government.
Contrary to the Larsen vs. the Hawaiian Kingdom case, there exist transparant and genuine ways to recognise native hereditary rights. In Africa, for example, Botswana has passed several laws to recognise the authority of traditional leaders. These include the Chieftaincy Act; Customary Courts Act, Tribal Territories Act, Marriages Act, and House of Chiefs Act. In Zimbabwe, traditional leaders are selected by their families through rules of succession and eventually endorsed by the executives, a process embedded in the Traditional Leaders Act. In the United States, the Office of Federal Acknowledgment (OFA) within the Office of the Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs of the Department of the Interior (Department) implements Part 83 of Title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations (25 CFR Part 83), Federal Acknowledgment of American Indian Tribes. This acknowledgment process is the Department’s administrative process by which petitioning groups that meet the criteria are given Federal acknowledgment as Indian tribes and by which they become eligible to receive services provided to members of Indian tribes. These examples show that governmental recognition of native groups is achievable. Similar legislation by the State of Hawaii or the Federal Government would bring genuine recognition to Hawaii’s heads of dynastic families.
I do not recommend Hawaiian heads of dynastic families to seek recognition from other non-reigning (European) claimants, since this only emphasizes a lack of official recognition. Hawaii’s dynastic families do not need recognition from private parties to show that they are genuine. I recommend sending a petition with scientific, anthropological, genealogical, and historical research to the state of Hawaii to achieve recognition. Hawaii itself is the only authoritative body in this respect.
At the moment, a single Royal House of Hawaii does not exist and a head of the Royal House cannot be elected, since there is no legislature to institute a council of Hawaiian nobles, elected by the High Chiefs. Princess Victoria Ka’iulani did not appoint a successor. In my opinion, the situation before the unification of the Hawaiian dynastic families has currently been revived, and therefore there can only be heads of the pre-unification dynastic families. The Baker-claim is the only claim that is transparent, precise and honest in this respect.
Sources
Dumberry, Patrick, The Hawaiian Kingdom Arbitration Case and the Unsettled Question of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Claim to Continuity as an Independent State Under International Law (October 23, 2008). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1288810 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1288810
Webb, N. B., & Webb, J. F. (1998). Kaiulani: Crown princess of Hawaii. Honolulu: Mutual Publishing.
Fornander, A., & Stokes, J. F. (1969). An account of the Polynesian race, its origin and migrations and the ancient history of the Hawaiian people to the times of Kamehameha I. Rutland (Vt): Tuttle.
Kamehiro, S. L. (2009). The arts of kingship: Hawaiian art and national culture of the Kalākaua era. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
McKinzie, E. K., & Stagner, I. W. (1986). Hawaiian genealogies: Extracted from Hawaiian language newspapers. Laie, HI: Institute for Polynesian Studies, Brigham Young University-Hawaii Campus.
Peleioholan, L. S. (1908). Genealogy of the Robinson family & ancient legends and chants of Hawaii. Honolulu: Bulletin Publishing.
Düsing, S. (2002). Traditional leadership and democratisation in Southern Africa: A comparative study of Botswana, Namibia, and Southern Africa. Münster: Lit.
Jividen, D. (1972). Sammy Amalu: Prince, Pauper Or Phony? Erin Enterprise.
Van Dyke, J.M. (2009). Who Owns the Crown Lands of Hawai’i? Honolulu: University of Honolulu Press.
Acknowledgement
I gratefully acknowledge the most interesting comments of Dr. Matt Bray.
Een afstammeling – via de vrouwelijke lijn – van een Nederlandse adellijke familie vroeg mij onlangs of hij kon worden erkend te behoren tot de Nederlandse adel. Ik moest hem helaas teleurstellen.
Juridisch kader
Volgens vaste jurisprudentie van de Raad van State gaat adeldom in Nederland alleen over via de mannelijke lijn:
Gelet op de vaste rechtspraak van de Afdeling (uitspraken van 5 april 2006 in zaak nr. 200505679/1 en van 22 juli 2009 in zaak nr. 200807914/1), is van discriminatie geen sprake als er voor het maken van onderscheid in het licht van de doelen van de van toepassing zijnde regeling redelijke en objectieve gronden bestaan. In dit verband dient de vraag te worden beantwoord of er voor het verschil in behandeling tussen buitenechtelijke kinderen van een adellijke vader geboren vóór 1 augustus 1994 enerzijds en buitenechtelijke kinderen van een adellijke vader die daarna zijn geboren anderzijds een objectieve en redelijke rechtvaardiging bestaat. De adel is een historisch gegroeid instituut dat zijn bestaansrecht uitsluitend ontleent aan dat historische karakter. Met het naar eigentijdse denkbeelden wijzigen en inrichten van het instituut zal dit instituut zijn grondslag verliezen. Uitgangspunt bij het wetsvoorstel was gelet daarop, het beleid ten aanzien van adeldom en het geldende adelsrecht te handhaven. De modernisering is daarom beperkt tot na 1 augustus 1994 buiten het huwelijk geboren kinderen van een adellijke vader. Gelet hierop bestaat voor het onderscheid een objectieve en redelijke rechtvaardiging.
Commentaar
Poster van de Vereeniging voor Vrouwenkiesrecht. Bron: Collectie IAV-Atria, kennisinstituut voor emancipatie en vrouwengeschiedenis. Vervaardigd door Th. Molkenboer, 1918.
De logica waarom een historisch gegroeid instituut zijn bestaansrecht uitsluitend ontleent aan dat historische karakter en zijn grondslag verliest als adeldom via de vrouwelijke lijn overgaat, ontgaat mij. Naar mijn mening is de overweging van de Raad van State denigrerend ten aanzien van vrouwen; het zijn kennelijk (als je de overweging leest) inferieure wezens die niet in staat zijn om een historisch instituut ‘in ere’ te houden. Laat het helder zijn: zonder vrouwen kan er geen adel zijn omdat alleen vrouwen kinderen kunnen krijgen. Voorgaande standaard-overweging van de Raad van State is een uitvloeisel van een politiek spelletje en heeft niets met recht te maken. Het is zeer ernstig dat de Raad van State zich hiervoor leent. Ik zal dit nader toelichten aan de hand van een vergelijking met het vrouwenkiesrecht.
Vergelijking met vrouwenkiesrecht
In de grondwet van 1882 werd gesproken van ‘Nederlanders’ als het ging om het kiesrecht. Vrouwen waren volgens de letter van de wet dus niet uitgesloten van het kiesrecht. Toen de arts Aletta Jacobs zich in 1883 als eerste vrouw op de kiezerslijst wilde laten zetten in Amsterdam, werd zij geweigerd. Tot drie keer toe kreeg mevrouw Jacobs nul op haar rekest: eerst van de gemeente Amsterdam, vervolgens van de arrondissementsrechtbank en tenslotte van de Hoge Raad.
Hoewel de grondwet het kiesrecht aan meerderjarige Nederlanders met een bepaald inkomen toekende, stelde de Hoge Raad dat ‘Nederlander en ingezetenen alleen slaat op de mannen, anders ware dit afzonderlijk vermeld’. Ons hoogste rechtscollege overwoog dat (Schokking 1958, p. 24):
de rechtbank (…) terecht heeft beslist, dat het ten enemale onaannemelijk is, dat het in de bedoeling van de Nederlandsche wetgever bij de herziening der Grondwet in 1848 zoude hebben gelegen, om, in afwijking van destijds bestaande toestanden en geldende beginselen van Staatsrecht, het stemrecht aan vrouwen toe te kennen; dat toch, ware deze uitbreiding van het kiesrecht door de wetgever beoogd, dit allergewichtigst beginsel ongetwijfeld in duidelijke en ondubbelzinnige termen in de Grondwet en diensvolgens in de Kieswet van 1850 zoude zijn uitgesproken, wat echter niet is geschied.
Net als met de weigering van de adeldom via de vrouwelijke lijn werd ‘de geest der wet’ belangrijker geacht: “. Bij de Grondwetsherziening van 1887 werd het kiesrecht uitgebreid tot kiezers die ‘over tekenen van welstand en bekwaamheid beschikten’, maar er werd ook uitdrukkelijk opgenomen dat alleen mannelijke ingezetenen kiesrecht hadden. Er zou dus een nieuwe grondwetswijziging nodig zijn om vrouwenkiesrecht mogelijk te maken. Pas in 1917 werd in Nederland het passief kiesrecht voor vrouwen ingevoerd. Vrouwen konden toen voor politieke functies gekozen worden, maar mochten niet zelf stemmen. In 1919 kregen vrouwen eindelijk het felbegeerde actief kiesrecht, waardoor ze zelf mochten stemmen.
Het blijft voor ons toch moeilijk te vatten dat een partij als de SGP, die vrouwen rechtstreeks discrimineert, nog steeds serieus genomen wordt (was zelfs recentelijk nog even bij de kabinetsformatie betrokken). Men kan dit toch moeilijk afdoen als een gevolg van de eis van pluriformiteit die ons democratisch bestel kenmerkt? Dat wordt toch niet minder gekenmerkt door het verbod van discriminatie van vrouwen? Misschien wordt de SGP door velen gezien als een rariteit in ons bestel en niet bedreigend. Men moet dan niet vergeten dat de SGP lokaal in sommige gemeenten een dominante rol speelt. Zelfs wanneer men in de afweging tussen de pluriformiteit van de ABRS [Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State, red.] en het discriminatieverbod van het Hof kiest voor pluriformiteit betekent dat toch niet per se dat de SGP actief gesteund moet worden middels subsidie. Wat dit aangaat zijn de vrouwenrechten er niet op vooruitgegaan met de uitspraken van de ABRS en het Hof.
Conclusies
Het is voor mij – en gelukkig voor veel anderen – een enigma dat vrouwen nog steeds geen adeldom kunnen overdragen omdat daarmee het ‘historisch instituut zijn grondslag verliest’. Alleen als de vrouw lid is van het Koninklijk Huis wordt de zombie teruggestuurd naar de plaats waar hij vandaan komt; dan is overerving van adeldom in de vrouwelijke lijn wel mogelijk en verliest het historisch instituut zijn grondslag kennelijk niet. Ik begrijp het niet.
Literatuur
Atria; BWN; BWSA; PDC ; W.F. Bynum and Helen Bynum red., Dictionary of Medical Biography (Oxford 2007); Bonnie Smith red., The Oxford Encyclopaedia of Women in World History (Oxford 2008).
Schokking, J.C. De vrouw in de Nederlandse politiek. Emancipatie tot actief Burgerschap, Assen, 1958.
Peters, J. & K. Bleeker (2008). Staat moet SGP aanpakken maar ook subsidiëren: over botsende competenties en grondrechten, NJB nr. 10, 7 maart 2008, p. 556-563.
Bijlage – Wet op de Adeldom
Wet van 10 mei 1994, houdende regeling inzake de adeldom
Wij Beatrix, bij de gratie Gods, Koningin der Nederlanden, Prinses van Oranje-Nassau, enz. enz. enz.
Allen, die deze zullen zien of horen lezen, saluut! doen te weten:
Alzo Wij in overweging genomen hebben, dat op grond van additioneel artikel XXV van de Grondwet een voorziening moet worden getroffen ter zake van de adeldom;
Zo is het, dat Wij, de Raad van State gehoord, en met gemeen overleg der Staten-Generaal, hebben goedgevonden en verstaan, gelijk Wij goedvinden en verstaan bij deze:
Artikel 1
Adeldom wordt verleend bij koninklijk besluit. De verlening kan uitsluitend geschieden aan Nederlanders.
Artikel 2
1 De verlening van adeldom geschiedt door verheffing, inlijving of erkenning.
2 Verheffing in de adel bij koninklijk besluit kan uitsluitend plaatsvinden ten aanzien van leden van het koninklijk huis en van voormalige leden daarvan binnen drie maanden na verlies van het lidmaatschap van het koninklijk huis.
De verlening van de titels «Prins (Prinses) der Nederlanden» en «Prins (Prinses) van Oranje-Nassau» wordt bij of krachtens de Wet lidmaatschap koninklijk huis bepaald.
3 Inlijving in de Nederlandse adel kan slechts plaatsvinden ten aanzien van personen wier geslacht behoort tot de wettelijk erkende adel van een staat met een vergelijkbaar adelsstatuut en die het verzoek tot inlijving hebben gedaan.
a.te zamen met het verzoek tot verlening van het Nederlanderschap;
b.te zamen met het afleggen van de verklaring ter verkrijging van het Nederlanderschap door optie;
c.te zamen met het bereiken van de meerderjarigheid bij de verkrijging van het Nederlanderschap van rechtswege indien de vader van de verzoeker het Nederlanderschap niet van rechtswege heeft verkregen.
4 Erkenning te behoren tot de Nederlandse adel kan uitsluitend plaatsvinden ten aanzien van personen die behoren tot een geslacht dat voor 1795 reeds tot de inheemse adel behoorde.
Artikel 3
Adeldom gaat ook volgens de bestaande regelingen met betrekking tot adeldom over op buiten het huwelijk geboren kinderen.
Artikel 4
Bij de verlening van adeldom zijn taxa verschuldigd. Bij algemene maatregel van bestuur worden nadere regels omtrent de taxa gesteld.
Artikel 5
Adeldom wordt vermeld op officiële documenten waar dit vereist is, tenzij de betrokken persoon verzoekt, de vermelding achterwege te laten of te verwijderen.
Artikel 6
1 Er is een Hoge Raad van Adel.
2 De Raad heeft tot taak Onze Minister van Binnenlandse Zaken te adviseren over verzoeken tot verlening van adeldom.
3 De Raad is samengesteld uit vijf leden, die bij koninklijk besluit worden benoemd en ontslagen.
Artikel 7
1 [Red: Bevat wijzigingen in andere regelgeving.]
2 De bestaande regelingen met betrekking tot adeldom en de Hoge Raad van Adel kunnen worden gewijzigd bij algemene maatregel van bestuur.
Artikel 8
Inlijving in de Nederlandse adel kan plaatsvinden ten aanzien van personen wier geslacht behoort tot de wettelijk erkende adel van een staat met een vergelijkbaar adelsstatuut en daartoe een verzoek om inlijving hebben gedaan binnen vijf jaar na de datum van inwerkingtreding van deze wet.
Artikel 9
Deze wet kan worden aangehaald als Wet op de adeldom.
Lasten en bevelen dat deze in het Staatsblad zal worden geplaatst en dat alle ministeries, autoriteiten, colleges en ambtenaren wie zulks aangaat, aan de nauwkeurige uitvoering de hand zullen houden.
King Rudahigwa Mutara III (1911-1959) in Belgium in 1949 with mr. Kamuzinzi ka Rusagara behind him. Photo: Mrs. Majolie F. Uwase. Rudahigwa Mutara III became a Rwandan King in 1931 and effectively worked under the Belgians influence. Rudahigwa, who died in in Bujumbura, is said to have been the first victim of the ID’s introduced by Belgians.
According to tradition, Ruganzu I Bwimba, a Tutsi leader, founded a kingdom in the Bwanacambwe region near Kigali in the 15th or 16th century. What is now central Rwanda was absorbed in the 16th century, and outlying Hutu communities were subdued by the mwami (“king”) Ruganzu II Ndori in the 17th century. In some areas of the country, independent Hutu principalities continued to exist, and in other areas, Tutsi and Hutu lineages lived in interdependent cooperation under the nominal control of the king. The borders of the kingdom were rounded out in the late 19th century by Kigeli IV Rwabugiri, who is regarded as Rwanda’s greatest king. By 1900 Rwanda was a unified state with a centralized military structure (source: Encyclopaedia Britannica).
Upon the arrival of the Belgians in 1916 after the First World War following the defeat of Germany, the Belgians endorsed the Tutsi’s power over the Hutus as a means of controlling the country. The Belgians considered the Tutsis to be superior to the Hutus. They considered the Tutsis as more like themselves. For this reason they supported them to be the upper-class of Rwandan society. Identity cards that distinguished Hutu from Tutsi became mandatory, like the Jews were categorized in during the Nazi regime. Belgium’s worst crime was the introduction of a racial theory aimed at providing proof of the Tutsi’s apparent greater purity and closer ancestry to Europeans. Skull measurements showing larger brain size, greater height, and lighter skin tones all reaffirmed the Tutsis’ superiority over the Hutus.
The final step in Belgium’s racial policy was implementing ‘Corvée’: peasant farmers, for the large part Hutus, were obligated to grow coffee beans on their land for Tutsi officials. Corvée is a system similar to slavery.
When Belgium relinquished power and granted Rwanda independence in 1962, the Hutus took their place. Over subsequent decades, the Tutsis were portrayed as the scapegoats for every crisis. The oppressed Hutus decided to take revenge. During Grégoire Kayibanda’s regime (1961-1973), there was an increasing exodus of Tutsis from Rwanda into neighboring nations. The above mentioned developments culminated eventually in the 1994 Rwandan Genocide that left nearly one million people dead.
Rwanda’s peacekeepers
In 1961, with the support of the Belgian government, Hutu politician Dominique Mbonyumutwa led a coup d’état that took control of the Rwandan state and abolished the kingdom on 25 September 1961. King Kigeli V Ndahindurwa of Rwanda (1936 – 2016) was the last ruling king (Mwami) of Rwanda, from 28 July 1959 until the abolition of the Rwandan monarchy. Like his ancestors, he was a peacekeeper and preserved the unity in his country under the difficult times of Belgium oppression. Their support to overthrow the king as head of state was the last act of betrayal by the Belgians to the Rwandan people: the destruction of its centuries-old cultural identity.
The last official king of Rwanda led a life in exile for almost 60 years, both as a refugee and a consistent advocate for the immediate, safe and unconditional return home of all Tutsi exiles. One of the first to help the king was the Monarchist League, a 70-year-old British group that campaigns for the preservation and restoration of kingdoms the world over. In order to fund this great achievement, Kigeli V turned to westerners who were willing to support him financially in exchange for noble titles and other honors. Such a practice is not an uncommon business model for monarchs (whether reigning or in exile) to fund their court.
However, the living circumstances of this great man remained far from optimal. In 2013, Washingtonian magazine found the former monarch living in subsidized housing in Virginia and living off food stamps. He told the magazine that Paul Kagame, president of Rwanda and a fellow Tutsi, had permitted him to return to his home country but said that he could not resume the throne. In retrospective, I doubt that this was the right decision.
As the return to monarchy could be instrumental in preserving unity and peace in Rwanda and thus preventing further violence, it is interesting to investigate the question of who can be seen as a legitimate successor to king Kigeli V.
Line of succession
During the colonization by the Belgians, all legislation governing the country was made by Belgian authorities and the mainstay of criminal and civil legislation was the civil and criminal codes of the then Belgian Congo. Though criminal law had universal application, written civil laws was applied only to whites. Customary law continued to apply to the natives. Hence, the current Rwanda Civil Law Legal system is based on German and Belgian civil law systems and customary law. It is important to note that Rwanda is a civil law legal system that in the beginning of the 21st century was undergoing a transformation from purely civil law to a merge between civil law and common law. The evolutionary process has led to the reform of several laws such as the penal code, and the law of evidence among others.
During the time that Rwanda was a kingdom, the central government was manned by the Abiru through a complex and secret polity known as ubwiru. The Abiru were ritual loyalists who lived in the king’s palace. Their purpose was to explain occurrences and forecast the future. For instance, the Abiru alone could secretly determine the next king and define his mission during his reign (source: globalsecurity.org).
There currently is no formal law to appoint a successor of Kigeli V as head of state, since the kingdom has been replaced by a republic. This, however, is irrelevant because the Abiru has full authority to appoint a dynastic successor. This ancient institute cannot be abolished by the president of the Rwandan republic as it is part of the king’s personal entourage. Therefore, in respect to the legitimacy of the claim to the headship of the Royal House of Rwanda, customary law adopted to general principles of law that are recognized by civilized nations, legitimize the succession. It is along these lines of thought that I have formed an opinion about the legitimate successor of king Kigeli V.
Legal opinion
Acclamation of the new pretender to the vacant throne of Rwanda Yuhi VI by mr. Benzinge (9 January 2017).
There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Boniface Benzinge, who himself is a member of a reputable Rwandan family, was a close friend and reliable confidant of the former king. In many instances he can be seen by his side in the Kigeli V’ company, for example at the king’s last public interview of 30th August 2016. Mr. Benzinge also accompanied the king on his last visit to the United Kingdom in June 2016. The close relationship both men held, was mentioned by the Washingtonian in the 2013 article. Mr. Benzinge was Kigeli’s boyhood friend (source: Mr. Chris Kamo). He played various roles for the King, including his chancellor, counsellor, secretary and interpreter. He stayed with his friend for nearly six decades when almost all other Rwandans abandoned him and only a handful of Westerners circled around the former king with the sole purpose of obtaining royal titles and awards. For his services, the King awarded Mr Benzinge a ducal title in 1989, along with the highest grades in the Rwandan Royal Orders. The late King appointed Bushayija as his successor, and entrusted Mr Benzinge to execute his last wishes, according to sources familiar with the matter.
Based on the oral evidence, publicly given by Mr. Benzinge on 9 January 2017, and the forementioned facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the current claimant, Mr. Emmanuel Bushayija (1960), should be regarded as the legitimate successor to the headship of the Royal House of Rwanda. Bushayija is the son of HRH Theoneste Bushayija and grandson of HM King Yuhi V Musinga. Bushayija’s family had ruled Rwanda for nine centuries before his predecessor was ousted in 1960. He has assumed the title “Yuhi VI” and should be addressed as His Majesty in formal correspondence in order to stress the fact that he did not give up his sovereign rights in line with international legal principles that ex-monarchs continue to possess their sovereign rights (see Hugo Grotius’ De iure belli ac pacis; English: On the Law of War and Peace. Paris 1625).
Recommendations
I recommend populating the Abiru with Rwandans, who are able to act in accordance with the ancient traditions of customary law, but are also open to implementing fundamental rules of modern law (for example regarding gender-neutrality). An Abiru, consisting of Westerners is not acceptable, since this would be in breach with customary law.
The Abiru should be formed as a Swiss Verein in order to create a solid fundament for the future.
The composition of the Abiri also needs to be transparent in order not to trigger discussion regarding future successors. The names of the members of the Abiri should be published on the website of the Royal House.
Literature
Melvern, L. (2019). A people betrayed: The role of the West in Rwandas genocide. London: ZED Books.
Is there a generally accepted standard regarding the recognition of orders of knighthood?
James Watt (1736-1819) by Carl Frederik von Breda (Photo: NPG). The famous inventor, James Watt grew up within the Barony of Cartsburn. His father and namesake, James Watt, was contracted to enlarge the mansion house of Sir John Shaw, 2nd Baronet at Greenock, and his grandfather, Thomas Watt, was Bailie of the Barony of Cartsburn. In 2010, the dignity Baron of Cartsburn was transferred by assignation to Dr. Pier Felice degli Uberti, scholar and nobiliary law expert.
No, there is not. If this were the case, it would be rather simple to decide whether a given order is legitimate or not. A recognized and accepted standard of what an order of knighthood is does not exist. However, an attempt was made in the 1960’s to establish such a standard; the International Commission for Orders of Chivalry, also known as “ICOC” or in Italian: “Commissione internazionale permanente per lo studio degli ordini cavallereschi“. The organization is a privately run, privately funded, and privately managed entity composed of scholars on chivalric matters and systems of awards. Its purpose is to examine orders of chivalry to determine their legitimacy. Dr. Pier Felice degli Uberti, Baron of Cartsburn, has been its president since 1999. The seat of the organization is in Milan, Italy.
ICOC principles
In 2015, the ICOC stated that orders were considered knightly only when they are historical. Other types of orders are listed in appendices in order to inform the public of their existence, but without evaluation. New creations, currently being made by Heads of former ruling Houses, are considered as awarding systems without the designation ‘knightly’. The ICOC uses the below mentioned standard (source: website ICOC) to evaluate whether it is considered ‘knightly’ or not. I have copied the first five standards and added my personal comments. The sixth principle addresses the Sovereign Order of Malta and is not relevant for the questions raised in this article.
Principles involved in assessing the validity of Orders of Chivalry
1) Every independent State has the right to create its own Orders or Decorations of Merit and lay down, at will, their particular rules. But it must be made clear that only the higher degrees of these modern State Orders can be deemed of knightly rank, provided they are conferred by the Crown or by the “pro tempore” ruler of some traditional State.
Comments. An independent state does not need the recognition of the ICOC to decide whether an order is knightly or not. As an example, article 111 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of The Netherlands states that orders of knighthood are constituted by law. Based on this article, Dutch law established two orders of knighthood for civilians: the Order of the Dutch Lion and the Order of Orange-Nassau. Both are explicitly named ‘orders of knighthood’ independent of the issued rank. The first principle of the ICOC is therefore incorrect.
2) The Dynastic (or Family or House) Orders which belong jure sanguinis to a Sovereign House (that is to those ruling or ex-ruling Houses whose sovereign rank was internationally recognised at the time of the Congress of Vienna in 1814 or later) retain their full historical chivalric, nobiliary and social validity, notwithstanding all political changes. It is therefore considered ultra vires of any republican State to interfere, by legislation or administrative practice, with the Princely Dynastic Family or House Orders. That they may not be officially recognised by the new government does not affect their traditional validity or their accepted status in international heraldic, chivalric and nobiliary circles.
3) It is generally admitted by jurists that such ex-sovereigns who have not abdicated have positions different from those of pretenders and that in their lifetime they retain their full rights as “fons honorum” in respect even of those Orders of which they remain Grand Masters which would be classed, otherwise, as State and Merit Orders.
Comments. These two principles have already been established centuries ago by Hugo de Groot (1583-1645), a Dutch jurist (Grotius, Hugo, 1583-1645. (1964). De jure belli ac pacis libri tres / by Hugo Grotius; trans. by Francis W. Kelsey; with the collaboration of Arthur E.R. Boak, Henry A. Sanders … [and others]. New York : Oceana). Along with the earlier works of Francisco de Vitoria and Alberico Gentili, he laid the foundations for modern international law. They are therefore not original principles of the ICOC, but nonetheless correct principles.
4) Although, at one time – many centuries ago – private people of high standing could and did create some independent Orders of Knighthood, some among which came, in due course, to gain considerable prestige and obtained formal validity from the Church and the Crown, such rights of creation of Orders have long since fallen into desuetude and, nowadays, Orders of Chivalry as we understand the term must always stem from or be – by longstanding uninterrupted tradition – under the protection of Chiefs or of Houses of recognised sovereign rank.
Comments. The Order of the Knights of Rizal is an Order of Knighthood in the Philippines. The Order has been created in 1911 by Colonel Antonio C. Torres, to honor and uphold the ideals of Philippine national hero and polymath Dr. José Rizal. The ranks and insignia of the order are recognized in the Honors Code of the Philippines as official awards of the Republic. The Order has been granted a legislative charter by President Elpidio Quirino as a non-sectarian, non-partisan, non-racial civic, patriotic, and cultural organization under the Republic Act 646 on June 14, 1951. The Order’s insignia have been approved to be worn by the Philippine diplomatic corps. The fourth principle of the ICOC that only “many centuries ago” private persons could create an independent Order of Knighthood, is therefore incorrect. A state, like the Philippines, enjoys the sovereignty to recognise a new Order of Knighthood, formed by private individuals. In addition, the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem is a 19th century example of a private revival, that managed to be turned into an official Order in Britain in 1888. Apart from these two examples, the internationally recognised freedom of association (United States Bill of Rights, article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and international law, including articles 20 and 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 22 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) is the legal basis for creating independent Orders of Knighthood.
5) The recognition of Orders by States or supranational organisations which themselves do not have chivalric orders of their own, and in whose Constitutions no provisions are made for the recognition of knightly and nobiliary institutions, cannot be accepted as constituting validation by sovereignties, since these particular sovereignties have renounced the exercise of heraldic jurisdiction. The international “status” of an Order of Knighthood rests, in fact, on the rights of fons honorum, which, according to tradition, must belong to the Authority by which this particular Order is granted, protected or recognised.
Comments. The signing of the treaties of Westphalia in 1648 significantly changed the nature of international relations, since it illustrated the beginning of two important principles: state sovereignty as well as the notion of non-interference. These principles are also part of the United Nations’ (UN) charter which says that “the Organization’s foundation depends on the equal sovereignty of all its members.” As such, state sovereignty has been an undeniable pillar of international relations for decades, and it is essential in the present international community. The fifth principle of the ICOC is incorrect, because it is in breach of the sovereignty of states as generally accepted in international law. The same is true regarding supranational entities like the European Union and the World Trade Organization.
Competition
There exist a number of websites that purport to be authoritative bodies, but have proven to be landing pages for medal mills. They trigger the public to make inquiries about orders and decorations, subsequently offering their services as an ‘independent’ intermediary. The final step is to sell the medals of formerly ruling houses in exchange for a so-called ‘passage fee’. In this respect, I would like to mention the following websites.
The “International Commission and Association on Nobility” is run by a UK-company of the same name, of which the director is Mr. Salvatore Caputo, born in 1942, with the Italian nationality and living in Guatemala (Companies House nr 07457100). The website states that it is affiliated with the United Nations and the European Commission, which is not the case.
The ‘Instituto Preste João / Prester John Institute’ is a Facebook page run by the Portuguese “Centro de Informação do Castelo de Ourém“, which, in turn, has a separate web page that has been “under construction” for years. The Facebook page also states that the ‘Institute’ is recognized by the “CIAN-International Confederation of Nobility Associations”, a non-existing entity. It further states that the ‘Institute’ is a “Royal and Imperial Council of Foreign Nobility”. The meaning of this designation remains unclear, but the Facebook page lacks authority in these matters.
Conclusions
Screenshot of the Prester John Institute Facebook page with its truncated uploaded banners.
I prefer to see the ICOC as a highly respected learned society. Its work and publications cannot be overestimated. I very much appreciate the fact that the ICOC’s knowledge and principles develop constantly. It is this attitude and transparency that make the ICOC an important contributor to the body of knowledge regarding knightly orders. I also hold Dr. Pier Felice degli Uberti, widely recognized as one of the world’s leading experts in heraldry, reward systems and nobiliary law, in high regards. Due to Dr. degli Uberti’s effort, the ICOC has become the leading learned society regarding knightly orders and nobiliary law. On their website, the ICOC shows that its aim is to genuinely contribute to the body of knowledge:
Today, the Commission considers theRegisteralways open and does not exclude the possibility of modifying its positions or decisions, provided that there is solid documentary scientific evidence to do so. Moreover, the Commission favours open discussions on subjects between persons with differing points of view.
In the twenty-first century the Commission needs to expand its horizons, widening its principles in order to bring them into line with the objective reality of today’s society and the inevitable historical changes. The compilation of the Register cannot be limited to the chivalric material of the past, thus the Commission has to offer, to those who are not scholars in the field of award systems, a valid publication from which one can learn and understand. Above all this publication must open the eyes of the uninitiated to diverse award systems which exist in today’s world.
In de wereld van de orden, decoraties en medailles wordt vaak de term ‘ridderlijk’ gebruikt, in de zin van ‘ridderlijke orde’. Volgens Van Dale (jaargang 1898) betekent ‘ridderlijk’:
wat een ridder of de ridders betreft: de ridderlijke stand, de ridderstand; een ridderlijk landgoed, slot; — als een ridder: zich ridderlijk gedragen; ridderlijke avonturen; dapper, moedig; — ridderlijk antwoorden, bekennen, eerlijk, rondborstig.
Het betreft dus een redelijk brede term, waardoor het vrijwel onmogelijk wordt om van overheidswege over te gaan tot het al dan niet erkennen van ‘ridderlijke orden’. Toch doet de overheid dit wel in het Besluit draagvolgorde onderscheidingen (zie onderaan dit artikel). De term ‘ridderlijke orde’ betekent iets anders dan de term ‘ridderorde’. Een ridderorde kan alleen bij wet worden ingesteld (artikel 111 Grondwet). De drie Nederlandse ridderorden zijn de Militaire Willemsorde (ingesteld bij wet van 30 april 1815, Stb. 33), de Orde van de Nederlandse Leeuw (ingesteld bij wet van 29 september 1815, Stb. 47), en de Orde van Oranje-Nassau (ingesteld bij wet van 4 april 1892, Stb. 55).
In zijn proefschrift over Nederlandse ridderlijke orden, komt jhr. dr. Versélewel de Witt Hamer tot een aantal conclusies ten aanzien van de erkenning van de drie ridderlijke orden die zijn opgenomen in het Besluit draagvolgorde onderscheidingen (zie hieronder bij de letter D: “Erkende (ridderlijke) orden”. Zijn conclusies (Versélewel de Witt Hamer, p.97) luiden als volgt.
Alleen voor de Duitse Orde geldt dat deze orde bij wet is ingesteld en daarmee in juridische zin door de Nederlandse overheid is erkend.
Anders ligt het bij de Johanniter orde en de Orde van Malta (SMOM) die beide als vereniging zijn opgericht en waarvan de statuten bij koninklijk besluit zijn vastgesteld, net als van elke Nederlandse vereniging voor de invoering van boek 2 van het Burgerlijk Wetboek in 1976, waarna de toets van bezwaar tegen de erkenning van rechtspersoonlijkheid verviel.
In deze bijdrage wordt kritiek gegeven op de plaats van ridderlijke orden in het Besluit draagvolgorde onderscheidingen. Betoogd wordt dat deze orden daaruit moeten worden verwijderd.
Het Koninklijk Besluit voor de goedkeuring van de statuten is geen erkenning van overheidswege van de Johanniter Orde of de Orde van Malta als ridderlijke orde
Keizer Wilhem II als Herrenmeister van de Johanniter Orde (1888). Foto: WikiCommons.
Een Koninklijk Besluit was in Nederland in de jaren 1855 tot en met 1976 noodzakelijk als een vereniging verzocht om rechtspersoonlijkheid. Dit laatste is noodzakelijk om registergoederen te kunnen aankopen (bijvoorbeeld een kantoorgebouw). In dat geval dienden de statuten van de vereniging te worden goedgekeurd door het Ministerie van Justitie. Voor verenigingen die korter dan 30 jaar waren aangegaan werd de goedkeuring en daarmee de rechtspersoonlijkheid verleend bij koninklijk besluit, voor een duur langer dan 30 jaar bij wet. Om deze laatste, moeilijker weg te ontlopen werden verenigingen doorgaans voor iets korter dan 30 jaar aangegaan, waarna een verzoek tot verlenging kon worden ingediend.
De goedgekeurde statuten werden in de Staatscourant gepubliceerd en bijgehouden in het Verenigingenregister bij het Ministerie van Justitie. Over de periode 1875-1976 bevat dit register (aanwezig bij het Nationaal Archief) ongeveer 80.000 dossiers, waaronder de in 1968 opgerichte “Ridders van de Soevereinde Orde van de Heilige Johannes van Jeruzalem, Ridder van Malta OSJ“. Naar laatstgenoemde ridderlijke orde hebben het Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken, het Openbaar Ministerie en de Rijksrecherche onderzoek gedaan wegens het misbruiken van de term “Royal Decree”. Enkele brieven en rapporten van de Nederlandse overheid over deze orde zijn hieronder opgesomd (zie stichtingargus.nl):
De koninklijke goedkeuring kon volgens art. 7 van de Wet van 1855 alleen worden geweigerd op grond van het algemeen belang. De koninklijke goedkeuring verdween bij de invoering van Boek 2 van het Nieuw Burgerlijk Wetboek in 1976. Vanaf dan heeft elke vereniging rechtspersoonlijkheid, met de aantekening dat de bestuurders hoofdelijk aansprakelijk zijn zolang de statuten niet door een notaris in een authentieke akte zijn opgenomen en deze bij de Kamer van Koophandel is geregistreerd. Van een erkenning door middel van een Koninklijk besluit van de Maltezer en de Johanniter Orde is dan ook geen sprake.
Juridische aspecten
Artikel 1:3, eerste lid, Algemene wet bestuursrecht bepaalt dat van een besluit sprake is bij een schriftelijke beslissing van een bestuursorgaan inhoudende een publiekrechtelijke rechtshandeling. Volgens vaste jurisprudentie van de Raad van State, moet de vraag of met een handeling een rechtsgevolg is beoogd en het al dan niet om een besluit gaat, worden onderscheiden van de vraag of degene die de handeling heeft verricht bevoegd was namens een bestuursorgaan dat besluit te nemen. Een gepretendeerde bevoegdheid of het geheel ontbreken van een bevoegdheid staan er niet aan in de weg, dat sprake is van een besluit als bedoeld in artikel 1:3, eerste lid, Awb (bijvoorbeeld: ECLI:NL:RVS:2006:AW1297). Dit betekent dat de opname van het Maltezer en de Johanniter Orde in het Besluit draagvolgorde onderscheidingen kan worden aangemerkt als een besluit, maar door het ontbreken van de wettelijke bevoegdheid, wel een onrechtmatig besluit. De onrechtmatigheid geldt ook ten aanzien van andere ridderlijke orden, die een dergelijke erkenning van overheidswege niet hebben gekregen, zoals de oecumenische Orde van Sint Lazarus en de Rooms-katholieke Orde van het Heilig Graf van Jeruzalem. Het wordt een interessante casus als, bijvoorbeeld de Orde van Sint-Lazarus, aan aanvraag doet om te worden opgenomen op de lijst van het Besluit draagvolgorde onderscheidingen.
Samengevat
Het voorgaande betekent dat de Maltezer Orde en de Johanniter Orde niet door de Nederlandse overheid als ridderlijke orde zijn erkend, behalve in het Besluit draagvolgorde onderscheidingen. Hiervoor is geen wettelijke grondslag. Nu genoemd besluit niet tot doel heeft om orden al dan niet als ridderlijk te erkennen, maar alleen de draagvolgorde regelt, houdt rangschikking als ridderlijke orde in het besluit geen erkenning als ridderlijke orde in.
De rangschikking van de huidige Duitse Orde als ridderlijke orde is onterecht
De Ridderlijke Duitsche Orde, Balije van Utrecht is een zestiende eeuwse protestantse afsplitsing van de originele katholieke Duitse Orde die vanaf het onstaan in de 12e eeuw tot heden onder het gezag van de Paus staat. Door de protestantisering van de orde kan niet meer gezegd worden dat de orde nog dezelfde orde is die in de 12e eeuw in het Heilige Land is ontstaan en dus een ridderlijke orde is. De Duitse Orde, balije Utrecht, is op 27 februari 1811 door Napoleon opgeheven en heropgericht bij wet van 8 augustus 1815, nr. 55, (zie Stbl. nr. 1815, 43). Het eerste artikel van deze wet luidt als volgt:
De Duitsche Orde, Balye Utrecht, wordt hersteld, zodanig als derzelve, ten tijde van derzelve suppressie, in den jare 1811, heeft bestaan, voorbehoudens nogtans Onze bevoegdheid, om aan derzelve Orde, in tijd en wijle, zoodanige andere en meer doelmatige inrightingen te geven, als Wij zullen goedvinden, en voorts op den voet en onder bepalingen, in de volgende artikelen vermeld.
Koning Willem I wees de titel van hoog- of grootmeester af, maar trok wel het aggregatierecht (de mogelijkheid van om de benoeming van nieuwe leden en alle bevorderingen goed te keuren) naar zich toe. Alle benoemingen en bevorderingen in de Duitse Orde vinden sindsdien plaats door middel van een Koninklijk Besluit, hetgeen echter niet een erkenning van regeringswege inhoudt omdat er geen ministeriële contrasignering volgt. De huidige ‘Ridderlijke Duitsche Orde, Balije van Utrecht’ is een particuliere vereniging, die is ingeschreven bij de Kamer van Koophandel (inschrijvingsnummer: 40478069). Deze nieuwe rechtspersoon en de statutaire bepalingen die op zijn leden van toepassing zijn, vallen niet onder het bereik van de wet van 1815. Zij vervangen genoemde wet. De KB’s hebben dan ook geen wettelijke grondslag en moeten worden gestaakt.
Kritiek
Uitreiking van de Zilveren Anjer in 2012 door Koningin Beatrix aan Neeltje van der Ven-Blonk en Clemens van der Ven voor hun bijzondere bijdrage als moderne mecenas ten behoeve van kunst en cultuur. Beide waren medeoprichters van de wereldberoemde kunstbeurzen TEFAF en de PAN Amsterdam.
De Duitse Orde, de Johanniter Orde en de Orde van Malta in Nederland zijn lidmaatschap-orden, die tegen betaling van een jaarlijkse bijdrage recht geven op het bijwonen van een jaarlijkse vergadering en andere bijeenkomsten. Het lidmaatschap is gelimiteerd op grond van een combinatie van (adellijke) geboorte en godsdienstige achtergrond.
Lidmaatschap-orden behoren in het geheel niet van overheidswege te worden erkend, zeker niet in het Besluit draagvolgorde onderscheidingen. De overige onderscheidingen die in het Besluit worden genoemd betreffen namelijk zonder uitzondering een eerbetoon voor een persoonlijke, maatschappelijke verdienste ten opzichte van de Nederlandse samenleving. Het zijn geen koopdecoraties voor de maatschappelijk elite. Het is te gek voor woorden dat het Besluit draagvolgorde onderscheidingen de ridderlijke orden plaatst boven een belangrijke orde van verdienste als bijvoorbeeld de Gouden Anjer. Deze laatste wordt uitgereikt als blijk van waardering voor personen van onbesproken vaderlands gedrag, die in enigerlei vorm van onverplichte arbeid uitstekende verdiensten hebben verworven voor de Nederlandse cultuur of voor die van de Nederlandse Antillen. In 2018 bijvoorbeeld werd de decoratie uitgereikt aan:
Piet de Boer (Dordrecht, 1942) voor zijn inzet als voorzitter voor het Volendams Opera Koor.
Alice van Romondt (Aruba, 1949) voor haar bijdrage aan de cultuur, de literatuur en de kunsten op Aruba.
Hans van der Ven (Den Haag, 1942) voor zijn hulp aan met name het Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam bij het verwerven van kunstwerken die belangrijk zijn voor het erfgoed van Nederland.
Een tweede punt van kritiek betreft de inconsequentie van indeling door de regering van ridderlijke orden ten opzichte van andere particuliere organisaties. Het is mij niet duidelijk waarom de ridderlijke orden niet gewoon worden gerangschikt onder “F. Onderscheidingen van Nederlandse particuliere organisaties”. Categorie F betreft organisaties met een veel grotere maatschappelijke impact dan genoemde ridderlijke orden. Voorbeelden zijn het Carnegie Heldenfonds en het Rode Kruis. Bovendien is de Orde van Malta een buitenlandse ridderlijke orde en zou om die reden al niet in het Besluit moeten voorkomen.
Een derde kritische opmerking is te maken over de voorkeursbehandeling door de overheid van genoemde ridderlijke orden. Door de overheid is aan deze particuliere orden het voorrecht toegekend van officiële erkenning van de decoraties. Dit geeft deze orden een bijzondere maatschappelijke status, die bijvoorbeeld een Orde van Sint-Lazarus mist. Erkenning geeft deze orden meer aantrekkingskracht en daarmee ook meer mogelijkheden om financiële middelen aan te trekken voor de doelstellingen die zij nastreven, dan de andere ridderlijke (lidmaatschap-) orden in Nederland. Versélewel de Witt Hamer geeft een voorbeeld van het maken van misbruik van het overheidsstempel door de Johanniter Orde ten opzichte van een van de eigen leden, die ook lid was van de Orde van Sint Lazarus (Versélewel de Witt Hamer, p. 152):
Ik werd lid omdat mijn vader lid was. Maar nadat ik een brief kreeg van de Johanniter Orde om dat lidmaatschap te beëindigen omdat het een niet-erkende orde betrof, heb ik dat gedaan. Ik heb toen alle spullen van die orde teruggestuurd.
Typerend voor de discriminerende (door de overheid geïnspireerde) eigendunk van de huidige “ridderlijke orden” is ook de opmerking van jhr. Van Citters, coadjutor van de Johanniter Orde, die in 2016 desgevraagd aan Versélewel de Witt Hamer meedeelde (proefschrift, p. 111):
De Orde van het Heilig Graf is geen ridderlijke orde, de leden zijn immers niet van adel.
Fresco van Giacomo Jaquerio in Saluzzo, waarop het kruis van de Orde van het Heilg Graf is afgebeeld, Noord Italië (circa 1420). Het symbool van de ridderorde is een Latijns krukkenkruis met vier Griekse kruisen in de armen. Het kruis is rood en wordt wel Jeruzalemkruis genoemd. Het door Godfried van Bouillon als wapen gekozen kruis in het wapen van het koninkrijk Jeruzalem is van goud.
De familie Van Citters is een familie van koopmanslieden en bestuurders, die voor het eerst in de archieven verschijnt met Cornelis van Seters, in 1522 burgemeester van Breda. De familie is in 1828 en 1872 verheven in de Nederlandse adel. Met ridders heeft de eigen familie van de coadjutor dus niets uit te staan. Zijn in 1946 nieuw opgerichte Johanniter Orde heeft dat ook niet. Van Citters vergeet dat de door hem als inferieur beschouwde Orde van het Heilig Graf wel zijn oorsprong in de riddertijd heeft (1114), volledig onder pauselijk gezag staat (en dus officieel erkend is) en een belangrijke internationale charitatieve impact heeft; de orde met zijn 23.000 leden is onderverdeeld in 52 commanderijen, gevestigd in meer dan 30 landen (24 in Europa, 15 in de Verenigde Staten en Canada, 5 in Latijns-Amerika en 6 in Australië en het Verre Oosten). Van Citters’ opmerking is daarom ongepast.
Met het voorgaande wil ik aangeven dat het weigeren van bijvoorbeeld de Orde van het Heilig Graf en het opnemen van de Johanniter Orde in de categorie Erkende (ridderlijke) orden in het Besluit draagvolgorde onderscheidingen volstrekt willekeurig is en bovendien niet wordt gelegitimeerd door maatschappelijk toegevoegde waarde.
Een vierde punt van kritiek is dat de genoemde Ridderlijke Orden niet van overheidswege dienen te worden erkend omdat zij statuten hebben met discriminatoire bepalingen. Nu is het waarschijnlijk verenigingsrechtelijk toegestaan om personen van adellijke komaf te verenigen en dus personen van niet-adellijke komaf te weigeren (discrimineren), maar het wordt anders als deze verenigingen door de overheid bevoordeeld worden ten opzichte van andere particuliere organisaties bij het dragen van onderscheidingen. Het opnemen in het Besluit van verenigingen waaraan de adellijke status gekoppeld is en die godsdienstige voorwaarden stellen, is strijdig is met nationale en internationale anti-discriminatie bepalingen omdat deze verenigingen en hun discriminerende statuten daarmee van overheidswege worden gepromoot.
Advies
In het Besluit draagvolgorde onderscheidingen moet categorie D (Erkende (ridderlijke) orden) vervallen en moet Categorie E (Door Z.K.H. Prins Bernhard der Nederlanden ingestelde onderscheidingen) worden toegevoegd aan Categorie B (Huisorden).
Literatuur
Versélewel de Witt Hamer, T. J. (2017). Geloven verplicht: Een elite-onderzoek naar ridderlijke orden in het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden (1965-2015). [Groningen]: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
P.L. Dijk P.L. & T.J. van der Ploeg (1997). Van vereniging en stichting, coöperatie en onderlinge waarborgmaatschappij. [Deventer].
De heer Erik Müller, decoratie-deskundige (LinkedIn 23 maart 2019)
Op hoofdlijnen ben ik het met je eens, echter:
de banden van het Koninklijk Huis met zowel de Johanniter Orde (waar altijd een lid van het KH als erecommandeur is geïnstalleerd geweest) en de Orde van Malta (waar meerdere leden van het KH een band mee hebben gehad) hebben hun het voorrecht verworven om al vanaf de eerste draagvolgordelijst in 1952 opgenomen te zijn. Ditzelfde voorrecht is de Orde van Sint Lazarus (waar dan weer wel meerdere ministers en staatssecretarissen lid van zijn geweest) en de Orde van het Heilige Graf nooit gegund. Ik ben het echter wel met je eens dat in ieder geval de laatste gewoon opgenomen zou moeten worden. Voor wat betreft de eerste: welke linie is de oorspronkelijke? Je hebt de Spaanse en de Franse linie, welke beiden claimen de oorspronkelijke orde te zijn. De familie De Bourbon-Parma is verwant aan het Koninklijk Huis, dus ik vermoed dat die de strijd dan wel zullen winnen ;-)
De prinselijke decoraties zijn zeker geen huisorden. Het zijn particuliere onderscheidingen, net als de hofmedailles, die niet door het staatshoofd, maar door een lid van de Koninklijke familie zijn verleend. In het overzicht mist nog de reddingsmedaille die door Koningin Emma werd verleend. Verder zou ik ze inderdaad tussen de herinneringsmedailles en particuliere onderscheidingen laten staan. Ik denk dat er maar één manier is om te achterhalen of het Besluit Draagvolgorde aangepast gaat worden en dat is een request met deze strekking aan de Kanselarij te richten.
Besluit draagvolgorde onderscheidingen
10 oktober 2017
Nr. KNO/17/7632
De Kanselier der Nederlandse Orden,
Overwegende dat het wenselijk is het bij zijn besluit van 25 juli 2013 vastgestelde Besluit draagvolgorde van de erkende onderscheidingen te herzien;
Gelet op de instemming van de Minister van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties;
Besluit:
Vast te stellen het herziene Besluit draagvolgorde onderscheidingen.
Artikel 1
Indien een persoon de hem toegekende Koninklijke of Ministeriële onderscheidingen draagt, dan worden deze links op de borst gedragen in de in artikel 2 aangegeven volgorde, waarbij de onderscheiding met het laagste rangnummer het dichtst bij het hart wordt gedragen.
Artikel 2
De volgorde waarin onderscheidingen worden gedragen, luidt als volgt:
Rangnummer
Benaming onderscheiding
Graden/klassen/medailles
A. Ridderorden en vergelijkbare onderscheidingen
1
Militaire Willems-Orde
1.1 Ridder Grootkruis1.2 Commandeur
1.3 Ridder der 3e klasse
1.4 Ridder der 4e klasse
2
Kruis (Medaille) voor Moed en Trouw
3
Eresabel
4
Verzetskruis
5
Eerepenning voor Menschlievend Hulpbetoon
in goud
6
Orde van de Nederlandse Leeuw
6.1 Ridder Grootkruis6.2 Commandeur
6.3 Ridder
7
Orde van Oranje-Nassau
7.1 Ridder Grootkruis7.2 Grootofficier
7.3 Commandeur
7.4 Officier
7.5 Ridder
7.6 Lid
7.7 Eremedaille, verbonden aan de Orde, in goud
7.8 Eremedaille, verbonden aan de Orde, in zilver
7.9 Eremedaille, verbonden aan de Orde, in brons
B. Huisorden
8
Huisorde van de Gouden Leeuw van Nassau
8.1 Ridder
9
Huisorde van Oranje
9.1 Grootkruis9.2 Groot Erekruis
9.3 Erekruis
10
Kruis van Trouw en Verdienste van de Huisorde van Oranje
10.1 in goud10.2 in zilver
11
Eremedaille voor Voortvarendheid en Vernuft
12
Eremedaille voor Kunst en Wetenschap
13
Kroonorde
13.1 Grootkruis13.2 Groot Erekruis met plaque
13.3 Groot Erekruis
13.4 Erekruis met rozet
13.5 Erekruis
13.6 Eremedaille in goud
13.7 Eremedaille in zilver
13.8 Eremedaille in brons
C. Overige staatsonderscheidingen
C1. Onderscheidingen voor dapperheid
14
Eervolle Vermelding
15
Bronzen Leeuw
16
Verzetsster Oost-Azië 1942-1945
17
Bronzen Kruis
18
Kruis van Verdienste
19
Vliegerkruis
20
Eerepenning voor Menschlievend Hulpbetoon
20.1 in zilver20.2 in brons
C2. Onderscheidingen voor verdiensten
21
Erepenning voor Verdiensten jegens Openbare Verzamelingen (Museumpenning)
21.1 in goud21.2 in zilver
21.3 in brons
22
Onderscheidingsteken ter erkenning van uitstekende daden bij watersnood verricht (Watersnoodmedaille)
22.1 in zilver22.2 in brons
23
De Ruytermedaille
23.1 in goud23.2 in zilver
23.3 in brons
24
Medaille van het Nederlandsche Roode Kruis (Regeringsmedaille)
25
Erkentelijkheidsmedaille
25.1 in zilver25.2 in brons
26
Ereteken voor Verdienste (Defensie)
26.1 in goud26.2 in zilver
26.3 in brons
27
Eremedaille voor verdienste politie
in goud
C3. Herinneringsonderscheidingen voor militaire operaties
28
Ereteken voor Belangrijke Krijgsbedrijven (Expeditiekruis)
Medaille voor 10 jaar Trouwe Dienst (Nederlandse Rode Kruis)
F5. Herinnerings- en vaardigheidsonderscheidingen
82
Kruis van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Bond voor Lichamelijke Opvoeding voor betoonde marsvaardigheid (Vierdaagsekruis)
83
Nationale Sportmedaille NOC*NSF
(voorheen Vaardigheidsmedaille NSF)
84
Nationale Vijfkampkruis NOC*NSF
85
Kruis van de Koninklijke Vereniging van Nederlandse Reserve Officieren (TMPT-kruis)
86
Elfstedenkruis
G. Onderscheidingen van internationale organisaties
87
Verenigde Naties (VN)
88
Noord-Atlantische Verdragsorganisatie (NAVO)
89
West-Europese Unie (WEU)
90
Multinational Force & Observers (MFO)
91
Europese Gemeenschap (EG)
92
Europese Unie (EU)
93
Baltic Air Policing-Medal
H. Buitenlandse onderscheidingen
In de volgorde van de graden van hoog naar laag. Bij gelijke graad op alfabetische volgorde van de Franse benamingen van land. Bij meerdere onderscheidingen van één land dient de daar gebruikelijke draagvolgorde te worden aangehouden.
Artikel 3
1.Dit besluit treedt in werking met ingang van heden.
2.Dit besluit zal worden geplaatst in de Staatscourant.
Aldus vastgesteld te Den Haag, 10 oktober 2017
De Kanselier der Nederlandse Orden,H.Morsink
TOELICHTING
Het Besluit draagvolgorde onderscheidingen is laatstelijk gewijzigd op 25 juli 2013 vanwege het opnemen van enkele onderscheidingen. Het thans voorliggende besluit dient aan een breed publiek inzichtelijk te maken welke gedachte aan de draagvolgorde ten grondslag ligt. Het besluit kent daarom de volgende wijzigingen:
aanpassing volgorde onderscheidingen in categorie C. Overige staatsonderscheidingen,
aanpassing volgorde onderscheidingen in categorie F. Onderscheidingen van Nederlandse particuliere organisaties,
aanpassing volgorde internationale organisaties in categorie G. Onderscheidingen van internationale organisaties,
toevoegen nieuw ingestelde onderscheidingen,
afvoeren onderscheidingen voor eenmalige gebeurtenissen die niet meer kunnen worden toegekend en waarvan de laatste toekenning meer dan honderd jaar geleden heeft plaats gevonden,
aanpassing nieuwe naam Herinneringsmedaille Vredesoperaties,
Aanpassing volgorde onderscheidingen in categorie C. Overige staatsonderscheidingen
Deze wijziging in de indeling van categorie C (‘Overige staatsonderscheidingen’) beoogt de indeling inzichtelijker te maken, mede met het oog op het rangschikken van eventueel in de toekomst toe te voegen onderscheidingen. Daartoe worden vijf subcategorieën gecreëerd:
C1 Onderscheidingen voor dapperheid,
C2 Onderscheidingen voor verdiensten,
C3 Onderscheidingen voor militaire operaties,
C4 Onderscheidingen voor trouwe dienst,
C5 Herinnerings- en vaardigheidsonderscheidingen.
Binnen de subcategorieën worden de onderscheidingen ingedeeld op basis van de datum waarop de onderscheiding bij Koninklijk Besluit, Algemene Maatregel van Bestuur of ministeriële regeling is ingesteld.
Er is om praktische redenen gekozen om in de subcategorie ‘C5 Herinnerings- en vaardigheidsonderscheidingen’ de herinneringsonderscheidingen te laten prevaleren boven de vaardigheidsonderscheidingen binnen deze categorie teneinde volgorde in het huidige besluit zoveel als mogelijk in stand te houden. De onderscheidingen voor operationele inzet van de Nederlandse krijgmacht (Marinemedaille, Landmachtmedaille, Marechausseemedaille en Luchtmachtmedaille) zullen gelet op de aard van de onderscheiding en de uitvoerbaarheid gehandhaafd blijven in de categorie ‘C5. Herinnerings- en vaardigheidsonderscheidingen’.
Door deze categorisering hebben enkele onderscheidingen een andere positie gekregen in de draagvolgorde. Gelet op de instellingsdatum van de Erepenning voor Verdiensten jegens Openbare Verzamelingen (1817) en de De Ruytermedaille (1907) zijn deze onderscheidingen van plaats gewisseld.
Aanpassing volgorde onderscheidingen in categorie F. Onderscheidingen van Nederlandse particuliere organisaties
Ook de onderscheidingen die worden toegekend door particuliere organisaties zijn opnieuw gerangschikt conform de categorie C. Overige staatsonderscheidingen:
F1 Onderscheidingen voor dapperheid,
F2 Onderscheidingen voor verdiensten,
F3 Onderscheidingen voor bijzondere inzet,
F4 Onderscheidingen voor trouwe dienst,
F5 Herinnerings- en vaardigheidsonderscheidingen.
Binnen de subcategorieën worden de onderscheidingen ingedeeld op basis van de datum waarop de onderscheiding bij Koninklijk Besluit van staatswege is erkend.
Aanpassing volgorde organisaties in categorie G. Onderscheidingen van internationale organisaties
Gelet op de veelvuldige bijdragen van de Nederlandse krijgsmacht en andere organisaties aan vredesoperaties en wederopbouw in internationaal verband is het nodig om deze categorie nader in te vullen om de indeling inzichtelijker te maken. Er is gekozen voor de onderstaande indeling op basis van de oprichtingsdatum van de organisaties of, in het geval van multinationale verbanden, naar de instellingsdatum van de afzonderlijke onderscheiding. Daaruit is deze volgorde af te leiden:
Onderscheidingen van de Verenigde Naties (VN),
Onderscheidingen van de Noord-Atlantische Verdragsorganisatie (NAVO),
Onderscheidingen van de West-Europese Unie (WEU),
Onderscheidingen van de Multinationals Force & Observers (MFO),
Onderscheidingen van de Europese Gemeenschap (EG),
Onderscheidingen van de Europese Unie (EU),
Baltic Air Policing Medal (BAP).
Bij meerdere onderscheidingen van dezelfde organisatie geldt de binnen de organisatie geldende volgorde. Indien deze niet formeel is vastgelegd dienen onderscheidingen te worden gerangschikt, eerst op basis van aard (onderscheiding voor verdiensten of herinneringsonderscheiding) en daar binnen op basis van de instellingsdatum van de onderscheidingen.
Om verwarring te voorkomen zijn onderscheidingen van afzonderlijke militaire missies en bijzondere inzetten onder auspiciën van internationale organisaties niet afzonderlijk vermeld.
Toevoegen en afvoeren nieuwe of erkende onderscheidingen
In de draagvolgorde worden de volgende nieuw ingestelde onderscheidingen toegevoegd:
‘Eremedaille voor verdienste politie’ in goud in categorie ‘C2. Onderscheidingen voor verdiensten’. Op basis van de instellingsdatum is de onderscheiding ingevoegd na het Ereteken voor Verdienste (Defensie),
‘Herinneringsmedaille bezoek in 2013 aan het Caribisch deel van het Koninkrijk’, welke is geplaatst in de categorie ‘C5. Overige herinnerings- en vaardigheidsonderscheidingen’ en op basis van de aard van de onderscheiding ingevoegd na de Inhuldigingsmedaille 2013 en voor de Herinneringsmedaille Buitenlandse Bezoeken,
Het Ereteken voor Verdienste van het Ministerie van Defensie in brons als aanvulling op de reeds bestaande varianten in goud en in zilver.
Uit de draagvolgorde worden de volgende onderscheidingen verwijderd omdat de onderscheiding is ingesteld voor een eenmalige gebeurtenis welke niet langer kan worden toegekend en waarvan de laatste toekenning meer dan honderd jaar geleden heeft plaats gevonden:
Lombokkruis,
Inhuldigingsmedaille 1898,
Huwelijksmedaille 1901,
Herinneringspenning van de Tweede Haagse Vredesconferentie in 1907.
Tevens zijn de volgende historische onderscheidingen opnieuw opgenomen:
Onderscheidingsteken ter erkenning van uitstekende daden bij watersnood verricht (Watersnoodmedaille),
Ereteken Meester-Kanonnier voor Schepelingen van de Koninklijke Marine.
De naam van de Herinneringsmedaille Vredesoperaties is op grond van het besluit van 2 juni 2016, houdende wijziging van het Besluit Herinneringsmedaille Vredesoperaties, gewijzigd in Herinneringsmedaille Internationale Missies (HIM). De reden was dat de term ‘vredesoperaties’ geen recht deed aan de missies waarin men zich in feite in oorlogsgebied bevindt en in het hoogste geweldsspectrum wordt opgetreden.
Draagvolgorde buitenlandse onderscheidingen
Vanwege een misdruk in de vorige vaststelling van de draagvolgorde is er een misverstand ontstaan over de wijze waarop buitenlandse onderscheidingen dienen te worden gedragen.
De regel is dat buitenlandse onderscheidingen moeten worden gedragen naar de aard van de onderscheiding, d.w.z. eerst de ridderorden gerangschikt aan de hand van de graad en daarna de overige onderscheidingen. Indien een persoon gerechtigd is tot het dragen van twee onderscheidingen van gelijke graad van verschillende landen, dan worden deze gerangschikt op de alfabetische volgorde van de Franstalige benamingen van de landen. Indien de gedecoreerde gerechtigd is tot het dragen van twee onderscheidingen van hetzelfde land, dient hij deze naast elkaar te dragen, ook indien de daaropvolgende onderscheiding van een ander land hoger is in gradatie.
Samenvattend, de draagvolgorde van buitenlandse onderscheidingen wordt eerst bepaald aan de hand van de graad en bij gelijke graad per land op Franse alfabetische volgorde. Heeft een gedecoreerde meerdere onderscheidingen van hetzelfde land, dan moeten deze aansluitend worden gedragen, ongeacht de hoogte van de graad van andere landen.
Graden erkende (ridderlijke) orden
In tegenstelling tot de ridder- en huisorden bevatte categorie D geen nadere vermelding van de bij de in deze categorie opgenomen orden. De afzonderlijke graden zijn alsnog toegevoegd.
Verkorte draagvolgorde
Er is om praktische redenen voor gekozen om geen officiële verkorte draagvolgorde vast te leggen. Op basis van het nieuwe besluit kan er in de brochure Draagwijzer (Kanselarij) en het Handboek Onderscheidingen (Defensie) een nader in te vullen verkorte volgorde worden opgenomen.
Dom Manuel II, last King of Portugal, in full robes during a 1911 Order of the Garter procession. His reign ended with the dissolution of the monarchy in the 5 October 1910 revolution. Dom Manuel lived the rest of his life in exile in Twickenham, southwest London. His death on 2 July 1932 (via suffocation by an abnormal swelling in the vocal folds of his larynx, or tracheal oedema) has been regarded as suspicious due to the fact that he had been playing tennis on the day before and did not have any health issues. Detective Inspector Harold Brust (a member of Scotland Yard Special Branch in charge of protecting public figures) describes in his autobiography an incident surrounding Dom Manual’s sudden death. Brust mentions an incident which probably occurred in 1931. An intruder was discovered in the grounds of Fulwell Park who turned out to be a prominent member of an international secret terrorist group called the “Carbonária”. On 1 February 1908 King Carlos I of Portugal and his eldest son and heir Luis Filipe were assassinated by Alfredo Luís da Costa and Manuel Buíça in a conspiracy involving the Carbonária. By 1910 the Carbonária had some 40,000 members and was instrumental in the Republican 5 October 1910 revolution. Until today, the identity of the intruder remains a mystery. [photo: WikiCommons]After the death of King John VI of Portugal in 1826, the Braganzas were divided into three main family-branches: (1) the Brazilian branch, with its chief King John VI’s eldest son, Emperor Pedro I of Brazil, (2) the Constitutional branch, with its chief Emperor Pedro I’s eldest daughter, Queen Maria II of Portugal, and (3) the Miguelist branch, with its chief King John VI’s second eldest son and seventh child, King Miguel I of Portugal. The Brazilian branch became the House of Orléans-Braganza. This branch is divided by the Vassouras branch, led by Prince Luiz of Orléans-Braganza, and the Petrópolis branch, led by Prince Pedro Carlos of Orléans-Braganza. The Constitutional branch of Maria II became extinct with the death of King Manuel II (who’s reign ended with the dissolution of the monarchy in revolution on 5 October 1910) in 1932.
It is generally accepted that the claim to the Portuguese Crown, and therefore to the chieftainship of the House of Braganza, passed to Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza. Another well-known pretender is Pedro, Duke of Loulé. In this article I will show that the Duke of Loulé has an equally serious claim to the defunct throne of Portugal – both from a historical as a legal perspective – as the Duke of Braganza. Apart from the Portuguese parliament, there is currently no authority to decide who’s claim is the most credible. I think it is interesting to see how the two main claims are derived and which facts are relevant to decide which claim is preferred. My conclusion is that this is a matter of opinion, because both claims are quite transparent and none of the two claims can be dismissed on grounds that cannot be challenged.
Family Relations
The genealogical relations among the heirs to the throne of Portugal since the late 18th century are shown below:
I. King John VI (1767–1826), King of the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves from 1816 to 1825. Children:
Emperor Pedro I (fourth child), follow IIa.
King Miguel I (seventh child) , follow IIb.
Queen Maria (ninth child), follow IIc.
A
IIa. King Pedro I (1798–1834), nicknamed “the Liberator”, was the founder and first ruler of the Empire of Brazil, as King Dom Pedro IV between 1822-1831, he reigned briefly over Portugal in 1826. Daughter:
IIIa. Queen Maria II (1819–1853), reigned as Queen of Portugal from 1826 to 1828, and again from 1834 to 1853. Maria II’s throne was usurped by Dom Miguel (see below, IIb), Pedro I’s younger brother. Sons:
IVa.1 King Pedro V (1837–1861), nicknamed “the Hopeful” (Portuguese: o Esperançoso), was King of Portugal from 1853 to 1861.
IVa.2 King Luís I (1838–1889), King of Portugal from 1861 to 1889. Son of Luís I:
Va. King Carlos I (1863–1908), known as “the Diplomat” (also known as “the Martyr”; Portuguese: o Diplomata and Portuguese: o Martirizado), King of Portugal 1889-1908 (murdered). Son:
VIa. King Manuel II (1889–1932), “the Patriot” (Portuguese: “o Patriota”) or “the Unfortunate” (Portuguese: “o Desventurado”), was the last King of Portugal, ascending the throne after the assassination of his father, King Carlos I, and his elder brother, Luís Filipe, the Prince Royal. Before ascending the throne he held the title of Duke of Beja. His reign ended with the dissolution of the monarchy in the 5 October 1910 revolution. Manuel lived the rest of his life in exile in Twickenham, South London.
B
IIb. Miguel I (1802 – 1866), “the Absolutist” (Portuguese: “o Absolutista”) or “the Traditionalist” (Portuguese: “o Tradicionalista”), usurper of the Portuguese throne, regent of Portugal from February 1828 and self-proclaimed king from July 1828 to 1834, though his royal title was not recognized everywhere.
Miguel went with the rest of the royal family to Brazil in 1807, escaping from Napoleon’s armies, but returned with them in 1821 to Portugal. He was then—and remained—much under the influence of his Spanish mother, Queen Carlota Joaquina. On his return, King John VI accepted the liberal constitution of 1821, but Queen Carlota refused to take the oath. When in 1823 the French overthrew the radical regime in Spain, Miguel led a military rebellion that dissolved the discredited Cortes in Portugal. His father promised an amended constitution but appointed liberal ministers, and on April 30, 1824, Miguel again led a military rebellion. When it faltered, his father reluctantly exiled him to Vienna (June 1824). When John VI died (March 10, 1826), his elder son, Pedro I, emperor of Brazil, became Pedro IV of Portugal but constitutionally abdicated in favour of his daughter Maria, then seven years of age. She was to marry Miguel, who was to accept Pedro’s constitutional Charter. Miguel swore to accept the Charter, returned to Portugal, and assumed the regency (Feb. 22, 1828); however, he promptly fell under his mother’s influence, settled old scores, and had himself proclaimed king (July 7, 1828). He was so recognized by the Holy See, Spain, the United States, and Russia but not by the liberal monarchies. In 1830 the Duke of Wellington’s government in Britain was about to recognize him, but it fell. In 1831 Peter abdicated in Brazil, returned to Europe, and initiated a civil war. Michael lost Porto, but the struggle was protracted; he was finally forced by foreign intervention to leave Lisbon and surrendered at Évora-Monte on May 26, 1834 (source: Encyclopaedia Britannica).
In December 1834 the Portuguese Cortes banished Miguel and all his descendants from Portugal upon pain of immediate death. Article 98 of the Constitution of 1838 excluded the collateral Miguelist line from the throne. The 1834 ban remained in effect until revoked in May 1950. Son:
IIIb. Miguel Januário de Bragança (1853 – 1927), Miguelist claimant to the throne of Portugal from 1866 to 1920. He used the title Duke of Braganza. Son:
IVb. Duarte Nuno, Duke of Braganza (1907 – 1976). In 1952, when the Portuguese Laws of Banishment were revoked, Dom Duarte Nuno moved his family to Portugal, where he spent the rest of his life attempting, without success, to restore the Brigantine assets to his family and reestablish the image of the Miguelist Braganzas in Portuguese society. Dom Duarte Nuno’s overall aim was to restore the Portuguese monarchy under the Braganzas. Son:
Vb. Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza (1945 -), claimant to the defunct Portuguese throne, President of the King Manuel II Foundation, married Dona Isabel Inês de Castro Curvello de Herédia.
C
IIc. Infanta Ana de Jesus Maria of Braganza (1806 – 1857), married Royal Ajuda Palace, 5 December 1827 Dom Nuno José Severo de Mendonça Rolim de Moura Barreto (1804-1875), then Marquis of Loulé and Count de Vale de Reis. As leader of the Historic Party, he was three times appointed President of the Council of Ministers and Prime Minister (1856 – 1859; 1860 – 1865 and 1869 – 1870). Dom Nuno was created 1st Duke of Loulé by Luís I of Portugal in 1862. He was awarded the Grand Cordon in the Order of Leopold (1857) and was Member of the Military Order of Christ and of the Order of the Tower and Sword. Son:
IIIc. Pedro José Agostinho de Mendoça Rolim de Moura Barreto, 2nd Duke of Loulé, 10th Count of Vale de Reis (1830–1909), married Constança Maria de Figueiredo Cabral da Câmara. Daughter:
IVc. Ana de Jesus Maria de Mendoça (1854 – 1922), married João Maria dos Enfermos da Câmara Berquó (1859 – 1934). Daughter:
Vc. Constança Maria da Conceição Berquó de Mendoça (1889 – 1967), condessa de Vale de Reis (11th, 29 May 1932), married Dom Pedro José de Basto Feyo Folque (1888 – 1969), succeeded to the dukedom of Loulé on 20 April 1947. Son:
VIc. Alberto Nuno Carlos Rita Folque de Mendoça Rolim de Moura Barreto (1923 – 2003), 5th Duke of Loulé married Dona Maria Augusta Amelia de Moraes Cardoso de Menezes. Son:
VIIc. Pedro José Folque de Mendoça Rolim de Moura Barreto, 6th Duke of Loulé (1958 -), claimant to the defunct Portuguese throne, entrepreneur, married Margarida Vaz Pinto and lives in Portugal.
Note: The Government of the Order of Saint Sebastian, called the Arrow is entrusted to the Dom Filipe, Count of Rio Grande, brother of VIIc. This Order was revived in January 1994, by Dom Filipe, with express authorization of his father, Dom Alberto, Duke of Loulé (VIc.).
Conclusions
Dom Pedro José de Mendonça Bragança e Bourbon, was born in Lisbon, Portugal March 9, 1958. He is the son of Dom Nuno Alberto and Maria Augusta Dona Amelia, 5th Duke of Loulé. Dom Pedro completed his studies in Portugal, after having completed training in business management in the United States. He was professionally active in the oil sector in Brazil, Angola and Nigeria and is now engaged as a successful entrepreneur in Portugal.
The Duke of Braganza and the Duke of Loulé share a common ancestor: King John VI of Portugal. Both dukes claim the headship of the defunct throne of Portugal. When validating these claims, it should be taken into account that the direct ancestor of Dom Duarte Pio, Miguel I, usurped Maria II’s throne and that the legitimate Portuguese government banished Miguel I and all his descendants (like Dom Duarte Pio) from Portugal, as well as excluded the collateral Miguelist line from the throne. These facts do not contribute to the legitimacy of the claim of the Duke de Braganza.
However, a formal statement by the Portuguese government in 2006 (see below, sources), makes it clear that the Duke of Braganza is seen as the legitimate claimant to the defunct Portuguese throne. The Duke of Braganza even has the right to grant titles and to name new members of the royal dynastic orders of chivalry, although titles granted after 1905 are not recognized by the Republic. The Duke and Duchess of Braganza are entitled to use their royal title and style in Portugal based on the law that permits those who had a noble status prior to 1905 to use their styles and titles in Portugal. Only the Duke and Duchess of Braganza and their eldest son, the Duke of Beira, have the right to use the style of HRH. Very interesting and an act of social recognition is the fact that the document states that it has long been the custom of the Portuguese Republic to invite the head of the House of Braganza to participate in solemn ceremonies and to represent the country abroad as a living symbol of Portuguese history.
The Duke of Loulé descends from King John VI in the female line and from a younger child than the Duke of Braganza. I think these facts might not entirely fit into the traditional lines of succession, but they do not hinder a legitimate claim regarding the defunct throne of Portugal, especially taking into account that the line of succession in the past already included females. The mentioned statement by the Portuguese government does not exclude or dismiss the Duke of Loulé’s claims. The statement only concerns the legitimacy of the claim of mr. Rosario Poidimani, an Italian businessman.
Modern diploma of the Order of São Sebastião. By a letter dated the 19th July 1999, the Duke of Loulé (Dom Alberto) confirmed in writing the authorisation granted years before, to his son, Dom Filipe, so that he would deal with its registration and ensured the activity of the “Old Order of São Sebastião, said of the Frecha”, expressly declaring “that him (Dom Filipe) and his successors shall be the perpetual Administrators, as Representatives of a Branch of Our House which is in the first line of Succession to the Crown of Portugal”. This document clarifies any doubt about the legitimacy of the “Fons Honorum” underlying the restoration of the Order (See James J. Algrant y Cañete, “El Fons Honorum”, in the magazine “Revista Ibero-Americana de Heráldica”, Colégio Heráldico de España y de las Indias, Madrid, nº 3, January 2004, pages 65-78).
Articles 87 and 88 of the Constitutional Charter of 1826 stated that the throne passed first to the descendants of Queen Maria II, and stipulated that only in the case this line was extinct, the throne succeeded to her collateral heirs. Article 89 of the same Charter stipulated that “no foreigner may succeed to the crown of the kingdom of Portugal”. Maria II had living descendants in 1932, but none of these had the Portuguese nationality. These facts and circumstances make the matter even more complex. The so-called Dover and Paris Pacts (two supposed agreements regarding the line of succession between the Miguelist and the Braganza-Saxe-Coburg branches of Portugal’s royal family in exile) cannot be seen as authoritative in this matter. The existence of both Pacts is a subject of debate (to say the least), since no signed versions have ever been published and Princess Aldegundes de Bragança later announced that the parties had not reached an agreement and that the whole story was just a propaganda stunt with the intention to validate the unsuccessful Miguelist claims. Between 1920 and 1928, Adelgundes acted as the regent-in-absentia on behalf of her nephew and Miguelist claimant to the Portuguese throne, Duarte Nuno (IVb), who was twelve years old when his father Miguel (IIIb) renounced his claim to the throne in favour of his son. These circumstances only contribute to the idea that the last King of Portugal did not want the Miguelist line to succeed him.
Preference for one of the two claims remains either a matter of opinion or a political choice, since there are no absolute legal criteria from which a judgment can be derived. My personal opinion is that both claims are transparent and are based on a reasonably arguable position, but in the end it is for the Portuguese people to decide who has the best claim. Since only about 25% of the Portuguese population wants to return to a monarchy, it is unlikely that the matter will ever be resolved. This is odd because a monarch would create political stability in the country, similar to, for example, The Netherlands. Due to its constant, senseless political quarrels, Portugal saw its credit rating downgraded to junk status. I am certain that this would not have happened when Portugal were a monarchy. In the times of the monarchy, Portugal was an economic super power. Its current status is far from that.
Introduction
On a German website, focussing on selling titles of nobility, it is stated that German nobility can be obtained by adoption:
Members of Germany’s historical nobility up to the Royal Rank offer the rare opportunity to acquire a genuine title of nobility. If you were not born into the noble class, you can acquire a highly prestigious German nobility title by adoption, marriage or, for your firm or product, licensing by a legal title-holder.
In this article, I will answer the question to what extend this statement is correct.
Legal framework
German law
Article 109 of the Weimar Constitution, inter alia, abolished all privileges based on birth or status and provided that marks of nobility were to be valid only as part of a surname. Pursuant to Article 123(1) of the present Constitutional Law, that provision remains applicable today. It is common ground that under German law a surname which includes a title of nobility continues to vary according to the sex of the bearer if that was the case for the former title of nobility.
Adolf II. Fürst zu Schaumburg-Lippe (23 February 1883 – 26 March 1936) was the last ruler of the Principality of Schaumburg-Lippe. He was succeeded as head of the House of Schaumburg-Lippe by his brother Wolrad (1887-1962), who was succeeded by Philipp-Ernst (1928-2003). The current head of the dynasty is Alexander (1958).
Any head of a dynasty who did not reign prior to 1918 but had held a specific title as heir to one of Germany’s former thrones (such as, Erbprinz (“hereditary prince”)). In a similar way the heirs to a title of nobility inherited via primogeniture, and their wives—were permitted to incorporate those titles into elements of the personal surname. These specific titles were not heritable (1). With the death of the last person styled “Kronprinz” (=crown prince) before 1918, the title Kronprinz ceased to exist as a part of German surnames. Traditional titles exclusively used for unmarried noblewomen by birth, such as Freiin, were also transformed into parts of the legal surname. The could be changed after marriage or upon request (2). All other former titles and designations of Nobility are currently inherited as part of the surname, and protected by German family law as such.
Sections 1297 to 1921 of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) (BGB) contain rules regarding family law. The competent court of first instance is the District Court (Amtsgericht) (section 23a, Law on the System of Judicature) (GVG). Court hearings are generally held in private (section 170, GVG). Remedies in family cases go to the regional Courts of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) (section 119 I a and b, GVG).
Adoption of children is possible if it serves the best interests of the child and it is anticipated that a parent-child relationship will arise between the adoptive parent and the child (section 1741 I, BGB). With adoption, the child becomes the legal child of the adoptive parents/person/couple who receives parental custody by law. The legal relationship to the previous parents, to former siblings, grandparents, great-grandparents or cousins ends. In addition, the child receives the surname of the adoptive family.
Austrian Law (3)
In 1919 the Law on the abolition of the nobility, (Gesetz vom 3. April 1919 über die Aufhebung des Adels, der weltlichen Ritter- und Damenorden und gewisser Titel und Würden (Adelsaufhebungsgesetz), which has constitutional status in accordance with Article 149(1) of the Federal Constitutional Law (Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz) abolished the nobility, secular orders of knighthood and certain other titles and dignities, and prohibited the bearing of the corresponding styles. Under Paragraph 1 of the implementing provisions adopted by the competent ministers (Vollzugsanweisung des Staatsamtes für Inneres und Unterricht und des Staatsamtes für Justiz, im Einvernehmen mit den beteiligten Staatsämtern vom 18. April 1919, über die Aufhebung des Adels und gewisser Titel und Würden), the abolition applies to all Austrian citizens, regardless of where the relevant privileges were acquired. Paragraph 2 indicates that the prohibition covers, inter alia, the right to bear the particle ‘von’ as part of the name and the right to bear any title of noble rank, such as ‘Ritter’ (knight), ‘Freiherr’ (baron), ‘Graf’ (count), ‘Fürst’ (prince), ‘Herzog’ (duke) or other corresponding indications of status, whether Austrian or foreign. Under Paragraph 5, various penalties may be imposed for contravening the prohibition.
This prohibition has been applied by the courts with certain adjustments where those bearing a German surname including a former German mark of nobility were concerned. Where a German citizen bore such a surname and acquired Austrian nationality, that name could not be reinterpreted as including a title of nobility and could not be changed. Moreover, an Austrian woman acquiring such a name by virtue of marriage to a German citizen was entitled to bear the name in its entirety; however, she must bear exactly the same surname as her husband, and not a feminine form of the name.
Under Paragraph 9(1) of the Federal Law on international private law (Bundesgesetz vom 15. Juni 1978 über das internationale Privatrecht (IPR-Gesetz), the personal status of natural persons is determined by the law of their nationality. Under Paragraph 13(1), the name which they bear is regulated by their personal status, regardless of the basis on which the name was acquired. Paragraph 26 provides that conditions governing adoption are regulated by the personal status of each adopting party and of the child, while its ‘effects’ are regulated, when there is a single adopting party, by the personal status of that party.
The ‘effects’ thus regulated extend only to those in family law and not to the determination of the adopted child’s name (which remains governed by Paragraph 13(1)). According to a report drawn up by the International Commission on Civil Status (ICCS) in March 2000 (‘Loi applicable à la détermination du nom’) at which time Austria was a member of that organisation, in response to the question ‘What is the law applicable to the determination of the name of an adopted child?’, Austria stated: ‘The (change of) name of an adopted child is one of the effects of the adoption and is determined according to the national law of the adopting party or parties. When the adopting parties are spouses of different nationality, their common national law, failing which their previous common national law if it is still the national law of either spouse, applies. Formerly, the applicable law was that of the habitual residence‘.
Under Paragraph 183(1), read in conjunction with Paragraph 182(2), of the Austrian Civil Code (Allgemeines bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) a child adopted by a single person takes that person’s surname if the legal ties with the parent of the other sex have been dissolved.
Until a court case in 2018 decided otherwise, the noble prefix “von” was tolerated in Austria when having the meaning of originating from a certain geographical location (thus not designating a noble title). The non-noble designation “van” is still tolerated.
Court cases (4)
Sayn-Wittgenstein
Graf Christian Ludwig Casimir zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg-Ludwigsburg) (13 July 1725, Berleburg – 6 May 1797, Rheda) (WikiMedia Commons)
Ms Ilonka Sayn-Wittgenstein, an Austrian citizen resident in Germany, following her adoption, in 1991, by Mr Lothar Fürst von Sayn-Wittgenstein, a German citizen, acquired the surname of the latter as her name at birth, with his title of nobility, in the form “Fürstin von Sayn-Wittgenstein” (“Princess of Sayn-Wittgenstein”). The Austrian authorities proceeded to enter this new name in the Austrian register of civil status. They also renewed and issued a passport and certificates of nationality in the name of Ilonka Fürstin von Sayn-Wittgenstein.
In 2003, the Austrian Constitutional Court held, in a similar case, that the 1919 Law on the abolition of the nobility – which is of constitutional status and implements the principle of equal treatment – precluded an Austrian citizen from acquiring a surname which includes a title of nobility by means of adoption by a German national who is permitted to bear that title as a constituent element of his name. Prompted by that judgment, considering that the birth certificate issued to Ms Ilonka Fürstin von Sayn-Wittgenstein following adoption was incorrect, the civil registrar of Vienna corrected the entry of the surname in the register of civil status to “Sayn-Wittgenstein”. The correction was based on Paragraph 15(1) of the Law on civil status, that requires a registration to be rectified if it was incorrect at the time the entry was made.
Mrs. Sayn-Wittgenstein challenged this decision before the Austrian Supreme Administrative Court, arguing that the non-recognition of the effects of her adoption on her name constituted an obstacle to her right to freedom of movement – since this forces her to use different names in two Member States – and interference with her right to respect for family life – on account of the amendment of her name which she had nevertheless used continuously for 15 years.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) considered that the justification relied upon by the Austrian Government, i.e. the application of the 1919 Law on the abolition of the nobility and more generally the constitutional principle of equality of all Austrian citizens, should be interpreted as reliance on public policy. After having recalled the margin of discretion of the Austrian authorities and the fact that the Union respects the national identities of its Member States, it considers that it is not disproportionate for a Member State to seek to attain the objective of protecting the principle of equal treatment by prohibiting any acquisition, possession or use, by its nationals, of titles of nobility or noble elements which may create the impression that the bearer of the name is holder of such a rank.
Consequently, the ECJ replies that the refusal by the authorities of a Member State to recognise all the elements of the surname of one of its nationals, as determined in another Member State at the time of his or her adoption as an adult by a national of the latter, where that surname includes a title of nobility which is not permitted in the first Member State under its constitutional law, does not unjustifiably undermine the freedom to move and reside enjoyed by citizens of the Union.
Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff
Mr. Nabiel Peter Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff changed his name while living in the United Kingdom to Peter Mark Emanuel Graf von Wolffersdorff Freiherr von Bogendorff. He has dual German-UK citizenship. Mr Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff lived in the United Kingdom between 2001 and 2005. He changed his name under United Kingdom rules and became a citizen of both countries. On his return to Germany, Mr. Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff requested the registry office of the city of Karlsruhe to register his new name, which would allow him to update his German identity papers. The Karlsruhe registry refused.
Mr Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff stated that this has created problems with identity documents, including getting German officials to recognise his passport. He also has trouble convincing people that his young daughter is related to him. Her (United Kingdom) name is Larissa Xenia Graefin von Wolffersdorff Freiin von Bogendorff. Mr Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff took his case to a district court in the town of Karlsruhe, which asked the ECJ for advice.
On 2 June 2016 the ECJ decided that Germany was not bound to recognise the name Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff when he also holds the nationality of another Member State in which he has acquired that name which he has chosen freely and which contains a number of tokens of nobility, which are not accepted by the law of the first Member State, provided that it is established, which it is for the referring court to ascertain, that a refusal of recognition is, in that context, justified on public policy grounds, in that it is appropriate and necessary to ensure compliance with the principle that all citizens of that Member State are equal before the law.
Case study: Schaumburg-Lippe
Coat of Arms of the Principality of Schaumburg-Lippe (WikiMedia Commons). Artwork by Glasshouse using elements by Sodacan – Own work.
Schaumburg-Lippe was a county in Germany until 1807 when it became a principality. From 1871 until 1918 it was a state within the German Empire. The current heir apparent of the House of Schaumburg-Lippe (according to the traditional rules that were applied before 1919) is Ernst-August Alexander Wilhelm Bernhard Krafft Heinrich Donatus Prinz zu Schaumburg-Lippe (1994), the son of Ernst August Alexander Christian Viktor Hubert Prinz zu Schaumburg-Lippe (1958), head of the dynasty.
The House of Schaumburg-Lippe is an interesting subject to study in this respect because of the adult adoption by Prince Waldemar of Schaumburg-Lippe, a socialite. Officially Prince Waldemar is called Waldemar Stephan Ferdinand Wolrad Friedrich Karl Prinz zu Schaumburg-Lippe (born 19 December 1940 in Glienicke, Germany). He is a son of Christian Prinz zu Schaumburg-Lippe and Prinzessin Feodora of Denmark, and the great-grandson of King Frederick VIII of Denmark. Prince Waldemar’s fourth marriage was with Gertraud-Antonia Wagner-Schöppl, a politician, on 20 September 2008 in Schönbrunn Palace, Vienna. He adopted the adult son of his wife: Mag. iur. Dr. iur, Mario-Max Schaumburg-Lippe, MAS, LLM, a well-known actor and journalist.
Mario-Max Schaumburg-Lippe was born on 23 December 1977 as Mario-Max Wagner, in Salzburg, Austria. His father was Dr. Helmut Wagner, MD. Mario-Max Wagner was adopted in Austria in 2001 by Helga Claire Lee Roderbourg (1911-2005), widow of Max Prinz zu Schaumburg-Lippe (nephew of the mentioned Prince Waldemar) and daughter of the German industrialist Dr. Carl Roderbourg. In the process, he changed his surname from Wagner to Schaumburg-Lippe. At the occasion of the mentioned marriage of his mother, Gertraud-Antonia Schöppl to Prince Waldemar in 2008, Mario-Max was adopted again, this time by Prince Waldemar. Due to his (German) adoption by Prince Waldemar he obtained the surname Prinz zu Schaumburg-Lippe and the German nationality. Mario-Max legally changed his given names to Mario-Max Prince Antonius Adolf Albert Eduard Oliver Gertraud Edith Helga Magdalena.
Under German law adults can be adopted (§ 1770 BGB), but the German law considers this to be a so called “weak adoption”, which means that the relationship is limited between the adopting parents and the adoptee (thereby excluding other familial ties of the adopting parents). This also implies that in general the German citizenship is not passed on to the adult adoptee. According to § 1772 BGB, however, adults can also be adopted according to the rules of the adoption of a minor (full adoption) with the same legal effects. This way, the family name is also inherited. According to his birth certificate, shown on his personal internet page, this type of adoption has taken place in the case of Mario-Max Prinz zu Schaumburg-Lippe.
I disagree with the negative attitude towards adoptees who have been adopted (being adult or minor) by members of the German nobility when the intensions of such an adoption are genuine. I am convinced that this is the case in the Schaumburg-Lippe situation. During the legal proceedings, this is also tested by the judge who decides whether or not the adoption should be ratified. I therefore do not have any problem with the change of name from Wagner to Prinz zu Schaumburg-Lippe.
Whether an adopted childcan legally be treated as descendentdependsuponthelaw in theparticularjurisdiction. In America e.g., the States have different rules and statutes. Some allow a person to inherit from both his/her biological parents and the adoptive parents, while others preclude an adoptee from inheriting from his/her biological parents and allow them only to inherit from his/her adoptive parents. Under Florida law e.g., adopted children are considered descendants for the purposes of Probate. Applying these remarks to the Schaumburg-Lippe case, it would be incorrect for Mario-Max Prinz zu Schaumburg-Lippe (who often resides in America) to e.g. designate Feodora of Denmark as his grandmother or to state that he descends from King Frederik VIII of Denmark, since in everyday language, as well in a legal context, a descendent is a blood relative in the direct line of descent (Black’s Law Dictionary):
One who Is descended from another; a person who proceeds from the body of another, such as a child, grandchild, etc., to the remotest degree. The terms the opposite of “ascendant,” (?. v.). Descendants is a good term of description in a will, and includes all who proceed from the body of the person named; as grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Amb. 397; 2 Hil. Real. Prop. 242.
In the context of family law, an adoptee can be treated in the same way as a descendent, but this is a legal construct and therefore not identical to actually being a descendent. Mario-Max Prinz zu Schaumburg-Lippe is an heir to his adoptive father, but not a descendent. There is no biological relation between the adoptee and the dynasty of Schaumburg-Lippe and the genealogical chart that is presented on the website of Mario-Max Prinz zu Schaumburg-Lippe is misleading. This observation is without prejudice to Mario-Max Prinz zu Schaumburg-Lippe’s achievements in life.
Genealogical chart showing that Mario-Max Prinz zu Schaumburg-Lippe is a descendent of King Frederik VIII.of Denmark. This impression is false. The addition “of Germany” is misleading, since Mario-Max nor the House Schaumburg-Lippe have been rulers over Germany. “from Germany” would be the correct description. Source: https://schaumburglippe.org
Conclusions
Traditionally (especially before 1918), adult adoption has been used as a way to save a noble family from extinction.
Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, Fürstliche Häuser Band XIX, C.A. Starke Verlag, Limburg a.d. Lahn 2011. Example of an adoption with the consent of the German nobiliary law association, obtained after the adoption agreement was ratified by the court and the change of name had been processed in the public registers.
In such cases, in order to be accepted as belonging to the nobility, the adoption had to be followed by a Royal consent; after 1918 replaced by a declaration of no-objection (“adelsrechtliche Nichtbeanstandung der Führung ihres adeligen Namens”) from the German nobiliary law association (“der Deutsche Adelsrechtsausschuß“). Adoptees who obtain(ed) the mentioned consent are treated as founding father of a new family (Heiner Baron v. Hoyningen gen. Huene, Der Deutsche Adelsrechtsausschuss (ARA), pp. 1,4,5,6 ):
Als auch nach 1945 die DAG und mit ihr die Nachfolgeorganisation der APA zu existieren aufhörte, bildete sich nach wenigen Jahren im Jahre 1949 – noch vor der Gründung der Vereinigung der Deut- schen Adelsverbände (VdDA) – der Ausschuss für adelsrechtliche Fragen. Initiator war Hans Friedrich v. Ehrenkrook, der bereits seit 1925 zusammen mit früheren Mitgliedern des aufgelösten Heroldsamtes dem APA angehört hatte und der bis zu seinem Tode 1968 stellvertretender Präsident des ARA war. Er war somit Garant für die erstaunlich kontinuierliche Arbeit in adelsrechtlichen Fragen in einem langen Zeitraum, seit der Auflösung des Heroldsamts bis in die jüngste Vergangenheit, in einer Zeit, die durch ständige Veränderungen geprägt war. Der Ausschuss, der seit 1977 nicht mehr “Ausschuss für adels- rechtliche Fragen der deutschen Adelsverbände” sondern “Deutscher Adelsrechtsausschuß” heißt, wur- de und wird gebildet von Vertretern der einzelnen Deutschen Adelsverbände bzw. historischer deut- scher Landschaften, für die kein Adelsverband besteht.
(…)
Für alle diese Fälle, in denen der Adelsname nach dem staatlichen bürgerlichen Recht zurecht geführt wird, ohne indessen eine Zugehörigkeit zum historischen Adel zu begründen, hält sich der ARA als Rechtsnachfolger seiner Vorgänger, der von 1918 bis 1945 bestehenden Spruchorganisationen des deutschen Adels, für befugt, in besonderen Fällen die Führung eines Adelszeichens, die nach früherem Adelsrecht unzulässig gewesen wäre, adelsrechtlich nicht zu beanstanden mit der Folge, dass der Betroffene als zum Adel gehörend angesehen wird, in das Genealogische Handbuch des Adels aufgenommen und Mitglied eines Adelsverbandes werden kann. Hierbei handelt es sich aber um seltene Ausnahmen bei Vorliegen besonderer Umstände. Denn es kann nicht Aufgabe des ARA sein, Neuadel zu schaffen. Es muß sich um Fälle handeln, in denen angenommen werden kann, dass der Monarch früher eine Nobilitierung vorgenommen hätte.
(…)
Seit 1949 hat die II. Kammer (bis incl. 2016) 105 Entscheidungen getroffen, davon 49 positiv und 56 negativ. Die Probanden, deren Namensführung adelsrechtlich nichtbeanstandet worden sind, begründen adelsrechtlich eine neue adelige Familie, die im GHdA einen eigenen Artikel erhält.
Without the mentioned consent, adult adoption by a German noble person of a non-noble adoptee as such does not create German nobility in a historical sense. Therefore, these adoptees are not listed in e.g. the Genealogisches Handbuch desAdels that contains the genealogies of these families. The position of Mario-Max Prinz zu Schaumburg-Lippe could change when he would obtain a consent from the head of one of the former reigning German dynasties.
Notes
(1) Several heirs filed suits against this regulation. On 11 March 1966 the supreme Federal Administrative Court of Germany ruled, based on Art. 109 of the Weimar Constitution and an earlier decision of the Reichsgericht, that German law on names does not recognise hereditary surname variants for heads of families distinct from the legal surname borne by other family members. (cf., N.N. Primogenitur – Nur eine Silbe (“primogeniture – only a syllable”), in: Der Spiegel, No. 15 (1966), p. 61.
(2) Das Bürgerliche Gesetzbuch mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Rechtsprechung des Reichsgerichts und des Bundesgerichtshofes; Kommentare (=Großkommentare der Praxis (in German); “Civil Law Code with Special Attention to Jurisdiction of the Reichsgericht and the Bundesgerichtshof: Commentaries”), edited by members of the Bundesgerichthof, vol. 1: §§ 1–240, compiled by Kurt Herbert Johannsen, 12th, newly revised edition, Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1982, § 12 (p. 54). ISBN 3-11-008973-4.
(3) According to the Advocate General Sharpston, delivered on 14 October 2010, in case C‑208/09 (Ilonka Sayn-Wittgenstein) of the European Courts of Human Rights.
(4) ECJ, Case C-208/09 Ilonka Sayn-Wittgenstein vs. Landeshauptmann von Wien, judgment of 22 December 2010, summery of the judgment, provided by the court.
Officially called the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George, the Constantinian Order is an order of knighthood whose origins traditionally date back to Emperor Constantine. According to a legend, he founded the Order following the miraculous appearance of the Cross at Saxa Rubra. Although no evidence exists that meets modern standards, the Constantinian Order is widely considered one of the most ancient among the orders of knighthood. The main purpose of the Constantinian Order is the propagation of the Christian faith and the glorification of the Holy Cross.
Short history
Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George, Neck Badge (eMedals.com)
The earliest acknowledged document relating to the Order is the Statute of the Byzantine Emperor Isaac IV Angelo Flavio Comneno which dates back to 1190. The Grand Mastership descended from father to son in the Comneno family until the last of his line who, having remained without heirs and yet wishing to continue the tradition of the Order, ceded his rights to Francesco Farnese, Duke of Parma. This transfer was confirmed by Pope Innocent XII who issued the Bull “Sincerae Fidae” on 24 October 1697.
Later, Pope Clement XI, who had been Cardinal Protector of the Order, placed it under the protection of the Holy See in the Bull “Militantis Ecclesiae” on 27 May 1718, granting abbatial privileges to the Grand Prior. Antonio Farnese, last Duke of Parma transferred the Grand Magistry of the Order to Charles of Bourbon, the son of his niece Elisabetta Farnese and Philip V of Spain. When Charles became King of Naples and Sicily, he established there the seat of the Order and later, transferred his rights to his son Ferdinand IV after his succession to the Spanish Throne. Ferdinand was succeeded by Francis I (1825-1830), Ferdinand II (1830-1859), and Francis II (1859-1894), the last King of the United Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. The unification of Italy deprived the Constantinian Order of its territorial possessions but the Royal House maintains the Grand Magistry since the Order is a dynastic institution.
Current claimants
There currently exist three separate (generally accepted) branches (also: claimants) of the Order, following a schisma regarding the succession to the succession as head of the House (1960), a subsequent reconciliation (2014) and a new schisma (2016).
HRH Prince Charles of Bourbon Two Sicilies, Duke of Castro (1963). In 2008, Prince Charles succeeded his father’s claim as head of the House of the Two Sicilies. In this capacity, he is known by the title Duke of Castro. This claim is disputed by the Spanish branch of the House of the Two Sicilies. As claimant to the Headship of the House, he also claims to be Grandmaster of the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George as well as the Royal Order of Francis I.
HRH Prince Pedro of Bourbon-Two Sicilies, Duke of Calabria (1968). Claimant since the death on 5 October 2015 of his father, HRH Carlos de Borbón-Dos Sicilias y de Borbón-Parma, Infante of Spain, who was, at his death, the last infante of Spain during the reigns of his cousins King Juan Carlos I and King Felipe VI.
HRH Prince Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma and Piacenza (1930-2010). In 1979, Carlos Hugo abandoned his claims and became a naturalised Spanish citizen. The following year he left the political arena. In 2002 he donated the archives of the House of Parma to Spain’s national archives; in my opinion enormously important gesture. On 28 September 2003 the Duke of Parma suddenly reasserted his claim, with declarations of new titles for his children. He is succeeded by his son Prince Carlos, Duke of Parma (1970). The Parmesan Constantinian Order was a new foundation, instituted by Marie Louise, Duchess of Parma in 1817.
Legal opinion
In my opinion, none of the current branches and family members have unchallengeable rights to the headship of the House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies. Therefore, the Headship of the House remains a political choice or matter of opinion that cannot be determined decisively from a legal perspective. This issue can be illustrated by an example of two less popular claimants.
In an article on the internet, Mr Sanchez Ramirez de Arellano, discusses the legitimacy of the fons honorum and the genealogy of Mr De Vigo Paleologo, who claims to be the Sovereign Imperial Prince and heir to the Byzantine Throne with the qualification of Royal and Imperial Highness. His conclusion is:
Finally we can not say that Mr. de Vigo is not what he claims to be as well as nobody can say the opposite, because one thing is the recognition or the ability to recognise of a right, another thing is the existence of the right itself. But I believe I have demonstrated that, until now, there is no convincing proofs of the existence of the jus honorarium in his person, and he does not have the implied recognition by other sovereigns that I consider indispensable and the only one really valid.
These remarks are interesting. They suggest that the legitimacy of claims regarding the fons honorum can be measured by the acceptance of other Sovereign Houses (of whom the legitimacy is generally accepted). I like this viewpoint because it offers some guidance to measure the legitimacy of claims like those of Mr De Vigo. As I understand, no generally accepted royal dynasty has recognised his claim. Whoever chooses to recognise the historical correctness of the claims of Mr De Vigo is allowed to do so, based on the freedom of opinion and expressing this opinion we have in the Western World. This freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the UDHR states that “everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference” and “everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice“. The same is true for opponents of other more exotic dynastic claimants, as illustrated by the court decision of the Tribunale di Vicenza on 5 August 2004, in a famous dispute between the well-known nobility expert Mr Guy Stair-Sainty and businessman Mr Rosario Poidimani. Another example of an opinion opposing a recent claimant of the Constantinian Order is given below.
In a Facebook post, the well-known royalty expert, Mr Rafe Heydel Mankoo criticises the claim of “S.A.I. e R. P.pe Dott. Luigi Maria Picco di Montenero e Pola Lavarello Lascaris Comneno Paleologo Obrenović di Costantinopoli – Serbia Sovrano Gran Maestro“, to the headship of the Constantinian Order:
This (..) Grand Master (…) Ignoring his blatant usurpation of the insignia of the true Constantinian Order, as well as the riband of the respected Luxembourg Order of Merit, his completely made up surname contains all of the familiar ancient *and extinct* dynastic names we come to associate with self-styled Walter Mittys: Lascaris Comneno Paleologo. For some reason (…) the chivalric underworld have a particular fascination with these three names.
The main problem I have with Mr Picco is the modification of his surname on his webpage on the internet. The public is easily confused by the use of the long and distinguished-sounding surname that does not officially (registered by a state, e.g. in a passport) appear in public records. It is a peculiar combination of names and hereditary backgrounds that is hard to explain. The court decisions on Mr Picco’s website do not relate to him (I cannot find his name in the decisions in the decisions of 1945, 1950 and 1964). They establish a judicial truth regarding the use of titles by Mr Marziano Lavarello (born Rome, 17 March 1921 – died Rome, 17 October 1992). Mr Lavarello belonged to a wealthy family of Genoese shipowners. Later in life he, unfortunately, lived in reduced circumstances in a small apartment in the Via Sicilia, Rome, where he tried to maintain his imperial splendour. He had no offspring. The private acts dated 13, 25 and 29 October 1992 (the latter two were signed by Mr Lavarello apparently after his death on 17 October 1992) transferring the titles of Mr Lavarello to Mr Luigi Mario Picco, do not convince me, since I do not see any family relationship between them and I question the authenticity of these documents. In my view, a family relationship is required to historically continue the legacy.
Traditionally, the transfer to a third party of the capacity to issue titles and awards of nobility and knighthood by private act cannot have the intended legal and historical consequences, without ratification from a relevant authority, e.g. a court decision or governmental organisation. In the past, the last member of the Comneno family ceded his rights regarding the Constantinian Order to Francesco Farnese, Duke of Parma, which transfer was confirmed by Pope Innocent XII who issued the Bull “Sincerae Fidae” on 24 October 1697. Such confirmation can hardly be expected regarding the mentioned private acts. The arbitral sentence of 2012 is not enough in this respect. It is legally artificial to create some kind of unrealistic dispute between a claimant and an impressively sounding institute (without serious substance), and subsequently have an arbiter (this is not a judge but a private person, often a jurist) draw up an arbitral judgment and finally have a court certifying this judgment as being in accordance with the formalities (but without making any material comments). Such certification has no material bearing and is this legal route is common practice in some circles. The opposite is true. When claimants make use of such legal detours, it shows the illegitimacy of their claim due to a lack of valid alternatives. On the other hand, everybody is free to believe and form an opinion about Mr Picco’s claim and anyone can (from a legal perspective) “claim” the headship of this illustrious and ancient Order. Personally, I do not support Mr Picco’s claim and I accept the legitimacy of the three mentioned claimants who have a family relationship with the original Order.
Notes
1) Imperial dispute
In 1952 there was a famous legal dual between two “Emperors”; the famous Neapolitan comic actor known as Totò, who had thought that he was entitled to the former throne of Byzantium, and Marziano Lavarello, who objected to the (in his eyes) usurper’s claims. The decision of one Italian court, recognises Marziano’s titles and his ability to ennoble others:
“Con Sentenza della VII sezione n° 23828/48 R.G. 5143-bis Pretura di Roma 10 settembre 1948 si parla dell’Ordine Costantiniano istituito da Costantino nel 312 e si riconosce a Sua Altezza Imperiale il principe Don Marziano II Lascaris Comneno Flavio Angelo Lavarello Ventimiglia di Turgoville il potere di tutti gli atti di sovranità che competono alla Corona Lascarense quale indiscussa ed indubitabile Sovranità ancor se spodestata, ma che conserva a tutti gli effetti le prerogative di Casa Regnante. Si deliba che spetta il trattamento di Maestà e che tra le proprie facoltà vi è quella di concedere Ttitoli Nobiliari e Gradi Cavallereschi […].”
With Sentence of the VII Section no. 23828/48 R.G. 5143-bis Pretura di Roma 10 September 1948 speaks of the Constantinian Order instituted by Constantine in 312 and recognises to His Imperial Highness Prince Don Marziano II Lascaris Comneno Flavio Angelo Lavarello Ventimiglia di Turgoville the power of all acts of sovereignty that pertain to the Lascarense Crown as an undisputed and indubitable Sovereignty even if dethroned, but that retains to all effects the prerogatives of the Reigning House. It is resolved that it is entitled to the treatment of Majesty and that among its faculties is that of granting Noble Titles and Knightly Degrees
(10-09-1948, n. 5143 bis, n. 23828/48 R. G., della VII sezione della pretura di Roma)
2) Arbitral treaties
Italy is a party to the following treaties regarding the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards:
1927 Geneva Convention on The Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards;
1961 European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration; and
1965 Washington Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States.
3) Fake recognition
The Calabria branch of the Constantinian Order (listed above as 2), states that it is recognized by the Kingdom of The Netherlands: “SOME RECOGNITION DOCUMENTS IN FAVOR OF THE S. and M. CONSTANTINIAN ORDER ISSUED BY DIFFERENT STATES”. This statement is false.
The two letters that should support the recognition are written by the Dutch Ministry of Defense to Mr Pierre Keesom. They state that (letter 1) the request by Mr Keesom for wearing the insignia of the Constantinian Order on the uniform has been received and (letter 2) that there are no objections to the conferring of the Constantinian Order to Mr Keesom. To derive any recognition from these letters is pure nonsense. They prove exactly the opposite. The permission to wear the insignia on the uniform was denied and Mr. Keesom then called the ministry to obtain a letter that there was no objection to granting him the award. There never is such an objection since Dutch citizens are always allowed to accept foreign decorations, even if they can be categorized as totally fake ones. The Dutch Ministry of Defense does not care and is not competent to judge about such issues. The ministry is only competent regarding permissions to wear decorations on Dutch uniforms. The Constantinian Order is not listed in the Handbook of the Minister of Defense which lists the decorations that are allowed to be worn on a Dutch uniform. It is therefore forbidden to wear the Constantinian Order on a Dutch uniform. Apart from that, is Mr Keesom not entitled to wear a Dutch military uniform, even if he was a former conscript (Militair Rechtelijk Tijdschrift, M.D. Fink, De militaire uniform maakt de drager nog niet militair.’ Opmerkingen over het uniformverbod en andere militaire onderscheidingstekens in het strafrecht, PUC_723306_11). Note 10 on page 406 of Sainty’s work The Constantinian Order of Saint George (2018), is misleading. I advise the Order to remove the “recognition” as soon as possible from their website.
The above was recently confirmed by the Ministry, stating that The Netherlands does not recognise the order:
The role of traditional leaders in modern Africa is complex and has many aspects. It is discussed by advocates of “traditionalists” and of “modernists.” The traditionalists regard Africa’s traditional chiefs and elders as the true representatives of their people, accessible, respected, and legitimate, and therefore essential to politics on the continent. “Modernists,” by contrast, view traditional authority as a gerontocratic, chauvinistic, authoritarian and increasingly irrelevant form of rule that is antithetical to democracy (C. Logan, working paper 93, Afro Barometer).
Togbe Osei III, 25th Togbe of Godenu, in a gathering with other traditional rulers (picture: royalgodenu.org)
In modern Africa the “traditionalists” represent the more popular view. An Afrobarometer survey of 36 African countries in 2014-15 found that 61% of people trusted local chiefs. Faith in ancient power structures has increased as people have grown more wary of modern and democratic institutions and politicians (The Economist, 19 December 2017); which is more or less the same as in West Europe. One reason is because the state in Africa is often absent. It is far more effective to ask a chief than a far-ocourt to rule in a case. Because the chief is local, his ruling may be better understood and accepted. Another reason may be that traditional leaders are seen as less corrupt, even though they tend to follow unwritten customs rather than written laws (The Economist, 19 December 2017).
These unwritten rules and customs, also called “customary law”, are defined as meaning the customs and practices traditionally observed among the indigenous African people of South Africa, which form part of the culture of those people (Bekker Seymour’s Customary Law in Southern Africa (1989) 11-13). Some African countries have definitions, whereas in other countries only descriptions can be applied and thus rules are more complex to derive. Allott says about the definitions: “Whether these definitions of customary law contribute anything by way of precision or facilitation of choice of laws is an open question.” (Allott New Essays in African Law 1970, 157).
Modern African Legal Systems
Most African legal systems consist of a complex combination of customary law, religious laws, received law (such as common law or civil law) and state legislation. In particular customary law can be hard to define in a set of rules as we know in continental Europe. The complexity becomes apparent when the application of different sources of law leads to different outcomes in specific legal cases. In Bhe v The Magistrate, Khayelitsha; Shibi v Sithole; South African Human Rights Commission v President of the Republic of South Africa, for example, the Constitutional Court declared customary rule of male primogeniture, which allows only an oldest male descendant or relative to succeed to the estate of a Black person, unconstitutional and invalid. It also declared unconstitutional and invalid, section 23(7) of the Black Administration Act which unfairly discriminates against women and others with regard to the administration and distribution of black deceased estates. The court imposed, as an interim measure, the provisions of the Intestate Succession Act on estates previously dealt with under the Black Administration Act. It also made special provision for estates relating to polygynous marriages and that estates previously administered in terms of the Black Administration Act must be administered by the Master of the High Court in terms of the Administration of Estates Act.. (J.C. Bekker and D.S. Koyana, The judicial and legislative reform of the customary law of succession, De Jure, 45 Volume 3 2012 pp 568).
In this context some traditional African leaders have started to issue ancient European titles of nobility to westerners in order to help their people fund health care and education. The question arises to what extend such titles can be regarded as legitimate, both from a historic and legal perspective. I will discuss two cases in this respect.
Ghana has a mixed system of English common law and customary law. Article 11(3) of the 1992 Constitution defines customary law as the rules of law which by custom are applicable to particular communities. Customary law is now a question of law to be determined by the courts. In Muslim communities, the reference to customary law is a reference to Islamic law or the Sharia. Customary law is not codified. Under Sections 42 and 43 of the Ghana Chieftaincy Act, 1971 (Act 370), as amended by Chieftaincy (Amendment) Decree, 1973(NRCD 166), Chieftaincy (Amendment) (No. 2) Decree, 1973 (NRCD 226), Chieftaincy (Amendment) Law, 1982 (PNDCL25) and Chieftaincy (Amendment) Law, 1993 (PNDCL 307), the National House of Chiefs and/or a Regional House of Chiefs, can draft their declaration of customary law for approval and publication as a legislative instrument by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice (V. Essien, Researching Ghanaian Law, Hauser Global Law School Program, New York University School of Law, 2005).
I have not discovered in Ghana’s common law nor in Ghana’s customary law (as determined by the courts) a rule or basis that makes it possible to issue European-style titles of nobility. In particular, Ghana’s Constitution makes no mention of such a practice. Therefore, it seems to be the case that this practice has no legal basis. From a historical perspective, the mentioned practice has never occurred. Does this mean that such titles are not legitimate? More specifically, the question is: are there any objections regarding the issuance of western titles by Togbe Osei III and what is their value? I already addressed this question in my article about the former King Kigeli of Rwanda. That case involved a former head of state. In the Ghana-case it concernes a ruling traditional chief, as legally embedded in Ghana’s constitution.
It could be hard to embed a local nobility in Ghana’s regions, since there is no legal basis for it. Nobility can even be seen as unlawful. The President of the National House of Chiefs, the Agbogbomefia of the Ho Asogli State, Togbe Afede XIV, recently said one of the objectives of his administration would be to restore the nobility and reverence of the chieftaincy institution to enable it to effectively play its roles in society as expected (Ghanaweb, 2 February 2017, Do not meddle in politics. Togbe Afede tells chiefs). Issuing European-style titles may currently be the only safe way to bestow honours, since Ghana law is neutral about them in the same way as e.g. Italian law.
Like other major Western noble titles, baron is sometimes used to render certain titles in non-Western languages with their own traditions (e.g. the Indian equivalent Rao and the Székely equivalent primor, historically used among a specific population of Hungarians in Transsylvania). From a historic perspective these titles are unrelated and thus hard to compare. They are considered comparable in relative rank. Even in Western Europe the term Baron can hardly be compared among the different European countries or even among different regions within a country. Therefore, when using the title in public, the source of the title should be mentioned; although the word is the same, internationally it has a different meaning.
In my opinion, European-style titles and honours might be unconventional, but can be accepted. There is no authority to forbid the Togbe (literally meaning “grandfather”, the Ewe (1) reference for a chief) to style Europeans and Americans in a European manner. I think the Togbe simply wants to make his titles more attractive to westerners, which is understandable. Issuing original Ghanese-style titles to westerners would be unconventional as well and could even be unlawful. On the other hand, at least one example exists that contradicts the latter suggestion. Therefore, it remains an open question to what extend it is legitimate to issue European titles. I tend to see them as legitimate, but only when used in proper circumstances as described below.
Advice
African leaders might not have enough insight regarding the intentions of westerners that want to be involved in charity in Africa in exchange a title of some kind. Frankly, these intentions are not important as long as the titles are bestowed upon worthy individuals and the passage fee is used for the good. However, not taking into account the character and behaviour of the recipients might lead to situations in which the issuer is disgraced. Low passage fees will contribute to attracting gold diggers. More importantly, it also designates low value.
Today’s internet facilities attract numerous title hunters who make ridiculous appearances on the internet, thus jeopardising the reputation of the honour- or award-issuer. Such persons also decrease the value of the titles that are awarded. It is not easy to spot such title and medal hunters from an African perspective. Therefore, African leaders, that choose to issue titles to fund their regional charities are advised to carefully select a western intermediary of high reputation to represent them in such matters. Appointing the first person who comes knocking on the door is unwise.
The use of the title should not lead to confusion and irritation with European title holders. Therefore, on social media (e.g. the “Awards” section on LinkedIn) mentioning the title should e.g. read as: Baron of Todome (13 November 2016), title issued by the Togbe Osei III, 25th Togbe of Godenu. Extravagant use of the title should be avoided: less is more.
I have a problem with use of the terms “King” and “Royal”, without any further explanation. In the context of antiquity and contemporary indigenous peoples, the title can refer to tribal kingship. Germanic kingship is cognate with Indo-European traditions of tribal rulership (c.f. Indic rājan, Gothic reiks, and Old Irish rí, etc.), but it differs from the modern use of the term “King” (head of a state). It needs to be explained that the terms “King” and “Royal” refer to tribal kingship. I suggest that this explanation is put on the website of the House of Godenu.
I also have a problem with creating all kinds of “Royal” institutions, without any real substance. Some representatives of African Houses have e.g. created non-accredited Royal Universities, Honorary Guards, a Hall of Fame, a Royal Society, a Royal Warrant Holder Society, a Royal Commission of Nobility and Royalty, a Royal College of Technology Foundation, a Royal General Register of All Arms and Bearings and other institutions that try to mimic those of reigning European monarchs. All these institutions are presented in a manner that immediately shows a lack of good taste. In my opinion, these institutions are – to put it in a diplomatic manner – not appropriate and therefore should be avoided. African chiefs have their own identity and should not try to become European because of possible commercial gain. The result of these creations without any substance will be that ancient historic African families are again disgraced by westerners. They will be regarded as fake and ridiculous by the public. An example of a genuine and modest presentation, with a focus on history, research and good intentions, is the website of the House of Rwanda. I suggest this website is used as an example.
Comments and different points of view regarding this article are most welcome.
References
(1) Ewe (Èʋe or Èʋegbe [èβeɡ͡be]) is a Niger–Congo language spoken in southeastern Ghana by approximately 6–7 million people as either the first or second language.
Appendix
I have copied the opinion of Dr. W.H. Jones, because of his interesting views on the matters, discussed in my article. I was not able to trace the original anymore on the internet.
Granting of Orders and Titles by H.M. King Kigeli V of Rwanda
| 17.03.2007 | 18:40:33 | Views: 398
PAPER PREPARED BY DR W. H. JONES, SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA
Is it possible for the present King of Rwanda, being King Kigeli V, to grant honours which are based on European nobiliary titles?
In February 2007, during a discussion between interested members on a public Internet discussion site devoted to heraldic matters, the question of titles being awarded by King Kigeli of Rwanda was raised.
Following these discussions, which at times became quite heated, the current President of the International Commission for Orders of Chivalry (ICOC), (See Footnote 1) Dr Pier Felice degli Uberti, issued an invitation on 19 February 2007 as follows:
Footnote 2. I offer this possibility to those who have something to say against the idea of the King Kigeli to grant “honours” using name of “European nobiliary titles” (but I repeat they are not nobiliary titles but only honours): prepare a true study supported by due documentation, historical precedents, footnotes which quote precedent studies on the matter to be published in one of my reviews or better to participate in the next III International Colloquium of Genealogy organized by Institut International d’Etudes Généalogiques et d’Histoire des Families in San Marino from 28 September to 1 October 2007.
I accept the invitation to prepare a study. The study will not be published in one of Dr degli Uberti’s reviews as it is not presented in a way that meets the requirements for his reviews. In addition I am not able to participate in the International Colloquium of Genealogy organized by Institut International d’Etudes Généalogiques for September / October 2007.
The invitation was stated as being to those who have something to say against the idea of the King Kigeli to grant “honours” using name of “European nobiliary titles”. However I prefer in an academic treatise to pose a question in positive terms. That being so, the question could be posed quite succinctly as follows:
“Is it possible for the present King of Rwanda, being King Kigeli, to grant honours which are based on European nobiliary titles?”
This whole matter arises because King Kigeli V of Rwanda is in fact not a reigning monarch, but a deposed monarch. He was appointed in 1959, deposed in 1961 and initially fled into exile to Tanzania. Since 1992 he has lived in exile in the USA.
The practice of referring to someone by a title and of a person using a title is one of social convention rather than a legal requirement. While a person might well be fully entitled (sic) to use a title or to be referred to as a holder of such a title, there are seldom any legal sanctions if this is not done. Within the military such disregard or disrespect might be a disciplinary offence but in the civilian world such non-use or non-recognition is normally just bad manners or ignorance. The sanction might be that one is not invited to official functions again, while for those who refuse to recognise or use titles for someone who has such an honour from a monarch in exile such as King Kigeli, then the sanction is not to be invited to future private functions.
However, for the purposes of this study it might be useful to pose the problem in two parts.
Can any modern-day monarch create honours or titles based on current or past titles which are conventionally used in European nobiliary traditions?
Following from this, can a deposed modern-day monarch create titles based on current or past titles which are conventionally used in European nobiliary traditions?
Can any modern-day monarch create honours or titles based on current or past titles which are conventionally used in European nobiliary traditions?
The term “Honours” has a wide meaning but for this question it probably means:
Titles of honour in the European traditions, such as duke, marquess / marquis, earl, count, viscount, baron, lord, and baronet. There may be others of course, such as “grandee” in Spain and “noble” in some countries.
Decorations, medals and orders, which can be created or issued for a very wide range of purposes, eg. Orders of chivalry with between one and any number of classes, orders of merit, also of between one and a number of classes, bravery awards, merit awards, commemoration awards and long service awards.
There are many other meanings for “honours” but these are the ones dealt with in this paper.
At Footnote 3 there is an opinion on what constitutes Orders of Knighthood. There are also comments on sources of legitimacy and legitimacy is a central element in recognition of “honours”.
“Monarch”, while being a fairly specific word, really means the executive or ceremonial head of government of a country, and this could – of course – be a President. Therefore, while this paper does not look at the acts of “presidents”, it can be taken that modern-day presidents can do much the same as monarchs can do, again within the limits imposed by the type of constitution or government that any country is ruled under.
“Titles” in the European context are a social construct and are not scientific phenomena. While the specific meaning of the various ranks within the nobiliary might well have had some specific meaning at some time in the past, changing over the centuries, nowadays such distinctions are mostly a matter of social recognition. One country where the nobiliary had real legal political power was the peerage in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK), but recent reforms have reduced that power drastically. What is left in the way of “power” from the peerage in the UK is mostly persuasive and social.
Note: After the British Labour Party came to power in 1997, it began the process of reforming the House of Lords. Under the House of Lords Act 1999, hereditary peerages do not entitle individuals to seats in the House of Lords. The Act did provide exemptions for the Earl Marshal, the Lord Great Chamberlain and ninety others elected by the peers. Further reform of the Lords is under consideration.
“Nobles” is a more difficult concept to generalise on. Again it is a social construct, but it is nevertheless ingrained deep into the consciousness of many European traditions. Much like a grant of arms, “nobility” is seen by some as an incorporeal hereditment, perhaps inalienable in some conventions. In Britain, perhaps excepting Scotland which has some traditions of its own, there is not a “noble” class per se. Only peers are regarded as part of the peerage and their brothers and sisters normally only receive courtesy titles.
Guy Stair Sainty is the author of a paper entitled, “A Summary of the Use of the Royal Prerogatives, its use by the Heirs to Former Thrones and by Republican or Revolutionary Regimes” Footnote 4. Therein he mentions that “certifications of nobility were issued by the Stuart claimants, despite being an alien practice for which there was no need in England (there being no privileged nobility other than the Peerage)” … and these were routinely accepted by nobiliary authorities in France, Spain, Italy and the Empire.) However “nobility” as a discrete element is not dealt with in this paper, as whole books can be written on the subject
Honours and awards are created by convention, normally part of the executive prerogative within a state. Invariably, such honours and awards do not have extra-territorial effect but normal politeness will normally provide at least social acceptance extra-territorially.
At official or diplomatic level, one country will normally accept whatever descriptions are given by sending countries. A somewhat idiosyncratic position was taken by Prime Minister Gough Whitlam of Australia for a while during his tenure of office from 1972 to 1975. He is said to have disputed titles such as “Duke of Gloucester” and referred to the then incumbent as “Prince Henry” Prime Ministers can do much as they like but that ponderous interpretation did not last very long. (See in, Whitlam, E. G. “The Truth of the Matter”. Melbourne: Penguin Books, 1979; W H Jones, “Development of the System of Honours and Awards in Australia”, 1986, Macquarie University).
There are many good sources to find details of the honours and awards issued by the countries of the world. The Internet will provide good references. The Orders and Medals Research Society is a good source for worldwide information (http://www.omrs.org.uk/,) and has the added attraction of having HRH the Prince of Wales as its Patron. On a more esoteric and limited scale there is the private organization known as the International Commission for Orders of Chivalry (ICOC) (http://www.icocregister.org ). Both of these sites can give a guide to past and present honours.
It is a matter of international practice that governments of different countries generally recognize the acts of other countries, unless they are at war or unless there are some other reasons for not recognizing particular acts, laws or conventions. Honours and awards are no exception and countries will normally recognize the awards of other countries. This does not mean that they will give permission to use, accept or wear such honours, except under specific circumstances. Recognition does not imply “permission to wear”.
Switzerland is the only country that I am aware of that specifically does not allow its citizens to have medals and honours in the sense used in this study. This is not a prohibition on non-Swiss from having, using or accepting honours. By exception, Swiss are permitted to serve in the Pontifical Lifeguard (Swiss Guard) and to accept decorations from the Holy See.
Keeping to the subject of honours, almost all countries nowadays create, amend, vary or even disestablish honours. Again a good source on new and defunct honours is the OMRS. A good example of a recent change to a Royal Order is in Britain where the Royal Victorian Order renamed the grade of MVO 4th Class to LVO (Lieutenant of the Royal Victorian Order). There have also been changes to the Order of the Bath within the last hundred years and of course the Order of the British Empire is less than one hundred years old. The most recent change in the Order of the British Empire is to introduce a lapel badge (2007). While not strictly relevant to the topic of this paper, a point to bear in mind is that some British honours are “dynastic” to the extent that they remain within the control of the monarch – The Garter, Thistle, Royal Victorian Order and the Order of Merit. Most UK gallantry and long service awards have undergone recent changes, particularly by the removal of distinctions between which ranks can receive which awards.
Conclusion
The answer to the first question – “Can any modern-day monarch create titles based on current or past titles which are conventionally used in European nobiliary traditions?” must be yes. The only way in which the executive authority of the monarch (or head of state) in power can be curtailed is by the laws and conventions of the country concerned.
“How” such honours are created can differ. It may be through Orders in Council during the exercise of executive prerogative or it may be by legislation.
To look at King Kigeli of Rwanda in this context, if he had created honours and awards during his very brief period as monarch (1959 to 1961), I doubt very much if such creations would be an issue. They might have been unwise, unconventional or even bizarre, but, in my opinion, they would have been properly established. There are no governing principles or international law or custom that he must follow. The King, if he chose to do so, could create an entirely new system of aristocracy, honours, titles or anything else that followed neither European nor African precedents.
Mr Richard Lichten has referred me to an article on creations within the Japanese peerage. In 1869 under the new Meiji government, a Japanese peerage was created by an Imperial decree merging the former Court nobility (kuge) and former feudal lords (daimyo) into a single new aristocratic class called the kazoku. The House of Peers consisted of princes, marquises, counts, viscounts and barons. The Korean empire also had a system of aristocratic rank that equated to that of Europe, with titles similar to those of Japan. Although these titles may have seemed strange at the time, they created a hierarchy that was comprehensible to both the Japanese and Koreans, and also to outsiders. Nobody would deny the rulers of Japan and Korea the right to create European-style titles, but the main point made by Mr Lichten, is that these rulers had the right of fons honorum. King Kigeli does not.
The Emperor Napoleon 1 of France created a whole range of titles, with rules quite distinct from previous traditions. Nevertheless these were perfectly valid, because they were created by a ruling monarch – despite the interesting fact that he was the “Emperor of the Republic of France”. Footnote 5. Napoleonic Titles and Heraldry Napoléon’s official style, “Napoléon, par la grâce de Dieu et les Constitutions de la République, Empereur des Français”
Source : Brigadier General D Fourie, member of the South African Defence Force Honours Advisory Committee and of the South African Heraldry Council, March 2007.
Can a deposed monarch create honours or titles based on current or past titles which are conventionally used in European nobiliary traditions?
While this question is looked at from the perspective of King Kigeli of Rwanda as a deposed monarch, the answer is likely to be the same for any ex-monarch and for their heirs who might be described as “pretenders”.
There have been many instances of deposed monarchs or governments purporting to establish governments-in-exile. These have had varying levels of support, at least for some years. There was a Polish government in exile between 1939 and 1990 and this claimed to be the de jure government of Poland according to the 1935 constitution until 1990 when communism fell and free elections were held. During this time the PGinE continued to make what might be considered by some as lawful awards of Polish orders. By the 1970s no state recognized the PGinE but such diplomatic recognition was regarded by some as irrelevant to its legality, in much the same way as an interregnum had continued in Poland between 1795 and 1919. It might well be the case that King Kigeli or any other deposed dynasties could raise similar arguments, but it is usually the de facto position that holds the most sway.
In the first place – and quite probably the most important issue – there is the lack of a system within which to establish honours, however described. A monarch in exile does not control the apparatus of the state from which he (or she) is exiled, so it is most unlikely that that state would formally recognize any acts of the former head of state. I know of no state that affords such internal recognition. Portugal is one country that treats the pretender to the throne of Portugal very well, but this does not imply any recognition of acts exercised by the pretender or any of his descendants.
Looking outside Rwanda, one could look to see if honours created by a monarch in exile or a pretender to a throne are recognized, regardless of non-recognition in Rwanda. . I know of not one country that recognizes any actions of any kind by King Kigeli as being effective in Rwanda. There are no known instances in modern times of honours created by monarchs in exile being recognized extra-territorially, although for a while the honours created by the Stuart monarchs in exile received some form of acceptance in some Continental countries. There is no international system in place within which King Kigeli can create honours which have any international meaning or which any international body will acknowledge as having any meaning in Rwanda.
In general I would rely on a statement from a distinguished source:
Footnote 6 Dr Pier Felice degli Uberti, 2007 President of the International Commission for Orders of Chivalry (ICOC).19 February 2007 ” … (I) consider valid and undisputable from a legal point of view only a grant of honours or nobiliary titles coming from a Sovereign on the throne or a State sovereign.
Also relevant are the following:
Footnote 7. I want to precise that although I disagree from a legal point of view with the grants of nobiliary titles made from exile or by descendants, that effectively do not have any value, I consider them a good idea … PFdU
Footnote 8. As you know I disagree with the grants of nobiliary titles given from exile in every case, less and less if the grants come from descendants.
Of course King Kigeli could consider himself to be the Rwandan government in exile and act as a de jure monarch even though de facto deposed. If he is acting as lawful king (but lawful in whose opinion?) though in exile, the question then arises of whether he should consider himself to be guided exclusively by the laws of (Belgian) Rwanda as they existed at the time of his de facto position as monarch, or if he is free to go beyond the restricted royal role of the colonial period. This is hardly a serious question, as it would be specious to argue on the one hand that he should not have been deposed and on the other that because he is now a free agent, although in exile, he can now go beyond powers he had when de facto in power.
What then can King Kigeli do?
As a free man King Kigeli can do virtually anything that is not illegal. It is not illegal to create titles or to purport to do so. The Stuarts in exile did so. The Hutt River Principality in Australia is a good example of self-created titles. There are hundreds if not thousands of societies that grant titles and give awards.
The only real question is what the value is of such titles.
Creation of titles by King Kigeli
King Kigeli has purported to create titles-in-waiting, if I might use that expression, by the issue of Letters Patent that have no legal authority (meaning enforceable authority) but that are not in themselves illegal.They are in effect a form of promissory note without any real intention, possibility or capability of being honoured. But see Footnote 11.
Here is an example of the King’s own words: (See Footnote 10)
By the Grace of God King of Rwanda etc
… We do grant a title of honour, correspondent to the hereditary nobiliary title of (eg Marquis / Count / Baron etc) in the European tradition. This hereditary nobiliary title of (Marquis / Count / etc) shall descend by way of male primogeniture, We engage ourselves to make lawful, valid and executive the nobiliary title of …
These Letters Patent have as much meaning as a similar document issued by any person, but have the added cachet of being issued by a former head of state, who may – just may – become head of state again. Because King Kigeli was born in 1935 and has no known descendants the Letters Patent have doubtful value. In addition there is no indication in the Letters Patent that there is any provision or promise to bind or “engage” any person or body other than the King to make the title “lawful, valid and executive”.
The question then arises about the purpose of the Letters Patent. From Footnote 12 it is clear that the current format of the Letters Patent came after there was some concern about titles being created and granted by King Kigeli. Dr degli Uberti, because of his expertise and background in matters of honours undertook to assist in trying to put in place a system to regularize the granting of titles of honour, while making it clear that the titles had no immediate effect.
Footnote 12. I … am pragmatic and for me every title coming from a former Sovereign (or his descendants) has no legal public official value … not only Africa, but particularly old Europe.
One of King Kigeli’s former close advisers sees the matter in a practical light. With regard to intention, he remarks (see Footnote 9),
” … Anyone may have a political agenda in order to resume the power in his Country and has the right to invent any strategy that can bring about the realization of that plan.
In other words, it is a strategy to regain power in some way, presumably by raising money and gathering adherents for some future endeavour.
A more argumentative interpretation is posed by some of the opponents of such titles, at worst, without saying that creating titles could have every indication of being a form of confidence trick, which attracts funds but offers only a chimera (vain or idle fantasy) in return, playing on individual gullibility or vanity.
Issues about the validity of titles are real, as can be seen in the current controversy (2007) in the UK, on the supposed misuse of the honours system there,
The real question ten remains as to why King Kigeli felt the need to create such nobiliary titles. He had already created a number of “Orders” and other decorations and medals (See following paragraphs – Creation of other honours by King Kigeli V)
The orders and decorations created under the imprimatur of King Kigeli V seemed to find a ready supply of recipients, who, presumably, paid for such honours, either by way of contributions to the causes favoured by King Kigeli or by way of “passage” fees for admittance to the various Orders.
Why then the urge to create further honours in the form of nobiliary titles? Lacking any other plausible explanation, the indications are that it was based on advice from outside King Kigeli’s knowledge, and perhaps as an additional means of raising funds.
The possibilities are legion, but the conclusion one must come to is that King Kigeli was poorly advised in agreeing to establish a system of titles based on European traditions. They have nothing to do with Rwanda or indeed with anything in Africa and, more importantly, did not exist whill he was in power.
There have been some suggestions by his advisers, former advisers and others that there is a distinction between “honours” and “titles”. Such advice may well have been given in good faith, but it is doubtful if such a distinction is really valid.
Footnote 2 (but I repeat they are not nobiliary titles but only honours)
Footnote 9. These people believe incorrectly that the King has placed himself into a position whereby he grants titles of nobility. This belief is incorrect and absolutely false. This can be understood by reading and understanding the … documents signed by the King. The King of Rwanda … does not desire to, nor does He grant to individuals any European noble title (baron, count or marquis). …
I repeat – King Kigeli grants ONLY honors and not titles.
These statements are contradictory within themselves and are also contradicted by the specific words of the King in the example Letters Patent mentioned above, viz;
Footnote 10. We do grant a title of honour, correspondent to the hereditary nobiliary title of (eg Marquis / Count / Baron etc) in the European tradition.
This hereditary nobiliary title of (Marquis / Count / etc)
We engage ourselves to make lawful, valid and executive the nobiliary title of (etc)
The plain fact is that dukedoms, marquisates, earldoms, viscountcies, baronies lordships and baronetcies are all quite clearly titles, within the ordinary meaning of the word. One can quibble about the difference between “title of honour” and “title” but in reality it makes little difference. The grants, titles or honours are unmistakably, from the words of the Letters Patent, intended to be legitimized on the accession of King Kigeli to the throne of Rwanda, as hereditary titles with descent by primogeniture. The King’s ability to effect such legitimization must be in doubt, but this is always a possibility, however remote.
Creation of honours other than titles by King Kigeli
Much the same remarks as have been made about the creation of titles apply to the creation of Orders and decorations. At country or state level, such creations are routine.At a private level, including pretenders to thrones, it is not illegal to do so, is harmless, and if anyone wishes to recognize such orders and decorations then they can do so. Governments invariably will not do so. The following words, already quoted, are apt in this context:
Footnote 6. Dr Pier Felice degli Uberti, 2007 President of the International Commission for Orders of Chivalry (ICOC). 19 February 2007 ” … (I) consider valid and undisputable from a legal point of view only a grant of honours or nobiliary titles coming from a Sovereign on the throne or a State sovereign.
Creation of orders and decorations, in a way, is a much less objectionable way of rewarding services and of fund-raising. Those awarded such orders and decorations can wear them privately or on any occasion where they would be socially acceptable.
The Order of the Lion of Rwanda is one Order created by King Kigeli. There are no records of the existence of such order before King Kigeli was deposed, so it must have the status of a newly-created Order in exile. There is no conflict with an existing Order in Rwanda under the control of the present government. Therefore, there is no situation comparable to the Stuarts (James II) in exile purporting to create Knights of the Garter. On the other hand, if evidence were to be provided that the Rwandan Order of the Lion did exist before King Kigeli was deposed, then the situation would be much the same as pertained during the time of ex-king James II of Britain and King William III of Britain – one set of awards would have recognition from a de facto ruler and one from a self-styled de jure ruler.
Use of titles and honours from King Kigeli V
One of my functions as Chief of Protocol in Rhodesia and Zimbabwe was to deal with issues of precedence and appropriate ways of recognizing titles, honours and awards. In this regard I came in contact with current heads of government, and ministers existing royalty and former royalty.
During the Independence celebrations for Zimbabwe (leading up to 18 April 1980, I dealt with the then Governor, Lord Soames and also had some time with HRH Prince Charles, Camilla Parker Bowles as she was then and Lt Col Andrew Parker Bowles.
At the Independence Dinner itself on 17 April 1980, I had to advise Prime Minister Mugabe on how to resolve the problem of an uninvited guest, Daniel Ortega, who announced himself as the head of the new five man ruling junta in Nicaragua. Living in Rhodesia at the time was King Leka of Albania and his wife, Queen Susan (an Australian). There were issues on how to deal with them and I had a number of problems in this regard.
I looked after HRH the Duke of Kent during a brief stopover in Zimbabwe, and also various Presidents, Prime Ministers, the UN Secretary General, ambassadors, Cardinals and other prominent people in the world of politics.How then might I have advised persons honoured by King Kigeli V?
I might well have given the following advice privately to those who had received decorations such as “knighthood” equivalents, and recipients of “titles” such as marquis from monarchs or pretenders in exile. I would have suggested that they treasure such honours and use them quite openly in appropriate circumstances. By all means use such titles as “Chevalier” in appropriate circumstances and even in correspondence with people who afford such recognition. I might well have suggested that it was no business of anyone else’s what was done in this regard. The appropriate circumstances, however, were unlikely to be official events. “Titles” such as marquis are always a more difficult issue, because they make a statement about social standing, not just for oneself but also for one’s family. They also place a person in a social position in relation to those who might claim “legitimate” titles, if I might use that expression.
However, I would have advised such title-holders in much the same way as those who held positions in Orders – use the title with discretion, within the appropriate milieu. In both instances, my opinion is that recipients of such honours should not be afraid to admit belonging to an order or having a title. If a monarch in exile or a pretender saw fit to honour someone in this fashion then it would be quite proper to admit it. Not to do so would mean denying the donor. The significant issue is to use or display such titles and awards with discretion.
In general, I believe this advice is consistent with that provided by Dr degli Uberti (See Internet site rec.heraldry 18 February 2007). See Footnote 12. Edited from rec.heraldry of 18 Feb 2007. Dr degli Uberti does seem to feel the need to make a case for a distinction between “titles as honours but not titles as such” on the one hand and other forms of titles on the other. I would not agree with this interpretation but it really is not that significant. I see no problem with creating what purport to be titles and calling them titles, as long as the recipients are aware of the uncertain status of such titles within the international community and – more importantly – as long as such tiles are used with circumspection. The Letters Patent from King Kigeli make it clear that the titles are subject to being made valid if the king ever returns to his throne.
Conclusion and Summary
The question that was posed is “What is the position on the idea of the King Kigeli of Rwanda to grant honours using names of European nobiliary titles”
Answer
In a very few words, it is not illegal or even improper for King Kigeli to purport to grant honours using names of European nobiliary titles, but this amounts in present circumstances to a private act or acts, backed only by the cachet of being an ex-king, with a remote chance of ever becoming king again. I believe Dr degli Uberti and I are in agreement on many points, and I quote : “King Kigeli – as other former Sovereigns or Chiefs of House – is right in creating new awards (orders), that have value (private) only among his supporters and among those who want to give them value, and are different from those created in Europe” From Footnote 12.
FOOTNOTES
Footnote 1
IOCC Website.
The Commission is a private body, the worth and seriousness of which wholly depends upon the worth and seriousness of its component Members. In the past, there have been errors in scientific evaluation and interpretation, or times when the Commission exceeded its institutional role. Therefore, the new Statutes require a specific academic grounding of those who seek to become Members and these persons must demonstrate their experience in the field of the study of chivalric orders, decorations and awards systems through publications and other specific work.
Footnote 2
I wish only make an invitation. I offer this possibility to those who have something to say against the idea of the King Kigeli to grant “honours” using name of “European nobiliary titles”
Footnote 2
(but I repeat they are not nobiliary titles but only honours):
Continuation of Footnote 2
prepare a true study supported by due documentation, historical precedents, footnotes which quote precedent studies on the matter to be published in one of my reviews (Nobiltà http://www.iagi.info/rivistaNobilta/ or Il Mondo del Cavaliere http://www.icocregister.org/aioc/programma.htm ), or better to participate in the next III International Colloquium of Genealogy organized by Institut International d’Etudes Généalogiques et d’Histoire des Families in San Marino from 28 September to 1° October 2007.
If the person cannot participate for the distance I will publish the intervention among the proceedings of the Colloquium, so it will be conserved in many of the Libraries and Archives in the world which receive also my reviews.It must be a true study not only personal opinions without scientific support.By my side I will prepare a study on the argument supported by historical precedents of dynasties who granted nobiliary tiles from the exile in Countries where the concept of nobility (as we mean in Europe) did not exist, that should be an ahistorical precedent of common usage between historical dynasties.I will begin from the Oriental Empire, so I will utilize this study also for the next International Colloquium of Genealogy in Romania on May 2007.
Footnote 3
Legitimacy and [of] Orders of Knighthood
This essay was first published in December 1996. – François Velde.
Footnote 4
A SUMMARY OF THE USE OF THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE, ITS USE BY THE HEIRS TO FORMER THRONES, AND BY REPUBLICAN OR REVOLUTIONARY REGIMES (c) Guy Stair Sainty (Edited 3 March 2007 by W H Jones – only some elements quoted here)
PORTUGAL
In Portugal, both the deposed Monarch, Miguel I, and the last King of the “liberal” Monarchy (deposed in 1910), bestowed titles of nobility while in exile. H.R.H. Dom Duarte, Duke of Braganza, the claimant to the Portuguese Throne, has not only awarded the Royal Order of the Immaculate Conception of Villa Viçosa, the only Order of the former Kingdom not taken over by the Republic, but has also re-established a long dormant Order, that of Saint Michael of the Wing, with members across Europe and a handful in the United States (now reformed as an Association rather than an Order) The Republican authorities have looked with a benevolent eye on the activities of Dom Duarte, who has a substantial following within the country and has always conducted himself with considerable dignity. His late father created a Council of Nobility, now under the Presidency of the Marques de Pombal, which he has invested with delegated powers to confirm in his name titles created during the Monarchy but now extinct or dormant. A feature of the titles created under the “liberal” monarchy was that a substantial number were created for the life of the grantee, or for one or two lives thereafter. The Council has also been given the power to revive or extend the life of such titles, generally, although not necessarily, for the representative of the original grantee. Thus, by such “revivals” the Council may sometimes be creating new titles.
SUMMARY
It may be safely stated that the legitimate claimants to the Headship of formerly reigning families can assume the prerogative to award their Royal or Dynastic Orders and, to the extent that the last Constitutions of those particular Monarchies so permitted, enjoy such other prerogatives as can be exercised in actuality. These may, for example, include the right to create or confirm titles of nobility, provided such creations conform with the legal requirements established before the fall of the Monarchy. They would not include, on the other hand, such provisions as being Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of that country, as that responsibility is likely to have been assumed by another under the Constitution of the successor state. It may not always be possible for a Head of a Dynasty to comply with the precise requirements of the Monarchical law because of the disappearance of an historic office or position. To the extent that it is possible and practical, such requirements should be met and the various acts properly recorded.
Whether these awards have any validity outside the realm of private law would depend on the attitude of other Sovereign states. As several reigning Heads of State having accepted the Austrian Order of the Golden Fleece, itself recognized by the Austrian Republic, the exercise of that particular prerogative can be considered as having been recognized in public law (precisely because it is held not to derive from the claim to the throne). The same applies to the Grand Magistery of the Constantinian Order which, although divided, is recognized as a non-national Order by the Government of Italy and, in Spain, is recognized as an award and is invited to participate in ceremonies along with the Orders of Malta and the Holy Sepulcher. German Law seems to acknowledge the right of the heads of formerly reigning families to award their Orders and several states have recognized, in the past, titles created by exiled Sovereigns whom they accorded some form of recognition (such as those by the exiled Stuarts). Whether or not a claimant chooses to exercise these prerogatives, he or she would be well advised to do so with caution and discretion; one day the Dynasty might be restored and a future Sovereign would not wish to be embarrassed by having to acknowledge as legitimate those actions of his immediate antecedents which would be better forgotten.
Footnote 5
See Napoleonic Titles and Heraldry Napoléon’s official style,paper provided to me by Brigadier General D Fourie, member of the South African Defence Force Honours Advisory and of the South African Heraldry Council. “Napoléon, par la grâce de Dieu et les Constitutions de la République, Empereur des Français”
Footnote 6
What a strange thing for me (who consider valid and undisputable from a legal point of view only a grant of honours or nobiliary titles coming from a Sovereign on the throne or a State sovereign) to take on the justification of a former King who used for his honours also the name of European nobiliary titles. Dr. Pier Felice degli Uberti
Footnote 7
I want to precise that although I disagree from a legal point of view with the grants of nobiliary titles made from exile or by descendants, that effectively do not have any value, I consider them a good idea particularly valid as moral value which in some manner in private ambient maintain a tradition of our culture which deserves not to die. Dr. Pier Felice degli Uberti
Footnote 8
As you know I disagree with the grants of nobiliary titles given from exile in every case, less and less if the grants come from descendants. Dr. Pier Felice degli Uberti
Footnote 9 (edited by me, WHJ).
Occasionally, on the Internet Newgroup, several have mistakenly written concerning the HONORS granted from the former King of the Rwanda. This has probably been caused in part by the ignorance (unscientific awareness) of some of the newsgroups’ frequent visitors who have seen certain web site references to European noble titles … granted by the King of Rwanda.
These people believe incorrectly that the King has placed himself into a position whereby he grants titles of nobility. This belief is incorrect and absolutely false. This can be understood by reading and understanding the ,… documents signed by the King.
The King is perfectly acquainted with the law in His Country and does not desire to, nor does He grant to individuals any European noble title (baron, count or marquis). To do so would be against the tradition of His reign as King of Rwanda and against the laws and culture of the country of Rwanda.
In commonsense terms, the King, in order to reward his faithful supporters who had worked with him in support of the causes of the Rwandan people, had decided as a “political plan” or course of action to create honors comparable or merely similar to the ancient European Noble Titles which had been granted from the European monarchs in the past or the present (as they are legally done today with full authority
The King knows well that his position is completely different from those held by current monarchs on the throne – who also have the tradition to grant noble titles
The position of King Kigeli … is one of a monarch outside of the throne or a FORMER ruler of a country … he does not have the prerogatives to grant a title of nobility in any way, much less according to the ancient rules based on the European model.
However, it does not prohibit the Monarch from the granting of the honors that in this moment of time and space only have value to the inside or membership of his dynasty and between his diligent and loyal supporters. This does not however have any official value but reveals only a term of endearment.
In the document the King of the Rwanda engages himself with His word or promises as King to render these honors in Rwanda valid upon a day of the King’s return as Monarch to the throne, and obviously in that case He will change also the law in his Country in order to allow the full legal acknowledgment of these honors – honors that will perhaps then will also possess the European denomination of count, marquis, etc. King Kigeli is not the first African monarch who has adopted European denominations for noble titles, as has already happened in the Empire of the Central Africa (Bokassa).
But – I repeat – this is only a promised by the King and the honor will only have any value in the moment in which the King returns to the throne in Rwanda.
Numerous previous histories exist relating to former monarchs who have granted titles of nobility, but even if the noble titles were in the tradition of their country, it is important to realize that no monarch removed from the throne has the legal right to grant noble titles. Perhaps in this case such titles are only known as titles of courtesy without any real value outside the dynasty or the supporters of that monarch.
Therefore it is to be understood that there is no difference between monarchs with ancient custom or tradition of granting nobiliary titles and non-tradition, if neither monarch is currently on the throne or in common fact has been removed from said throne. No monarch removed from the throne has seen recognized of his titles granted by him from the exile. (exception – Carlist Spain).
Moreover there are historical cases of Monarchs outside the throne who have granted noble titles with the promise to render them valid in the exact moment of their return to the throne (Two Sicilies, Montenegro, Yugoslavia) granted noble titles which they did not have right to grant because they did not exist in the tradition of their Country.
I repeat – King Kigeli grants ONLY honors and not titles. Anyone may have a political agenda in order to resume the power in his Country and has the right to invent any strategy that can bring about the realization of that plan!!!
…individuals receiving such “honors” from the King … only have effective value in the future event of the King returns to the Throne. Every other consideration is useless and demonstrates only a VERY bad acquaintance or awareness of the argument or a desire to not understand the truth. Carl Edwin Lindgren, DEd, FCP.
Footnote 10
By the Grace of God King of Rwanda and Lawful Inheritor of the Sovereignty of the Land, Lakes and Peoples of Rwanda according to the familiar traditions of our ancient and respected Dynasty used to grant honours, We hereby express our Royal prerogative through these letters patent. We do grant a title of honour, correspondent to the hereditary nobiliary title of (eg Marquis / Count / Baron etc) in the European tradition. This hereditary nobiliary title of (Marquis / Count / etc) shall descend by way of male primogeniture, We engage ourselves to make lawful, valid and executive the nobiliary title of (etc) granted to XXXXXXXXX, the moment of our return on the throne. Our Royal Seal and Sign Manual affixed to these letters patent on xxxxxxxx day of xxxxxxxxx of the year xxxxxxxxxxx a txxxxxxxxxxxxx
Footnote 11
It could be argued that nothing is created just by the issue of Letters Patent, and that the document is just a sign of good faith. There is no way of establishing if it will bind him or any successors.
Footnote 12
Re.heraldry 18 Feb 2007 – Pier Felice degli Uberti, (Extract edited by WHJ):
When in 1999 I took on the presidency of ICOC (International Commission for Orders of Chivalry) I promised … that I should listen… and help.. all persons who asked advice…
I dont give value to kind of grant or recognition (nobiliary titles or chivalric orders or recognition by nobiliary associations or bodies) which does not come from a State where the nobiliary/chivalric matter is still today legally recognized.
Less and less I consider valid every private grant, as those coming from kings/chiefs of former Imperial/Royal Houses out of the throne.
I have nothing to do with these grants or orders of King Kigeli and I don’t work for him but gave him my sincere advice which at that time was well considered and applied by the King
I mean my invention as it is said on the diploma of grant agreed with me by the King Kigeli:
I must explain the reason of this advice
I gave … my suggestion to help King Kigeli.
Some nobiliary titles (at the European manner) were granted by King Kigeli who was approached – as it happens in every dynasty – by persons with the purpose to make him grant nobiliary titles. Because this thing appeared … turned … to me as expert on the matter to help the King
Because some grants were still made it was necessary to correct and to justify these grants
To avoid damage to the King Kigeli …I advised about which right solution was possible in a still existing situation (this is the reason of this solution because it was conditioned by the existing reality.
If this reality was not existing clearly my advice should have been different and I had suggested to not create such kind of honours).
Everybody knows that King Kigeli is not an expert about nobility or chivalric matter.
It is necessary to consider – as I made because so it was told me – that through these grants the King Kigeli was helping his people, without obtaining a personal benefit.
But I want to remember that by my point of view I don’t give value to these as other nobiliary titles or “chivalric” orders that today live only in the dreams of the persons who receive them.
When a thing is private or of courtesy can remain only so!
And clearly this is the case (as it is the case of all in Europe when the Sovereign is not on the throne).
I met the King Kigeli in … March 2006
According to the discussion with me and following my suggestion the King decided to grant only honors that are not nobiliary titles as in the European meaning.
In few words according to my advice the King of Rwanda decided to grant honours that can be comparable to the ancient European nobiliary titles… but in the sense it is given them after Napoleon I,that is only honours, although named nobiliary titles. The titles given after Napoleon – although they are nobiliary titles – have nothing to do with the concept of the past nobiliary titles (at least in great part of the Europe).
It is really a bit ridiculous that the King of Rwanda in exile grants honors which bring the name of ancient European nobiliary titles but as Macchiavelli affirmed “Il fine giustifica i mezzi” (the end justifies the means). In fact the King will do what He considers fit, and to grant these honors is useful to help His people. The honesty of the King stays in the promise that – if He returns to the throne – He will make valid these honors.
I … am pragmatic and for me every title coming from a former Sovereign (or his descendants) has no legal public official value … not only Africa, but particularly old Europe. No official State Authority recognizes such titles (courtesy nobiliary titles), although there are today former European Royal Houses who continue to grant nobiliary titles … a recent fact.
The Rwanda Honors are honors that now have a moral value inside the Dynasty and among those who are supporters of King Kigeli. If Kigeli returns to the throne the honors will have effective value in a form that can be accepted by Kingdom of Rwanda. The honor (not the nobiliary title which did not exist in Rwanda) is immediately valid in private (as every honour or nobiliary title or chivalric order given by a private authority, a former Royal/Imperial House). But it is not possible to continue to think about the classical concept of nobility. But new times justify new solutions … the King of Rwanda has found new solutions.
I received some emails asking my personal opinion about this.
Door de heer mr E.J. Wolleswinkel, voormalig secretaris van de Hoge Raad van Adel, wordt in Virtus, Jaarboek voor Adelsgeschiedenis 16, p. 210 (De boekstaving van distinctiegedrag) een vraag gesteld die mij al geruime tijd bezig houdt. Wolleswinkel uit zich terecht kritisch ten opzichte van de stelling dat er in Nederland een recht zou bestaan om zich “heer/vrouwe van/in” een bepaalde voormalige heerlijkheid te noemen. Zijn bedenkingen zijn correct: wat voor recht dit is, wordt in het door hem besproken werk niet duidelijk omdat deze hoedanigheden niet in de burgerlijke stand worden opgenomen. In deze bijdrage doe ik een poging om hierover duidelijkheid te geven.
Naamsgebruik
Anna Quevellerius, Vrouwe van Sint Pancras van 1740 tot 1756. Geschilderd door Jan Abel Wassenberg Sr. (omstreeks 1720). Collectie Groninger Museum, Foto John Stoel.
In de achttiende eeuw, toen heerlijkheden nog bestonden, was het gebruik om aan de naam de betiteling “heer/vrouwe van [naam heerlijkheid]” toe te voegen. Professor J.P. de Monté ver Loren, hoogleraar oudvaderlands recht en secretaris van de Hoge raad van Adel, schrijft hierover in De Nederlandsche Leeuw van november 1961 (kolom 398):
“Vanouds was het gebruik, dat de bezitter van een heerlijkheid de naam daarvan achter zijn geslachtsnaam voegde ter aanduiding van het feit, dat hij heer van de betreffende heerlijkheid was. Ook tegenwoordig wordt dit gebruik soms nog gevolgd.“
Aan de ambtenaar van de Burgerlijke Stand werd bij de invoering en daarna vaak de naam van de heerlijkheid ten onrechte als deel van de geslachtsnaam opgegeven en vervolgens door de ambtenaar ingeschreven. Aan deze onjuiste opgave kon de betrokkene geen rechten ontlenen. De circulaire die de minister van justitie in 1858 rond liet gaan, dat in officiële stukken een naam van een heerlijkheid nooit als deel van een geslachtsnaam mocht worden opgenomen, werd in de praktijk vaak genegeerd, maar bewijst wel dat het hier om een gewoonte ging. In Nederland’s Adelsboek en Nederland’s Patriciaat zijn talloze voorbeeld te vinden die deze praktijk bewijzen met concrete voorbeelden. Ook een recent artikel van mr J. van Wassenaer bevestigt dit.
Een belangrijke bijdrage aan de inventarisatie van de combinatie geslachtsnaam/heerlijkheid is geleverd door de heer C.E.G. ten Houte de Lange in zijn werken: Het Dubbele Namen Boek en Heerlijkheden in Nederland : welke namen van heerlijkheden worden nog gevoerd sinds 1848?.
Met andere woorden, er kan worden gesteld dat er een gewoonte bestond en bestaat binnen de groep van (voormalige) heerlijkheid bezitters om (1) de betiteling heer/vrouwe van/tot [naam (voormalige) heerlijkheid] te voeren en (2) aan de geslachtsnaam de naam van de heerlijkheid toe te voegen, voorafgaand door een “van” of “tot”.
Typering
In de uitspraak van de Hoge Raad van 20 februari 2015 (ECLI:NL:HR:2015:395) is overwogen dat het karakter van oude zakelijke rechten kan wijzigen en dat hiervoor aansluiting kan worden gezocht bij hetgeen met voldoende zekerheid kan worden vastgesteld met betrekking tot de daadwerkelijke uitoefening van het recht gedurende de meest recente periode (r.o. 3.5.2):
Oude zakelijke rechten als dat van de dertiende penning worden, bij gebreke van een wettelijke regeling, beheerst door het gewoonterecht. Weliswaar moeten deze rechten krachtens art. 1 van de Wet van 16 mei 1829, Stb. 29, worden geëerbiedigd, maar dit betekent niet dat de sedertdien ingevoerde algemene regels van het Burgerlijk Wetboek ten aanzien van die rechten niet van belang zijn. Voorts lenen die rechten zich voor verdere ontwikkeling op grond van zich wijzigende maatschappelijke omstandigheden. Ingeval onzekerheid bestaat omtrent wat gewoonte is, kan aansluiting worden gezocht bij hetgeen met voldoende zekerheid kan worden vastgesteld met betrekking tot de daadwerkelijke uitoefening van het recht gedurende de meest recente periode (vgl. onder meer HR 1 juli 1994, ECLI:NL:HR:1994:ZC1414, NJ 1995/547 en HR 20 juni 1997, ECLI:NL:HR:1997:ZC2394, NJ 1999/302).
Gevolgen
Naar mijn mening is het gevolg van voorgaande jurisprudentie dat het voeren van de betiteling en de toevoeging van de naam, moet worden gezien als een gewoonterecht. Dit recht is in de loop van de tijd van karakter veranderd. Er zijn immers geen eigenlijke heerlijke rechten meer. Dat de betiteling waarde heeft, blijkt uit het feit dat er in het economisch verkeer waarde aan gehecht worden: er worden nog steeds voormalige heerlijkheidsrechten en -titels verhandeld. IJdelheid is hiervoor de voornaamste drijfveer, denk ik. Er is sprake van een recht omdat het gebruik van titel en naam een bepaalde relatie met het goed impliceert die een inbreuk kan maken op de rechten van de eigenaar van dat goed en zodoende leidt tot een onrechtmatige daad, als hiervoor geen juridische grondslag is. Tot een vergelijkbare conclusie kwam mr W. Lunsingh Tonckens al een eeuw geleden (De Nederlandsche Leeuw, jaargang 39, kolommen 285-286):
“Heerlijkheden bestaan hier te lande dus niet meer. Daar het onmogelijk is om eigenaar te zijn eender niet bestaande zaak, kan men heerlijkheden niet erven of koopen”
en:
“Hij, die ten onrechte den naam eener heerlijkheid als deel van een geslachtsnaam opgeeft of draagt, valt niet onder het bereik onzer strafwet en loopt alleen in het weinig waarschijnlijke geval, dat daardoor aan een ander nadeel wordt toegebracht, gevaar, dat eene burgerlijke rechtsvordering tegen hem wordt ingesteld (artikel 1401) van het Burgerlijk Wetboek).”
De conclusie is dus dat er sprake is van een immaterieel vermogensrecht dat ontstaan is door gewoonte. Het betreffende recht is een absoluut recht – dat kan worden geldend gemaakt tegenover in beginsel willekeurig welke derde – op het betreffende immateriële voorwerp (gebruik titel/benaming) en het geeft de rechthebbende een exclusief gebruiksrecht op dat immateriële voorwerp.
Vanaf het moment van het ontstaan van het recht wordt het in beginsel geabstraheerd van de persoon van de originaire rechthebbende en leidt het gewoonterecht een eigen leven dat niet meer beïnvloed wordt door omstandigheden waarin de originaire rechthebbende in de toekomst komt te verkeren. Zoals het eigendomsrecht op een fiets los staat van de wederwaardigheden van de oorspronkelijke eigenaar, maar enkel door de lotgevallen van de fiets wordt bepaald, zo staat het gewoonterecht los van de verdere levensloop van de eerste rechthebbende en is het voortbestaan van het recht hooguit afhankelijk van de lotgevallen van het immateriële voorwerp zelf. Een beetje vergelijkbaar met een auteursrecht dus.
Commentaar/alternatieve denkwijzen zijn van harte welkom.
Reacties:
Dr. Olaf van Hees (FB 26 juli 2018)
Na de afschaffing van de heerlijkheden in 1848 hebben de leden van de familie Van Hees (Van Berkel en Rodenrijs en den Tempel) familiebreed besloten de naam Van Hees van den Tempel te voeren, ook door de 2e en 3e graad leden, immers afkomstig van eenzelfde stam. Het gebruik van de toevoeging is sinds het begin van de 20e eeuw zodanig verwaterd dat niemand dit meer gebruikt.
Mr Dries-Jan van Huykelom van de Pas (E-mail 26 juli 2018)
“Naar mijn mening is het gevolg van voorgaande jurisprudentie dat het voeren van de betiteling en de toevoeging van de naam, moet worden gezien als een gewoonterecht. Dit recht is in de loop van de tijd van karakter veranderd. Er zijn immers geen eigenlijke heerlijke rechten meer”.
Ik heb bezwaar tegen de opvatting dat er geen heerlijke rechten meer zouden bestaan. Toonaangevende wetenschappers, waaronder Ketelaar, zijn van mening dat enkele, nog bestaande, heerlijke rechten een regale oorsprong hebben. Zo is het visrecht afgeleid van het stroomregaal. Ketelaar neemt afstand van het onderscheid dat De Blécourt aanvankelijk maakte tussen eigenlijke en oneigenlijk heerlijke rechten. Hij schrijft: “het heerlijk karakter is juist een wezenlijk aspect van de ambachtsgevolgen” (F.C.J. Ketelaar, “Oude zakelijke rechten, vroeger, nu en in de toekomst”, Universitaire Pers Leiden, Tjeenk Willink 1978, p. 12-13.). Met andere woorden, heerlijke rechten bestaan nog steeds.
“De conclusie is dus dat er sprake is van een immaterieel vermogensrecht dat ontstaan is door gewoonte”
Deze conclusie deel ik. In de vroege Middeleeuwen konden alleen edellieden eigenaar zijn van een heerlijkheid. De titel ‘heer van’ (dominus) is van oorsprong de aanspreektitel voor een ridder. Hoewel het dus geen adellijke titel is duidde het gebruik van de aanspreektitel er destijds wel op dat de geadresseerde van adel was. In de oudste charters uit de Middeleeuwen wordt daarom iedere eigenaar van een heerlijkheid ‘heer van’ genoemd. Als het in de latere Middeleeuwen niet langer verplicht is om van adel te zijn om eigenaar van een heerlijkheid (met uitzondering van Zeeland) te zijn, wordt het woord ‘heer van’ niet genoemd in de charters, terwijl de eigenaars wel ‘heer van’ werden genoemd en als dusdanig werden erkend. Het ridderlijke ‘heer van’ is aldus in de loop van de tijd los komen te staan van het zijn van ridder en duidt sindsdien op het bezit van een heerlijkheid. Daarmee is een heerlijkheidstitel toen vooral een functie-aanduiding geworden voor de eigenaar van de heerlijke rechten, en met name van het recht op jurisdictie.In al mijn onderzoek naar (de status van) heerlijkheden ben ik nergens een bepaalde vorm van codificatie van het recht tot het voeren van de titel tegengekomen. Er zijn ook geen historici, noch rechtswetenschappers die van een wettelijke of anderszins juridische grondslag gewag maken. In dit licht is artikel 24 uit de staatsregeling van 1798 van belang, waarin – zonder enige onduidelijkheid – de heerlijke rechten en titels zijn afgeschaft:
Alle eigenlijk gezegde Heerlijke Regten en Tituls, waardoor aan een bijzonder Persoon of Lichaam zou worden toegekend eenig gezag omtrent het Bestuur van zaken in eenige Stad, Dorp of Plaats, of de aanstelling van deze of gene Ambtenaaren binnen dezelve, worden, voor zoo verr’ die niet reeds niet de daad zijn afgeschaft, bij de aanneming der Staatsregeling, zonder eenige schaêvergoeding, voor altijd vernietigd.”
Hiermee is zeer waarschijnlijk het recht tot het voeren van de titel ‘heer van’ afgeschaft, aangezien de revolutionairen uit die tijd sterk gekant waren tegen het feodalisme. Heerlijkheden, meer nog dan briefadel, waren hier een belangrijk onderdeel van. Zeker is wel dat met artikel 15 van de staatsregeling van 1801 artikel 24 van de staatsregeling van 1798 werd ingetrokken:
Alle algemeene Wetten en bepalingen, welke sedert het begin van den Jare 1795 gederogeerd hebben aan de waarde van Eigendommen of wettig verkregen Bezittingen, zyn aan herziening onderworpen. Een ieder die door dezelve benadeeld is geworden, kan zich deswegen aan het Staats-Bewind vervoegen, het welk, naar bevind van zaken de afschaffing of verbetering van die Wetten, alsmede eene billyke schadeloosstelling, voordraagt aan het Wetgevend Lichaam.“
Heerlijkheden, c.q. heerlijke rechten, als verhandelbare vermogensrechtelijke zaak/zaken vallen hier onder. De titel, als die al was afgeschaft in 1798, is daardoor nog bestaand: er is na 1798 geen enkele wettelijke bepaling die er op ziet om (het gebruik van) de titel af te schaffen.
“De conclusie is dus dat er sprake is van een immaterieel vermogensrecht dat ontstaan is door gewoonte. Het betreffende recht is een absoluut recht – dat kan worden geldend gemaakt tegenover in beginsel willekeurig welke derde – op het betreffende immateriële voorwerp (gebruik titel/benaming) en het geeft de rechthebbende een exclusief gebruiksrecht op dat immateriële voorwerp.”
Zeer juist. Tot slot wil ik je nog op het volgende wijzen:
In 1814 zijn er een aantal Soevereine Besluiten uitgevaardigd door Willem I, waarmee een aantal heerlijke rechten werden hersteld. Je hebt daar een mooi artikel over geschreven, dus daarover zal ik niet uitweiden. Wel van belang is de tekst van deze artikelen. Hierin wordt namelijk vrijwel altijd gesproken over “ambachtsheeren”, “heeren”, slechts in één enkel geval ook over “voormalige heeren”. Uitgaande van een redactionele wetsinterpretatie zou ik durven stellen dat de titel inderdaad 1798 heeft overleefd en in deze artikelen wordt bevestigd.
Petronilla Queen of Aragon (ruling 1137 until 1164) and Ramon Berenguer IV, Count of Barcelona depicted later in a 16th-century painting (Photo: Wikimedia Commons).
In Italy a person may call him/herself by any title of nobility desired. Titles of nobility are not forbidden, nor recognized by the Italian state. The Italian judicial system does not forbid the use of titles of nobility, but remains totally indifferent regarding its use. This means that Italian law does not attribute any value (neither value nor disvalue) to noble titles (see e.g. a recent ruling by the Italian court of Reggio Emilia (Tribunale di Reggio Emilia) of 12 December 2017, translated here). In other countries, like e.g. The Netherlands, it is forbidden to use a national title of nobility without being entitled to it. The use of foreign titles is not prohibited. Does this mean that in Italy a person can use/issue any title he likes? And does this mean that in The Netherlands any foreign title of nobility can be used freely? In this article I will show that this is not the case and that the legal protection of titles in various legal systems can be very effectively pursued.
Impersonating
With some exceptions, in most jurisdictions it is not unlawful to impersonate someone per se. In numerous countries however, it is a criminal offence to dishonestly make a false representation with the intention of making a gain or causing a loss. Very often a false representation has the intention of causing some kind of tangible gain or loss. Gain or loss can be loss of money or property. Loss to reputation can have incalculable damage in this regard. It is very difficult to impersonate someone without then going on to commit another offence (either civil or criminal). Those who communicate with a impersonator, and share personal or confidential information, may have very serious damages claims.
One of the most common claims against an impersonator is passing off. In commerce, an example is where an individual misrepresents himself as a representative of a company, or his services to be those of company. In more personal cases, the result is the same, for example when someone falsely suggests that such a high-profile person has endorsed him. Impersonation takes place if any part of a person’s identity is used in a way that does not fit with the characteristics of the actual person concerned. Depending on the legal system, impersonation can result in a criminal offense and/or in civil liability.
Case study: impersonating and its consequences
Diploma, issued by mr Stefan Cernetic, bestowing a false knightly order.
Publicly impersonating being a descendant from a monarch and belonging to a specific royal family, thus not having a legitimate historical claim to a so-called fount of honor, in my opinion, can lead to both criminal and civil liability. One example would be when someone pays a fee to a illusionary royal descendant in order to obtain a noble title. Another example would be when a reputation is damaged if it turns out that a title of nobility has no historical background, such as in the case of Mrs Pamala Anderson, a famous actress and animal rights campaigner. Mrs Anderson was “officially” declared Countess de Gigli at a ceremony in Genoa (Italy) in 2015. The deed was carried out by the self-declared Prince of Montenegro, a man called Stefan Cernetic. The deed was a horrible act of abusing the trust of a vulnerable lady. Cernetic has been charged with impersonation by the Italian police in 2017. Mr Cernetic is not in any way related to Nikola II Petrović-Njegoš, Crown Prince of Montenegro (born 7 July 1944), who is the legitimate Head of the House of Petrović-Njegoš, which reigned over Montenegro from 1696 to 1766 and again from 1782 to 1918. A third example of impersonation would be to use a title that is connected to an existing family of noble descent, e.g. Count Bismarck, thus giving the impression that the impersonator is part of that noble family.
Mr Cernetic with the Archibishop of Monaco, His Eminence the Cardinal Bernard Barsi (source: STEFAN CERNETIC/FACEBOOK)
It should be remembered that historical fact-finding is achieved through scientific reasoning and solid evidence, not via “approval” from a self-appointed “authority” or by somebody who happens to be descended from royalty. Violating these conditions and subsequently issue noble titles may lead to an impersonation. The recipient of the title is deceived. That impersonators gain social acceptance on the internet or edit entries on Wikipedia does not make them real. The recipient believes that the title has a historical background, but in fact this background is fabricated. In contrast, the mentioned criminal court ruling of the Italian court of Reggio Emilia (Tribunale di Reggio Emilia) of 12 December 2017 shows that Prince Thorbjorn Paternò Castello (see below) is not impersonating recipients of his honorific accessories, because the prince has a legitimate claim regarding such honors. This does not mean that such a claim cannot be challenged, only that the claim is reasonable (meaning: not fabricated or false), like in the Cernetic-case.
Breach of Intellectual Property rights
In most countries it is also a civil and criminal offense to falsely claim that someone is the author of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work. It might seem odd to think of title of nobility as being included. Copyright can be seen as a law that gives a person ownership over the things created by that person (the author). As defined by the Berne Convention, the moral rights of the author include: the right to claim authorship of the work (1); the right to object to any distortion, mutilation or modification of the work (2) and the right to object to any derogatory action that may damage the authors honor or reputation (3). It is not always easy to establish whether a work falls within the definition of artistic works. Therefore, whether a title of nobility cannot be solved by detailed definitions of artistic works without creating the opposing problem that such a definition is too narrow. Cited in the 2011 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in Lucas films vs. Ainsworth, Judge Mann believes that in many cases it is only the artistic purpose of the artist which makes an otherwise banal object an “artistic work”. I believe that this factor for determining whether a work is an artistic work is crucial. It avoids judges becoming the arbiter of “what is an artistic work” and instead places the onus on the intentions of the artist. A title of nobility can be intended as a artistic work when its specific elements, which alone do not need to attract copyright, together form a ‘unity’ with an own, original character (compare Court of Appeal of Amsterdam 27 June 2002). The latter meaning that it carries the personal character of the maker.
Case study: IP-law protection of legitimate titles
To demonstrate originality, the question should be answered whether the author has made use of the creative space to produce an intellectual creation that can be considered the author’s own (Van Gompel 2014, p. 138). This is the case with titles created by Prince Thorbjorn Paternò Castello, in his capacity as claimant to the dynastic rights of the ancient Royal House of Valencia and Aragon. With the creation of the title, the prince becomes the author of the artistic work, consisting of a written description of the historic background, a description and a color image of the coat of arms that is connected to the title, a chosen and unique combination of words that are designated as a noble title (e.g. Count of Vall de Almonacid of the Sovereign House of Valencia) and can be used as an honorific accessory to a person’s name/identity, and the subsequent courtesy by the relevant community of addressing the person by his noble title. It can be said that the creation of such a title is intended to be an artistic work by both the issuer and the recipient, since it is intended to be a unique honorific accessory to the recipient’s name, based on the personal historical background of the issuer. The title has commercial value because the recipient often pays a fee for the transfer, that is used to fund charity projects of the prince. Therefore, the title is protected by IP-law.
Coat of arms beloning to a title of nobility, issued by prince Thorbjorn.
Such IP-rights are transferred in the diploma from the prince to the recipient with the right to transmit them perpetually from male to male in order of primogeniture, and, in the absence of heirs, to the firstborn of the closest line, and, in the absence of males, una tantum to females. Both male and female collaterals have the title of “Noble of the”, as is the custom, and in any case, the title of “Don” and “Donna” (letter of patent issued to John Wayne Rinkle, 28 September 2010).
Conclusions
In countries where there does not exist a direct protection against illegitimate issuance or use of titles of nobility, the law still offers a serious degree of protection against misuse. Historical legitimacy is required. Therefore, only under this condition, issuers and recipients of noble titles can claim legal protection as described above.
Een opinie-artikeltje met deze naam wilde ik al langer schrijven. Toevallig zag ik, voordat ik er aan begon, dat er al een boek was met dezelfde titel: Juliana, een onderschatte vorstin, door journalist Bert van Nieuwenhuizen. De auteur heeft veel artikelen op zijn naam staan, die de Nederlandse monarchie als onderwerp hebben.
In zijn boek legt Van Nieuwenhuizen de nadruk op de rol die Juliana heeft gespeeld bij de wederopbouw en het sociale gezicht van Nederland. Koningin Juliana heeft vaak gezegd dat zij graag maatschappelijk werkster was geworden als zij niet tot vorstin was geroepen. De biografie van Van Nieuwenhuizen is vooral interessant omdat hij deze mede heeft gebaseerd op biografieen van politici met wie Koningin Juliana nauw heeft samengewerkt, zoals Willem Drees en Louis Beel.
Anderen zijn kritischer over de koningin en noemen haar een goede actrice: ‘Juliana hoefde alleen maar in te stappen.’ en ‘Juliana is van alle vorsten die we hebben gehad de beste actrice geweest.’ (M.G.Schenk en M.van Herk, Juliana, vorstin naast de rode loper). Naar mijn mening is dit onjuist. Makkelijk instappen en aan boord blijven was er niet bij. Denk aan het moeilijke huwelijk met Prins Bernhard, de uitdagingen van de wederopbouw, de Greet Hofmans-affaire en het huwelijk van haar dochter Beatrix, waar een deel van Nederland (achteraf volkomen misplaatst) zo veel moeite mee had. Koningin Juliana heeft het allemaal weten te doorstaan.
Een prima voorbeeld van politieke behendigheid, is de rol die Koningin Juliana speelde bij de totstandkoming van het kabinet Den Uyl. Uit recent onderzoek van politicoloog Wilfred Scholten blijkt dat de koningin deze ultra linkse politicus in het zadel heeft geholpen. Koningin Juliana was namelijk de initiatiefnemer voor de zogenaamde “inbraak van Burger”. Met deze term wordt de succesvolle poging van PvdA-informateur Jaap Burger in 1973 aangeduid om de anti-revolutionaire prominenten Boersma en De Gaay Fortman te winnen voor een progressief kabinet-Den Uyl. Daarmee legde Burger de basis voor het beruchte kabinet-Den Uyl. Hiervoor was geen parlementaire meerderheid. Burger had kans gezien Boersma en De Gaay Fortman zover te krijgen dat zij wilden toetreden tot dit kabinet. De ARP-fractie, die van niks wist, stond perplex. Boersma kreeg als ‘verrader’ een stortvloed aan verwijten over zich heen. Het beeld van de simpele ziel aan de zijde van de flashy Prins Bernhard is dus onjuist. Net als het beeld van Den Uyl overigens (maar dan omgekeerd). Terwijl Nederland de jaren zeventig in de krant las dat ‘Joop en Liesbeth’ met de caravan naar het zuiden waren afgereisd, zagen mijn ouders en ik het echtpaar in een duur hotel in Zweden de meest exclusieve gerechten naar binnen werken.
Een wederdienst van de van huis uit koningsgezinde Den Uyl was op zijn plaats. Onderzoeker Anet Bleich ontdekte dat Den Uyl in 1976 van de ’Commissie van drie’ (1) sterke aanwijzingen ontving dat Prins Bernhard zowel van vliegtuigbouwer Lockheed als van concurrent Northrop steekpenningen had aangenomen. Den Uyl heeft die informatie echter achter gehouden. Hij was bang voor een koningscrisis en natuurlijk ook voor het feit dat zijn eigen positie daarin meegezogen zou worden. Hoewel Den Uyl met zijn torenhoge belastingen ons land op de rand van de afgrond heeft gebracht, moet ik hem nageven dat hij ten aanzien van de monarchie de juiste keuzes heeft gemaakt. De politiek van Den Uyl was een “afschrikwekkend voorbeeld van socialistisch beleid” (premier Rutte op BNR Radio, 25 augustus 2012), maar Den Uyl heeft (uit dankbaarheid) de monarchie wel gered.
Bij mij roept dit alles de vraag op waarom Koningin Juliana zo graag Den Uyl aan het roer wilde. Ik kan er geen eenduidige verklaring voor vinden. Ik denk dat Koningin Juliana oprecht geloofde in de linkse ideeën van Den Uyl. Zij vond het mooi om Koningin te zijn maar hechtte ook veel waarde aan een sociale samenleving. Uiteindelijk ben ik van mening dat Koningin Juliana onder de meest moeilijke omstandigheden haar rol als staatshoofd op een prima wijze invulling heeft gegeven.
Geraadpleegde Literatuur
W. Scholten, Mooie Barend. Biografie van B.W. Biesheuvel 1920-2001 (Uitgeverij Bert Bakker; Amsterdam 2012)
A. Bleich, Joop den Uyl 1919-1987. Dromer en doordouwer (Uitgeverij Balans; Amsterdam 2008)
B. van Nieuwenhuizen, Juliana, een onderschatte vorstin (Uitgeverij Oorsprong; Deventer 2010)
Noot
(1) Voorzitter van de Commissie van Drie was mr. A.M Donner, rechter bij het Europees Hof van Justitie. De overige leden waren dr. M.W. Holtrop (voormalig president van De Nederlandsche Bank) en de president van de Algemene Rekenkamer, drs. H. Peschar.
Trivia
Holtrop (1902 – 1988) was op 30 aug. 1926 gehuwd met Josina Juchter (1901-1965). Uit dit huwelijk werden twee zoons en een dochter geboren.
PvdA-man-Peschar was in 1965 een van de vier leden van de PvdA-fractie die tegen de Toestemmingswet voor het huwelijk van prinses Beatrix en Claus van Amsberg stemden. Peschar had echter minder moeite met het accepteren van een koninklijke onderscheiding. Hij was Ridder in de Orde van de Nederlandse Leeuw en Grootofficier in de Orde van Oranje-Nassau.
De prinsen-titel voor Pieter van Vollenhoven stuitte destijds op politieke bezwaren. Op 25 maart 1966 schrijft minister-president (14 april 1965 tot 22 november 1966) Jo Cals ‘Allen tegen titel Prins der Nederlanden,’ behalve minister van Defensie De Jong, ‘die overigens geen uitgesproken voorkeur heeft.’ Verder zijn de bewindslieden tegen de verheffing van Pieter in de adelstand. De Hoge Raad van Adel was voor verheffing. Koningin Juliana was ook tegen: ‘Kwalificatie Prins der Nederlanden te hoog’, wel mag Pieter ‘lid van ons Huis’ worden. De koningin wijst een compromisvoorstel af om Pieter dan toch ‘Graaf van Buren’ te laten worden: ‘Dat is een on-Hollandse oplossing.’ (bron: Nationaal Archief). Enige decennia later werd daar gelukkig anders over gedacht bij de verlening van titels aan zijn kinderen.
This article (San Francisco Call, Volume 102, Number 121, 29 September 1907) has been transcribed from the original scan. I have added comments and biographical notes to provide more information about the titled persons. The article gives insight in the social background of the new nobility.
The Papal Nobility of America
Ida Ryan
Mrs. THOMAS FORTUNE RYAN has been made a countess by Pope Pius X. This announcement comes close on the heels of the report that her husband is to be made a prince of the church. It has been whispered in high church circles in New York and in Rome that for the flrst time in years the red hat of a cardinal would be bestowed upon -a man of the world – and an American. While this report may be groundless, the fact has come to light that during the last few years what may possibly be termed a papal nobility has been created in the United States. Theoretically Pope Plus IX was a friend of the United States and an admirer of the church in this country, but not until the reign of Leo XIII and of the present pontiff has there been any acknowledgment of the high standing of the church in this country other than the creation of two cardinals in a hundred years. “Nobility lies not in heritage alone, but in the deeds of the living generations.” was one of the epigrams of Leo XIII. Taking this for his maxim, he placed the ancient titles of Rome upon men and women whose lives distinguished them among the good doers of the generation. Pius X has followed his policy. During the four years of his reign he has created an unprecedented number of nobles in recognition of both scientific achievement and – philanthropic work. While Pope Pius has accepted the precedent set by Leo XIII, which accorded to Cardinal Gibbons the distinction of being “the American cardinal,” and has intimated that during the life of his eminence no other prelate will be given the red hat, he has in every other way possible elevated the standing of the American church.
Thomas Fortune Ryan, 1913 painting by Joaquín Sorolla
Thomas Fortune Ryan (1851–1928) was an American tobacco, insurance and transportation magnate. Although he lived in New York City for much of his adult career, Ryan was perhaps the greatest benefactor of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Richmond in the decades before the Great Depression. In addition to paying for schools, hospitals and other charitable works, Ryan’s donations paid for the construction of the Cathedral of the Sacred Heart in Richmond, Virginia. Ryan also made significant donations to Catholic institutions in New York City and Washington, D.C. (source: Wikipedia). As her husband’s wealth grew exponentially, Ida Barry Ryan began making large benefactions to Catholic charitable organizations in New York, Virginia, and across the country. The Ryans funded churches, convents and hospitals in Manhattan, including the architecturally important St. Jean Baptiste Catholic Church on the Upper East Side. In Washington, D.C., they paid for a gymnasium and dormitory at the Jesuit-founded Georgetown University. Pope Pius X recognized the couple’s generosity by naming him to the papal nobility and giving Ida Ryan the cross Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice for her work in the Diocese. The couple’s lifetime contributions to Catholic charities around the country totalled $20 million.
Ida Mary Barry Ryan (1854 Baltimore, Baltimore City, Maryland – 1917 (aged 62) Suffern, Rockland County, New York). Although there was a place for her in the crypt of Richmond’s Sacred Heart Cathedral, she was ultimately interred in the cemetery at St. Andrews-on-Hudson Seminary in Hyde Park, New York (now The Culinary Institute of America). Photo by R.C.
The raising of Mrs. Ryan (1854-1917) to the Catholic nobility was expected by many prelates in this country during Pops Leo’s administration. Decorations and privileges were accorded to her, but the rank of countess was held in the country only by Mils Annie Leary. Mrs. Ryan, the builder of churches and iiospitals and schools, the story of whose remarkable life was recently told in the Herald, never has sough any recognition for her deeds. While it Is known that she gives away $1,000,000 a year for charitable purposes, little Is known of her philanthropy. She has built more churches and schools in the United States than any other person in the entire world. The number of these gifts alone exceeds 30 and there is hardly a Catholic church or Institution In the eastern states or in the southwestern section to which she has not lent material aid. In placing the title of “Countess Ida” upon Mrs. Ryan Pope Pius is said to have remarked that it was not alone for the cathedrals and churches and public institutions with which Mrs. Ryan has enriched the church in this country that she has been made a member of the Vatican nobility, but more especially because of the daily Christian life she leads. Few religious orders require from their nuns more of abstinence and labor and prayer than Mrs. Ryan gives every day of her life. She begins her morning by attending mass, and from that time until she retires at night her mind and her hands are ever busy in some good work. She is a lover of working men and women, and her munificence has done much to relieve the burdens of hundreds In New York and In the far west, where she has materially aided destitute consumptives. She gave to Virginia Its cathedral at Richmond, which cost $ 1.000.000.
Annie Leary
Annie Leary (b. 1832 – d. 1919), philanthropist, was born in New York City, daughter of James and Catherine Leary, who were also born in New York. She is descended on her mother’s side from The Netherlands, while her paternal grandfather came from Ireland to the United States during his boyhood.
The only other papal countess la the United States is the Countess Annie Leary, whose title was ctven by Pope Leo XIII, and expired at the pontiffs death. One of the first acts of Pope Pius’ administration waa to renew the Countess Leary’s title, with that of from other temporary nobility. Countess Leary received the title because of her extensive work for the “Welfare of working girls and emigrants. Years ago, when she very young girl, before the emigrants bureau was as well organized as it is now and prior to the time when State street was lined with homes for emigrant girls, terrible stories of the snares and temptations which were laid In the way of young girls coming as strangers to this land reached the ears of Miss Leery. She was horrified at such conditions and determined to try to find a remedy for the evil. She possessed an ample fortune and she resolved to share it with her less fortunate sisters. She gave freely to the support and management of the Irish emigrants’ home, at No. 7 State street, and also aided the German and Italian homes around Castle Garden, where a housed that steady stream of friendless girls coming to these shores to seek true honest living. But even those homes where the girls were taken on their arrival here did not solve the problem. Places of employment were found for them, and yet too often they went out Into a world they so little understood, unlearned of the ways of the world, unfitted to cope with the conditions friendless girl has to meet. Many ol those girls were of simple faith and trusting natures, and the stories which reached the ears of the clergy and those interestet in the question necessitated some action.
Countess Leary learned some of these facts from her own servant girls. She became Interested, made Investigations and then resolved upen a line of action. She was the mind and often the means of establishing working girls’ clubs and homes, there being a regular network of them throughout, the east and lower west sides. She has devoted most of her life to this work, giving her personal attention and encouragement to these institutions. She goes, among the girls and hears their stories, their little problems and their great troubles. Any woman’s heart oppressed finds eympathy and encouragement from Countess Leary. Her heart has a b!g place in it for all wage earning women.
Countess Leary is a stanch American and, realizing that the future of the state lies In the children of today, she spends much of her time and her wealth for the boys and girls of the poor. She has established boys’ clubs and gymnasiums and girls’, clubs and reading rooms and sewing clubs and playrooms for the youth of the other half. At Christmas and New Year’s and Thanksgiving and national feast days the countess arranges celebrations In the various Institutions she is interested in. Christmas eve of every year she assembles several hundred little tots and gives to each of them a warm, pretty cap and coat, besides candies and a book of some kind. “The Man Without a Country” Is one of her favorite books for boys, and she has given many copies of it. In addition to her charities among children and working women, Countess Leary has lent much aid to hospital work for the poor. She Is a patron’ of all the children’s hospitals and goes often with flowers and dainty foods and pleasing toys to visit the unfortunate young folk. Countess Leary presented to Bellevue-hospital the fine chapel which was built there several years ago. Another pretty charity of hers is to send a beautiful quantity of pure, rich cream for the ward patients at various hospitals on hot days.
Annie Leary (1832 – 1919) was the daughter of the hatter James Leary who was a childhood friend of William Backhouse Astor Sr., then, later bought many beaver pelts from William’s father John Jacob Astor and operated a shop in the basement of the original Astor House Hotel across from New York City Hall. She had three brothers Arthur, Daniel, and George who made a fortune in shipping during the U.S. Civil War. Arthur was a bachelor who Annie accompanied to society functions in New York City as well as Newport, Rhode Island. It has been suggested that James friendship with the Astors is what led to Arthur and in turn Annie’s being the only Catholics to be included on Caroline Astor’s “The 400”. When Arthur died she inherited his fortune as well as his social prominence and recognition via the aforementioned 400 list. Coming into large sums of money Annie Leary soon became an ardent philanthropist. Among her notable bequests was the Chapel of the Blessed Sacrament at Bellevue Hospital (dedicated 1897 – razed 1938 in order to make way for a Bellevue administration building which encompasses a new chapel where the original stained glass panels including nine made in Munich remain today) the first Catholic chapel at Bellevue. It was dedicated in memory of her late brother Arthur (source: Wikipedia).
Archbishop Farley
To Archbishop Farley, whom Pope Pius greatly esteems, the pontiff has given a court of monsignor, which lends to any diocesan ceremony a dignity of splender which is found nowhere outside Rome. At the consecration of the cathedral, which occurs, it is planned, soon after the work is entirely finished on the Lady chapel, there will be, in addition to the archbishop and his coadjutor, Bishop Cusick, the archbishop’s seven diocesan bishops, 25 purple robed monsignori and seven lay nobles around the episcopal throne.
Loubat was born in New York City to Alphonse Loubat and Susan Gaillard Loubat. His father was a French inventor and businessman who was engaged in transport infrastructure development in New York City and Paris.
The only papal duke the United States has ever claimed is the duke de Loubat., the last son of the aristocratic family of that name. The title was conferred by Pope Leo in recognition of the duke de Loubat’s generous support of Catholic and nonsectarian schools and colleges. Duke de Loubat lent his aid to every Catholic college in this country and to many in France. He gave a million dollar endowment to Columbia university at the time when is was in financial straits. He also added much to Columbia library. He was made duke in 1898. He decides his time between New York and Paris and swell known in France as a man of great learning and philanthropy. Is a graduate of the University of Paris.
Joseph Florimond Loubat (January 21, 1831 – March 1, 1927) was a French and American bibliophile, antiquarian, sportsman, and philanthropist. He was ennobled as Duc de Loubat by Pope Leo XIII in 1893 (source: Wikipedia).
Loubat was a philanthropist who gave in 1898 Columbia University a gift of $1.1 million in property, and later gave Columbia money to fund the Loubat Prize. He also endowed chairs at several universities across Europe and the United States, including Columbia. He donated a statue of Pope Leo XIII to The Catholic University of America in 1891.
Loubat contributed monetary funds towards the founding of the Musée d’Ethnographie du Trocadéro and Musée de l’Homme in Paris. Loubat also donated to the American Museum of Natural History a large collection of Mexican archaeological artifacts assembled on his behalf by Edward Seler in the State of Oaxaca, Mexico; a series of casts of the original Cotzumalhuapa sculptures from the ruins of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa, Guatemala, kept in the Ethnological Museum of Berlin; a photographic copy of the “Codex Legislatif,” an ancient Aztec codex, preserved in the Library of the Chamber of Deputies, Paris; and a facsimile of the “Codex Vaticanus, No. 3773,” an ancient Aztec book preserved in the Vatican Library, Rome (source: Wikipedia).
John D. Crimmins
Crimmins had entered his father’s construction contracting business at the age of 20. He took over the firm in 1873 and by now the boy with a public school education was a director in at least a dozen corporations or banks. His company was responsible for constructing the Croton Aqueduct, multiple gas facilities, most of the elevated railroads and would construct the early subway system—what the New-York Tribune called the “underground trolley system.”
John D. Crimmins has recently made a count by Pope Pius X. Mr Crimmins is a trustee of St. Patrick’s cathedral and is a member of nearly all the boards of importance in archbishop’s Farley’s diocese. The scarlet cloak of the Knight of St. Gregory was given to Mr. Crimmins as a token of the pope’s of his work for the church in New York. Count Crimmin’s most distinguished gift in the diocese is the splendid monastery at Hunts point, where he established the Dominican Sisters of Perpetual Adoration. These nuns devote their lives to prayer, and some one of their order kneels every hour of the night and day before the chapel alter in the monastery.
Born in New York City to Irish immigrant parents, John Daniel Crimmins attended the College of St. Francis Xavier (now Xavier High School). After graduating he took a job at his father’s contracting firm, eventually taking over the business. His firm employed some 12,000 workers. It built more than 400 buildings in New York City and most of the elevated railways. He was also involved in local politics, serving as New York City Parks Commissioner. Crimmins was one of the few Catholic millionaires of his time and he was an active benefactor of the Archdiocese of New York. Among the building projects he aided was that of St. Joseph’s Seminary, Yonkers. Crimmins was named a Knight Commander of the Order of St. Gregory the Great and a Papal Count. He was active in Irish-American organizations, particularly the American-Irish Historical Society. He wrote two books on Irish-American history (source: patheos.com). Pictures of his house van be found here.
No. 40 East 68th Street Manhattan.
John Crimmins’s personal study had an interior wall of stained glass. A rubber tube connects a table lamp to the gas supply from the overhead fixture. On the wall hang some of the millionaire’s collection of rare autographs and documents (photo Museum of the City of New York).
Previously looking like its brownstone neighbors, the combined Crimmins house now stood out (photo Museum of the City of New York).
In 1898 the Crimmins’s drawing room was an eclectic mix. “Moorish” style upholstered chairs share space with a French screen covered in Japanese print. An ebonized upright piano has Empire decorations. Heavy velvet draperies hang alongside Art Nouveau-inspired wall covering (photo Museum of the City of New York).
Martin Maloney
Marquis Maloney, beter known to the political and financial world as Martin Maloney, received his title about six years ago at the request of cardinal Satolli, whom the marquis met when the cardinal was papal delegate for this country. A strong friendship developed here between the prince of the church and the American millionaire. Some time after Cardinal Satolli was called back to Rome, Marquis Maloney went to Italy on a visit and the friendship was renewed. The American when taken to the dilapidated ruins of St. John’s cathedral asked how much it would take to reconstruct the ancient structure.
“How much money?” asked Cardinal Satolli. “Why, who ever thought about that? It would take at least $ 50.000 and that amount might be spent to better advantage.”.
“It might, but it won’t” remarked Martin Maloney, and the very next day saw work begun on the cathedral. It is said that twice $50.000 was spent on the work. While this gift is accredited as the cause of the bestowal of the noble title on Marin Maloney, it is by no means his largest gift to the church.
He has just given to to Pennsylvania a home for aged men and women, the building alone of which will cost $ 150.000. This home will be dedicated to Martin Maloney’s father and mother, who, when they emigrated to this country from Ireland many years ago, made their first humble home in Scranton. It was here that Marquis Maloney spent his boyhood.
At the time of the expulsion of the nuns in France four years ago Marquis Maloney went abroad with a definite purpose in mind. He purchased many of the small convents with the nuns had been ordered to vacate and held them as his private property in order that the religious might not be disturbed. Among the larger convents he purchased was that of the Little Sisters of the Assumption in Paris, where Marquis Maloney’s two daughters, Margaret and Katherine, were educated. After the death of the older daughter, Margaret, Marquis Maloney built near his summer house at Spring Lake N.J. one of the handsomest churches in this country, which he dedicated to his daughter and called St. Margaret’s.
Maloney Hall is the home of the Busch School of Business and Economics at The Catholic University of America. It is located on the southeast corner of Catholic University’s main campus. Maloney Hall was named for Martin Maloney, a Philadelphia philanthropist and papal marquis (a layman who has received a high title of nobility from the reigning pope), who gave $120,000 for the main building and $100,000 for the auditorium. The building originally housed the Martin Maloney Chemical Laboratory, the laboratory where the chemical weapon lewisite was first invented by Julius Nieuwland and later Winford Lee Lewis, with the help of CUA and Army researchers, developed it into a now-banned chemical weapon. It served as a laboratory for Armyresearchers developing chemical munitions for World War I (source: Wikipedia).
John Goode
Count John Goode of Brooklyn and Dr. Thomas Addis Emmet of New York aro the only two Americans who, have been titled by Rome in recognition of signal scientific achievements. Count Goede, well known as an inventor, was given his title after evolvIng a machine for the making of ropes. Until this time all the rope made was twisted by hand, and for this labor young boys and girls were employed, the wages paid being too small for the employment of men. Count Goode at that time was a very rich man, having amassed a fortune in the cordage business. He used to stand and watch the boys and girls at the hard labor of rope twisting, and determined to evolve a method for lightening this work. The machine he invented resulted in revolutionizing the cordage enterprise In the world. Count Goude Is a very devoted Catholic and has given much of his wealth to the Brooklyn diocese. He enriched Brooklyn by the church of St. John.
Thomas Addis Emmet
Thomas Addis Emmet is the latest member of the papal knighthood. He was vested, with the scarlet cape and sword In Archbishop Farley’s residence last spring and will appear in his regalia at the formal celebration In the cathedral this fall. Dr Emmet is a proud descendant of Robert Emmet. He was Knighted in recognition of his medical research.
Charles Astor Bristed
Charles Astor Bristed, grandson of William Astor has for a ‘number of years been conspicuous at all the state ceremonies at St. Patrlck’s cathedral, where. with his cape and sword he has, according to the privileges of his title, knelt in the sanctuary to participate in the ‘ceremonies. Sir Charles Brlsted was knighted for his widespread philanthropies and his strict adherence to his church.
William J. Onahan
Onahan quickly became prominent in that Chicago’s civil affairs. He was a member of the city school board, president of the public library, city collector for six terms, city comptroller and jury commissioner. He was the chief architect of the American Catholic Congress at Baltimore in 1889. This gathering of 1,500 Catholic lay people from all over the United States discussed and planned for the future of the Church in America. Photo: Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society.
William J. Onahan of Chicago who was made a knight of St. Gregory by Pope Leo, has enjoyed the actual privileges of his title probably more than any other member of the nobility in this country. He spends a great deal of his time abroad and is a frequent visitor at the Vatican. Accordingly to his rank, he can I enter the Vatican at any time without seeking permission for asking an audience. He was in the Vatican at the time of the death of Pope Leo and was in the very room where the late pontiff’s body was carried to be laid in state. According to ancient customs, the gates were locked at that time and Sir William Onahan was cloistered in the Vatican the remainder of the night.
After ,the death of his mother the family struggled along in Liverpool for a while. Then the voice that had called them from Ireland called again. The little home was again broken up and the Onahan family set sail for America. The voyage took six weeks in a sailing vessel and they reached the harbor of New York on St. Patrick’s day. There was a small boyish figure in the prow of the ship, and two little girls by his side all looking eagerly to the land in which their lot was to be cast. Bands were playing, men were marching, the green flag was flying everywhere. It was a happy omen to the young Irish lad whose staunch Americanism was to be all the hardier for the Celtic root from which it sprang.
Arrived in New York he immediately got a job in a lawyer’s office, sweeping and dusting and doing the usual office chores for the munificent sum of $1.00 per month and his board and clothes. Once in later life when he was testifying in a lawsuit the judge said to him: Mr. Onahan, from your answers you must have studied law.” No. your honor,” he replied, ^Hhe only law I ever studied was what I picked up in the sweepings of a lawyer’s office in New York when I was a lad.” But he had the legal mind (source: Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society (1908-1984) Vol. 11, No. 4 (Jan., 1919), pp. 636-653).
John Creighton
Count John Andrew Creighton (October 15, 1831 – February 7, 1907)
Count John Creighton of Omaha. Neb., who died, last month, was ono of the best known members of the papal nobility. He donated to Nebraska the Creighton university, the largest university In that state, and also gave several hospitals and a number of churches to Omaha.
Count John Andrew Creighton (October 15, 1831 – February 7, 1907) was a pioneer businessman and philanthropist in Omaha, Nebraska who founded Creighton University. The younger brother of Edward Creighton, John was responsible for a variety of institutions throughout the city of Omaha, and was ennobled by Pope Leo XIII in recognition of his contributions to Creighton University, the Catholic community in Omaha, and the city of Omaha in general. From its founding in 1878 to the time of his death in 1907 Creighton was said to have donated at least $2,000,000 to Creighton University. In 1888 Creighton financed the Creighton University Observatory, and in 1898 he gave money towards a medical school, which was named in his honor. In 1904 he created the Edward Creighton Institute.Creighton is also credited with establishing Omaha’s St. Joseph’s Hospital and bringing the first monastery of the Poor Clares in the country to the city. He paid for almost the entire cost of St. John’s Parish at Creighton, where the cornerstone was laid in 1888. Today Creighton University in Omaha is viewed as being named in honor of the entire Creighton family, particularly John and his brother Edward, as well as their wives Sara and Emily.He was named a Knight of St. Gregory on January 15, 1895 by Pope Leo XIII, and in 1898 was titled a Count by the same. In 1900 Creighton received the Laetare Medal from the University of Notre Dame. Omaha’s John A. Creighton Boulevard was named after him immediately after his death in 1907, as is the existent “John A. Creighton University Professorship” at Creighton University (source: Wikipedia).
Adrian Iselin
John Singer Sargent, Eleanora O’Donnell Iselin (Mrs. Adrian Iselin) 1888 oil on canvas.
Adrin Iselin Is amons the prominent New York men who have received titles from Rome. Mr. Iselin was vested with the cape and sword of the Knights of St. Gregory soon after the beginning of the present administration. One of Sir Adrian Iselin’s most valuable gifts to New York is the $150,000 chapel at New Rochells. This was presented to the diocese after the crest of St. Gregory was bestowed upon him.
Adrian Georg Iselin (January 17, 1818 – March 28, 1905) was a New York financier who invested in and developed real estate, railroads, and mining operations. For many years during his early business career he was engaged in importing with his brother, William Iselin, being one of the most successful merchants of New York in the middle of the century. After retiring from the importing trade, he established the banking house of Adrian Iselin & Co. He is considered the founder of the Iselin family in the United States.
Eleanora O’Donnell Iselin (1821–1897) was born into one of Baltimore, Maryland’s most prominent and wealthy families. In 1845 she married Adrian Iselin, an affluent banker and dry goods merchant. The Iselins lived in New York City, where they were active members of high society and supporters of the city’s cultural centers, including the Metropolitan Opera House, the American Museum of Natural History, and The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Eleanora’s daughters Georgine and Emily commissioned the portrait from Sargent in the spring of 1888, as the artist’s first professional visit to America was nearing its end (source: National Gallery of Art).
According to family tradition, when Sargent arrived at the Iselin home for the sitting, Mrs. Iselin entered the drawing room followed by a maid carrying an armful of ball gowns and asked him which one he wanted her to wear. To her dismay, Sargent insisted on painting her exactly as she stood without even removing her hand from the table. Some art historians have suggested that this interaction explains the sitter’s somewhat severe expression. When late in life Sargent was asked if he remembered Mrs. Iselin, he diplomatically replied, “Of course! I cannot forget that dominating little finger.” (Source: National Gallery of Art).
Richard C. Kerens
Richard C. Kerens (1842 – September 4, 1916) was an American contractor and politician.
Richard C. Kerens of St. Louis, railroadman and politician. Is a chamberlain to Pope Pius-X. Mr. Kerens, who came to America a poor emigrant boy, went west and amassed a fortune, has carried through his life the strong Roman faith instilled to him by his Irish mother. With his Increased prosperity he has given accordingly to his church. He has enriched the St. Louis university, which is under the direction of the Jesuits, and the Catholic university of America, at Washington, and has aided nearly every charitable institution in St. Louis. He has also done much for institutions in his native land and for Irish charitable enterprises in this country. It Is said that Mr. Kerens is trying to purchase a strip of land in Rome which will reach from the Vatican to the sea, in order to give to the pope a greater freedom and to relieve his present restrictions, which forbid him leaving the Vatican grounds. It is understood that Mr. Kerens has offered $5,000,000 for this purpose.
Among the younger members of the nobility in the United States areEugene and Thomas Kelly, sons of the late Eugene Kelly, a New York banker, who gave the white marble Lady Chapel to St. Patrick’s cathedral. Eugene and Thomas Kelly were made Knights of St. Gregory, with the title of sIr.
The Order of the Knights of St Gregory was reorganized by Pope Gregory XVI In 1831 since which time Catholics who are not of the state nobility or aristocracy have been vested with the title.
Ellen Ewing Shermanand Mary Caldwell
The late Mrs. Tecumseh Sherman was decorated several times by pope Leo for her charitable work. Mary Caldwell, the Virginia, beauty, now the Marquise de Merinville (Mary Gwendolen Caldwell, Marquise de Merinville, Laetare Medalist, VOL_0032_ISSUE_0023, 1899), and who before her marriage presented to the hierarchy of the United States the funds for the establishment of the Catholic university at Washington, was also decorated.
Ellen Ewing Sherman (October 4, 1824 – November 28, 1888), was the wife of General William Tecumseh Sherman, a leading Union general in the American Civil War. She was also a prominent figure of the times in her own right. Like her mother, Ellen was a devout Catholic and often at odds with her husband over religious topics. Ellen raised her eight children in that faith. In 1864, Ellen took up temporary residence in South Bend, Indiana, to have her young family educated at the University of Notre Dame and St. Mary’s College. One of their sons, Thomas Ewing Sherman, became a Catholic priest. She also took an ongoing interest in Indian missions and was credited as the principal organizer of the Catholic Indian Missionary Association. In “the most absorbing and monumental work of her life,” Ellen played an active role in U.S. observances of the Golden Jubilee of Pope Pius IX (May 21, 1877) for which she later received the personal thanks of the Pope (source: Wikipedia).
Mary Elizabeth Breckenridge and Mary Guendaline Byrd Caldwell were the daughters of William Shakespeare Caldwell who made his fortune building and operating gas plants throughout the Midwest. Both daughters married titled European aristocrats. Mary Guendaline was first engaged to the Prince Joachim Murat, the grandson of the King of Naples, who was not only twice her age but an invalid. The engagement was canceled when the couple could not agree on how much of Miss Caldwell’s fortune was to be given to the Prince.
Cave Hill Cemetery, Louisville, Kentucky
Mary Elizabeth Breckenridge Caldwell—Baroness Von Zedtwitz,
(1865 – 1910, Mary Guendaline Byrd Caldwell—Marquise des Monstiers Merinville (1863-1909)
Marquise des Monstiers Merinville
Baroness Von Zedtwitz
Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Kulage
Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Kulage of St. Louis, Mo, are the latest additions to the Catholic nobility in the country. They were both knighted by Pope Pius X on August 20 with the Order of St. Gregory, and the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre. Mr. Kulage is created a knight commander of the Gregorian Order, a distinction to few men outside of Rome, and Mrs. Kulage is termed a “Matronae” or lady knight of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre. This is the first tlma this honor has been conferred upon a woman.
The Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulcher, is one of the most ancient orders in existence, having been founded in the thirteenth century during the crusades. The pope himself is the supreme master of the noble order. The insignia of the order is a Jerusalem cross, which is really a combination of five crosses In one. The insignia, is almost entirely of gold, but the obverse and reverse sides are overlaid with crimson enamel. In addition to the cross Mrs. Kulage will appear at all state functions in a mantle of white cloth upon which is embroidered in gold the Insignia of her rank. Mr and Mrs. Kulage been elevated to the Catholic nobility in recognition of their charitable and educational work, especially among the children of the poor in Rome. [the original article ends here]
Sarita Kenedy East (1889-1961). Mrs. East, like her mother and grandmother, gave generously to the Catholic Church, especially to the Diocese of Corpus Christi. She also gave many anonymous donations to museums, hospitals and other charitable organizations throughout South Texas. Mrs. East received two special honors from the Pope – the medal Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice and membership in the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem. She founded the The John G. and Marie Stella Kenedy Memorial Foundation; her parents (source: The John G. and Marie Stella Kenedy Memorial Foundation).
The historical origins of the Order are somewhat obscure, although according to an undocumented tradition they are traced back to the First Crusade. In fact, the first documentary evidence of an investiture of Knights referred to as “of the Holy Sepulchre” dates to 1336. Since this first testament to the Order’s existence, that is, from the XIV century, the popes gradually and regularly expressed their desire to juridically annex the organization to the Holy See.
The Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem has always benefited from the protection of the Popes who, over the centuries, have reorganized it, augmenting and enriching its privileges. Clement VI entrusted custody of the Holy Sepulchre to the Franciscan friars in 1342, but that was still during an era when Knights alone had the right to create other members of the Order. Alexander VI declared himself the supreme moderator of the Order in 1496, and delegated to the Franciscans the power to bestow a knighthood upon nobles and gentlemen pilgrims on pilgrimage to the Holy Land (power of investiture). Confirmation of this Franciscan privilege, either verbally or by papal Bull, was renewed by Pope Leo X in 1516, by Benedict XIV in 1746, until the restoration of the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem by Pius IX in 1847.
Thus the pontifical delegation was transferred to the Patriarch when, in 1868, Pius IX issued Apostolic letters announcing the restoration of the Order. The Order of Knights opened up with the appointment of the Dames of the Holy Sepulcher thanks to Leo XIII, in 1888. Moreover, in 1907 Pius X decided that the title of Grand Master of the Order would be reserved to the Pope himself.
In 1932 Pius XI approved the new Constitution and permitted Knights and Dames to receive their investiture in their places of origin and not only in Jerusalem. In 1940, Pius XII named a cardinal as Protector of the Order and centralized the organization in Rome, as part of the Grand Magisterium, transferring the title of Grand Master to Cardinal Canali. John XXIII approved the new Constitution presented by Cardinal Tisserant in 1962.
With the renewal of the Second Vatican Council, a new Constitution was approved by Paul VI in 1977. Following this, John Paul II made the Order a legal canonical and public personality, constituted by the Holy See. Today the Order seeks to garner the commitment of its members in local churches hopeful for their sanctification. This is the essential and profound reason that motivated the revision of the Constitution during the “Consulta” that took place in 2013 (source: The Vatican).
Conclusions
Most persons that were ennobled, were of Irish catholic descent. Emigration to the United States increased exponentially due to the Great Famine in the mid 1800s. In the 19th century United States, Irish catholics faced hostility and violence. By the 20th century, Irish Catholics were well established in the United States. The extremely wealthy ones, who were also devoted to catholicism and donated large amounts of money to the church and other good works, were ennobled or obtained a knighthood from the church. In this context it cannot be said that nobility was ‘bought’. Spiritualism and good works, in most cases, led to the rewards. The titles are part of this spiritual experience. Women played an important role in this context.
The Belgian Colonial Order of the African Star; Commander – in bronze gilt and enamels, 55 x 90mm. (photo: emedals.com).
There are currently five existing Orders of Chivalry in Belgium. Only three of them are currently awarded. The Order of the African Star and the Royal Order of the Lion have not been disbanded, but ceased to be awarded when the Congo gained its independence in 1960.
Persons who were honoured for their acts of either courage, self-sacrifice or charity by the Belgian state or a state recognized by Belgium, can be admitted as full members (article 9a Statutes). They must have an excellent reputation. In addition to the full membership, there are associate members who support the objectives of the Society (article 9b Statutes), benefactors (article 9c Statutes) and honorary members (article 9d Statutes). Only full members are allowed to vote.
The Society was not formed by the King, but enjoys Royal Protection since 1893 (most recently renewed on 3 October 2014 for a period of five years; source: letter of the Royal House, R/TD/A/0330.022). The mayor of Brussels acts as honorary president.
Belgian Orders of Chivalry
The current National Orders are established by the laws of 11 July 1832 and 28 December 1838 and the Royal Decress of 3 August 1832 and 16 May 1839 (Order of Leopold); Decrees of 15 October 1897 and 25 June 1898 (Crown Order); Decree of 24 August 1900 (Order of Leopold II). Today, the exact material differences among the Orders has disappeared.
The Order of Leopold was established in 1832 by King Leopold I and is the most distinguished Order in Belgium. The Order is awarded in three fields – Civil, Maritime, and Military (with each having 5 different classes) for contribution to the military, society or the Belgian State.
The Order of the Crown was established by King Leopold II, as ruler of the Free Congo State, in 1897. It was intended to recognize distinguished service in the Congo Free State. In 1908 the Order was made a national order of Belgium. It is currently the second highest order in Belgium, awarded for service to the Belgian state, as well as distinguished achievements. It was awarded in five classes, as well as two palms and three medals.
The Order of Leopold II was first established by King Leopold II as King of the Congo Free State. In 1908, when Congo became part of Belgium, the order became a Belgian national order. It is awarded for service to the Sovereign, in five classes and three medals.
The Order of the African Star was established in 1888 by King Leopold II as ruler of the Free Congo State. When the Congo was annexed by Belgium in 1908, it became one of the Belgian national orders. The order has not been awarded since Congo’s independence in 1960. It was never discontinued and remains the second highest order in Belgium. The Order was awarded in five classes with three medals.
The Royal Order of the Lion was established in 1891 by King Leopold II as ruler of the Congo Free State. Leopold’s reign in the Congo eventually earned infamy on account of the massive mistreatment of the local population. Just like the Order of the African Star, the Royal order of the Lion became a Belgian national order following the annexation of the Congo Free State in 1908 by the Belgium government. In 1960, after Congo’s independence, the Order ceased to be awarded, although it remains in existence. It is the third highest ranking order in Belgium. It was awarded in five classes with three medals.
Order of Leopold
The history of the Order of Leopold is quite interesting. On 8 June 1832 Count Felix de Mérode, Minister of State, proposes the creation of a national order, called “Ordre de l’Union”. After investigation by a commission it is decided to choose the name of “Order of Leopold” with the device “L’Union fait la Force” / ”Eendracht maakt Macht” (United we stand, divided we fall), a free translation of the device of the 1789 Brabantine Revolution “In Unione Salus”. In its early days, the Order was very much military-focussed. The military tradition remains until the current day. The first knight in the Order of Leopold was the French sapper Ausseil, wounded during the siege of Antwerp (1832).
Air Vice Marshal Sir Charles Laverock Lambe, KCB, CMG, DSO (1875 – 1953), with the medals of Commander of the Order of Leopold, the Knight of the Order of the Crown and the (Belgium) Croix de guerre.
When King Leopold I inspected the front lines he met a stretcher carrying this soldier whose leg had been ripped off by a canon ball. The King told him : “you are badly wounded, my friend” and Ausseil, who did not know his interlocutor answered: “yes general, but it is my watch, for my country and amidst my comrades” and he shouted “Long live France!”.
The King, who knew what real courage was, immediately made him the very first knight of the newly created Order. When he was taken care off at the Antwerp hospital, the sapper was visited by the Queen, who gave him a gold coin (Louis d’or). After Ausseil had recovered, he was also decorated with the Légion d’Honneur.
The first Belgian military to be decorated as knight of the Order of Leopold was Engineer Captain H. Hallart. He was decorated by the King on 7 January 1833. On 30 January and on 5 February ten more Belgian officers were made knight. On 10 March 1833 no less than 304 French and three Belgian military were rewarded because of their conduct at the siege of Antwerp. The majority of the Belgian servicemen, who had distinguished themselves in the campaigns of 1831 and 1832, had to wait the important nominations of 15 December 1833 before they received a decoration in the Order. No less than 450 crosses were assigned to the army, among those 150 to soldiers and petty officers. The first Belgian military to be decorated as knight of the Order of Leopold was Engineer Captain H. Hallart. He was decorated by the King on 7 January 1833 (source: orderofleopold.be).
At the end of World War I, the Order of Leopold became internationally recognised for its famous members. In 1919 King Albert granted all Lieutenant-Generals of the Belgian Army the Grand Cordon in Brussels. The King bestowed the Major Generals with the Grand Cordon. After the Second World War, the Order of Leopold was bestowed on the several officers of foreign militaries who had helped to liberate Belgium from the occupation of German forces. Most illustrious was the grand Cordons with Palms given by the King to Sir Winston Churchill and Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1945 (source: wikipedia.com).
Society Medals
Since 1865, the administration of the Society is allowed to design medals of the Society (article 31 Statutes). The Society itself awards four medals: the Honorary Cross for humanitarian merit (Kruis van Eer), the Order of the Belgian Cross (Orde van het Belgisch Kruis), Palms of Mercy (Palmen van Menslievenheid), Medal of the Belgian Crown (Medaille van Gekroond België). These awards are not recognized by the Belgian state and they are not Orders of Chivalry or National Orders. The awards have a purely private character.
Association of the Order of Leopold
The Society differs from the Association of the Order of Leopold. This non-profit association has the following mission: (1) the maintenance of the prestige emanating from the nation’s highest distinction; (2) material and moral assistance between the members, decorated with the Order, who voluntary join the Association. The titular member or patron has to justify that she/he has been awarded the Order of Leopold. In order to become an adherent member, one should prove his/her quality as a not remarried widower or widow, not remarried or new partner living together, or as an orphan under twenty-five, or a deceased member of the Order and be accepted by the board of directors (source: Statutes of the Association). The Association does not issue awards, like the Society. It has strict membership rules and thus remains a distinguished group.
Recommendations
The Society is an important cultural initiative with a solid historical background. In order to adapt the Society to modern standards, I suggest the following:
Upgrade the website to a professional level and delete all the regional websites in order to avoid confusion; create a blog on the website to update members.
Avoid attracting “medal hunters” and allow only Belgian official awards and the Society awards to be worn during official meetings, in order to avoid jeopardizing renewal of the Royal Protection. Require members to have a genuine link to Belgium and its National Orders. Never use non-Belgian titles of nobility in the diplomas to avoid recognising fake-nobility. Attract members with a proven professional background in order to avoid parvenus.
Decrease the number of members of the Regional Boards to three to make it less bureaucratic.
Decrease the number of Society medals to one: the Order of the Belgian Cross. It avoids becoming a “medal shop”.
References
Andre Charles Borne, Distinctions Honorifiques de la Belgique 1830-1985, ISBN 10: 2802200577 ISBN 13: 9782802200574, Publisher: Groep Bruylant, 1985.
Federale Overheidsdienst van het Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken, Buitenlandse Handel en Ontwikkelingssamenwerking, Dienst Nationale Orden, Karmelietenstraat 15, B-1000 Brussel. Mrs Rita Vander Zwalmen, Tel.: +32 2-501 36 60.
Law of 1 May 2006 “betreffende de toekenning van eervolle onderscheidingen in de Nationale Orden”, published in the Belgisch Staatsblad on 24 October 2006.
Royal Decree of 13 October 2006 “tot vaststelling van de regels en de procedure tot toekenning van eervolle onderscheidingen in de Nationale Orden”, published in the Belgisch Staatsblad on 24 October 2006.
R. Cornet, Recueil des dispositions légales et réglementaires régissant Les Ordres Nationaux Belges et considérations relatives aux décorations en général, Publisher: U.G.A., Brussels 1982.
Appendix: Statutes of the Society 2016 (in Dutch)
KONINKLIJKE EN MENSLIEVENDE VERENIGING DER DRAGERS VAN ERETEKENS EN MEDAILLES VAN BELGIE VOOR DADEN VAN MOED, VAN ZELFOPOFFERING EN VAN MENSLIEVENDHEID.
Deze winter verscheen mijn werkje over de Drentse havezate Oosterbroek. Deze havezate, wordt al in het begin van de 17e eeuw als zodanig genoemd.
Sinds ik met mijn moeder als kind Oosterbroek bezocht, heb ik een interesse in deze “Havezate”. Mijn betovergrootvader was een van de eigenaren en mijn moeder vertelde mij allerlei boeiende verhalen over deze bijzondere man.
Wapen ontworpen voor de havezate Oosterbroek door de heraldicus P. Bultsma-Vos
Hoewel er het een en ander geschreven is over de Drentse havezaten, is er niet al te veel bekend over de families die op de havezaten woonden. Veelal is de beschrijving beperkt tot een lijst (al dan niet compleet) met eigenaren, soms voorzien van enige achtergrondinformatie over beroep en sociale komaf. Het is echter interessant om wat meer speurwerk te verrichten naar de bewoners en hun gezinnen. Hierdoor wordt meer inzicht verkregen in de sociaal-culturele context waarin de havezate en het bezit hiervan geplaatst kan worden. Ook werpt het soms een licht op de wijze waarop het bezit van de havezate tot stand kwam.
In het licht van het voorgaande, heb ik per opvolgende eigenaar een genealogisch fragment opgenomen, waar mogelijk voorzien van portretten en een familiewapen. Enige korte historische en juridische inleidingen gaan hieraan vooraf. Bij sommige personen of families is een wetenswaardigheid toegevoegd in cursief.
Havezathe (Ridderschap), Vestibule Oosterbroek, van A.H. van Bergen, (gem. Eelde), prov. Drenthe, Holland. 1902.
Hoewel havezaten geen heraldische traditie kenden, is in 2016 ter gelegenheid van het 125-jarig bestaan van VNN een wapen ontworpen voor de havezate door de heraldicus P. Bultsma-Vos. Het wapen is hierboven weergegeven en symboliseert het samengaan van de originele oorsprong met het huidige gebruik.
Vanaf 1993 was Bultsma officieel wapentekenaar van de Hoge Raad van Adel (E. Wolleswinkel, Wapentekenaars van de Hoge Raad van Adel, in: Wapenregister van de Nederlandse adel. Hoge Raad van Adel 1814 – 2014. [Zwolle, 2014], pp. 633-640). Hij werd bekend door de wapentekeningen die hij ontwierp voor enkele leden van de koninklijke familie: Máxima Zorreguieta (2002); de kinderen uit het huwelijk van Willem-Alexander der Nederlanden en Máxima Zorreguieta (2003); het grafelijk geslacht Van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg, voor nageslacht van prins Friso van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg (2005).
Gerard Martinus (Gerry) del Court van Krimpen, heer van Krimpen (1889 – 1944). Del Court behoorde tot een Amsterdams regentengeslacht.
In het werk van C.E.G. ten Houte de Lange, ‘Heerlijkheden in Nederland‘ wordt een heerlijkheid beschreven als: “een conglomeraat van rechten en plichten die betrekking hebben op het bestuur van een bepaald territorium en die in particuliere handen zijn“. Door de hoogleraar A.S. de Blecourt wordt een heerlijkheid in subjectieve zin gedefinieerd als het recht om regeermacht uit te oefenen (aanvankelijk van overheidswege, later door particulieren) met daaraan verknochte heerlijke rechten, krachtens een absoluut vermogensrecht. Heerlijkheid in objectieve zin is het grondgebied, waarbinnen heerlijke rechten kunnen worden uitgeoefend. Het is interessant om na te gaan in hoeverre heerlijke rechten momenteel nog juridische waarde hebben.
Rechtshistorische aspecten
In de nieuwe rechtsorde van 1795, die in Nederland de Bataafse Republiek invoerde, was het instituut van de ambachtsheerlijkheden moeilijk te verenigen met Liberté, égalité, fraternité. In dat licht beoogde de Staatsregeling van 1798 definitief een einde te maken aan heerlijke rechten. De eigenlijke heerlijkheden in institutionele zin werden direct afgeschaft en de gevolgen werden voor voor onwettig verklaard. Bepaalde rechten werden met name genoemd, maar voor de zekerheid werd alles nog maar een keer samengevat in een soort technisch-juridische formule, die voor waterdicht werd gehouden: “mitsgaders alle andere regten en verplichtingen, hoe ook genoemd, uit het leenstelsel of leenrecht afkomstig, en die hunnen oorsprong niet hebben uit een wederzijdsch, vrijwillig en wettig verdrag”. Iedereen mocht nog wel op zijn eigen grond jagen. De honoraire (“honorabele”) rechten werden afgeschaft zonder enige schadevergoeding. Voor de geldelijke (“profitabele”) rechten moest binnen zes maanden na datum opgave worden gedaan.
In de nieuwe Staatsregelingen van 1801 en 1805 is de grondgedachte uit 1798 geheel overgenomen. Volgens de regeling van 1801 werd het leenrecht volledig afgeschaft. Alle leenroerige goederen werden als allodiaal (= vrije, oorspronkelijke, erfelijke eigendom van de bezitter) bestempeld. De wet zou aan de leenheren (feodaal) een schadeloosstelling toekennen. Dit laatste is in de Staatsregeling van 1805 nogmaals toegezegd, maar met de uitvoering is nooit een begin gemaakt. Deze bepalingen leidden er wel toe, dat de Hoge Raad in 1882 besliste, dat de rechten van de ambachtsheren in 1798 niet vervallen waren, maar dat zij mede door de regelingen van 1801 en 1805, van feodaal tot allodiaal geworden waren. In 1803 bracht de Raad van Binnenlands Bestuur het advies uit, dat een schadevergoeding voor het gemis der “eigenlijk gezegde” rechten (voortkomend uit de jurisdictie) billijk was te achten. Van de andere rechten oordeelde de Raad er een groot deel in strijd met de burgerlijke vrijheid waren. Deze rechten zouden afkoopbaar gesteld moeten worden.
Tot een genuanceerder advies kwamen in 1803 de landsadvocaten in hun rapport aan het Departementaal Bestuur van Holland. Volgens hen bestond er een recht op schadevergoeding, dat trouwens in de wet was vastgelegd. De financiën van de staat lieten dit echter niet toe.
Op 9 juni 1806 herstelde de regering de ambachtsheren in een deel van hun oude rechten. Voordat aan de nieuwe wet uitvoering was gegeven, werd Lodewijk Napoleon gekroond tot koning van Holland. De nieuwe koning wilde de afschaffing van alle heerlijke rechten tegen een schadevergoeding. Dit ging recht tegen het ontwerp van wet in. De koning droeg de Staatsraad op een nieuw voorstel te formuleren. In 1809 is een ontwerp aangeboden, dat in de grote lijn neerkwam op de afschaffing van de jurisdictie en de bevoegdheden, maar de profitabele rechten voor een groot deel wilde handhaven. Aan dit ontwerp onthield Lodewijk Napoleon zijn goedkeuring. Toen in 1810 Holland bij het Keizerrijk werd ingelijfd, besliste de Raad van Ministers het ontwerp tot regeling van de heerlijke rechten aan te houden. De wetten van het Keizerrijk, die sindsdien voor het land van toepassing waren, raakten de vroegere heerlijke rechten nergens direct. Alleen voor het recht van aanwas is een Keizerlijk decreet van betekenis geweest. In 1813, toen het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden ontstond, was in feite nog niets veranderd sinds de onduidelijke Staatsregeling van 1798 (een omvangrijke en ingewikkelde materie) wel was omgeploegd, maar niet geregeld.
Actuele status van heerlijke rechten
Apollonius Jan Cornelis Lampsins (1754 – 1834), Baron van Tobago (Lodewijk XIV, 1662), heer van Swieten. Lampsins behoorde tot de Zeeuwse redersfamilie.
Van oudsher zijn aan genoemde goederen verbonden zogenoemde eigenlijke heerlijke rechten en heerlijkheidsgevolgen (accrochementen), ook wel oneigenlijke heerlijke rechten genaamd. De eigenlijke heerlijke rechten waren oudtijds de in de handel zijnde rechten op overheidsgezag. Begunstigd door de omstandigheid dat in het oud-vaderlandse recht ten tijde van de Republiek geen scherp onderscheid werd gemaakt tussen privaat- en publiekrecht, hebben deze rechten zich tot de Bataafse omwenteling onverkort weten te handhaven. Met artikel 24 van de Burgerlijke en Staatkundige Grondregels van de Staatsregeling van 1798 werden zij afgeschaft,¹ maar zestien jaar later bij Souverein Besluit van 26 maart 1814 (Stb. 1814, 46) in getemperde vorm hersteld, namelijk als recht van voordracht voor de vervulling van belangrijke gemeentebedieningen en als recht tot aanstelling in kleinere gemeentebedieningen. Deze rechten werden bij de grondwetsherziening van 1848 afgeschaft ingevolge het eerste lid van het toenmaals ingevoegde additionele artikel. Bij de grondwetsherziening van 1922 werd de werking van deze bepaling uitgebreid tot het kerkelijk collatierecht (het recht iemand in een kerkelijke betrekking voor te dragen of te benoemen). De afschaffing van de in het eerste lid van additioneel artikel I vermelde rechten heeft dus in 1848 respectievelijk 1922 definitief zijn beslag gekregen.
De overige, de zogenaamde oneigenlijke heerlijke rechten, zijn de rechten die de heer kon uitoefenen naast zijn recht op overheidsgezag. Evenals de eigenlijke heerlijke rechten waren dit oudtijds zaken in de handel. De Staatsregeling van 1798 bevatte een drietal bepalingen welke de hier bedoelde rechten limiteerden, namelijk de artikelen 25, 27 en 53 van de Grondregels.²
Als gevolg van de verwarrende redactie van artikel 25 bleef voor tal van rechten grote onzekerheid bestaan. Voor wat betreft een aantal heerlijkheidsgevolgen, bijvoorbeeld het veerrecht, het recht op aanwassen en rechten betreffende dijken en wegen, kan wel als vaststaand worden aangenomen dat zij zijn blijven bestaan. Het eerdergenoemd Souverein Besluit van 26 maart 1814 herstelde onder andere de jacht- en visrechten.
Bij de grondwetsherziening van 1848 werd het niet noodzakelijk geoordeeld de oneigenlijke heerlijke rechten te schrappen, zoals dit met de nog resterende eigenlijke heerlijke rechten geschiedde. De wetgever zou zulks desgewenst later wel kunnen doen. In het tweede lid van het additionele artikel werd dit tot uitdrukking gebracht. Het artikellid maakt tevens gewag van schadeloosstelling van de eigenaren.
Sindsdien heeft de wetgever enige regelingen getroffen (de Verenwet (Wet van 5 juli 1921, Stb. 1921, 838), de eigenlijke heerlijke rechten 1923 (Wet van 2 juli 1923, Stb. 1923, 331) en verschillende opeenvolgende visserijwetten (laatstelijk de Wet van 30 mei 1963, Stb. 1963, 312)). Geheel verdwenen zijn de oneigenlijke heerlijke rechten echter nog niet, al worden zij niet geheel door oud-vaderlands recht beheerst (vgl. HR 20 februari 1931, NJ 1931, blz. 1563, handelend over een heerlijk visrecht). Nog bestaande oneigenlijke heerlijke rechten kunnen in de praktijk worden opgevat als gewone zakelijke rechten (Kamerstukken II 1976-1977, 14 457 (eerste lezing)).
De aard van genoemde rechten staat eraan in de weg dat het kan tenietgaan doordat er het gedurende lange tijd geen gebruik van wordt gemaakt; “non-usus”. De omstandigheid dat het bestaan van de rechten niet kan afleiden uit de openbare registers, brengt niet mee dat aangenomen moet worden dat de rechten niet (meer) bestaan (zie onder meer Gerechtshof Amsterdam 23 maart 2010, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2010:BM9231 en Gerechtshof Amsterdam 2 oktober 2012, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2012:BY1161).
Met name na de Tweede Wereldoorlog werd, net als onze “gewone” adellijke titels, het voeren van de titel “Heer van ..” veelal maar beter achterwege gelaten. Ook hier lijkt echter te gelden, dat er zich sinds eind jaren negentig een kentering in de belangstelling voordoet. Zelfbewustzijn en historisch besef zullen hieraan zeker (mede) debet zijn. Leek voorheen het vaste credo: “de Heerlijke rechten zijn afgeschaft!”, sindsdien is het meer een vráág: “zijn die Heerlijke rechten nu eigenlijk afgeschaft?”
Van Wassener meent op basis van een overgangsartikel in het BW het antwoord te hebben gevonden, wat talloze deskundigen kennelijk over het hoofd hebben gezien.
Welnu: ze zijn afgeschaft maar korte tijd later ook weer herboren (…).
Artikel 150, eerste lid, van de Overgangswet Nieuw Burgerlijk Wetboek (van 3 april 1969) verklaart de van vóór 1838 bestaande oude zakelijke rechten tot register- goederen, hetgeen betekent, dat hun bestaan wordt erkend en dat levering (derhalve niet de verkrijging onder al- gemene titel) slechts kan geschieden door een notariële akte, gevolgd door de inschrijving in de openbare registers (kadaster).
Zoals hierboven uiteengezet, is dit onjuist. Het betreft hier alleen de restanten van heerlijke rechten in de vorm van zakelijke rechten. Het kenmerk van de heerlijke rechten, namelijk het overheidsgezag, is niet meer aan de orde. Het zijn dus geen heerlijke rechten meer, maar zakelijke rechten, die hun oorsprong in heerlijke rechten hebben gehad.
Naamsgebruik
Mr. A.J.F. Fokker, heer van Crayestein en Rengerskerke (1857-1929), lid Eerste Kamer.
In Nederland was het gebruikelijk dat de eigenaar van een heerlijkheid de naam daarvan achter zijn geslachtsnaam voegde om aan te geven dat hij de heer was van de betreffende heerlijkheid. Deze toevoeging maakte geen deel uit van zijn wettelijke geslachtsnaam en is te beschouwen als een eigendomsaanduiding. De circulaire die de minister van justitie in 1858 rond liet gaan, dat in officiële stukken een naam van een heerlijkheid nooit als deel van een geslachtsnaam mocht worden opgenomen, werd in de praktijk vaak genegeerd. Aan de ambtenaar van de Burgerlijke Stand werd vaak de naam van de heerlijkheid ten onrechte als deel van de geslachtsnaam opgegeven en vervolgens door de ambtenaar ingeschreven. Aan deze onjuiste opgave kon de betrokkene geen rechten ontlenen. In de praktijk was de kans groot dat in latere akten de onjuiste naam werd overgenomen, net zolang tot een ambtenaar een onderzoek deed naar de naam. Er zijn dus voorbeelden te noemen van geslachtsnamen waaraan de naam van de heerlijkheid is toegevoegd zonder dat er sprake is geweest van een Koninklijk Besluit.
Het stond mensen wel vrij om zich, zolang het geen officiële stukken betrof, te schrijven en ook te noemen met de naam van de heerlijkheid achter de geslachtsnaam.
Bij de invoering van de Burgerlijke Stand in 1811 was het gebruikelijk dat de eigenaar van de heerlijkheid de naam van zijn heerlijkheid achter zijn geslachtsnaam voegde met daartussen het woord van. Kinderen van de heer lieten tussen hun geslachtsnaam en de naam van de heerlijkheid het woord tot zetten.
Tegenwoordig geldt nog steeds de ongeschreven regel dat iemand die een voormalige heerlijkheid alleen bezit, in het maatschappelijk verkeer de aanduiding van heer of vrouwe van gevolgd door de naam van de heerlijkheid voert. Als er sprake is van een gemeenschappelijk bezit, noemen de eigenaren zich heer of vrouwe in/tot gevolgd door de naam van de heerlijkheid. Volgens het huidige naamrecht maakt de naam van de heerlijkheid geen deel meer uit van de geslachtsnaam. De aanduiding ‘heer/vrouwe van’ of ‘heer/vrouwe in of heer/vrouwe tot’ wordt tegenwoordig met een komma gescheiden van de geslachtsnaam. De eigenaar van een huis/landerij hoeft dus niet dezelfde persoon te zijn die de heerlijkheid bezit. Omdat huizen en heerlijkheden vaak dezelfde naam hebben, en omdat de eigenaren zich er vaak naar vernoemden, kan het zijn dat de twee verschillende eigenaren dezelfde naam voeren.
Bewijs leveren van het bestaan van voormalige heerlijke rechten
Aardig (maar ook niet geheel juist) is Van Wassenaer’s poging om juridische advies te geven met betrekking tot het bezitten van voormalige heerlijke rechten. Van Wassenaer noemt (kort gezegd) onder meer:
vergaar het bewijs dat u de rechtmatige opvolger bent van de “Heerlijke rechten”;
vergaar bewijs van de locatie van de “Heerlijke rechten”;
vergaar het bewijs wat deze rechten inhouden of in hebben gehouden.
Van Wassenaer bedoelt met “Heerlijke rechten”, naar mijn mening de voormalige heerlijke rechten of de resterende zakelijke rechten.
Bijzonder interessant is Van Wassenaer’s advies met betrekking tot het gebruik van voormalige heerlijkheidsnamen in combinatie met de geslachtsnaam (p. 45):
Dr. Maurits Willem Raedinck van Vollenhoven (1882 – 1976), heer van Kleverskerke, diplomaat en grootprior Orde van Sint Lazarus.
Voer, in de meer offciële stukken, (overlijdensbericht, testament, etc.) de naam (dus X van Amsterdam van Den Haag) en titel (Heer van Amsterdam en Den Haag) en neem een passage in uw testament op, waarin u deze zaken (de rechten, de naam en de titel) uitdrukkelijk benoemt en “doorgeeft”, al dan niet per legaat. Bij het testament zou u kunnen opnemen dat het uw wens is dat, de traditie getrouw, dit alles ook vervolgens telkens aan (bijvoorbeeld en afhankelijk van de bij uw familie levende traditie uiteraard) de oudste zoon en zo verder zal worden overgedragen aan de nazaten binnen de familie.
Ik kan het hier alleen maar mee eens zijn, wel met de aantekening dat hiermee geen zakelijk recht wordt beschermd maar – in juridische zin – eerder een naamsonderdeel. Ik moet erkennen dat ik hier nog niet precies de vinger op kan leggen. Een ander prima advies van Van Wassenaer heeft betrekking op registratie in het kadaster (p. 45):
Hoewel ik in het vorenstaande aangaf dat bij vererving geen inschrijving in het kadaster nodig is (slechts bij verkoop aan derden is dat nu voorwaarde), zou het de rechtszekerheid voor u, uw nakomelingen en derden zeer helpen, indien u deze rechtspositie via een notariële akte daarin zou (doen) registreren. Dan is het maar duidelijk. Bij latere verervingen verdient het dan aanbeveling om het kadaster up to date te houden.
Of dit mogelijk is met een “titel” heer van (….) is naar mijn mening nog maar de vraag omdat niet duidelijk is of sprake is van een recht. Zakelijke rechten kunnen wel in het kadaster worden opgenomen door de notaris. Naar mijn mening moet de titel “heer van (…)” eerder in historische zin worden bezien. Als de titel onterecht wordt gebruikt, kan onder omstandigheden sprake zijn van een onrechtmatige daad in die zin dat ten onrechte wordt gesuggereerd dat er een eigendom of bezit is van een onroerende zaak van dezelfde naam.
Relatie met de familie
Een voorbeeld van een heerlijkheidsrecht is het collatierecht (in het Latijn “præsentatio sive collatio” en in het katholiek kerkelijk recht “jus patronatus”). Deze term houdt in het recht om een geestelijke, een pastoor of een dominee, voor te dragen ter benoeming. Het recht was erfelijk en werd in Nederland in 1922 afgeschaft met de bepaling dat de eigenaar het recht tot zijn of haar dood mocht blijven uitoefennen. In een aantal gevallen was het collatierecht verbonden aan een havezate, zoals bij Oosterbroek (zie: Collatierecht – Encyclopedie Drenthe Online), waarvan A.H. van Bergen eigenaar was.
In de uitspraak van de Afdeling Rechtspraak van de Raad van State van 21 september 1990, nr. R02.88.1390 (p. 4), is bepaald dat een lid van de huidige generatie “in rechte mannelijke lijn afstamt van Anton Quast, die naar de Afdeling is gebleken, rechthebbende was ten aanzien van de heerlijkheid Odenkirchen“. Odenkirchen is gelegen in de omgeving van Mönchengladbach.
Opmerking
Dit artikel is voor een belangrijk deel ontleend aan de boeken van de heren Delahaye en Ketelaar.
Literatuur
C.E.G. ten Houte de Lange en V.A.M. van der Burg, Heerlijkheden in Nederland, Hilversum, Verloren, 2008.
F.C.J. Ketelaar, Oude zakelijke rechten, vroeger, nu en in de toekomst (Les survivances du ‘système féodal’ dans le droit néerlandais au XIXe et au XXe sciècle) (Leiden/Zwolle 1978).
J.Ph. de Monté ver Loren, ‘Bestaan er nog heerlijkheden en hoe te handelen met aan heerlijkheden ontleende namen?’, De Nederlandsche Leeuw 1961, kol. 394-400.
A. Delahaye, Vossemeer, land van 1000 heren, NV Ambachtsheerlijkheid Oud en Nieuw Vossemeer 1969.
A.S. de Blecourt, Kort begrip van het Oud-Vaderlandsch Burgerlijk Recht I, Groningen-Batavia, 1939, p. 328.
Memorie ter wederlegging der gronden en redeneringen, vervat bij nadere missive van den Raad der Binnenlandsche Zaaken der Bataafsche Republiek op den 11 April 1804 wegens de zaak der heerlijkheden aan het Staatsbewind geschreven van wegens een groot aantal geinteresseerdens bij Stichtse heerlijkheden aan het Wetgevend Lichaam der Bataafsche Republiek overgegeven : met eenige daartoe behorende bijlagen. – Utrecht : Wild en Altheer, 1805. – [2], 207 p. ; 23 cm – Note: Ex. RGS-GS gebonden bij: Korte verhandeling over de ambachtsheerlijkheeden en derzelver lot, zeedert den jaare 1795.
Noten
1. Artikel 24 van de Burgerlijke en Staatkundige Grondregels luidt: “Alle eigenlijk gezegde Heerlijke Regten en Tituls, waardoor aan een bijzonder Persoon of Lichaam zou worden toegekend eenig gezag omtrent het Bestuur van Zaken in eenige Stad, Dorp of Plaats, of de aanstelling van deze of gene Ambtenaaren binnen dezelve, worden, voor zoo verre die niet reeds met de daad zijn afgeschaft, bij de aanneming der Staatsregeling, zonder eenige Schaêvergoeding, voor altijd vernietigd.”
2. Deze artikelen luiden als volgt: Artikel 25.
-1. Alle Tiend-, Cijns-, of Thijns-, Na-koops-, Afstervings-, en Naastings-Regten, van welken aard, midsgaders alle andere Regten of Verpligtingen, hoe ook genoemd, uit het leenstelsel of Leenrecht afkomstig, en die hunnen oorsprong niet hebben uit een wederzijdsch vrijwillig en wettig verdrag, worden, met alle de gevolgen van dien, als strijdig met der Burgeren gelijkheid en vrijheid, voor altijd vervallen verklaard.
– 2. Het Vertegenwoordigend Lichaam zal, binnen agttien Maanden, na Deszelfs eerste zitting, bepaalen den voet en de wijze van afkoop van alle zoodanige regten en renten, welke als vruchten van wezenlijken eigendom kunnen beschouwd worden. Geene aanspraak op pecunieele vergoeding, uit de vernieting van gemelde Regten voordvloeijende, zal gelden, dan welke, binnen zes Maanden na de aanneming der Staatsregeling, zal zijn ingeleverd.
Artikel 27.
Alle burgers hebben, ten alle tijde, het regt, om, met uitsluiting van anderen, op hunnen eigen of gebruikten, grond te Jagen, te Vogelen en te Visschen. Het Vertegenwoordigend Lichaam maakt, binnen zes Maanden na Deszelfs eerste zitting, bij Reglement, de nodige bepaaling, om, ten dezen opzigte, de openbaare veiligheid en eigendommen der lngezetenen te verzekeren, en zorgt, dat noch de Visscherijen bedorven, noch de Landgebruiker bij eenige Wet of Beding, belet worde, allen Wild op zijnen gebruikten grond te vangen, noch ook, dat een ander daarop zal mogen Jagen of Visschen zonder zijne bewilliging.
Artikel 53.
Bij de aanneming der Staatsregeling, worden vervallen verklaard alle Gilden, Corporatiën of Broederschappen van Neeringen, Ambagten, of Fabrieken. Ook heeft ieder Burger, in welke Plaats woonachtig, het regt zoodanige Fabriek of Trafiek opterigten, of zoodanig eerlijk bedrijf aantevangen, als hij verkiezen zal. Het Vertegenwoordigend Lichaam zorgt, dat de goede orde, het gemak en gerief der Ingezetenen, ten dezen opzigte, worden verzekerd.
“Heerlijkheden bestaan hier te lande dus niet meer. Daar het onmogelijk is om eigenaar te zijn eender niet bestaande zaak, kan men heerlijkheden niet erven of koopen”
en:
“Hij, die ten onrechte den naam eener heerlijkheid als deel van een geslachtsnaam opgeeft of draagt, valt niet onder het bereik onzer strafwet en loopt alleen in het weinig waarschijnlijke geval, dat daardoor aan een ander nadeel wordt toegebracht, gevaar, dat eene burgerlijke rechtsvordering tegen hem wordt ingesteld (artikel 1401) van het Burgerlijk Wetboek).”
Museum and National Estate of Versailles and Trianon. Jacques-Louis David, The Coronation of Napoleon, 1807. Dimensions: 10 metres wide by over 6 metres tall. In 1808 David was commissioned by American entrepreneurs to paint a full size replica, immediately after the release of the original. David painted it from memory and finished the work in 1822. In 1947 the replica was returned to France.
Napoleon is widely seen as a military genius and perhaps the most illustrious leader in world history. Of the 60 battles, Napoleon only lost seven (even these were lost in the final phase). The leading British historian Andrew Roberts, in his 926 pages biography Napoleon: A Life (2015), mentions the battles of Acre (1799), Aspern-Essling (1809), Leipzig (1813), La Rothière (1814), Laon (1814), Arcis-sur-Aube (1814), and Waterloo (1815). Often forgotten is the battle that Napoleon lost in the French colony of Saint-Domingue (now Haiti). On 18 November 1803, the French army under the command of general Donatien-Marie-Joseph de Vimeur, vicomte de Rochambeau, and the rebel forces under Jean-Jacques Dessalines, a self-educated slave with no formal military training, collided at the battle of Vertières. The outcome was that Napoleon was driven out of Saint-Domingue and Dessalines led his country to independence. It is interesting to see what Napoleon’s legacy was.
Saint-Domingue’s sugar
Saint-Domingue was a French colony on the Caribbean island of Hispaniola from 1659 to 1804. The French had established themselves on the western portion of the islands of Hispaniola and Tortuga by 1659. The Treaty of Rijswijk (1697) formally ceded the western third of Hispaniola from Spain to France. The French then renamed it to Saint-Domingue. During the 18th century, the colony became France’s most lucrative New World possession. It exported sugar, coffee, cacao, indigo, and cotton, generated by an enslaved labor force. Around 1780 the majority of France’s investments were made in Saint-Domingue. In the 18th century, Saint-Domingue grew to be the richest sugar colony in the Caribbean.
Revolution in France
A plantation in the Caribbean was very labor intensive. It required about two or three slaves per hectare. Due to the importation of Africans the slave population soon outnumbered the free population. The slave population stood at 460,000 people, which was not only the largest of any island but represented close to half of the one million slaves then being held in all the Caribbean colonies (Klein: 33).
The French colony of Saint Domingue had a substantial agricultural economy featuring sugar, coffee, indigo and tobacco. The island was a huge importer of African slaves, at one point comprising a third of the entire trade in the Western hemisphere, with approximately 685,000 men, women and children arriving brought into the colony during the 18th century. Duke University Haiti Lab https://sites.duke.edu/marronnagevoyages)
Conditions on sugar plantations were harsh. During the eight-month sugar harvest, slaves often worked continuously around the clock. Accidents caused by long hours and primitive machinery were horrible. In the big plantations, the slaves lived in barracks. Planters primarily wanted males for plantation work. There were few women as these were only needed for propagation. Families did not exist. The result was a kind of rebelliousness among the slaves which manifested itself in various ways. Planters reported revolts, poisonings, suicides, and other obstructive behavior. These men, women and children did not have a life or history of their own.
Slavery was ultimately abolished in all French colonies in 1848 by Victor Schœlcher, the famous French journalist and politician who was France’s greatest advocate of ending slavery. On 10 May 2001, the French Parliament adopted Law 2001-434, of which the first article reads: “The French Republic acknowledges that the Atlantic and Indian Ocean slave trade on the one hand and slavery on the other, perpetrated from the fifteenth century in the Americas, the Caribbean, the Indian Ocean and in Europe against African, Amerindian, Malagasy and Indian peoples constitute a crime against humanity.”
The start of the French Revolution in 1789 was the initiator of the Haitian Revolution of 1791. When the slaves first rebelled in August of 1791 they were not asking for emancipation, but only an additional day each week to cultivate their garden plots.
The French Revolution began in 1789 as a popular movement to reform the rule of Louis XVI. However, the movement became out of control and between 5 September 1793 and 27 July 1794 France was in the grip of a Reign of Terror. This period ended with the death of Robespierre. In the aftermath of the coup, the Committee of Public Safety lost its authority, the prisons were emptied, and the French Revolution became decidedly less radical. In October 1795, the National Convention (the third government of the French Revolution) used Napoleon Bonaparte and the army to crush riots. During the night of 4 October, over 300 royalist rebels were shot dead in front of the Church of Saint Roch. The rest had scattered and fled. Under the Directory that followed between 1795 and 1799 bourgeois values, corruption, and military failure returned. In 1799, the Directory was overthrown in a military coup led by Napoleon, who ruled France as First Consul and after 1804 as Emperor of the French.
Napoleon’s attitude towards slavery
In 1794, during the Terror period of the French Revolution, slavery in France’s colonies was abolished. However, this policy was not fully implemented. When unrest broke out in Saint-Domingue, Napoleon wanted to renew France’ commitment to emancipation, mainly because of political reasons. Napoleon stated that slavery had not been formally abolished, since the abolition had not been realized. His politics aimed at the return of the former French colonists. Napoleon believed they were better able to defend French interests against the British that the revolutionaries. Thus as First Consul, by a decree of May 20, 1802, Napoleon restored slavery and the slave trade in Martinique and other West Indian colonies. The law did not apply to Guadeloupe, Guyane or Saint-Domingue:
Le décret du 30 floréal An X [May 20, 1802]
AU NOM DU PEUPLE FRANÇAIS, BONAPARTE, premier Consul, PROCLAME loi de la République le décret suivant, rendu par le Corps législatif le 30 floréal an X, conformément à la proposition faite par le Gouvernement le 27 dudit mois, communiquée au Tribunat le même jour.
DÉCRET.
ART. I.er – Dans les colonies restituées à la France en exécution du traité d’Amiens, du 6 germinal an X [March 27, 1802], l’esclavage sera maintenu conformément aux lois et réglemens antérieurs à 1789.
ART. II. – Il en sera de même dans les autres colonies françaises au-delà du Cap de Bonne-Espérance.
ART. III. – La traite des noirs et leur importation dans lesdites colonies, auront lieu, conformément aux lois et réglemens existans avant ladite époque de 1789.
ART. IV. – Nonobstant toutes lois antérieures, le régime des colonies est soumis, pendant dix ans, aux réglemens qui seront faits par le Gouvernement.
Although Napoleon did not believe in the idea of racial equality, later in his life, his attitude towards the African slaves became more ethical. His change of attitude is reveled during his exile on St. Helena. During that time, Napoleon developed a friendship with an old slave called Toby. When Napoleon heard how Toby had been captured and enslaved, he reportedly expressed a wish to purchase him and send him back to his home country. His loyal friend, the French atlas maker and author Emmanuel-Augustin-Dieudonné-Joseph, comte de Las Cases (1766 – 1842) notes in his well-known memoirs (Las Cases 1823: 217):
Napoleon’s kindness of heart was also shown by his attitude toward the Malay slave, named Toby, who had care of the beautiful garden at The Briars. When no one was in it the garden was kept locked and the key was left in Toby’s hands. Toby and Napoleon speedily became friends, and the black man always spoke of the Emperor as “that good man, Bony.” He always placed the key of the garden where Napoleon could reach it under the wicket. The black man was original and entertaining, and so autocratic that no one at The Briars ever disputed his authority. His story was rather pathetic.
and (Las Cases 1823: 383):
What, after all, is this poor human machine? There is not one whose exterior form is like another, or whose internal organization resembles the rest. And it is by disregarding this truth that we are led to the commission of so many errors. Had Toby been a Brutus, he would have put himself to death; if an Aesop he would now, perhaps, have been the Governor’s adviser, if an ardent and zealous Christian, he would have borne his chains in the sight of God and blessed them. As for poor Toby, he endures his misfortunes very quietly: he stoops to his work and spends his days in innocent tranquility…. Certainly there is a wide step from poor Toby to a King Richard. And yet, the crime is not the less atrocious, for this man, after all, had his family, his happiness, and his liberty; and it was a horrible act of cruelty to bring him here to languish in the fetters of slavery.
Napoleon’s war in Saint-Domingue
Napoleon had an obvious personal relation with the colonies. In January 1796, Napoléon Bonaparte proposed to Marie Josèphe Rose Tascher de La Pagerie and they married on 9 March 1796. She adopted the name “Josephine” that Napoleon had chosen for her. Josephine was born in Les Trois-Îlets, Martinique. She was a member of a wealthy white planters family that owned a sugarcane plantation, called Trois-Îlets. Josephine was the eldest daughter of Joseph-Gaspard Tascher (1735–1790), knight, Seigneur de la Pagerie, lieutenant of Troupes de Marine, and his wife, Rose-Claire des Vergers de Sannois (1736–1807). The latter’s maternal grandfather, Anthony Brown, may have been Irish. It cannot have been a coincidence that slavery was specifically re-established in Martinique.
The Morgan Library and Museum. Joseph Ducreux (1735-1802), Portrait of a Gentleman (Toussaint Louverture?) ca. 1802, Black, brown and white chalks on gray-blue laid paper. 20 1/2 x 16 1/4 inches (521 x 413 mm). Estate of Mrs. Vincent Astor. http://www.themorgan.org
In 1791, the slaves and some free people of color in Saint-Domingue started a rebellion against French authority. In May 1791 the French revolutionary government granted citizenship to the wealthier mostly light-skinned free persons of color, the offspring of white French men and African women. Saint-Domingue’s European population however disregarded the law. One of the slaves’ main leaders was François-Dominique Toussaint Louverture, also known as Toussaint L’Ouverture or Toussaint Bréda. At first Toussaint allied with the Spaniards in Santo Domingo (the other half of the island of Hispaniola). The rebels became reconciled to French rule following the abolition of slavery in the colony in 1793, prompting Toussaint to switch sides to France. For some time, the island was quiet under Napoleonic rule. On 1 July 1801 Toussaint promulgated a Constitution, officially establishing his authority as governor general “for life” over the entire island of Hispaniola. Article 3 of his constitution states: “There cannot exist slaves [in Saint-Domingue], servitude is therein forever abolished. All men are born, live and die free and French.”. During this time, Napoleon met with refugee planters. They urged the restoration of slavery in Saint-Domingue, claiming it was essential to their profits.
Jefferson supplied Toussaint with arms, munitions and food. He was seen as the first line of defense against the French. He had already foreseen that Toussaint would put up considerable resistance, and anticipated on Napoleon’s failure in the West-Indies. It would prove to be one of the most important strategic choices in the development of the current United States.
On 25 March 1802 Napoleon signed the Treaty of Amiens. It turned out not be be more than a truce. The Treaty gave both sides a pause to reorganize. In 18 May 1803 the war was formally resumed. During this peace Napoleon made reestablishing France’s control over its colonial possessions a priority. In December 1801 he sent Charles-Victor-Emmanuel Leclerc (1772-1802) to the colony.
Meanwhile Toussaint enforced a hard regime on plantation laborers. By crushing a rebellion of the workers, he isolated himself and weakened his position. Leclerc landed at Cap-Français in February 1802 with warships and 40,000 soldiers. The French won several victories and after three months of heavy fighting regained control over the island. The revolutionary generals led a fanatic guerrilla war against the French troops and in a number of occasions were very successful. However, Toussaint faced a major setback when some of his generals joined Leclerc. Toussaint’s mixed strategies of total war and negotiation confused his generals who one after the other capitulated to Leclerc, beginning with Christophe. Finally Toussaint and later Dessalines surrendered.
Toussaint was forced to negotiate a peace. In May 1802 he was invited by the French general Jean Baptiste Brunet for a negotiation. His safety was guaranteed. On Napoleon’s secret orders Toussaint was immediately arrested and put on ship to France. He died in a prison cell in the French Alps of cold and hunger. It should be mentioned that Dessalines played a significant role in the arrest of Toussaint (Girard). Dessalines obtained 4000 francs and gifts in wine and liquor for him, his spouse and the officers involved (Girard). When in October 1802 it became apparent that the French intended to re-establish slavery, because they had done so on Guadeloupe, Toussaint’s former military allies, including Jean Jacques Dessalines, Alexandre Pétion and Henri Christophe, switched sides again and fought against the French. In the meanwhile disease took its toll on the French soldiers. The revolution was revitalized when Leclerc died of yellow fever in november 1802. The Haitian Revolution continued under the leadership of Dessalines, Pétion and Christophe.
After the death of Leclerc, Napoleon appointed the vicomte de Rochambeau (who fought with his father under George Washington in the American Revolutionary War) as Leclerc’s successor. His brutal racial warfare drove even more revolutionary leaders back to the rebel armies.
The revolutionary ideas spread
The situation in the Caribbean was chaotic. The situation in Europe was the direct cause, but the Haitian revolution contributed to uncertainty as well as illustrated by events that took place on the neighboring island of Curaçao.
Case Study: Curaçao
In September 1799, two French agents from Saint-Domingue, together with a Curaçao-resident French merchant, Jean Baptiste Tierce Cadet, were arrested for conspiring to overthrow Curaçao’s government and to liberate the slaves. They were deported without trial. Tierce Cadet was accused of being the local ringleader. He was accused of being part of a plan originating in Saint-Domingue: the liberation of the slaves in all the colonies in the Caribbean. Eight months after being deported from Curaçao, Tierce, en route to France, arrived in the Batavian Republic. He was travelling with an officer of the Batavian navy, Jan Hendrik Quast. Both men were arrested and questioned. The Batavian authorities intended to put Tierce on trial for trying for overthrowing the Curaçao government and plotting to liberate the slaves. However, it appeared very difficult to produce the necessary evidence against him (Klooster, 148-149).
Saint-Domingue becomes independent
The Battle of Vertières on 18 November 1803 was the final event that stood between slavery liberty in Saint-Domingue. It involved forces made up of former enslaved people on the one hand, and Napoleon’s French expeditionary forces on the other hand. Vertières is situated in the north-east, near the sea. By the end of October 1803, the revolutionary forces fighting the expeditionary troops were already in control over most of the island.
Haitians led by Jean-Jacques Dessalines and François Capois attacked a strong French-held fort of Vertières, near Cap François (in the north of Haiti) and won a decisive victory over French colonial army under General Comte de Rochambeau and forced him to capitulate the same night. http://thelouvertureproject.org/
The revolutionary troops attacked the remaining French soldiers at Vertières. After heavy fighting the battle ended when heavy rain with thunder and lightning drenched the battlefield. Under cover of the storm, Rochambeau pulled back from Vertières. At the Surrender of Cap Français, Rochambeau was forced to surrender to the English. He was to taken England as a prisoner on parole, where he remained interned for almost nine years.
Although the fighting in Saint-Domingue during the time of the revolution had horrible moments and both parties committed gruesome war crimes, one particular event in the battle of could be seen as a sign of respect by Rochambeau towards the revolutionaries.
“At 4 a.m. on Nov. 18, 1803, part of the forces began an attack on Breda, one of the outlying forts. Rochambeau surprised, left Cap and took a position with his honor guard on the entrenchments at the fort of Vertieres, between Breda and Cap. To take the objective specifically assigned to him, François Capois and his troops had to cross a bridge that was dominated by the fort at Vertières.
Capois, on horseback, and his men met a hail of fire as they advanced. Despite a bullet passing through his cap, Capois urged his men forward. Even a bullet which leveled his horse and another which again passed through his cap did not stop Capois from flourishing his saber and leading his men onward with his continuing cry of Forward! Observing this, Rochambeau’s guards applauded. Rochambeau caused the firing to be stopped and sent a hussar forward with compliments for Capois! Then the battle recommenced.” (Burton Sellers)
Shortly after the battle, the first declaration of independence was read in Fort-Dauphin on 29 November 1803. It was signed by Dessalines, Christophe and Clerveaux. They all had been generals under Leclerc little more than a year earlier. The declaration did not mention the current name “Haiti”, but still spoke of “Saint-Domingue”. The second Act of Independence was read by Dessalines on the Place d’Armes of Gonaïves on 1 January 1804. The act marked the beginning of independence what from that moment on would be known as the republic of Haiti. It marked the beginning of the end of slavery in the colonies.
Napoleon’s Legacy
Because Napoleon had failed to re-enslave Saint-Domingue he was missing the plantation revenues. As war with England was inevitable and he could not raise enough assets, Napoleon abandoned his colonial policy. France’ immense territory of Louisiana was sold to the United States on 30 April 1803 by means of the Louisiana Purchase Treaty. It was the birth of what now is considered the most powerful nation in the world, as Livingston made clear in his famous statement: “We have lived long, but this is the noblest work of our whole lives…From this day the United States take their place among the powers of the first rank.”
After the declaration of independence, Dessalines proclaimed himself Governor-General-for-life of Haiti. Between February and April 1804 he orchestrated the massacre of the white Haitian minority; between 3,000 and 5,000 people. On 2 September 1804, Dessaline proclaimed himself emperor under the name Jacques I of Haiti. He was crowned on 8 October 1804 (two months before Napoleon) with his wife Marie-Claire Heureuse Félicité at the Church of Champ-de-Mars, Le Cap by Pere Corneille Brelle, later His Grace Monseigneur the Archbishop of Haiti, Duke de l’Anse, and Grand Almoner to King Henry I. Jaques I Promulgated the Constitution of Haiti on 20 May 1805 (Buyers: 2017).
Gustave d’Alaux describes the coronation of Faustin I in his book, Soulouque and his Empire: “His Imperial Majesty had the principal merchant of Port-au-Prince called one morning and commanded him to order immediately from Paris a costume, in every particular like that he admired in representing the ceremonies of Napoleon’s coronation. Faustin I besides ordered for himself a crown, one for the Empress, a sceptre, globe, hand-of-justice, throne, and all other accessories, all to be like those used in the coronation of Napoleon.”.
Former revolutionary Henry Christophe succeeded Emperor Jacques I I as provisional Head of State after his death on 17 October 1806. He was installed as Lord President and Generalissimo of the Land and Sea Forces of the State of Haiti with the style of His Serene Highness on 17 February 1807. Christophe was proclaimed as King of Haiti and assumed the style of His Majesty on 26 March 1811. He was Crowned by His Grace Monseigneur Corneille Brelle, Duke de l’Anse, Grand Almoner to the King and Archbishop of Haiti, at the Church of Champ-de-Mars, Le Cap-Henry, on 2 June 1811. Christophe was Grand Master and Founder of the Royal and Military Order of Saint Henry on 20 April 1811. He married at Cap Français on 15 July 1793, H.M. Queen Marie-Louise (b. at Bredou, Ouanaminthe on 8 May 1778; d. at Pisa, Italy, on 14 March 1851, bur. there at the Convent of the Capuchins). Christophe committed suicide at the Palace of Sans-Souci, Milot, on 8 October 1820, having had issue, three sons and two daughters. He was succeeded by another revolutionary general, Alexandre Sabès Pétion, who had as well been one of Haiti’s founding fathers (Buyers: 2017).
In 1825, France demanded Haiti compensate France for its loss of slaves and its slave colony. It threatened with a new invasion. In 1838, France agreed to a reduced amount of 90 million francs to be paid over a period of 30 years. In 1893 the final part of the principal was paid. By 1947 Haiti paid the modern equivalent of USD 21 billion (including interest) to France and American banks as “compensation” for being enslaved for centuries.
In 1849 the Napoleonic style was copied by Emperor Faustin I of Haiti who adopted the style of His Imperial Majesty. Faustin I was proclaimed emperor at the National Palace, Port-au-Prince, on 26 August 1849 and crowned at the renamed Imperial Palace on the same day. He was consecrated at the old Cathedral of Notre Dame de l’Assomption, Port-au-Prince, on 2 September 1849. The emperor promulgated a new Constitution on 20 September 1849 and was crowned at the Champ de Mars, Port-au-Prince, in the presence of the Vicar-General Monsignor Cessens according to Episcopalian (Franc-Catholique) rites, on 18 April 1852. Faustin was styled Chief Sovereign, Grand Master and Founder of the Imperial and Military Order of St Faustin and the Imperial Civil Order of the Legion of Honour 21 September 1849, and of the united Orders of Saint Mary Magdalen and Saint Anne 31 March 1856, all in three classes. Grand Protector of the Franc-Masonic Order 1850-1859. Patron Collège Faustin 1848-1859. He was founder of the Imperial Academy of Arts in 1856 (Buyers: 2017).
Literature
Alaux, Gustave D., Maxime Raybaud, and John H. Parkhill. Soulouque and his empire. From the French of Gustave dAlaux. Richmond: J.W. Randolph, 1861.
Burnard, Trevor G., and John D. Garrigus. The plantation machine: Atlantic capitalism in French Saint-Domingue and British Jamaica. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016.
Buyers, C. “HAITI – Royal Ark.” Accessed July 8, 2017. http://www.royalark.net/Haiti/haiti6.htm. Website by Christopher Buyers on the genealogies of the Royal and ruling houses of Africa, Asia, Oceania and the Americas.
Cases, Emmanuel-Auguste-Dieudonné Las. Memorial de Sainte Hélène. Journal of the private life and conversations of the Emperor Napoleon at Saint Helena. Boston: Wells & Lilly, 1823.
Christophe, Henri, Thomas Clarkson, Earl Leslie Griggs, and Clifford H. Prator. Henry Christophe, a correspondence. New York: Greenwood Press, 1968.
Dwyer, Philip. Napoleon: the path to power, 1769 – 1799. London: Bloomsbury, 2008.
Dwyer, Philip G. Citizen emperor: Napoleon in power. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015.
Girard, Philippe R. Slaves who defeated napoleon: toussaint louverture and the haitian war of independence, 1801-1804. Tuscaloosa: Univ Of Alabama Press, 2014.
Klooster, Wim, and Gert Oostindie. Curaçao in the age of revolutions, 1795-1800. Leiden: Brill, 2014.
Klein, Herbert S. The Atlantic Slave Trade. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
“The Louverture Project.” Accessed July 08, 2017. http://thelouvertureproject.org. The Louverture Project (TLP) collects and promotes knowledge, analysis, and understanding of the Haitian revolution of 1791–1804.
In 1961, King Kigeli was in Kinshasa to meet Secretary General of the United Nations Dag Hammarskjöld when Dominique Mbonyumutwa, with the support of the Belgian government, led a coup d’état that took control of the Rwandan state. The monarchy’s rule was formally overthrown on 28 January 1961. The coup resulted in the 1961 referendum about the fate of the nation’s royal system. The King resided in the Unites States for the rest of his life.
I offer this possibility to those who have something to say against the idea of the King Kigeli to grant “honours” using name of “European nobiliary titles” (but I repeat they are not nobiliary titles but only honours): prepare a true study supported by due documentation, historical precedents, footnotes which quote precedent studies on the matter to be published in one of my reviews or better to participate in the next III International Colloquium of Genealogy organized by Institut International d’Etudes Généalogiques et d’Histoire des Families in San Marino from 28 September to 1 October 2007.
[Felice degli Uberti] finds Kigeli V’s trade in titles “very sad”. He has warned the ex-king that the titles do not form part of his historical tradition and should not be awarded. His majesty declined to comment but his secretary-general responded: “Who has the right to question his authorities but God and his countrymen?”
In the same article, the Economist further states that:
(..) titles can be issued for personal or political motives, as well as pecuniary ones. Prince Davit Bagrationi, pretender to the Georgian throne (vacant since 1801) has revived dormant orders. Some go to fellow-royals, such as the late King of Tonga, others to Georgian public figures.
In order to see if Felice degli Uberti raises fair objections, it might be interesting to find examples of non-European monarchies that copy the European system.
Japanese nobility
The Prussian courtier Ottmar von Mohl from 1887 to 1889 taught Western court etiquette to the members of the Imperial Household Ministry.
Wie mir erklärt wurde, haben schon von altersher in Japan Rang- und Adelstitel bestanden, welche dem Vorbild in allen Dingen, China, entlehnt worden waren und mit chinesischen Buchstaben ausgedrückt wurden. Von den Europäern lernten sie nun die in England und Frankreich gebräuchlichen Titel Prince, Marquis, Comte, Vicomte, Baron kennen und übersetzten nun die chinesisch-japanische erbliche Rangklassifikation in diese Titel, deren Anerkennung bezw. Verleihung auf kaiserlichem Patente beruhte.
(…)
Die Japaner verbanden mit den europäischen Titeln ganz bestimmte geschichtliche Abstufungen und Anschauungen, und der Wunsch, diese den europäischen Titeln gleichwertig zu machen, veranlasste sie zur Annahme der uns geläufigen Bezeichnungen, was, ich läugne es nicht, auf Europäer zuerst einen komischen Eindruck machte. In neuerer Zeit sind die Kreierungen von Baronen, ja sogar von Marquis und Vicomtes, häufiger geworden, so dass eine Art napoleonischen Adels, eine Mischung von alten und neuen Familientiteln, in Japan entstanden ist.
Titles of nobility in the Kingdom of Rwanda historically consisted of the rank of Chief and Sub-Chief, but this was expanded by His Most Christian Majesty King Mutara III Rudahigwa. H.M. King Mutara III was in the process of revamping the honors system of Rwanda prior to his untimely death in 1959. As the fons honorum of the de jure Kingdom of Rwanda and an anointed King, His Most Christian Majesty King Kigeli V has the full legal right to create new traditions within his Kingdom and also finish the work previously began by his half-brother, Mutara III.
The example of Japan shows that such reforms are not uncommon. The choice of non-western monarchs (like e.g. the monarchs of Vietnam, Georgia, Ethiopia and Rwanda) to copy European nobility-traditions is sometimes criticized.
Nationaal Archief, Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Note the translated title of “Mesfin” to “Duke” of Harar. H.I.H. Prince (Le’ul) Pawlus Wossen Seged Makonnen, Duke of Harar (Mesfin Harar) was born at Addis Ababa on 21 August 1947. He was Imprisoned by the Dergue between 1974-1989 and is the Heir Presumptive since 17th January 1997. He is the son of Prince Makonnen Haile Selassie, Duke of Harar (baptismal name: Araya Yohannes; 16 October 1923 – 13 May 1957), who was the second son, and second youngest child, of Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia and Empress Menen Asfaw. He was made Mesfin (or Duke) of Harar in 1934.
The case of Rwanda differs from the Japanese situation. If the King had created honours and awards during his very brief period as king (1959 to 1961), there would not have been a problem. They might have been unconventional but, in my opinion, they would have been widely accepted. There is no authority to forbid the King to style his nobility in a Europen manner. I think the King simply wanted to make his titles more attractive to westerners. Given his situation, I cannot disagree with him. Issuing original Rwandan titles to Americans would by unconventional as well.
The date of creation by special dispensation of the Crown Council was 9th May 1934. Please see http://gallica.bnf.fr/…/f5.image.r=%22Duc%20de%20Harrar… The installation took place on 19th May 1934 at the Cathedral of Medhane-Alem, Dire-Dawa, 19th May 1934. Please see http://gallica.bnf.fr/…/f3.image.r=%22Duc%20de%20Harrar… [Note that Le Courrier d’Éthiopie should be quite reliable as it was printed in Harrar]. I don’t know if you realise that there were earlier creations, though for Europeans. Duc d’Entotto for the former Governor of Djibouti and sometime French Minister and Envoy to the court of Ethiopia, Comte (Leonce) Legarde by Menelik II.
(…)
Antoine Marie Joseph Léonce Lagarde (b. at Lempdes-sur-Allagnon, Haute-Loire, France, 10th October 1860; d. at l’Hôpital du Val de Grâce, Paris, France, 15th May 1936, bur. Lempdes), educ. LLB (1878), employed by the Holy Sea in Rome 1881-1882, Sec to Governor of Indo-China 1882-1883, Under-Sec of State for Marine & Colonies 1883, Special Cmsnr for the Delimitation of of the Obock Territory 1883-1884, Cdt of Obock 1884-1887, Governor of Obock and its dependencies 1887-1896, and of French Somaliland 1896-1899, Special Envoy and Minister Plenipotentiary to Menelik II 1896-1897, Ambassador to Ethiopia 1897-1907, Officer in Charge of Services to Sailors Killed or Prisoners of War 1907-1914, Dir of Special Mission for Naval Prisoners of War 1914-1918, Permanent Delegate for the Liquidation of Products and Prizes of the Sea 1920, retd 1929, Conductor of the French Negotiating Delegates at Geneva 1920, High Councillor to Ras Tafari Makkonen 1924-1930, General Delegate for Ethiopia at the League of Nations 1934. Author of “Le Comte Arakoff, nouvelle russe” (1880). Granted the papal title of Count Lagarde de Rouffeyroux by Pope Leo XIII in 1881 (after 25th August, apparently by purchase), and Duke of Entotto in March 1897 (on or before 28th March). Rcvd: GC of the Orders of Solomon, and the Star of Ethiopia, Cdr of the Order of the Legion of Honour of France, etc.
(…)
Colonel Nikolai Stepanovitch Leontiev (b. at Novogrudok, Grodno, 30th May 1862; d. at Paris, France, 4th July 1910, bur. there at Montmorency Cemetary, later transferred to Tikhvin Cemetery, St Petersburg, Russia), educ. Nikaievsky Military Sch, St Petersburg, Russia. Cmsnd as Ensign Imperial Life Guards Grodno Hussaars, prom Lieut, Leader Russiaan Overland Riding Expedition from Tiflis to India through Persia 1891, transferred Kuban Cossacks 1892, prom Capt on the Staff 1894, Leader Russian Geographical expedition to Ethiopia 1894-1895, Attached to Ethiopian Mission to St Petersburg 1895, Military Adviser to Menelik II during 1st Italo-Ethiopian War 1895-1896, Special Envoy from Emperor Menelik II to Rome Feb 1896. Invested by Menelik II with the title of Count at Wallo in April 1896. The patent of nobility was subsequently delivered in present of Negus Mikael of Wallo at Dese. Special Envoy from Emperor Menelik II to Istanbul Dec 1896, second for Prince Henri d’Orleans in his duel with the Count of Turin Vaucresson Aug 1897, Governor-General of Equatorial Provinces 1897-1899 & 1901-1902, Colonel of Regt of Senegalese Volunteer Rifles 1899, served in Russo-Japanese War 1904-1905 with Kuban Cossacks, Caucasian Dvsn. Mbr Russian Geographical Soc, Academy of Sciences, Russian Red Cross Society, etc. Leontiev also received at some point the rank of Dejazmatch, probably when placed in charge of the Equatorial Provinces July 1897. Rcvd: GC of the Orders of Solomon, and the Star of Ethiopia (1895), Knt 4th class of the Order of St Vladimir, 4th class Cross of St George of Russia, etc.
(…)
There is no contemporary evidence for such title [Count of Abai], and there is no place in Ethiopia I can find called Abai. Rather it is the name of the father of an Ethiopian who was sent to study in Russia, Piotr Tekle-Hawariate Abai aka Petia Abissinetz. Some Russian writers confused Leontiev to be his father, then reconciled the obvious difference in supposed father’s name by assuming that Abai was Leontiev’s territorial title, and the whole thing appears to have spiralled out of control from there. As far as I can work out, 1) Leontiev was not conferred with the title of Count of Abai, 2) he was not Tekle’s father, 3) neither Tekle nor his actual father Abai received the title of Count, and 4) only one title of Count seems to have been conferred, i.e. Leontiev.
This post was inspired by the article “Granting of Orders and Titles by H.M. King Kigeli V of Rwanda, paper prepared by dr W.H. Jones, Sydney, Australia, BSc (Econ) London, MA, PGCertTESOL, EdD Macquarie, JP NSW, 16 March 2007”. This article was published by me on Nobility News. I have no copy of the original document.
This weekend, I had the pleasure of attending a very interesting lecture, given by a good friend, regarding the history of the Knights Templar (1119-1307). The lecture mentioned the Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem (OSMTH) as a modern successor of the ideology of this ancient and famous Order.
Detail of the Chinon Parchment, containing details of the trial of the Knights Templar and the Pope’s involvement (Vatican Museum secret archives library, reference number Archivum Arcis Armarium D 218. ASV, Archivum Arcis, Arm. D 217)
The original order of the Knights Templar was founded by Hugh de Payens, a French nobleman from the Champagne region, along with eight of his companions, in Jerusalem around 1119. The Knights Templar, in their distinctive white mantles with a red cross, became an important charity throughout Christendom, thus growing rapidly and becoming a very powerful Christian institution. The knights were prominent in international finance and were among the most skilled fighting units of the Crusades. In 1307, Philip IV of France arrested the Knights Templar on charges of blasphemy, idolatry, and sodomy. The investigation and trial into the alleged misdeeds of the Knights Templar took place in Rome between 1307 and 1312. On 18 March 1314, the Grandmaster and other knights of the Order were burned alive by order of King Philip. In September 2001, Barbara Frale, an Italian paleographer, found a copy of a document, known as the ‘Chinon Parchment in the Vatican Secret Archives. The document explicitly confirms that in 1308, Pope Clement V absolved Jacques de Molay and other leaders of the Order including Geoffroi de Charney and Hugues de Pairaud (Barbara Frale 2004, “The Chinon chart – Papal absolution to the last Templar, Master Jacques de Molay”, Journal of Medieval History 30 (2): 109–134). Another Chinon parchment, dated 20 August 1308 and addressed to Philip IV of France, stated that absolution had been granted to all those Templars that had confessed to heresy “and restored them to the Sacraments and to the unity of the Church” (Pierre Dupuy, Histoire de l’Ordre Militaire des Templiers Foppens, Brusselles 1751; Étienne Baluze, Vitae Paparum Avenionensis, 3 Volumes, Paris 1693. Nonetheless, the Pope suspended the order (see appendix 1, below for the details).
Wikipedia describes the OSMTH as follows:
The Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem, (Latin: Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani, OSMTH), is a self-styled order founded in 1945 by Antonio Campello Pinto de Sousa Fontes (1878-1960), claiming to be a continuation of the self-styled l’Ordre du Temple founded in France, 1705, officially reconstituted in 1804 by Bernard-Raymond Fabré-Palaprat, and recognized as an Order of Chivalry by its patron Napoleon Bonaparte in 1805; Fernando Campello Pinto Pereira de Sousa Fontes succeeded his father as the head of the order in 1960.
It is interesting to see to what extent the current OSMTH can be seen as a successor of the ideology of the ancient Templer Order.
Inspiration
An important personality regarding the revival of Templer history was Andrew Michael Ramsay. Raised a Calvinist, Ramsay converted to Catholicism in 1709. Leaving England for Holland in 1709, he soon moved to Cambrai (France) where he lived with the well-known mystical theologian, François de Salignac de la Mothe-Fénelon (1651-1715), Archbishop of Cambrai.
Chevalier Andrew Michael Ramsay (1686–1743)
In 1713 or 1714, Ramsay moved to Blois where he was employed as secretary to a co-founder of Quietism (a Christian philosophy), Madame Guyon. In 1716 Ramay moved to Paris, where he spent the rest of his life in and near that city (Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, pp. 280-315 vol 81 (1968). Much of Ramsay’s life is only known from Anecdotes de la vie de Messire André Michel de Ramsay, a manuscript dictated by Ramsay, currently stored in the Bibliotèque Méjanes at Aix-en-Provence. Cited AQC, vol 81 (1968). Cf. Mackey’s Encyclopedia for a 1680 birth date).
In Paris, Ramsay met the Duc d’Orleans, who admitted Ramsay as a member of the Royal and Military Order of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem. This entitled him to use the prefix Chevalier. James, the Old Pretender, granted Ramsay a certificate of nobility in 1723. In 1728 he succeeded in having a diploma of nobility registered by the King of Arms in Edinburgh (Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, pp. 280-315 vol 81, 1968). In his famous Oration of 1737, Ramsay suggested that Freemasons were closely connected to the Knights Templar:
At the time of the Crusades in Palestine many princes, lords and citizens associated themselves and vowed to restore the temple of the Christians in the Holy Land, to employ themselves in bringing back their architecture to its first institution. They agreed upon several ancient signs and symbolic words drawn from the well of religion in order to recognize themselves amongst the heathen and the Saracens. These signs and words were only communicated to those who promised solemnly, even sometimes at the foot of the altar, never to reveal them. This sacred promise was therefore not an execrable oath, as it has been called, but a respectable bond to unite Christians of all nationalities in one confraternity. Sometime after our Order formed an intimate union with the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem. From that time our Lodges took the name of Lodges of St. John. This union was made after the example set by the Israelites when they erected the second Temple who, whilst they handled the trowel and mortar with one hand, in the other held the sword and buckler.
Gould’s History of Freemasonry – Vol. III, page 11, Compiled and Edited by R.’.W.’. Gary L. Heinmiller, Director, Onondaga & Oswego Masonic Districts Historical Societies.
Ramsay’s statements increased interest in Freemasonry. It also generated a strong desire among Masons to participate in orders with a knightly background. As a result, the Scottish Rite and York Rite branches of Freemasonry incorporated a number of knightly degrees. On 16 July 1782, a Masonic congress was held at Wilhelmsbad, near the city of Hanau in Germany. The meeting was chaired by Ferdinand, Duke of Brunswick, who was at that time the Grandmaster of the Order of the Strict Observance. The meeting lasted for thirty sessions. When the congress was finally closed, it concluded that “Freemasonry was not essentially connected with Templarism, and that, contrary to the doctrine of the Rite of the Strict Observance, the Freemasons were not the successors of the Knights Templars.” The result of its finding was that very soon many of the other Templar degrees and orders died out (Eugen Lennhoff, Oskar Posner, Dieter A. Binder, Internationales Freimaurerlexikon. 5. überarbeitete und erweiterte Neuauflage der Ausgabe von 1932. Herbig, München 2006; Ferdinand Runkel, Geschichte der Freimaurerei. 3 Bände. Reprint von 1932, Edition Lempertz, Königswinter 2006, Bd. 1, S. 193 ff.). The current Masonic order of Knights Templar derives its name from the medieval Catholic Order. However, it does not claim any direct lineal descent from the original Templar order.
l’Ordre du Temple
These events have been the seeds for a second important revival of the Templar Order. In 1804, two French Freemasons; Philippe Ledru (1754-1832) and Bernard-Raymond Fabré-Palaprat (29 May 1773 – 18 February 1838), founded the l’Ordre du Temple, The Order of the Temple (see the Manuel des Chevaliers de l’Ordre du Temple). Fabré-Palaprat was made its grandmaster. The order attracted high-ranking personalities, like the Duke of Choiseul-Stainville.
Fabré-Palaprat was the son of a surgeon in the French city of Cahors. He studied at the diocesan seminary and was ordained a priest. He left the priesthood to study medicine. Fabré-Palaprat was awarded the Legion of Honour for his defence of Paris in 1814. He received the July Medal for his actions during the Three Glorious Days of the Revolution of 1830. Napoleon I, who viewed freemasonry favourably, authorized and presided over a “solemn ceremony” for the Order in 1808 (Introvigne, Massimo (1995): “Ordeal by Fire: The Tragedy of the Solar Temple,” in The Order of the Solar Temple: The Temple of Death, ed. James R. Lewis, Ashgate, 2006, pp. 19-38 and Introvigne, Massimo (2005): “Fabré-Palaprat, Bernard-Raymond” entry in Dictionary of Gnosis & Western Esotericism, ed. Wouter J. Hanegraaff, Brill Academic Publishers, pp. 354-356). He allowed the Order of the Temple to carry on their activities, including solemn processions in the streets of Paris with mantles and toques (see Malcolm Barber (ed): The military orders: fighting for the faith and caring for the sick Aldershot, Great Britain, 1994; Variorum and the Manuel des chevaliers de l’Ordre du Temple. Paris, 1817 (2d ed.: 1825); the manual of Palaprat’s French order):
En 1811, Napoléon, empereur, revenant a ses idées sur l’importance de cet ordre, tant sous le rapport civil que sous le rapport religieux, fit appeler le grand-maitre Bernard-Raymond, et après plusieurs questions a sa manière sur l’état actuel de l’ordre, sur ses statuts, etc. il s’informa des époques de ses assemblées. Apprenant qu’il y en aurait bientôt une pour la célébration de l’anniversaire du martyre de Jacques de Molay, l’empereur s’empara de cette circonstance, et donna des ordres pour que cette cérémonie se fit publiquement avec une grand pompe religieuse et militaire. Une place d’honneur était réservée pour le grand-maitre et ses lieutenants généraux. M. Clouet, chanoine de Notre-Dame, coadjuteur-général du primat du Temple, et revêtu du camail primatial, prononça l’oraison funèbre du grand-maitre martyr, dont le catafalque était richement orné des insignes de la souveraineté magistrale et patriarcale. On peut se souvenir de l’étonnement que produisit cette grande cérémonie par sa publicité, ainsi que des conjectures auxquelles elle donna lieu; tout porte a croire que l’empereur se proposait de tirer bon parti de l’ordre du Temple et de son culte s’il ne pouvait parvenir a maitriser a cour de Rome.
L’empereur don Pedro, après avoir accepte le titre de premier chevalier d’honneur du Temple, autorisa un de ses ministres a recevoir le brevet de grand-prieur titulaire du Brésil ; et l’on ne peut douter, d’après la correspondance de ce ministre avec le grand-maitre Bernard-Raymond, que don Pedro n’eut l’intention de faire refleurir l’ordre du Temple au Brésil, comme aussi il avait été sauve de sa destruction en 1312 par le roi Denis, qui créa l’ordre des chevaliers proscrits par le décret de Clement V.
Translation:
In 1811, Napoleon, the Emperor, returning to his ideas on the importance of this order, both in civil and religious terms, called the Grand Master Bernard-Raymond, and after several questions on manners, the present state of the order, on its statutes, etc., he asked about the times of its assemblies. On learning that there would soon be one for the celebration of the anniversary of the martyrdom of Jacques de Molay, the emperor took advantage of this circumstance, and gave orders for this ceremony to be held publicly with great religious and military pomp. A place of honour was reserved for the Grand Master and his lieutenant generals. M. Clouet, canon of Notre-Dame, coadjutor-general of the primate of the Temple, and clothed in the primatial camail, pronounced the funeral oration of the martyred Grand Master, whose catafalque was richly adorned with the insignia of magistral and patriarchal sovereignty. The astonishment which this great ceremony produced by its publicity, as well as the conjectures to which it gave rise, may be remembered; everything leads one to believe that the emperor intended to make good use of the order of the Temple and its cult if he could not succeed in controlling the court of Rome.
The emperor Don Pedro, after accepting the title of first knight of honour of the Temple, authorised one of his ministers to receive the patent of titular grand-prior of Brazil; and one cannot doubt, from the correspondence of this minister with the grand-master Bernard-Raymond, that Don Pedro had the intention of making the Order of the Temple flourish again in Brazil, as it had also been saved from its destruction in 1312 by King Denis, who created the order of the knights proscribed by the decree of Clement V.
It is heavily disputed whether Palaprat’s order was a continuity of the Knights Templar. In 1804, Fabré-Palaprat presented the so-called Larmenius Charter to the public. This document is written in Latin, listing 22 successive Grand Masters of the Knights Templar from 1324 to 1804, with Fabré-Palaprat’s name appearing last on the list. Modern research cannot determine whether the content of this document is not authentic.
While this paper does not prove definitively the authenticity of the Larmenius Charter, it can be seen that significant congruence exists with the Larmenius Charter and verifiable history established by primary documents. Furthermore, classical internal arguments against the Charter have been roundly defeated once examined by authorities who do not have an interest in the outcome. The question that the reader must ask is: “How could all of this be if the Charter is a forgery?” Such evidence of continuity that corresponds to a fake Charter seems to stretch the definition of coincidence and serendipity. Two centuries of “hoax narrative” are not likely ever to be undone, but those who seek to examine the matter closely may personally arrive at different conclusions, and they would not be completely unjustified in doing so. This was the case with other prominent Masonic scholars. “Dr. Mackey, John Yarker, and Lecouteulx de Canteleu (who, owing to his possession of Templar documents, had exclusive sources of information)… all accept the Charter as authentic.” 57 Whether or not the Charter itself is an authentic document from 1324, it may yet represent an authentic tradition of Templar continuation, which it attempted to preserve.
This is partly caused by the fact that Palaprat’s archive, containing many authentic manuscripts and documents, is no longer with us today. However, it existed at one time:
Lastly, in our own present times, it was discovered that within the French National Archives, there was cataloged the Statutes of the Order of the Temple for the years 1596, 1693, and 1695.
This groundbreaking discovery eventually lead to a disappointing conclusion, The first document presented to me per my request for these early Statutes was the 1705 Statutes. When I notified the National Archives that they sent me the wrong documents, they sent me the next set of documents, which was another copy of the 1705 Statutes. The liason for the National Archives then admitted the 1596-1695 Statutes are not present as they should be. The National Archives was apologetic for not having the documents I requested. It is possible these early Statutes were a legitimate part of the antique archives. For an entry to exist, they were certainly cataloged at one time by the National Archives. The existence of the 1596 Statutes in particular would verify a legitimate Templar continuation over 100 years before the Duke of Orleans in 1705, smashing all previously suggested hoax narratives. The 1695 Statutes would be historically significant by showing the structure of the Order during the period of “Le Petit Resurrection des Templiers” under the Duke of Duras, whose signature on the Larmenius Charter has been verified back to 1681.
Admiral Sir William Sidney Smith, GCB, GCTE, KmstkSO, FRS
In 1815, Admiral Sir William Sidney Smith, GCB, GCTE, KmstkSO, FRS (1764–1840) became associated with the French Order of the Temple. Smith was a British naval officer. Serving in the American and French revolutionary wars, he later rose to the rank of admiral. Napoleon Bonaparte said of him: “That man made me miss my destiny” (Thomas Pocock, A Thirst for Glory: The Life of Admiral Sir Sidney Smith, p.114, Pimlico 1998).
As admiral of the British navy, Smith successfully defended Acre against Napoleon in 1799, and supposedly was given a Templars’ cross (left in Acre by Richard Lionheart) in gratitude by the Greek archbishop. This cross opened doors for Sir Sydney, who became a Templar and tried to create a branch of the Order in England, for which he was made Grand-Prior. His aim was to send the order to participate in the liberation and pacification of Greece and other areas under Ottoman control. He also tried to establish a base in Malta to take over the old activities of the order of Saint-John (since Malta was then in the hands of the British). He managed to attract Augustus-Frederick, Duke of Sussex (1773-1843) to the project. The Duke of Sussex (6th son of George III) became Grand Prior of England. The duke was the Grand Master of the Premier Grand Lodge of England. In addition, the English politician Charles Tennyson d’Eyncourt (uncle of the famous poet Alfred Tennyson) was attracted to the Order. On the death of Fabré-Palaprat, Smith became Regent of the order. However, his subsequent death, soon followed by that of the duke of Sussex, dissipated the order in England. D’Eyncourt himself lost interest and resigned from the order in 1849 (see: François Velde, Heraldica, Revived and Recently Created Orders of Chivalry). The succession of the French branch of the Order is described by Serge Caillet in his important study Trois siècles de résurgences templières:
Au tout début du XIXe siècle, en France, la légende templière commence à se répandre en marge de la franc-maçonnerie, dans le cadre d’un Ordre d’Orient et de la loge parisienne des chevaliers de la Croix, dirigée par un certain Dr Ledru, qui prétend détenir la succession magistrale du dernier Grand Maître secret de l’Ordre du Temple, le duc Timoléon de Cossé-Brissac (1734-1792) . Élu Grand Maître en 1804 [le 4 nov.], Bernard Raymond Fabré-Palaprat (1773-1838), un ancien séminariste devenu médecin, propage véritablement ce nouvel Ordre du Temple, sous le patronage de l’empereur Napoléon 1er, ce qui lui vaut d’attirer quelques personnages de renom. Fabré-Palaprat revendique en ligne directe la succession de Jacques de Molay, et, pour attester son lignage, produit même une charte, portant la signature de tous les Grands Maîtres depuis le Moyen Âge… C’est un faux, qui sera vite reconnu et dénoncé comme tel. Il n’empêche que l’Ordre eut en France sa période faste, ses notables, son clergé. (…) Peladan passe aussi pour avoir été Grand Maître, de 1892 à 1894 dit-on, de la lignée templière de Fabré-Palaprat. Je ne puis le garantir. (…) Le 19 janvier 1932, des Templiers de la lignée de Fabré-Palaprat (Joseph Cleeremans, Gustave Jonckbloedt et Théodore Covias) fondent à Bruxelles l’Ordre souverain et militaire du Temple, dont l’enregistrement paraît au Moniteur belge, le 20 janvier 1933. (…) En 1934, un Conseil de régence de ce qu’il reste de l’Ordre de Fabré-Palaprat place à sa tête Émile Vandenberg – avec un intermède par un certain Théodore Covias, de 1935 à 1942 – qui, le 23 décembre 1942, transmet ses pouvoirs au Portugais Antonio Campello Pinto de Sousa Fontes (1878-1960). En 1945, celui-ci fonde l’Ordre Souverain et Militaire du Temple de Jérusalem (OSMTJ), qui a son siège à Paris. L’OSMTJ s’est divisé en 1970, quand Fernando Campello Pinto de Sousa Fontes, fils d’Antonio Campello Pinto, a fondé l’Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani (OSMTH), qui a son siège à Porto. Nouvelle scission en 1996 quand naît l’Ordre Suprême Militaire du Temple de Jérusalem, dont les membres souhaitent servir, tout comme les chevaliers des origines ont servi. La devise de l’ordre Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed Nomini Tuo da Gloriam est tirée du Psaume 115, verset 1 ‘Pas à nous, Seigneur, pas à nous, mais à Ton Nom seul donne la Gloire’
Translation
At the very beginning of the 19th century in France, the Templar legend began to spread on the fringes of Freemasonry, within the framework of an Order of the East and the Parisian lodge of the Knights of the Cross, led by a certain Dr Ledru, who claimed to be the masterly successor to the last secret Grand Master of the Order of the Temple, Duke Timoléon de Cossé-Brissac (1734-1792). Elected Grand Master in 1804 [Nov. 4], Bernard Raymond Fabré-Palaprat (1773-1838), a former seminarian turned doctor, really propagated this new Order of the Temple, under the patronage of Emperor Napoleon I, which attracted some renowned figures. Fabré-Palaprat claimed to be the direct successor of Jacques de Molay and, to prove his lineage, even produced a charter bearing the signatures of all the Grand Masters since the Middle Ages… This was a forgery, which was quickly recognised and denounced as such. Nevertheless, the Order had its heyday in France, its notables, its clergy… (…) Peladan is also said to have been Grand Master, from 1892 to 1894, of the Fabré-Palaprat Templar lineage. (…) On 19 January 1932, Templars of the Fabré-Palaprat lineage (Joseph Cleeremans, Gustave Jonckbloedt and Théodore Covias) founded the Sovereign and Military Order of the Temple in Brussels, the registration of which appeared in the Moniteur Belge on 20 January 1933. (…) In 1934, a Council of Regency of what remained of the Order of Fabré-Palaprat placed Emile Vandenberg at its head – with an interlude by a certain Theodore Covias, from 1935 to 1942 – who, on 23 December 1942, handed over his powers to the Portuguese Antonio Campello Pinto de Sousa Fontes (1878-1960). In 1945, the latter founded the Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem (OSMTJ), which had its headquarters in Paris. The OSMTJ split in 1970, when Fernando Campello Pinto de Sousa Fontes, son of Antonio Campello Pinto, founded the Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani (OSMTH), based in Porto. Another split occurred in 1996 when the Supreme Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem was born, whose members wish to serve, just as the original knights served. The motto of the Order Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed Nomini Tuo da Gloriam is taken from Psalm 115, verse 1 ‘Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to Thy Name alone give the Glory’.
Thus, Caillet’s study shows that the OSMTH has its roots in 1804.
Historical link to the OSMTH
A Belgian priory of the Order of the Temple was founded in 1815 by Albert-Francois, marquis du Chasteler. After 1840, this Priory split into a “Legitimate” and a Masonic priory. After the death of Sidney-Smith in 1840, a compromise was reached in 1841 under the leadership of Jean-Marie Raoul (1766-1850). The Masonic Trinity of the Tower priory of the Order lasted until 1930, when it was abolished.
The original Order of the Temple had, however, lost most of its members. In 1871, one of Raoul’s successors, A.M. Vernois, made it dormant (Introvigne 1995: 22). Vernois was the last Regent of “the Palaprien faction” and had “deposited the records of the Order into the National Archives of France” in 1871. The records can still be found at the Archives Nationales, Fonds “3 AS 1-34 (anc. AB XIX 125-158)” with additional material deposited in 1920 and 1921. According to Introvigne, the Regency was handed over to the influential occultist Joséphin Péladan (1858-1918) by some of Fabré-Palaprat’s surviving members.
In 1892 Joséphin Péladan (1859-1918) receives the “regency” of the Neo-Templar Order … a connection is made with i.a. Lodge “KVMRIS”. Péladan had founded in 1891 his own order, “Ordre de la Rose-Croix Catholique et Esthetique du Temple et du Graal” … Belgian Martinists were also member of Péladan’s “Ordre de la Rose-Croix et Catholique”, among such men as Francis Vurgey, Nicolas Brossel, and Clement de Saint-Marcq. Brossel and Vurgey were directing Lodge “KVMRIS”, the former being its President … “the Gnostic elements which influenced the works of such lodge-members as Clement de Saint-Marcq were part of the doctrine of the Johannite church.” […] The book “Ordre des Chevaliers du Temple” reports an international Templar Congress held in Brussels in 1894. With the exception of the English branch of the Templars all other European Templar Orders were represented on the Convention of Brussels. It was decided to establish an “International Secretariat” under the direction of the leaders of Lodge “KVMRIS”, Brossel and Vurgey. They were later succeeded by Selliers de Moranville, Georges le Clément de Saint-Marcq, Georges le Roy van Daems, Oscar Jamar, Arthur van Hecke, Carlos Mosias and Joseph Daems. The next date which is given in the book is the date of the foundation of the “Ordre souverain et militaire du Temple de Jérusalem” (OSMTJ) or ‘Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem’ (SMOTJ) or ‘Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani ‘ in 1932.
Utilizing internal documents and archives of the Order, Jean-Pierre Bonnerot, in “Deodat Roche et L’Eglise Gnostique,” was more specific regarding Péladan’s regency: 1892-1894; which would correspond with the Belgian branch taking the reins afterwards through the “Secretariat International des Templiers” (source: the blog of Terry Melanson).
The reason for creating the “Secretariat International des Templiers” was that Vernois’ move was not accepted by the Belgian members of the Order. This body governed the Order until 1932. In 1932, several former members established a new Grand Priory of Belgium, restored the Catholic tradition, and adopted the name Knights of the Sovereign and Military Order of the Temple (Chevaliers de l’Ordre Souverain et Militaire du Temple). Théodore Covias was its first regent. Shortly after, a move was made to restore the International Order with a Magisterial Council led by a regent.
Dom Antonio Campelo Pinto de Sousa Fontes (1878-1960) 50° Magnus Magister et Princeps Regens 1942-1960
The second regent, Emile-Isaac Vandenberg, was of Jewish descent and used the name of his wife “Vandenberg” to protect himself from the Nazis. He played a key role in the further development of the Order. Vandenberg was married on 21 November 1921, to Josefina Vandenberg and with his father-in-law and brother-in-law, they founded the company of Vandenberg & Isaac, Furniture Manufacturers, based in Mechelen. In 1932, Vandenberg was one of the eight founding members of the Sovereign and Military Order of the Temple and succeeded Theodore Covias as Regent on 8 August 1935. On 1 October 1935, he was elected 49th Grand Master of the Order although he occupied this post for only a relatively short time. In 1941, Germany invaded Belgium. On 23 December 1942, Vandenberg issued a Decree, transferring the office and the custody of the archive to Antonio de Sousa Fontes, Grand Prior of Portugal (see: Daniel J. Clausen, Succession 1935-1943 Emile Isaac to Antonio Fontes OSMTJ-OSMTH, 2021). On 11 April 1943, the day after very heavy bombardments on Martsel, Vanderberg died when the car he was driving left the road and plunged into a small river called “Veste van Berchem,” near Antwerp. Not being able to swim, Vanderberg drowned. He was buried at Mechelen. Unique documentation regarding his membership of the Order remains in the procession of his descendants.
Vandenberg’s main focus was to re-establish unity, in particular with priories in Italy, Portugal and Switzerland. The International Order became a confederation of Autonomous Grand Priories, known as OSMTH. To ensure Templar survival, Vandenberg made a temporary transfer of the archives to the care of the Portuguese Prior, Antonio Pinto de Sousa Fontes. It is often said that, once the war ended in 1945, de Sousa Fontes refused to return the archives. This cannot be the case, since Vandenberg died in 1943. After the sudden death of Vanderberg, de Sousa Fontes assumed the title of Regent.
In the following years, the International Order (OSMTH) became divided. Some Priories rejected De Sousa Fontes’ leadership. In 1946, the Regent issued updated Statutes, in which he described the Order as being “traditionally Catholic, chivalric, cosmopolitan, independent and conservative.” In 1948, De Sousa Fontes designated his son, Dom Fernando de Sousa Fontes as his successor.
Crolian William Edelen (1920 – 2006)
On 15 February 1960, De Sousa Fontes died. His son, Fernando de Sousa Fontes, succeeded him, assuming the title of Prince Regent. In the meantime, the Grand Prior of Switzerland, Anton Leuprecht, had been receiving Americans into the Swiss Grand Priory. As more Americans joined the Order, an American Grand Priory was formed. One of them was Crolian William Edelen. He was educated at the University of North Carolina, and was with Signal Intelligence in the India-Burma theatre of World War II. He actively pursued memberships of numerous Orders. From 1966 until 1976, under the royal protection of the former King Peter II of Yugoslavia, he was Grand Master of the Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem, Knights of Malta. As Emeritus, he remained a member of the Supreme Council. Formerly, he had been Grand Prior of the American Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem and held the Grand Cross from the autonomous Priory of Switzerland and from the Regent in Operto, Portugal. The Corporate Charter for the American Grand Priory was signed on 4 June 1962 by Edelen, William Y. Pryor, Herschel S. Murphy, Warren S. Hall, Jr., John D. Leet, Lawrence Stratton and George J. Deyo. The Grand Priory was incorporated in the State of New Jersey on 29 June 1962. Edelen was chosen the first Grand Prior. The Prince Regent subsequently recognized the Autonomous Grand Priory of the United States (SMOTJ-GPUSA). In April 1964, the former king Peter II, became the Royal Patron of the American Grand Priory. He remained in this office until his death on 3 November 1970.
The International Order continued to have problems. In 1970, De Sousa Fontes called together a Convent General of the Order to meet in three sessions: Paris, Chicago and Tomar, Portugal. Resolutions were passed that recognized the Order as “universal and not limited to any one nationality or Language”, and that the Order “shall be a Christian Order”. These efforts, however, did not bring back unity to OSMTH.
Dom Fernando Pinto Pereira de Sousa Fontes (1929 – 2018), Grand Master of the OSMTH
With increasing opposition from European Grand Priories, De Sousa Fontes turned to the American Grand Priory, appointing members to the Grand Magistry. The situation remained calm until 1993, when de Fontes revised the Statutes so that he could become the “Grand Master”, a title his father previously assumed. Again the Prince Regent called a Convent General to meet in three sessions. At the first session in Santiago, Spain, the revised Statutes were presented, but no decisions were made. The final session was held in London. In 1995, a proposed agenda, calling for basic reforms, was sent to De Sousa Fontes, who had already assumed the title of Grand Master. De Sousa Fontes cancelled the session. In reaction, the British Grand Prior, Major-General Sir Roy Redgrave, KBE MC (16 September 1925 – 3 July 2011) called for an International Conclave, to explain his objections and concerns. At its meeting in June 1995, a list of reforms was drawn up to be presented to De Sousa Fontes. The Grand Priors agreed to meet in Salzburg, Austria on 3 November 1995 to receive the response. During the Salzburg meetings, the future structure of the Order and its administration were discussed. In addition, the fate of De Sousa Fontes was on the agenda. On 2 November 1996, a document, known as the “Coordinated Statutes of the Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani” was adopted, stating the goals and structure of the Order as an international confederation of Autonomous Grand Priories. This meant a breach with De Sousa Fontes. The separation was confirmed in New Orleans in 1999, where the Grand Magistral Council approved a previously drawn up Statement of Separation. A Grand Council of Grand Priors was formed to govern the Order, since the office of Grand Master was considered vacant (Source: personal notes from the archives of Sir Roy Redgrave – June 5, 2003). The current Order is therefore structured as a federation operating as part of an international collective.
Current characteristic of the Order
The Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani (OSMTH), Ordre Souverain et Militaire du Temple de Jérusalem (OSMTJ) and Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem (SMOTJ) are branches that share the same origin. From a sociological perspective, they form a collective that primarily follows the same spiritual values as the original Order of the Knights Templar. The Order is open to Christians of any denomination and operates as a charity and an order of chivalry. It is a decentralized community acting in a coordinated manner, toward self-agreed goals and primarily focused on charity. Their legal protection is guarateed by the Freedom of association, stipulated in the United States Bill of Rights, article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and international law, including articles 20 and 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 22 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Conclusions
OSMTH’s charitable works are of great importance to society. Therefore, it is essential to preserve a solid foundation of this internationally operating organisation. Despite OSMTH’s general disclaimer that it does not claim a direct heritage to the medieval Knights Templar, its aims, symbols and rites are obviously patterned after the medieval Order. The OSMTH can therefore best be described as a commemorative order. Nevertheless, in spite of these official disclaimers, other neo-templar groups insist that they have direct Templar origins.
The OSMTH cannot be seen as a self-styled or pseudo-order, as its direct predecessor (the Order of the Temple) was approved by an imperial decree of Napoleon Bonaparte in 1807. On 13 June 1853, it was given recognition by Napoleon III. In 1918, the Order was re-registered in France in accordance with French law. The Grandmaster De Sousa Fontes was the direct link with the Order that was founded by Fabré-Palaprat. OSMTH-scholar Daniel J. Clausen, PhD (University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 2018) summarizes the historical lineage as follows:
When the whole narrative is put together and combined with the documentary evidence that is still extant, one must admit that there are still gaps in the whole story, nevertheless, the gaps do not force us to make any needless leaps of judgement. Taken all together, there is a cohesive, plausible, and evidenced line of history that maintains and verifies continuity between the Ordre du Temple of the 1800s and the OSMTJ of the 20th century. It is granted that not everything is known, but not knowing the entire story does not disqualify the rest.
Therefore, it is a legitimate commemorative order with a historical link to the ancient Ordre du Temple and likely to the ancient Templar Order, or its 18th-century revivals. Wikipedia’s description of the OSMTH and its branches was misleading, but is now (23 August 2023) correct.
Recommendations
I recommend the following regarding the future development of the OSMTH.
The importance of the preservation of the history of the Order cannot be overstated. The Grand Historian of the OSMTJ, Daniel J. Clausen, has collected thousands of documents from exclusive sources that are held by no other Templar branch. Eventually, these documents will be donated to a national institution for further safekeeping.
The desire to be named the Grand Master of the illustrious Order of the Templars is tempting. However, excessive concern over achievements, along with an inflated self-view are not the right characteristics of a knight. Vanity has inspired many to style themselves “Grandmaster of the Knights Templar”. Most of these pseudo-orders have no historical background, although claiming otherwise. They disgrace the reputation of the ancient Order. I recommend being very careful when choosing a Templar group.
Numerous members of chivalric orders, including members of the Knights Templar, wear more medals than Russian generals and can easily be confused with Christmas trees. This reveals a lack of good taste. I recommend wearing only the relevant Templar medal at Order gatherings.
Several schisms have occurred since 1970. It is important that the now existing legitimate split-offs are reconciled and that the Order becomes united again. It is hard to understand why two high-ranking American officers (Brig. Gen. Ronald S. Mangum and Rear Adm. James J. Carey) are obviously unable to join forces.
OSMTH enjoys the Patronage of HH Princess zu Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg (princess consort to the current Head of the Ducal House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg) and the Religious Protection of His Beatitude the Most Blessed Theodosius, Metropolitan (ret.) of the United States and Canada. These patronages are interesting but they have no historical relevance and therefore do not add to the legitimacy of the Order. The OSMTH should seek the patronage of a member of the House of Bonaparte to confirm the continuity with the original Order of the Temple. The headship of this family is in dispute between Charles, Prince Napoléon (1950), and his son Jean-Christophe, Prince Napoléon (1986). The only other male member of the family is Prince Jérôme Napoléon (1957). A descendant of Napoleon’s sister, Caroline Bonaparte, is the American actor and singerRené Murat Auberjonois. There also exist a number of descendants of Napoleon’s illegitimate but recognized son Alexandre Colonna-Walewski from his relation with Marie Countess Walewski. DNA studies have also confirmed the existence of descendants (the Clovis family) of Lucien Bonaparte, who was detained at sea by the British when he was on his way into exile in America. His son, Louis-Lucien Bonaparte, was a comparative linguist and dialectologist, and was born in England.
Another very good option is to seek the patronage of the current chief of the House of Murat, a descendant of Joachim Murat (1767-1815), Marshall and Grand Admiral of France, Prince of the Empire, Great Duke of Berg and Clèves, King of Naples and the Two Sicilies, and a member of the imperial family.
Choosing Prince Balthazar Napoleon IV de Bourbon as a Royal Patron is not a good choice, since his family tree cannot be proven and Balthazar Napoleon IV postponed a DNA test, needed to confirm his lineage. Former Russian Houses are irrelevant since they do not possess the authority to recognize the Knights Templar.
Electing a Grandmaster is in accordance with the traditions of the Order. Try to find an honorary (or second) Grandmaster with historical connections to the OSMTH. Legitimate honorary Grandmasters should be related to the persons mentioned in this article.
Use only one single website (instead of multiple local websites) to promote coherence and avoid confusion.
Appendix 1: Statement by the Vatican regarding the parchment of Chinon
THE PARCHMENT OF CHINON THE ABSOLUTION OF POPE CLEMENT V OF THE LEADING MEMBERS OF THE TEMPLAR ORDER
Chinon, Diocese of Tours, 1308 August 17th-20th
Original document formed by a large parchment folio (700x580mm), initially provided with the hanging seals of the three papal legates who formed the special Apostolic Commission ad inquirendum appointed by Clement V: Brenger Frdol, Cardinal Priest of the titular church of the Most Holy Nereus and Achilleus and nephew of the pope, tienne de Suisy, cardinal priest of St. Cyriac in Therminis, Landolfo Brancacci, cardinal deacon of St. Angelo. In a reasonable state, even though there are some big violaceous stains, caused by bacterial attack. An authentic copy was enclosed to the original document, which is still kept in the Secret Vatican Archives, with the reference number Archivum Arcis Armarium D 218. ASV, Archivum Arcis, Arm. D 217.
The document contains the absolution Pope Clement V gave to the Grand Master of the Temple, friar Jacques de Molay and to the other heads of the Order, after they had shown to be repented and asked to be forgiven by the Church; after the formal abjuration, which is compelling for all those who were even only suspected of heretical crimes, the leading members of the Templar Order are reinstated in the Catholic Communion and readmitted to receive the sacraments. The document, which belongs to the first phase of the trial against the Templars, when Pope Clement V was still convinced to be able to guarantee the survival of the military-religious order, meets the apostolic need to remove the shame of excommunication from the warrior friars, caused by their previous denial of Jesus Christ when tortured by the French Inquisitor. As several contemporary sources confirm, the pope ascertained that Templars were involved in some serious forms of immorality and he planned a radical reform of the order to subsequently merge it into one body with the other important military-religious order of the Hospitallers. The Act of Chinon, which absolves the Templars, but does not discharge them, was the assumption required to carry out the reform, but it remained dead letter. The French monarchy reacted by triggering a true blackmail mechanism, which then urged Clement V to reach the ambiguous compromise ratified during the Council of Vienne in 1312: unable to oppose himself to the will of the King of France, Phillip the Fair, who imposed the elimination of the Templars, the pope removed the order from the reality of that period, without condemning or abolishing it, but isolating it in a sort of hibernation, thanks to a clever device of the canon law. After explicitly declaring that the trial did not prove the charge of heresy, Clement V suspended the Templar Order by means of a non definitive sentence, imposed by the necessity to avoid a serious danger to the Church that banned them, under penalty of excommunication, to use such name or their distinctive symbols.
Chinon, Diocese of Tours, 1308 August 17th-20th
Appendix 2: Grandmasters OSMTH and its predecessors
1804-1839 Bernard Fabre-Palaprat (Order of the Temple) 1839-1840 Sir William Sidney Smith 1850 Chief magistrate Narcisse Valleray (Regent) 1866 A.G.M. Vernois (Regent). On 15 August 1871, Dr Verois deposited the Archives of the Order into the National Archives of France,Paris ABXIX boxes 125/158. 1892 Joséphin Péladan (Regent) 1894 Reinstatement of the Regency,and the Establishment of an International Secretariat of the Templars,with magisterial powers. 1934 Conseil de Regence Brussels– Joseph Vandenberg (Ordo Supremus Miltaris Templi Heirosolimytani) 1935 Théodore Covias (Regent) 1935-1942 August Emile Clement Joseph Isaac (Vandenberg) (Regent). Vandenburg assumed the Office and Guardian of the Order with all its rights and Privileges. Baron Anton Leuprecht moves offices and Archives to the safety of Portugal, because of the war.
1942-1960 Antonio de Sousa Fontes (Regent) 1960- 2018 Fernando de Sousa Fontes (Regent)
The current Grandmaster of the OSMTH is James Joseph Carey (1939), a retired rear admiral of the United States Navy. The Grandmaster of the OSMTJ is Ronald S. Mangum (1944), a retired brigadier general,of the United States Army.
At the Rootstech 2016 conference, American genealogist James Ison made an interesting remark regarding direct and indirect genealogical evidence. Ison is currently Manager of Strategy and Planning at the Family History Library, an important genealogical research facility in Salt Lake City. The library is operated by FamilySearch, the genealogical arm of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Ison earned a Master’s Degree from George Washington University. He is recognized as an authority in the field of genealogy. Ison stated:
Direct evidence is awesome. A birth certificate will list the name of parents. It’s direct evidence. It answers a question. A marriage license will say what the bride’s maiden name is. A baptismal record will say the dates and the places of birth—just exactly what we want.
(…)
Indirect evidence is like a puzzle piece. You can’t answer any particular question just based upon this piece of evidence. You have to fit it together.
In cases where only indirect evidence is available, the Genealogical Proof Standard is helpful in establishing credible research. The Standard is based on a book written by mrs Christine Rose;Genealogical Proof Standard: Building a Solid Case. It includes five essential steps for accurate research:
Reasonably exhaustive research has been completed.
Each statement of fact has a complete and accurate source citation.
The evidence is reliable and has been skillfully correlated and interpreted.
Any contradictory evidence has been resolved.
The conclusion has been soundly reasoned and coherently written.
Sir Roger Charles Doughty Tichborne, original taken by Thomas Helsby in Santiago, January – February 1854
Applying the Genealogical Proof Standard does not guarantee that the truth will prevail, but it serves accountability and transparency. In my opinion genealogical proof resembles Lakatos views on the concept of truth. Lakatos’ suggested that in science, a scientific theory should be seen as a succession of slightly different theories and experimental techniques. These theories all share a common hard core, called a research programme. The question of whether a theory is true of false is replaced by the question of whether a research programme is progressive or degenerating. A progressive research programme is characterized by growth and prediction of novel facts and more precise predictions. In contrast, a degenerative program is marked by a lack of growth and does not lead to novel predictions that are later verified (Imre Lakatos, Philosophical papers. Vol I: The methodology of scientific research programmes. I. Science – Philosophy 2. Mathematics – Philosophy. I. Title 11.). Genealogical research can also contain some of these characteristics. After establishing the basic facts (often in the form of a family tree), theories regarding missing facts can be based on indirect evidence. To a certain extend, they can be characterized as a prediction for finding direct evidence (e.g. a marriage certificate). If, for example, someone has lived and worked in England for all his life, it can be predicted that he has married in England and research regarding his marriage should not start in South America. A genealogical progressive research programme elaborates on certain basic findings and develops theories (in the form of predictions) about the missing information.
In some cases, genealogical evidence is used in legal matters. Legal evidence has a totally different character, in particular when court rulings are given. In such cases a progressive research programme can hardly be determined. The case ends in a decision in a relatively short period of time.
Judicial evidence
The judicial process can be seen as a a kind of black box, within which information from all kinds of sources is processed according to defined rules of evidence in order to produce a new form of truth: the ‘judicial truth’. This type of truth becomes, to a certain extent, simply one more competing version of truth. Like other versions, it can be accepted, refuted, celebrated or simply ignored. This is illustrated in two cases where genealogical evidence was essential for establishing judicial truth. In the first case, the evidence is in particular based on witness statements, with some degree of technical evidence. In the second case, conclusive evidence is given by a DNA-test.
The Tichborne case
The Tichborne case was a well-known legal dispute in Victorian England in the 1860s and 1870s. It concerned the claims by a man called Arthur Orton, later Thomas Castro, to be the missing heir to the Tichborne baronetcy. Orton failed to convince the courts, was convicted of perjury and served a long prison sentence.
Roger Charles Tichborne was born in Paris on 5 January 1829. He was raised mainly in France, although the Tichborne lands and fortune were based in Hampshire, England, where his uncle was the 8th baronet. As a result of his upbringing, Roger spoke English with a strong French accent. At the age of 20, Roger joined the 6th Dragoon Guards in Dublin, but sold his commission three years later in 1852. In 1853, Roger’s father inherited the Tichborne baronetcy after the deaths of his two elder brothers. In the same year, Roger, now the heir to the Tichborne title and fortune, travelled to South America. In 1854, he boarded a ship, the Bella, bound for New York, but less than a week later, the Bella was lost at sea and Roger was declared dead in 1855. The Tichborne baronetcy was passed to Roger’s younger brother Alfred in 1862 when his father died. Alfred died only four years later, just months before the birth of his son, who inherited the title at birth in 1866.
Roger’s mother, Lady Henriette Tichborne, was devastated by the news of her son’s disappearance at sea. She remained hopeful that he had survived the shipwreck and sent out inquiries across the world as to his whereabouts. In November 1865, Australian solicitor William Gibbes sent Lady Tichborne a letter, informing her that a man, claiming to be her son, had contacted him. This man was a butcher from Wagga Wagga, calling himself Tom Castro. Although he was physically larger than Sir Roger, had lighter hair and spoke no French, these discrepancies did not bother Lady Tichborne, who had not seen her lost son for more than ten years.
After Lady Tichborne’s death in 1868, Orton was compelled to continue the pretence, as he needed the Tichborne inheritance to pay off his large debts. This led some of the Tichborne family to take him to court over his claim, beginning one of the most celebrated legal cases of the nineteenth century.
The first trial lasted almost a year, from 11 May 1871 to 5 March 1872. Tichborne v. Lushington was a civil trial to establish Orton’s claim to the Tichborne inheritance. Nearly one hundred people spoke in Orton’s defence, but the holes in his story soon became obvious, particularly his inability to speak French – Sir Roger’s childhood language.
Arthur Orton’s perjury trial, Regina v. Castro, began in 1873 and lasted over six months. This time a jury had to be convinced that Orton’s claim to be the lost Sir Roger Tichborne was false. Again, the evidence against Orton was damning, and in February 1874, he was convicted of two counts of perjury and sentenced to 14 years’ hard labour by Lord Chief Justice Sir Alexander Cockburn (source: State Library New South Wales).
An important issue was the degree of facial resemblance of Orton to the Tichborne family, which fact never has been fully explained. It may suggest that there was some kind of biological relation between Orton and the Tichborne family. In the University College London Galton Papers a document can be found, stating:
2225. [stamped in left margin]University College London Galton Papers 158/2M[end stamp] [underscore]MEMORANDUM We have had submitted to us, for Examination,[end underscore] enlarged authentic [italics]Photographs;[end italics] First, of Mr. Roger Tichborne, (date, 1854): Secondly, of the person claiming to be Sir Roger Tichborne, (date, 1874). [underscore]These Portraits have Geometrically Bisected[end underscore]: and the several divided sections we have ourselves affixed, interchanged, and transferred from one Portrait to another. [underscore]We are of Opinion that the Perfect Combination[end underscore] and Minute Correspondence of the several sections are [italics]bona fide[end italics] and unimpeachable, and fully justify the conclusion that [italics]one and the same person sat for each portrait.[end italics] Fredk. Snary, Photographer, [established, 1856] 26, Castle Street, Bristol. Louis Lowenthall, Photographer, [established, 1858] 14, N. Wine Street, Bristol. John Hayward, Print-Seller, [established, 1840] 1, Corn Street, Bristol. Frederick Bowden, Print-Seller, [established, 1850] 27, U. Arcade, Bristol. H. Gardiner, Ornamental Carver, [30 years] 28, Victoria Place, Clifton. T. Sherwood, Smith, Practical Surveyor and Land Agent [40 years] 30, Corn St. Bristol. [end]
The case however was finally solved by applying classic legal rules of evidence. There was no room for developing a research programme.
The Pringle of Stichill case
The law is a living construct. It develops with society, bringing new challenges and new opportunities into the courtroom. Currently, the law is changing rapidly as a result of the ongoing evolution of digital technology. In one specific field, that of evidence gathering for genealogical purposes, the Pringle of Stichill-case should be seen as a milestone case.
On 5 January 1683 Charles II granted the Baronetcy of Stichill (“the Baronetcy”) to Robert Pringle of Stichill “and the male heirs of his body”. The eighth baronet was Sir Norman Robert Pringle, who lived from 1871 to 1919. He married Florence Vaughan, who gave birth to Norman Hamilton Pringle (“Norman Hamilton”) and subsequently to two more sons, the first of which was Ronald Steuart Pringle (“Ronald Steuart”), who died in 1968. Norman Hamilton was enrolled without opposition as the ninth baronet. When he died in 1961 his son Sir Steuart Robert Pringle (“Sir Steuart”) was enrolled without opposition as the tenth baronet. Sir Steuart died in April 2013.
The two claimants in this matter are Sir Steuart’s son, Simon Robert Pringle (“Simon”), and Norman Murray Pringle (“Murray”), son of Ronald Steuart. Following Sir Steuart’s death, both Simon and Murray registered claims to succeed to the Baronetcy. Simon’s claim is made on the basis that, as Sir Steuart’s male heir, he is entitled to be enrolled as the 11th baronet. Murray, however, claims that Norman Hamilton was not the legitimate son of the eighth baronet and that accordingly the true ninth baronet was his late father, Ronald Steuart. Murray thus claims to be the true tenth baronet.
Murray’s claim relies upon DNA evidence obtained as part of “the Pringle Surname Project”. This was founded by Murray to determine the chieftainship of the clan Pringle, and the late Sir Steuart provided his DNA for the project. Expert opinion on the totality of the DNA evidence was that it provided “very strong support” for the view that the eighth baronet is grandfather to Murray but not Sir Steuart. Simon does not dispute the DNA evidence, but he raises four arguments as to why it should not be admitted on public policy grounds. By this reference the Board is required to advise Her Majesty as to (i) who is entitled to be entered on the Official Roll of the Baronetage as the Baronet of Pringle of Stichill and (ii) whether the DNA evidence should be admitted in order to determine the first question.
The Board finds that there is no legal ground for excluding the DNA evidence, which demonstrates to a high degree of probability that Norman Hamilton was not the son of the eighth baronet. The Board therefore concludes that (i) Simon is not the great grandson of the eighth baronet and is not the heir male of the first baronet; and (ii) Murray is the grandson of the eighth baronet and is, as the heir male of the first baronet, entitled to succeed to the Baronetcy (source: The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Privy Council Reference No 0079 of 2015).
Conclusions
The term ‘evidence’ is widely used in many different ways and in many different contexts. Genealogical evidence is often used for claims regarding the use of titles of nobility. Even when based on so-called ‘direct’ evidence, it is not certain whether these claims are true or not true, as the Pringle case shows. The concept of truth is the core of many philosophical discussions and it is my advice to be careful when claims of nobility or genealogy are either accepted, refuted, celebrated or simply ignored. In numerous cases regarding such claims, truth is no more and no less than a personal choice, often based on the assumption that written statements in official registers correspond with biological facts (see e.g. C.W. Delforterie, Liegen tegen de dominee: drie voorbeelden van het laten dopen van buitenechtelijke kinderen als zijnde tijdens een huwelijk verkregen / door C.W. Delforterie In: Liber Amicorum Jhr. Mr. C.C. van Valkenburg / [met een ten geleide van A. Snethlage en bijdr. van W.J. Kolff … et al.]. – ‘s-Gravenhage: Centraal Bureau voor Genealogie, 1985. – P. 69-80: geneal. tab. Met lit. opg.). One thing is certain. Written statements cannot change biological/genealogical facts but such facts can change written statements.
The principal interest lies in the paradox he explains – that the much used Statutory Declaration proves not that a vendor owns a manorial lordship, but rather that he probably does not.
Numerous manorial lords rely on a statutory declaration for proving that their manorial title is genuine. Does this mean that most of them actually cannot prove the ownership of the manorial title?
Development
In the feudal system all legal and economic power belonged to the lord of the manor or king, who was supported economically from his land and from labour, goods, or coin from tenants under his authority.
In 1446 King Henry VI obtained parliamentary ratification of the many grants of land he had made to King’s College of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Eton by a Consolidation Charter. The illumination of its opening letters, shown above, is a beautiful example of English 15th century art. In it the King kneels to offer his charter on the altar with the Cardinals, Bishops, Lords and Commons behind him.
Feudal land tenure is the system by which land was held by tenants from their lords. Tenures were divided into free and unfree. Of the free tenures, the first was tenure in chivalry. The second form of free tenure was the spiritual tenure of bishops or monasteries. Their sole obligation was to pray for the souls of the granter and his heirs. In contrast to the free tenants, who’s services were always predetermined, the unfree tenure they were not. The unfree tenant never knew what he might be called to do for his lord. This uncertainty was later limited in a way that the tenant could not be ejected in breach of existing customs of the manor. The land was thus held according to the custom of the manor (written evidence from Dr Paul Stafford, Submission to the Justice Select Committee Inquiry into Manorial Rights). Court Rolls of the manor came to record the title of the tenants of the manor to their properties and the tenants were given a copy of the entry recording their title. A tenant who held land in this way was known as a copyholder (House of Commons Justice Committee, 2015).
The fundamental characteristic of the manorial system was economic. The peasants held land from the lord (French: seigneur) of an estate in return for fixed dues in kind, money, and services. An interesting question is that of the origin of the manorial organization; Roman or German origin. This question cannot be answered decisively because there is not sufficient evidence. Romanists state that during the decline of the Roman Empire, independent estates emerged. Germanists point to the likenesses of the manor to what can be seen as the ancient German system of landholding. It is now generally accepted that both German and Roman influences contributed to the development of the manorial system.
Manors were also judicial and administrative units with their own manorial courts, where lords were responsible for jurisprudence. Historically, landowners with significant holdings often retained ownership of any mines or minerals on the land even when it was sold on. In such cases they would own the land beneath the surface (known as ‘mines and minerals’) while another owner exercised the rights of the surface land. Landowners may also have specific rights relating to the surface of the land, for example, the rights to hunt, shoot or fish (written evidence from Christopher Jessel, author of “The Law of the Manor”, Submission to the Justice Select Committee Inquiry into Manorial Rights).
The manorial system was slowly replaced by money-based economies and other agricultural agreements. During the Tudor period many of the civil functions of the manor were removed. It led to a decline of the manorial system. Feudal tenures were formally abolished in 1660. In England, this led to the establishment of absolute property rights for big landowners, and to vociferous demands by Levellers (a political movement during the English Civil War; 1642–1651) and other radicals that copyholders — the majority of the peasantry — should receive equal security for their tenure.
During the nineteenth century the holding of manor courts gradually came to an end, and in 1925 copyhold tenure formally ended in accordance with the Law of Property Acts, 1922 and 1924. Since then the holder was personally free and paid rent in lieu of services. The Manorial Documents Register was established in 1926 to record the location of documents and ensure that they could be traced if they were required for legal purposes. Some manorial courts continued to meet in the 20th century and technically courts can still meet, although they would have no real business to transact. Before the Land Registration Act 2002 it was possible for manors to be registered with HM Land Registry. Manorial incidents (the rights that a lord of the manor may exercise over other people’s land) lapsed on 12 October 2013 if they were not registered by then with HM Land Registry. Distinctive feudal remnants remain in the Isle of Man and in the Channel Islands (three distinct systems for Jersey, Guernsey and Alderney). The island of Sark was a remaining example of a feudal fief. Sark gave up being a feudal fife several years ago under EU pressure. Male primogeniture never applied to manorial or seignuer titles, as Sark has had a female Seignuer in its past. (see: Christine Alice Corcos, From Agnatic Succession to Absolute Primogeniture: The Shift to Equal Rights of Succession to Thrones and Titles in the Modern European Constitutional Monarchy, 2012 Mich. St. L. Rev. 1587, 2014).
Characteristics of Manorial Rights
Manorial rights are part of English property law (the law of acquisition, sharing and protection of valuable assets in England and Wales). As such they can be bought and sold as objects. Manorial Lordships can thus be transferred, conveyed or sold to other people. The lordship of the manor is simply the title by which the lord of the manor is known. In many cases the title may no longer have any land or rights attached to it. Because of its origin and lack of physical substance, it is known as an ‘incorporeal hereditament’. Incorporeal hereditament means ‘an interest having no physical existence’ (see: Walker vs Burton 2012, sub 47; UK Government, Practice guide 22, manors).
The brother of the late Princess Diana , Charles, Ninth Earl Spencer offered one of his many titles – that of Lord of Wimbledon – for sale at a public auction on June 26, 1996 as advertised in Financial Times on May 27, 1996:
The Land Registry describes manorial rights as rights which were retained by lords of the manor when land became freehold. They can include rights to mines and some minerals, sporting rights such as hunting, shooting and fishing, and rights to hold fairs and markets. Manorial rights are “overriding rights” which may affect a property even if they had not previously been protected in the register maintained by the Land Registry.
Following the enactment of the 2002 Land Registration Act, which required manorial rights to be registered before 13 October 2013 if they were to be retained, more than 90,000 applications to enter a notice claiming manorial rights on properties in England and Wales had been made to the Land Registry prior to the deadline.
Lord of the Manor
Whoever owns the lordship of the manor is entitled to refer to themselves as lord of that manor, for example, Lord of the manor of Keswick (source: UK Government, Practice guide 22, manors). The right to use the term “Lord of the Manor of Keswick” should, in my opinion, be seen as a legal custom right (to seek recognition that one is the owner of a specific manorial right) as it meets certain basic requirements in this respect (see e.g.: customary Law in Modern England, W. Jethro Brown, Columbia Law Review Vol. 5, No. 8 (Dec., 1905), pp. 571). The term can be seen as a synonym for ownership with a historical background. The term should not be seen as a titular dignity, but rather as a factual appellation, which – within the feudal social system – was used to describe the relationship between the Lord of the Manor in relation to his own tenants.
The vast majority of lordships belong to an individual or a trustee. A lordship might be held in a limited company, or a ‘corporation sole,’ such as the Lord Mayor and Corporation of the City of London, who are Lords of the King’s Manor, Southwark (source: Manorial Society of Great Britain, Advice on buying a manorial title).
Manorial lord and nobility
It is generally assumed that manorial titles are not titles of nobility. I tend to a more balanced view. In his book, The Constitutional History of England (Cambridge University Press, 1909 [1st Pub. 1908]), Professor F.W. Mailland notes:
Dark as is the early history of the manor, we can see that before the Conquest England is covered by what in all substantial points are manors, though the term manor is brought hither by the Normans. Furthermore, in the interests of peace and justice, the state insists that every landless man shall have a lord, who will produce him in court in case he be accused. Slowly the relation of man and lord extends itself, and everywhere it is connected with land. The king’s thanes then are coming to be the king’s military tenants in chief.
This description characterizes nobility. Shortly after the battle of Hastings in 1066, the invading Normans and their descendants replaced the Anglo-Saxons as the ruling class of England. William the Conqueror divided the land into manors which he gave to his Norman barons. The nobility of England were part of a single Norman culture and many had lands on both sides of the channel. Early Norman kings of England, as Dukes of Normandy, owed homage to the King of France for their land on the continent. The Norman barons were summoned by the king from time to time to a Royal Council where they would advise him. By the mid 13th century, these meetings would form the basis for the House of Lords (professor Marjorie Chibnall, The Normans).
Originally, only a noble could hold a manor (professor Marjorie Chibnall, The Normans). Later, commoners could also own a manor. The current manorial lords may well be seen as a relic of the ancient Norman noble class.
Conclusions
It is essential to buy a manorial lordship from the legal owner. With Lordships, title is generally traced back 50 years or more (source: Manorial Society of Great Britain, Advice on buying a manorial title). Proof of ownership is sometimes found in family or estate documents like assents, probates, wills, mortgages and settlements. Statutory declarations (a written statement of fact that is signed in the presence of a solicitor) are another common way to prove legal ownership. In my opinion it is not correct to say that when a statutory declaration is used in combination with persuasive exhibits from secondary sources, the use of such a statutory declaration is rebutting evidence of the legal ownership of the manorial lordship. When ownership is disputed however, the presence of all deeds, correctly made up since 1189 is required. The absence of correct and complete sets of deeds requires Court approval to confirm ownership (Burton v Walker).
I therefore recommend to obtain a manorial title from a reputable company and consult a lawyer in advance.
Sources
Property Law Journal: 24 January 2011. Paul Stafford explains why those who hold a manorial title, or those who challenge it, must examine the foundations on which the particular title stands.
P. G. Vinogradoff, Villainage in England (1892, repr. 1968) and The Growth of the Manor (3d ed. 1920, repr. 1968)
N. S. B. Gras and E. C. Gras, The Economic and Social History of an English Village (1930, repr. 1969)
H. S. Bennett, Life on the English Manor (1937, repr. 1960)
M. Bloch, French Rural History (tr. 1966)
J. W. Thompson, Economic and Social History of the Middle Ages (2 vol., new ed. 1959) and Economic and Social History of Europe in the Later Middle Ages (new ed. 1960).
A spectacular example of a dispute over manorial rights comes from the recent and widely reported case of Burton v Walker. There are four decisions in Burton v Walker: the preliminary issue and substantive hearings before Adjudicators to the Land Registry; an appeal to the Chancery Division and a second appeal to the Court of Appeal. The references are REF 2007/1124 (Mr Edward Cousins, 14 May 2009); REF 2007/1124 (Mr Simon Brilliant, 10 Dec 2010); [2012] EWHC 978 (Ch), [2012] All ER (D) 131 (Mr Jeremy Cousins QC); and EWCA [2013] Civ 1228 (Mummery LJ giving the only substantive judgement).
Crown Estate Commissioners v Roberts (2008) EWHC 1302. The defendant claimed ownership as Lord Marcher of St Davids of historical rights in foreshores in Pembrokeshire. The claimants sought removal of his cautions against first registration.
Heraldic Ring of Kaiser Wilhelm II with Royal Crown, Coat of Arms of Hohenzollern and The Prussian Order of The Black Eagle.
Introduction
The claims to the (combined) thrones of Kingdom of Prussia and the German Empire are related to the Constitution of the German Empire (Verfassung des Deutschen Reiches)of 1871. According to this constitution, the empire was a federally organised national state of 25 German states. The office of Bundespräsidium was held by the King of Prussia, who had the title of German Emperor.
The Wikipedia article about the line of succession of the former German throne reads:
Did the courts really rule in favour of Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia as being head of Germany’s last ruling family?
German law of succession to the throne
Wilhelm of Prussia, ex-crown prince, with the participation of former emperor Wilhelm II, named his second son – Louis-Ferdinand prince of Prussia (d. 1994) – as first heir (Vorerb). After his death his eldest son (unborn in 1938) was to be the next heir (Nacherb), or, should that son not survive Louis Ferdinand, in his stead his eldest male offspring; in the absence of male issue his eldest brother (or in his stead his sons). The contract, however, made one exception to the rule on the succession of the next heir: any son or grandson of Louis-Ferdinand was ineligible to inherit if he were not the issue of a marriage made in accordance with the house laws of the house of Brandenburg-Prussia, or if he was in a marriage not in accordance with said laws (so-called ineligibility clause).
Crown of William II, Hohenzollern Castle Collection (photo Wiki Commons)
The legal question, which was a question of civil or private law, was whether the designation was valid, and the exclusion of unequally-married or -born offspring was valid. The matter decided was not “headship of the house” but inheritance of a certain estate; indeed, the term “head of house” or some equivalent has not been decided. The issue was a contract which set up a specific rule of transmission. The court decided that the clause which Wilhelm had created in his testament was valid, because of the right to dispose of one’s estate. If Wilhelm had decided to impose a religious requirement, or a height requirement, or to leave his estate to his cat, the court might well have upheld it as well, because of the right to dispose of one’s estate without infringement of the personal rights of one’s offspring (see the important article of F. Velde, The Hohenzollern Succession Dispute, 1994-present).
The succession rules regarding the throne of Germany have ceased to exist when the Constitution of the German Reich (DieVerfassung des Deutschen Reiches), usually known as the Weimar Constitution (Weimarer Verfassung) came into effect. The constitution declared Germany to be a democratic parliamentary republic with a legislature elected under proportional representation and thus abolished the German Empire. Therefore, the courts of the German Federal Republic have no jurisdiction regarding the headship of the House of Hohenzollern. In the mentioned cases, the courts therefore never ruled regarding the headship. The media have not quite understood the rulings.
Conclusions
Louis Ferdinand, Prince of Prussia was the third in succession to the throne of the German Empire, after his father, German Crown Prince William and elder brother Prince Wilhelm of Prussia. The monarchy was abolished in 1918. When Louis Ferdinand’s older brother Prince Wilhelm renounced his succession rights to marry a non-royal from the lesser nobility in 1933, Louis Ferdinand took his place as the second in the line of succession to the German throne after the Crown Prince. Louis Ferdinand married the Grand Duchess Kira Kirillovna of Russia in 1938. The couple had four sons and three daughters. Their sons are listed below:
1. Prince Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia (9 February 1939 – 29 September 2015). Sons:
(a) Philip Kirill Prinz von Preußen (born 23 April 1968).
(b) Friedrich Wilhelm Ludwig Ferdinand Kirill (born 16 August 1979).
(c)Joachim Albrecht Bernhard Christian Ernst (born 26 June 1984).
(a) Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia (born 10 June 1976 Bremen).
4. Prince Christian-Sigismund of Prussia (born 14 March 1946). Son:
(a) Prince Christian Ludwig Michael Friedrich Ferdinand of Prussia (born 16 May 1986).
Louis Ferdinand’s two eldest sons (1) and (2) both renounced their succession rights in order to marry commoners. His third son, and heir-apparent, Prince Louis Ferdinand died in 1977 during military maneuvers. It is generally accepted that his one-year-old grandson Georg Friedrich Prince of Prussia (3a, son of Prince Louis Ferdinand) became the new heir-apparent to the Prussian and German Imperial throne. According to these lines, Georg Friedrich became the pretender to the thrones and Head of the Hohenzollern family upon Louis Ferdinand’s death in 1994. However, a well-found alternative viewpoint is possible.
Since about 1.000 years, the Agnatic Primogeniture rules have been used to determine the succession of headship of the House of Hohenzollern. These rules do not have any legal binding in the Federal Republic of Germany since 1919. A “headship of the House of Hohenzollern” does not exist under German law. Renouncing the headship of a family or the claim to a non-existing entity (throne), therefore does not have any legal effect in Germany. The only legal fact that German law can determine is the fact that Philip Kirill Prince of Prussia (1a) is the oldest living relative in the male line of the last German emperor. If the head of the House Hohenzollern is, analogues to customary law, defined as the last living male relative according to German law, then Philip Kirill (1a) is – from an historical (dynastic) perspective – head of the House Hohenzollern. If the head of the House Hohenzollern is defined as the man who is selected as such by some members of the family (holding a certain authority), then Georg Friedrich (3a) is head of the House. The choice of definition is a personal one, not a legal one. Head of the House cannot mean a person who inherits or has a right of inheritance in the property of a family member following the latter’s death, since this can be anyone.
An early 14th-century German manuscript depicting a knight and his lady.
Remembering the past is an important theme in both the Old (e.g. Hebrews 13:2-3) and New Testament (e.g. John 14:26). I am working on a research project that will have a historical focus. In particular, I would like to focus on the history of a specific Christian knightly order from a practical theological (therefore empirical) perspective and examine to what extent its Christian traditions have survived the course of time. These religiously-based Catholic societies, originally established during the medieval crusades and mostly made up of confraternities of knights, were formed to protect the Christians against foreign aggression and persecution, especially against the Islamic conquests and Baltic Paganism in Easter Europe. The original features of these societies consisted of a combination of religious and military actions. Some of the Christian knightly order, in particular the Knights Hospitaller, also cared for the sick and poor.
Since 2007, I am studying the legitimacy of modern Christian knightly orders. Such orders were originally characterized as orders, confraternities or societies of knights, often founded during or in inspiration of the original Roman Catholic military orders of the medieval crusades (circa 1099-1291). They were inspired by medieval notions of chivalry, being an ethos in which martial, aristocratic and Christian elements were fused together (Stair Sainty 2006; Keen: 2005). In modern days similar (mimic) orders have been established by monarchs (or their descendants) and governments with the purpose of bestowing honors on deserving individuals. Examples of ancient knightly orders that survived in modern times are the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George and the Order of Saints Maurice and Lazarus.
The legitimacy of Christian knightly orders is discussed heavily on the internet and in literature (Stair Sainty’s book of about 2000 pages focusses on the issue). My current focus is inspired by a PhD thesis of Hoegen Dijkhof (2006), addressing the legitimacy of a number of knightly orders from a historical and legal perspective. It is interesting to address the issue of legitimacy from a Christian perspective. A major and often overlooked problem is the definition of both the terms “legitimate” and “knightly order”. This aspect of the problem has been raised by Velde (1996).
Activities of modern knightly orders
Modern knightly orders have abandoned their original military mission and focus on spiritual and charity activities. Normally knightly orders demand of its members that they are living their lives as Christians and remain mindful of their obligations to undertake hospitaller assistance, as well as charitable and other good works. The Spanish Constantinian Order for example stresses that it is important for members to lead a life as “perfect” Christian.
The French branch of the Order of Saint Lazarus enjoys its official Temporal Protection from the Royal House of France. AFP PHOTO MEDHI FEDOUACH. Other branches of the Order enjoy the protection of the Duke de Borbon Parma and the Duke of Sevilla.
The hospitaller mission is also considered of great importance. The biggest and most effective knightly order (the Military Hospitaller of Saint John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta or SMOM) has developed numerous projects in 120 countries of the world. The order organizes medical, social and humanitarian projects. The SMOM has 13,500 members, 80,000 permanent volunteers and qualified staff of 25,000 professionals, mostly medical personnel and paramedics (SMOM website, 2016). The SMOM’s relief organisation in South Africa, the Brotherhood of the Blessed Gerard, focusses on AIDS patients (mostly children) and runs a hospice in KwaZulu-Natal.
The historical foundations of the knightly orders and their current activities show that the Christian inspiration is one of the most important aspects and characteristic of Christian knightly orders. This inspiration is manifested by the hospitaller activities that Christian knightly orders promote. It is unthinkable that a modern Christian knightly order lacks Christ-inspired hospitaller activities.
An interesting case study could focus on the Military and Hospitaller Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem, also known as Order of Saint Lazarus. The legitimacy of this Order has been heavily disputed by Stair Sainty (2006).
It therefore serves as an interesting case study for the legitimacy of a knightly order from a Christian perspective.
Research questions
What is the background of the Order of Saint Lazarus and how did its history develop?
Which kind of goals are selected by the most well-known Christian knightly orders to help and support people who are in distress and which goals are specified amd implemented by the Order of Saint Lazarus?
Can the goals of the Order of Saint Lazarus and their implementations be considered effective?
To what extent is the Order of Saint Lazarus’ smart-strategy and its implementation of this strategy, Bible-based and therefore legitimate from a Christian perspective?
Literature Review
Adams, J.E. (1986). A Theology of Christian Counseling, More Than Redemption, Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Anderson, R.S. (2003). Spiritual Caregiving as Secular Sacrament, A Practical Theology for Professional Caregivers, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Baljon, J.M.S. (1900). Commentaar op het Evangelie van Mattheus. Groningen: J.B. Wolters
Bruggen, J. van (1993), Lucas. Het evangelie als voorgeschiedenis. Kampen: Uitgeverij Kok.
Bruggen, J. van (2004), Matteüs, Het evangelie voor Israël, Kampen: Kok.
Heitink, G. (1993). Praktische theologie, geschiedenis, theorie, handelingsvelden. Kok: Kampen
Hoegen Dijkhof, H.J., The legitimacy of Orders of St. John : a historical and legal analysis and case study of a para-religious phenomenon, 2006 Doctoral thesis, Leiden University.
Keen, M.H., Chivalry, Yale University Press, 2005
Klein, H. (2006), Das Lukasevangelium, übersetzt und erklärt, Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 2006
Wierzbicka, A. (2001). What did Jesus Mean? Explaining the Sermon on the Mount and the Parables in Simple and Universal Human Concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Order of Vitéz Breast Badge, bronze gilt, 57×36 mm (photo: sixbid.com).
Legal Question
The Order of Vitéz, founded in 1678, revived in 1920 by Hungarian Regent Horthy, and abolished by the Soviet-imposed Communist government of Hungary in 1946, has been an important symbol of Hungary’s historic commitment to independence and territorial integrity. It is often assumed that “the Regent had no powers to grant nobility, nor did he try” (e.g Wikipedia) and that therefore the title of vitéz cannot be seen as a title of nobility. Is this assumption correct?
The Order of Vitéz
This Hungarian Order was initially founded in 1678 by Count Imre Thökölyde Késmárk, (1657-1705), a Hungarian nobleman, who lead a rebellion against Leopold I of Austria. This Holy Roman Emperor suspended the Constitution and placed Hungary under a Directorate headed by the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order. Thököly gathered behind him a force of disaffected Hungarians. This group was mainly composed of disbanded soldiers and peasants. Thököly’s followers were known as kuruc (crusaders). This designation was also given to the followers of another rebel leader, György (George) Dózsa (1470-1514).
The treaty signed between the Soviet Union and Hungarian Government of National Unity in Moscow on 20 January 1945, included a list of organisations that were not allowed to be re-established under Soviet rule. The National Council of Vitéz, governing the Order, was placed on this list (Prime Ministerial Edict no. 1945/529).
The word ‘vitéz‘ in late 19th and early 20th century Hungarian usage, meant ‘knight‘, or ‘hero‘. In the South Slavic languages; Bosnian, Croatian, Slovenian, Serbian and Macedonian, the word “vitez” literally means knight. In German, the title can be compared to “Ritter von” (Orden und Ehrenzeichen – Das Magazin für Sammler und Forscher, BDOS Jahrbuch 2003, p. 24). Therefore, the term “Vitézi Rend’ can be translated as ‘Order of Knights’. During Horthy’s reign, the title was recorded in official papers, for instance in birth, marriage or death certificates, and was usually written as ‘v.’ in front of the surname. In Hungary, the surname precedes the Christian name. In an honourable discharge document of a officer, the vitéz order is not mentioned as an award but as a title added to the name (Erik Naberhuis, The Hungarian Vitéz Order, 2005). Admission into the Order was accompanied by a land grant of 40 cadastral holds to an officer, 8 cadastral holds to other ranks based on need (1 cadastral hold = c. 1.43 acres). The honour of Vitéz was hereditary, and the grants (title, badge and land grant) were to be passed on by the recipient to his eldest son.
Hungarian law regarding noble titles
The knighting ceremony pictured above took place in 1929 in Székesfehervar, at the ruins of the original church where the early kings of Hungary were crowned and buried. The new vitéz’ were knighted with a sword, especially designed for the ceremony. This sword is now on display in the Military Museum of Hungary in Budapest.
Horthy was internationally recognised as His Serene Highness the Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary (and addressed as such by e.g. the United States). He was head of state and appointed to administer the state because the monarch was absent. There are – next to Horthy’s vitéz order – other examples of regents who founded orders, such as the Royal Guelphic Order (also known as the Hanoverian Guelphic Order) by George, Prince Regent in the name of his father King George III in 1815. In France, nobility and hereditary titles were abolished by the Revolutions of 1789 and 1848, but hereditary titles were restored by decree in 1852 and have not been abolished by any subsequent law. In order to grant noble titles it is not necessary to be a royal head of state. Therefore, theoretically, the President of the Republic could, in his capacity as head of state, create titles of nobility. The same counts for Horthy’s Hungary. It is not relevant that Horthy was not a king. He was head of state of a Kingdom.
In Hungarian law, Act IV of 1947 on the abolition of certain titles and ranks has abolished all Hungarian noble ranks and titles and prohibited their future bestowal. Article 1. § (1) of the Act declares annulment of the Hungarian aristocratic and noble ranks, such as duke, marquis, earl, baron, noble, primor, and primipilus (“lófő“). Article 3. § (1) prohibits the use of rank titles mentioned in 1. §. Furthermore, it explicitly forbids the use of the “vitéz” (“valiant”) title. § (2) prohibits the use of nobiliary particles, coats of arms, insignias or the use of any expressions referring to descent from a noble clan (“de genere“). § (3) forbids the use of honorifics referring to ranks or titles abolished by this Act, such as “főméltóságú” (His/Her Serene Highness), “nagyméltóságú” (His/Her Excellency), “kegyelmes” (His/Her Grace), “méltóságos” (The Honourable), “nagyságos” (The Worshipful), “tekintetes“, “nemzetes” etc.
The Act of 1947 remains in force today, although it does not contain any explicit sanctions in case the law is not observed. Act I of 2010 on the Civil Registry Procedure prohibits the registration of titles and ranks which would be contrary to Act IV of 1947 [55. § (1a)]. The 1947 Act has survived two challenges before the Hungarian Constitutional Court (HCC) in 2008 [Decision 1161/B/2008] and in 2009 [Decision 988/B/2009]. The Court has held in the 2008 decision that the prohibition of ranks and titles is intended to guarantee the equality of Hungarian citizens, as any discrimination based on hereditary titles and ranks would be contrary to the values of a democratic state and society based on equality; the Act itself is based on a firm set of values that forms an integral part of the values deductible from the Constitution [specifically Article 70/A paragraph (1) of the Constitution of Hungary at that time (Act IV of 1949)]. In the 2009 decision the HCC has found that the 1947 Act is not contrary to human dignity (the petitioner had claimed that the right to bear a name, which is deductible from human dignity, had been infringed by the Act), as nobility titles did not form official parts of a name, and that the state had the right to decide what it accepts as part of name and what it does not. The HCC has also referenced these decisions following the entry into force of the Fundamental Law of Hungary (2011, replacing the previous Constitution) in a recent decision [27/2015 (VII. 21.)] (Ágoston Mohay – Norbert Tóth, What’s in a name? Equal treatment, Union citizens and national rules on names and titles, working paper, University of Pécs, 2016, p. 9).
Conclusions
Horthy’s confirmation of the Order of Vitéz sometimes included noble predicates. Examples commemorating military action include: Captain Rihmer de Granasztó granted the title vitéz Gerlefalvi for his bravery at Gerlefalva, today Girovce, Slovakia.
Members of the Vitéz Order are addressed as “nemzetes úr/asszony”, in German: “Edler (-e) Herr/Dame”. Members with non-Hungarian names used to add the nobility suffix “-y” or “-i”. The characteristics of the vitéz capacity (hereditary, estate-related, the touch on the vitéz‘ shoulders with the sword at the bestowing of his knighthood, the title/suffix, the registration as a title instead of award in official papers and the emblem) are in full accordance with a title of nobility as we know it in for example the United Kingdom. The Act IV of 1947 also places the title on the same level as the noble titles. It is therefore not correct to say that the vitéz title is not a title of nobility. In the context of the mentioned Act, the history of the Order, its characteristics, and the recent Hungarian court decisions, the vitéz title should – from a historical perspective – be seen as a noble title. It is not recognized by the Hungarian state.
Sources
Hans Kroitzsch, Der stand der Tapferen, der ungarische Vitéz-orden; Rechtsdarstellung und -Vergleich, Dissertation Leipzig, T. Weicher, 1939.
Roman Freiherr von Procházka, Österreichisches Ordenshandbuch, Graf Klenau OHG, München 1974, S. 130.
Vitézek albuma / The Knightly Order of Vitez, 1939. The original that was used for the modern reprint by Pytheas had a turbulent life. The owner of the original used for reproduction was brave enough to save it at least three times by steeling it back during his expulsion from his former home under the communist regime in Hungary, digging it under ground and finally giving it to Pytheas for publishing. The publication includes 5000 portrait photos and 12000 entries of knights.
The Russian Imperial Romanov family (Tsar Nicholas II, his wife Tsarina Alexandra and their five young children Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia, and Alexei) were brutally murdered in Yekaterinburg on 17 July 1918. The Tsar, his family and some servants were shot, bayoneted and stabbed in a room of the “House of Special Purpose of the Ural Soviet Committee” by Bolshevik troops led by Yakov Yurovsky under the orders of the Ural Regional Soviet. Therefore, the last Tsar does not have any living descendants. There exist however, a number of claimants to the former Russian throne. In this article I will examine the legality of these claims.
Branches
St. George’s Hall, Grand Kremlin Palace. President Vladimir Putin with Prince Dmitri Romanovich of Russia and his spouse at a state reception devoted to National Unity Day. (Source: Wikipedia)
Since 1992, the Headship of the Imperial House of Russia has been claimed by two branches of the Romanov family: the Vladimirovichi Branch and the Nikolaevichi branch. The Vladimirovichi branch descends of Tsar Alexander II (1818-1881), the successor son of Tsar Nicholas I. The Nikolaevichi branch descends from Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolaevich of Russia (1831–1891), who was the third son and sixth child of Tsar Nicholas I of Russia and Alexandra Feodorovna.
I. Tsar Nicholas I (1796-1855) x Princess Charlotte of Prussia (1798-1860). Nicholas was born in Alexander Palace, Saint Petersburg, Russian Empire, the eldest son of Emperor Alexander III and Empress Maria Feodorovna of Russia (formerly Princess Dagmar of Denmark). Emperor Alexander III was born on 10 March 1845 at the Winter Palace in Saint Petersburg and succeeded this father Emperor Alexander II of Russia. Alexander II succeed Tsar Nicolas I, son of Paul I and Sophie Dorothea of Württemberg.
Children:
II a. Tsar Alexander II (1818-1881) x Princess Marie of Hesse (1824-1880). Son: Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich (1847-1909) X Duchess Marie of Mecklenburg-Schwerin (1854-1920) -> Vladimirovichi branch
II b. Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolaevich (1831-1891) x Princess Alexandra of Oldenburg (1838-1900) -> Nikolaevichi branch
Claimants
Vladimirovichi branch(es)
I. Cyril (Kirill) Vladimirovich, (Кирилл Владимирович Рома́нов), born 12 October [O.S. 30 September] 1876 – deceased 12 October 1938), Grand Duke of Russia (assumed the Headship of the Imperial Family of Russia and, as next in line to the throne in 1924).
HIH Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, Pope Benedict XVI and Grand Duke George Mikhailovich (Source: Paul Gilbert).
II a. Maria Kirillovna (1907–1951), eldest daughter of Kirill Vladimirovich (I). She was born in Coburg when her parents were in exile because their marriage had not been approved by Tsar Nicholas II. The family returned to Russia prior to World War I, but was forced to flee following the Russian Revolution of 1917.
III. Emich, 7th Prince of Leiningen (1926-1991), titular Prince of Leiningen from 1946 until his death, x Eilika of Oldenburg.
IV. Prince Karl Emich of Leiningen.
II b. Vladimir Cyrillovich, (Влади́мир Кири́ллович Рома́нов) born 30 August [O.S. 17 August] 1917 – 21 April 1992), claimed the Headship of the Imperial Family from 1938 to his death, Grand Duke of Russia (1938–1992).
III. Maria Vladimirovna (Мари́я Влади́мировна Рома́нова), born 23 December 1953 in Madrid), has been a claimant to the headship of the Imperial Family since 1992 Grand Duchess of Russia (1992–present).
IV. Grand Duke George Mikhailovich of Russia
Nikolaevichi branch
I. Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia (1992–2014)
II. Prince Dimitri Romanovich of Russia (2014–present)
III. Prince Andrew Andreevich (born 1923)
Applicable law
HSH Karl Emich Prince of Leiningen signs an address to Vladimir Putin aksing permission to assign a land in Ekaterinburg for creation of the Sovereign State Imperial See (Source: Wikipedia).
The Russian laws governing membership in the imperial house, succession to the throne and other dynastic subjects are contained in the Fundamental State Laws of the Russian Empire and the Statute of the Imperial Family (codification of 1906, as amended through 1911). These laws, referred to collectively as “the succession laws” in this essay, are sometimes described as “the Pauline law”, because their original version was promulgated in 1797 by Emperor Paul I.
At the present time, not one of the Emperors or Grand Dukes of Russia has left living descendants with unchallengeable rights to the Throne of Russia. When marrying a foreigner of Equal Rank, or member of a Reigning Family, family members were obliged to renounce their and their issue’s rights to the succession to the Throne of Russia.
Since 1917 the Russian Empire and its laws regarding social classes ceased to exist (Central Executive Committee and the Council of People’s Commissars, Decree on the Abolition of Social Estates and Civil Ranks, 10 November 1917):
All classes and class divisions of citizens, class privileges and disabilities, class organizations and institutions which have until now existed in Russia, as well as all civil ranks, are abolished.
All designations (as merchant, nobleman, burgher, peasant, etc.), titles (as Prince, Count, etc.), and distinctions of civil ranks (Privy, State, and other Councilors), are abolished, and one common designation is established for all the population of Russia-citizen of the Russian Republic.
The properties of the noblemen’s class institutions are hereby transferred to corresponding Zemstvo self-governing bodies.
The properties of merchants’ and burghers’ associations are hereby placed at the disposal of corresponding municipal bodies.
All class institutions, transactions, and archives are hereby transferred to the jurisdiction of corresponding municipal and Zemstvo bodies.
All corresponding clauses of the laws which have existed until now are abolished.
This decree becomes effective from the day of its publication, and is to be immediately put into effect, by the local Soviets of Workmen’s, Soldiers’, and Peasants’ Deputies.
Conclusions
In addition to the abolishment of the public laws regarding social classes, none of the current Romanov family members has unchallengeable rights to the Throne of Russia according to the Pauline Laws. Therefore the headship of the House of Romanov remains a political matter that cannot be determined from a legal perspective. The only authority that can restore the rights to the Russian throne is the Russian Federation. In my opinion, the imperial nobility and the titles it awarded may theoretically remain valid but for the Russian Federation they are quasi foreign.
Wapen van Franz Arnold von Wolff-Metternich zur Gracht, Fürstbischof van Paderborn en Münster, op de St. Josephskerk in Delbrück-Westenholz – foto: Daniel Brockpähler
Oorspronkelijk was het bij de invoering van de Wet op de adeldom de bedoeling om de regels over verwerving van adeldom door afstamming te codificeren zonder daarin enige verandering aan te brengen. Aan een historisch gegroeid instituut, dat zijn wortelen heeft in een traditie die juist ongelijkheid van mensen accentueert, moet men niet gaan sleutelen, aldus de mening van de toenmalige minister Dales. Maar het parlement wilde anders: door middel van amendementen werd bepaald dat ook door adoptie en dat door buiten huwelijk geboren kinderen adeldom kon worden verworven. Een amendement dat voorstelde om het mogelijk te maken, dat ook adellijke dames hun adel aan hun kinderen kunnen doorgeven werd echter verworpen. Een dergelijke mogelijkheid zou het aantal leden van de adel te sterk doen toenemen, zo vond het parlement destijds. Wat hieraan zo erg is, wordt niet duidelijk. Deze vrouw-denigrerende opstelling kreeg jaren later een merkwaardig gevolg.
Op 8 juli 2011 veroordeelde de kantonrechter in Maastricht een zoon van een tot de Nederlandse adel behorende adelijke gravin Wolff Metternich tot een geldboete van € 300, subsidiair zes dagen hechtenis voorwaardelijk met een proeftijd van twee jaren. De moeder voerde rechtmatig de titel ‘gravin’ en de zoon verkreeg bij Koninklijk Besluit de naam van de moeder, maar de minister weigerde de titel ook in te schrijven in de filiatieregisters. De rechter vond dat art. 435 Sr. was overtreden:
Artikel 435. Met geldboete van de tweede categorie wordt gestraft: 1 hij die zonder daartoe gerechtigd te zijn een Nederlandse adellijke titel voert of een Nederlands ordeteken draagt; (…)
Het betrof een oude familie die bij besluit van Keizer Ferdinand II van 21 januari 1637 (in de persoon van Johann Adolf von Wolff Mettemich) werd verheven tot baron van het Heilige Roomse Rijk der Duitse Natie. Bij besluit van Keizer Karel VI van 17 mei 1731 werd Franz Joseph von Wolff-Metternich zur Gracht verheven tot graaf van het Heilige Roomse Rijk der Duitse Natie. Bij KB van 8 april 1884 werd Levin Max Paul Maria Hubert graaf Wolff-Mettemich (tak uitgestorven in 1972) en bij KB van 10 december 1925 werd Hermann Joseph Ferdinand Aloysius Hubertus Maria Anna graaf Wolff-Metternich ingelijfd in de Nederlandse adel met de titel van graaf en gravin voor al hun wettige nakomelingen. De laatste van dit Nederlandse adellijke geslacht is Eugenie Maria Mechtildis Huberta Theodora Thaddeus gravin Wolff Metternich (1923). Dat een (biologische) nakomeling-naamsdrager wel beboet kan worden en een geadopteerd kind niet, bewijst dat het Nederlandse systeem eerder een historisch gedrocht is geworden dan een historisch instituut is gebleven.
In het boek van E.J. Wolleswinkel over het Nederlandse adelsrecht en in het betreffende jaarverslag van de Hoge Raad van Adel wordt beweerd dat de zoon de titel ‘graaf ‘ voerde. Dit is een bewuste onwaarheid omdat de heer Wolleswinkel bij de behandeling van de zaak gezapig achterin de zaal zat te genieten en dus goed van de feiten op de hoogte is. In de uitspraak is expliciet de titel ‘Graaf ‘ opgenomen, zoals de zoon ook expres voerde om geen verwarring te laten ontstaan. Dit lijkt op het eerste gezicht irrelevant, maar de schijn bedriegt. ‘Graaf’ met een hoofdletter is immers een Belgische adellijke titel en een Nederlandse voornaam, net als ‘Baron‘. De Nederlandse adellijke titel ‘graaf’ wordt met een kleine letter geschreven. Dit verschil wordt in het rode boekje altijd gemaakt. De rechter heeft dus in al zijn onnozelheid iemand bestraft die een Belgische adellijke titel in Nederland voerde, terwijl de wet alleen het wederrechtelijk voeren van een Nederlandse adellijke titel strafbaar stelt. Door J.W. Fokkens en A.J. Machielse is het verbod van art. 435 WvSr in het standaardwerk van Noyon, Langemeijer en Remmelink als volgt samengevat: “Reeds het voeren van een Nederlandse adellijke titel op zich zelf zou voldoende moeten zijn, tenzij er nochtans aanwijzingen zijn, dat men een buitenlandse titel voert, hetgeen dus met de in meer talen voorkomende titel baron het geval kan zijn (…)”. Bovendien is het voeren van “Graaf” als Nederlandse voornaam natuurlijk ook niet strafbaar. Een totale misslag dus van een rechter die er niks van snapte. Door Wolleswinkel is deze misslag op een goedkope manier verdraaid, nota bene in een proefschrift. Dit doet niet alleen ernstig afbreuk aan zijn wetenschappelijke en ambtelijke integriteit, maar ook aan zijn deskundigheid.
Literatuur:
T.J. Noyon, G.E. Langemeijer, J. Remmelink, Het Wetboek van Strafrecht (voortgezet door J.W. Fokkens en A.J. Machielse), Deventer (art. 435, suppl. 136, juni) 2006
December 2013 – Duke and Duchess of Castro received by Pope Francis at the Vatican
A King of Arms is a principal herald. Originally, a herald is an officer in medieval Europe charged with carrying messages to and from the commanders of opposing armies. In the late 14th century the authority of the heralds was expanded. When the crown ceased to grant arms directly, its powers were delegated to the heralds as commissioners, with authority to issue letters patent. In modern times, a herald is a professional authority on armorial history and genealogy. Heralds in Europe generally record arms and pedigrees, grant arms, take part in high ceremonial, and settle matters of precedence.
The Kingdom of Sicily did not have actual heralds (to grant coats of arms) in recent times, but rather a Commission for Titles of Nobility based in Naples until 1861.
Seal of the King of Arms of the Royal House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies
This Royal Commission was established by royal decree of 23 March 1833. By law of 26 April 1848 the responsibility for the Royal Commission was attributed to the ministry of the presidency of the Royal Council. By royal prescript issued by the Minister and royal secretary of state of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers of 29 July 1853 it was determined that the Royal Commission was competent to determine, so as to remove all doubt, who among the nearest relatives was eligible to aspire to the succession to a noble title. Therefore, the Royal Commission concerned itself with administration of certain nobiliary institutions and recognition of titles of nobility, with little regulation of armorial heraldry (coats of arms). See also J. Debrett, A Collection Of State Papers: Relative To The War Against France Now Carrying On By Great-britain And The Several Other European Powers, London 1794.
Appointment
Fernando Muñoz Altea is the current King of Arms of the Royal House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies. He is a Spanish/Mexican historian, specialised in the study of the aristocratic Spanish colonial families of the Americas. Muñoz Altea is born in Madrid (Spain) on 22 November 1925.
Fernando Muñoz Altea (left) with the Duke and Duchess of Castro.
Muñoz Altea was introduced to the study of heraldry, genealogy and nobility by Don José de Rújula y Ochotorena, Marqués de Ciadoncha, King of Arms of Spain’s king Alfonso XIII, Dean of the Corps of Chronicler King of Arms (Cuerpo de Cronista Rey de Armas), and by Don Julio de Atienza y Navajas, Barón de Cobos de Belchite, author of the well-known work “Nobiliario Español”. Both became his mentors and friends. On 10 November 1962 Muñoz Altea was appointed King of Arms of the Royal House of the Two Sicilies by HRH Prince Ranieri, Duke of Castro, Head of the Royal House. The Kingdom of Sicily did not have actual heralds (to grant coats of arms and issue certificates of nobility) in recent times, but rather a Commission for Titles of Nobility based in Naples until 1861. This commission concerned itself with the administration of certain nobiliary institutions, recognition of titles of nobility and heraldry. The appointment of the King of Arms continues this tradition. Certifications of arms and certificates of nobility issued by Muñoz Altea’s office in the name of the Royal House are, in effect, documents of a dynastic nature.
Fernando Muñoz Altea (r) and the Queen consort of Spain
The King of Arms of the Royal House of the Two Sicilies is the supreme officer of honour and counsel to the sovereign in all matters of armorial, genealogical, and nobility. He represents the Royal family in these matters. He does not have a governmental position but has the status of Private Officer of Arms.
In addition to his office as King of Arms, Muñoz Altea is delegate of the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George (Italian: Sacro militare ordine costantiniano di San Giorgio) being a Roman Catholic dynastic order of knighthood founded 1520-1545 by two brothers belonging to the Angeli Comneni family. The order is currently bestowed by the former royal House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies as heirs of the Farnese.
Historical work
Muñoz Altea is the author of several books, among them, the biographies of the 64 Viceroys of Mexico, The House of Los Pinos History (the Presidencial Residence of Mexico), the biographies of the Signers of the Independence Act, Los Virreyes de la Nueva España.
Fernando Muñoz Altea, signing a copy of Blasones y Apellidos.
Muñoz Altea is also the author of Perfiles genealógico-biográficos and Blasones y Apellidos, first and second edition. first published his work which included approximately 250 last names. The books sold out in 10 days. The goal of its republication in 2016 is to preserve the original work and subsequent extensive investigation. The remastered three boxed set includes more than 750 names, genealogy, origin, code of arms, heraldry of Spanish, English, Italian and French settlers in Spain and Latin America. Muñoz Altea has also ordered and cataloged several historic archives of many municipalities in Spain. He is recognized as an important historian and one of the main genealogist in both Spain and Latin America.
Distinctions
1951 Degree in History Hermanos Maristas de Madrid
Appointed Chronicler King of Arms of the Royal House of Borbon Two Sicilies since 1962
Antonino Paternò Castello, Marquis di San Giuliano (Catania, 9 December 1852 – Rome, 16 October 1914), Italian diplomat and Minister of Foreign Affairs.
It may be safely said that the legitimate claimants to the headship of formerly reigning families can continue the prerogative to award their dynastic Orders and, to the extent that the last constitutions of those particular monarchies so permitted, enjoy the right to create or confirm titles of nobility. From a historical point of view, such creations should be in accordance with the legal requirements established before the fall of the monarchy. This may be a problem because it may not always be possible for a head of a dynasty to comply with the precise requirements of the dynastic law. The disappearance of a historic office or position, however, is a fact that does not stand in the way of exercising the ancient dynastic rights, since these rights are connected to a specific family. To the extent that it is possible and practical, such requirements should be met and the various acts properly recorded (see for example W.H. Jones, Granting of Orders and Titles by H.M. King Kigeli V of Rwanda) in order to make the awards of Orders and titles in accordance with its historical origin and therefore acceptable.
This article examines the Sovereign right (fount of honour or in Latin: fons honorum) to grant noble titles (see appendix) and create and administrate dynastic orders of three members of the well known Sicilian House of Paternò Castello, more in particular of prince Roberto II Paternò Castello and his two sons, the princes Francesco and Thorbjorn Paternò Castello. The House of Paternò claims dynastic rights regarding the ancient kingdoms of Aragon, Majorca, Sicily, Valencia and Sardinia. In an earlier article I studied what is meant by a person having the fons honorum to grant e.g. titles. The research question of this article is: to what extent do Roberto II Paternò Castello and his two sons have the right to grand titles of nobility and the right to administer dynastic knightly orders? My approach will be to examine the relevant documents and literature and to answer the question from both a historical (legitimate) and legal point of view.
2. Family background
The House of Paternò Castello is among the most prominent historical families of Italy. Over the course of the centuries, the family held more than 170 main fiefs. The Paternò family were Peers of the Realm in Sicily until 1860 when the Kingdom of Sicily was annexed by the Kingdom of Sardinia to form the Kingdom of Italy in 1861. Since the beginning of the 18th-century members of the family possessed five hereditary seats in the Sicilian Parliament.
Palazzo Biscari, a private palace in Catania, Sicily, was built by the will of the Paternò Castello family, the princes of Biscari, starting in the late 17th century, and lasting for much of the following century.
The House of Paternò traces its origins to Prince Robert of Embrun and to the Sovereign House of Barcelona and Provence. The family arrived in Sicily in 1060 as part of the entourage of King Roger, seizing the castle of Paternò and assumed its name. The family obtained numerous honors and titles of nobility (see: Libro d’oro della nobiltà italiana). Amongst the principal titles of nobility held by the house of Paternò are: Princes of Biscari, Sperlinga (1627), Manganelli, Val di Savoja e Castelforte (1633); Dukes of Carcaci (1723), Furnari (1643), Giampaolo, Palazzo (1687), Paternò, Pozzomauro e San Nicola; Marquises of Capizzi (1633), Casanova, Desera (1806), Manchi, Regiovanni, Roccaromana, San Giuliano (1662), Sessa, del Toscano; Counts of Montecupo (1772); Barons of Aliminusa, Aragona, Spedolotto Alzacuda, Baglia e Dogana di Milazzo, Baldi, Belmonte, Bicocca, Bidani, Biscari, Burgio, Capizzi, Castania e Saline di Nicosia, Cuba, Cuchara, Cugno, Donnafugata, Ficarazzi, Gallitano, Gatta, Graneri, Imbaccari e Mirabella, Intorrella, Manchi di Bilici, Mandrile, Manganelli di Catania, Marianopoli, Mercato di Toscanello, Metà dei Terraggi di Licata, Mirabella, Motta Camastra, Murgo, Nicchiara, Officio di Mastro Notaro della Corte Capitaniale di Catania, Oxina, Placabaiana, Poiura, Porta di Randazzo, Pollicarini, Pozzo di Gotto, Raddusa e Destri, Ramione, Ricalcaccia, Salamone, Salsetta, San Giuliano, San Giuseppe, Sant’ Alessio, Scala, Schiso, Sciortavilla, Solazzi, Sparacogna, Spedalotto, Terza Parte della Dogana di Catania, Toscano; Lords of Baglio, Collabascia, Erbageria, Gallizzi, Mandrascate, Sciari, Sigona, del jus luendi of Camopetro (see: Libro d’oro della nobiltà italiana and real-aragon.org).
3. Criticism
The fons honorum of the House of Paternò is heavily challenged by Guy Stair Sainty, stating that as a junior member of a junior branch of the family don Roberto has no right to claim any prerogative pertaining to its chief, whether or not such prerogative actually exists (Guy Stair Sainty and Rafal Heydel-Mankoo, World Orders of Knighthood and Merit 2006).
In 1973 Lt Col Robert Gayre published a booklet in which he states that “certain observations should be made which, in our opinion, destroy completely these historical claims. The Papal legitimation which is brought forward to allow the desired descent was, in itself, insufficient to transfer any title to the Crown of Aragon. Furthermore, as Aragon did not have the Salic law, the descent of the crown could pass through a female line. Consequently, even if the legitimization had put Don Pedro Sancho into the line of succession, that succession would have gone through a female line on the extinction of the male descent – and so to the house of Paternò would have been out of succession in any case.”. (…) It is clear that no matter how distinguished is the house Paternò, it cannot claim to be the heirs of the Kingdom of the Balearic Isles or of Aragon.” (Lt Col R. Gayre of Gayre and Nigg, A Glimpse of the Chivalric and Nobiliary Underworld, Lochore Enterprises (Malta) Ltd. Valetta, Malta, pp. 27-28).
Therefore, the question arises if the Paternò claims can be taken seriously (both legitimate and legal).
4. Legitimacy of the claims
The Crown of Aragon became part of the Spanish monarchy after the Marriage of Isabella I of Castille and Ferdinand II of Aragon in 1469. This dynastic union laid the foundations for the kingdom of Spain. It is considered a de facto unification of both kingdoms under a common monarch. The Decretos de Nueva Planta (promulgated between 1707 and 1715) ended the kingdoms of Aragon, Valencia and Mallorca and the Principality of Catalonia, and merged them with Castile to officially form the Spanish kingdom (I. Ruiz Rodríguez, Apuntes de historia del derecho y de las instituciones españolas, Dykinson, Madrid, 2005, p. 179; Albareda Salvadó, Joaquim, (2010). La Guerra de Sucesión de España (1700-1714). Barcelona: Crítica. pp. 228–229. ISBN 978-84-9892-060-4). The Decretos de Nueva Planta were a number of decrees issued between 1707 and 1716 by Philip V, king of Spain (grandson of Louis XIV, during and shortly after the end of the War of the Spanish Succession by the Treaties of Utrecht (1713-1714). An important document in this respect is the will of James I.
Recognitions of the claims
At the end of the 18th Century, Ignazio Vincenzo Paternò Castello, prince of Biscari, a man who took a deep interest in history (see: Giuseppe Guzzetta, Per la gloria di Catania: Ignazio Paternò Castello Principe di Biscari), , made a visit to the Balearic Islands. The notes he made during this visit were the basis of the investigations of Francesco, duke of Caraci, in the succeeding century. The events that followed are described by the website real-aragon.org as followed (documents retrieved from mocterranordica.org):
A family conclave, on the initiative of the Duke of Carcaci Don Francesco Paternó Castello e Sammartino, was called on the 14th of June 1853, and held in Palermo in the palace of the Marchese di Spedalotto, head of one of the more senior branches of the family. After a review of the relevant evidence and a wide-ranging discussion, it was the finding of the conclave that the royal rights, which had been the subject of the debate, should be confirmed as belonging to Don Mario, son of the Duke of Carcaci’s younger brother Don Giovanni and his wife Donna Eleonora Guttadauro of Emmanuel Riburdone, the heiress of the House of Guttadauro. This conclusion which had in fact already received the assent of King Ferdinand II of the Two Sicilies (in whose realm they resided), subject to ratification by the conclave, was reached on the recognition that Don Mario alone had the royal blood of Aragon in his veins from two sources, through the separate descents of both his mother and his father from King James the Conqueror. A family pact was then signed, registered on 16 June 1853 and sealed in the Chamber of Seals and Royal Registers of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. It was decreed that during the minority of Don Mario, his father Don Giovanni should be Regent.
The sealing of the family pact was but one of a series of events following the death of the last Prince of Cassano which determined and confirmed the dynastic rights of the House of Paternó Castello Guttadauro. The final endorsement came on 2nd February 1860 when the Royal Commission for Titles of Nobility recommended to the new king Francis II that a petition by the Most Excellent Lord Don Mario Paternó Castello Guttadauro of the Dukes of Carcaci be granted. The petition was that the Prince should receive all confirmation of the Sovereign’s assent for those “chivalrous distinctions” which he wished to bestow. On 11th February 1860 the king approved the recommendation of the Royal Commission and directed the Secretary of State for Sicilian Affairs to give effect to his approval.
The designated Regent, Don Giovanni, worked vigorously to assert the dynastic rights of the family. In doing so he was crowning the work of his elder brother the great Duke of Carcaci who had died in 1854, having spent his life establishing his family’s Royal dynastic rights and regulating the succession.
This series of events shows that a number of members of the family established recognized claims regarding the dynastic rights of ancient independent kingdoms in Italy and Spain.
Succession
The line of succession is claimed by the House of Paternò as follows: After the death of the last Prince of Cassano the heads of the different branches of the Paternò family met in family council at Palermo and recognised that the family’s royal rights were vested in Don Mario Paternò Castello Guttadauro d’Emmanuel of Don Giovanni Paternò Castello iure maritale Prince of Emmanuel (son of Don Mario Guiseppe IV Duke of Carcaci) and his wife Eleanor Guttadauro, last of the house of the Princes of Emmanuel and herself a descendant of the Kings of Aragon (real-aragon.org). The succession of the claim follows both the male and the female line:
1859-1906 Mario I Paternò Castello, Prince of Emmanuel, m. Anna Spitaleri e Grimaldi of the Barons of Maglia and had issue:
1. Giovanni (-1900) sp. 2. Felice (-1880) sp. 3. Enrico Prince of Emmanuel d. 1908 and was succeeded by his sister 4. Eleanora who succeeded her brother
Eleanora Paternò Castello, princess of Emmanuel m. 1906 her second cousin Roberto I Paternò Castello, Regent 1908-1934 B. of Francesco Mario I (1850-1915) 9th duke of Carcaci and had issue:
Francesco Mario II Paternò Castello, prince of Emmanuel (1913-1968) succeeded when of age in 1934 m. (1) 1932 Angela Reboulet and had issue:
Roberto Enrico Francesco Mario Gioacchino Paternò Castello (1937-1996) married (1) Maria of the counts Fattori and has issue:
1. Aurora (1962-), Duchess of Palma 2. Francesco Nicola RobertoPaternò Castello (1964-), duke of Gerona m. on Jul 1990 Nob Guiseppina Campesi. Issue:
– Maria b. and d. 17 Mar 1991 – Roberto b. 15 Jul 1992 Duke of Palermo; – Domenico b. 4 May 2001 Duke of Ayerbe
Prince Roberto m. (2) Bianca Monteforte (1948-1990), marchioness of Montpellier and had issue:
1. ThorbjornPaternò Castello (1976-), duke of Valencia
Don Roberto Paternò Castello abdicated in favour of his first son as well as in favour of his second son. To his first son (Francesco) he left the claims to the prerogatives of the ancient kingdoms of Aragon, Majorca and Sicily. To his second son (Thorbjorn) he left the claims to the prerogatives of the ancient kingdoms of Valencia and Sardinia (see documents below).
Following these lines of succession, the legitimacy of the fount of honour of the House of Paternò in present circumstances is backed by the prestige of being a descendant in the female line of the early rulers of the ancient kingdoms of Aragon, Majorca, Sicily, Valencia and Sardinia, as well as the recognition of the fount of honour by the King of the Two Sicilies.
5. Legality of the claims
The pretensions of the House of Paternò Castello were also investigated more than once by various judicial courts in the 20th and 21st centuries. The little known 20th century cases were described as an example of the concept of fons honorum in and important Leiden PhD-thesis of Dr. Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof. This section of the present article is also based on this thesis.
The Fount of honour and the power to grant nobility played a role in the various Paternò cases in Italy. On 1 April 1952, the ‘Pretura Unificata di Bari’, evidently a court of first instance in criminal cases, had to decide a criminal case against a certain Umberto Z., a resident of Bari, who had publicly presented himself as Count of St. Ilarico. Z. was prosecuted for violating article 496 of the Italian Penal Code, as he was denounced by an anonimous person for having committed this crime.
Retaining the Fons honorum His decisive defense was inter alia that this title had been validly conferred upon him by the ‘Prince Emanuel Francesco Mario Paternò Castello di Caraci’. It appeared after a full investigation of all relevant documents by the Court, that this Prince belonged to one of the first families of Sicily, a family who are descendants of William I, the Conqueror, descendants of the Counts of Gascogne, the Kings of Navarre and Castil and that the Prince was a direct descendant of the Kings of Mallorca and the Baleares and was still Pretender to this throne. The Court found that on these grounds, he had retained his full rights of fons honorum, which meant according to the Court, that he had the power to nobilitate, to grant and confirm coats of arms and to award predicates, taken from places in which his ancestors in fact had exercised sovereign powers, not to mention his right to constitute, resuscitate, reform and exercise the ‘Grand Magistry’ of the chivalric Orders of the dynasty, which are passed from father to son as an insupprimable heredity of birth, which in the ascendants of the Prince had found in fact also a confirmation by Francesco II of Bourbon, King of the Two Sicilies, in 1860. Z. was acquitted.
Legitimate power to grant honours Then it was the Prince’s own turn. He was denounced on 14 July 1958 and prosecuted, as a resident of Brunate, before and condemned on 29 May 1962 by the ‘Pretore of Monsummano Terme’, the competent judge in first instance, to 4 months and 15 days imprisonment for having allegedly conferred false titles to a number of persons (Article 81 of the Penal Code and article 8 of Law 3.3.51 N.178.) but he was acquitted of several connected alleged counts (Articles 81cpv 640, 56, 640 of the Penal Code) for lack of evidence. He appealed with the ‘Tribunale di Pistoia’ and on 5 June 1964, this court of appeals confirmed his acquittal in first instance and annulled his condemnation in first instance. Basically, the Court said that the conferment to and acceptance of foreign honours, the honours conferred being foreign, by Italian citizens, was legal, while only the public use of these honours by Italian citizens was subject to authorisation by the President of the Republic, to properly safeguard the merits reserved to and represented by the honours bestowed by the Italian State. The Court had also investigated the fons honorum of the Prince and had found that he was the legitimate possessor of this faculty, which according to the Court was an expression of the honorific power of his house, which had been conserved by family tradition and had not suffered ‘debellatio’, the forced surrender of power. He was therefore entitled to grant the honours given by him, because the Court deemed that he had the legitimate power to grant these honours.
The quote from the website of the Corpo della Nobiltà Italiana Circolo Giovanilegt, section ‘Alcune domanda sulla nobiltà’, dated 24 December 2004, may further elucidate this point.
The Public Prosecutor did not institute cassation and it was therefore definitively established between the Italian State and the Prince that the Prince or his direct descendants, by using their fons honorum, can validly confer noble titles.
The courts involved had consulted independent experts who provided concurring opinions in arriving at their judgments. In this connection, reference can also be made to the well known legal notion of res judicata (the principle that a matter may not, generally, be relitigated once it has been judged on the merits), which is based on the principle of public order of lites finiri oportet, the policy that there must be an end to litigation.
6. Conclusions
Coat of arms of the pretender of the Crowns of Aragon, Majorca and Sicily
Some critics regarding the dynastic claims of the House of Paternò lack objectivity. Their statements often do not express the idea that judging the Paternò-claims should not be influenced by particular perspectives, value commitments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors. Stair Sainty’s remarks however are fully understandable. The question of whether a junior member of a junior branch of the family don Roberto had the right to claim any prerogative pertaining to its chief can be answered from both a legitimate and a legal point of view. From a legitimate perspective, there are a number of cases where a junior branch came to eclipse more senior lines in rank and power, for example, the Kings of Prussia and German Emperors who were junior by primogeniture to the Counts and Princes of Hohenzollern, and the Electors and Kings of Saxony who were a younger branch of the House of Wettin than the Grand Dukes of Saxe-Weimar. It is clear that the senior members of the House do not claim any rights regarding the former kingdoms of Aragon, Majorca, Sicily, Valencia and Sardinia. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate that members of a cadet branch of the House pursue these claims.
Robert Gayre’s remarks concern the succession in the female line. He claims that succession is not possible in the female line. The House of Paternò’s claim is in accordance with the agnatic (or semi-Salic) succession, prevalent in much of Europe since ancient times. This succession is reserved first to all the male dynastic descendants of all the eligible branches by order of primogeniture, then upon total extinction of these male descendants to a female member of the dynasty. Former monarchies that operated under semi-Salic law included Austria (later Austria-Hungary), Bavaria, Hanover, Württemberg, Russia, Saxony, Tuscany, and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. Now that it clear that no male successors of the former kingdoms of Aragon, Majorca, Sicily, Valencia and Sardinia exist, the succession in the female line should also be considered as legitimate.
Over the last 60 years, at least two independent judicial courts came to the conclusion that the fount of honour of the House is valid. It is very rare that the fons honorum of a family is backed by judicial decisions. As a matter of fact, the House of Paternò is one of the few royal Houses whose pretensions are not only raised by the family but also declared valid by the courts.
It is therefore surprisingly that in the 21st century the claims were again challenged in court in a matter regarding an interlocutory freezing order by an Italian public prosecutor. The seizure was lifted because the court (again) confirmed the fons honorum of the House of Paternò.
Well, on the basis of the voluminous documentation produced by the defense, the attribution to Paternò Castello of the power to confer honors, decorations and chivalric distinctions, cannot be doubted. The suspect is a descendent of the Paterno dynasty, whose consanguinity with the House of Aragon was recognized by numerous judicial findings; (…)
The House of Paternò Castello’s claims regarding the former kingdoms of Aragon, Majorca, Sicily, Valencia and Sardinia are therefore also perfectly legal.
Further reading
Abate, A. “Esequie del Duca di Carcaci” Catania 1854
Agnello, G. “Il Museo Biscari di Catania nella Storia della Cultura Illuministica del ‘700” in Archivio Storico della Sicilia Orientale, 1957, a. X p. 142
Amico, “Catana Illustrata”, 1741
Amico, “Sicilia Sacra” 1742
Maria Concetta Calabrese, I Paternò di Raddusa, C.U.E.C.M. 1998
G. Carrelli, Hauteville e Paternò, in Rivista Araldica, n.3, 1932
Enciclopedia Treccani Vol. XXVI, voce “Paternò”, curata dal prof. Giuseppe Paladino dell’Università di Catania
Francesco Gioeni, Genealogia dei Paternò, Palermo,1680
G. Libertini, Il Museo Biscari, Milano 1930.
V. Librando, Il Palazzo Biscari in Cronache di archeologia e di storia dell’arte, 3, 1964, p. 104 e ss.
Denis Mack Smith, “Storia della Sicilia Medioevale e moderna”, Universale Laterza (1970) pp. 367 e ss, 376-377.
Filadelfo Mugnos, Theatro Genealogico, 1650, s.v. “Paternò” p. 27
Filadelfo Mugnos, Teatro della nobiltà del mondo, 1654, s.v. “Paternò“, p. 297
Muscia, Sicilia Nobile, 1408, s.v. “Paternò
Scipione Paternò e Colonna, Storiografia della Casa Paternò, Catania. 1642
Francesco Paternò di Carcaci, I Paternò di Sicilia, Catania, 1935.
Vincenzo Notaro Russo, Genealogia della Casa Paternò, 1721, – Archivio Comune di Catania
F. Ughello, Antonius Paternò, nobilis neapolitanus”, Palermo,1729
Bruno Varvaro, Nuove indagini sulla contea di Paternò e Butera nel sec. XII, in Rivista Araldica, n. 4 – dicembre 1931
Bruno Varvaro, Hauteville e Paternò in Rivista Araldica, n. 1 – 20 gennaio 1933 *G.E. Paternò di Sessa, F. Paternò, “Dell’origine regia e aragonese dei Paternò di Sicilia”, in Rivista Araldica Fasxcicolo n. 6, giugno 1913
Salvatore Distefano, Ragusa Nobilissima – Una famiglia della Contea di Modica attraverso le fonti e i documenti d’archivio, contributo alla Historia Familiae Baronum Cutaliae, Ancillae et Fundi S. Laurentii, Richerche (2006), 109-160, a pag.128 si ricorda che Eleonora Paternò e Tornabene, vedova Biscari, sposò Guglielmo Distefano, duca di San Lorenzo.
Librando, V. “Il Palazzo Biscari” in Cronache di Archeologia e di Storia dell’Arte, 1964, n. 3 p. 104 e ss.
Guzzetta, G.: “Per la gloria di Catania: Ignazio Paternò Castello Principe di Biscari” Agorà, Luglio- settembre 2001
Garuffi, Archivio Storico della Sicilia Orientale, anno IX, 1912
Garuffi, Gli Aleramici ed i Normanni, Palermo 1910, Vol. I
La Dinastia Sovrana Paternò-Ayerbe-Aragona – L Pelliccioni di Poli
1956 Rome Nobiliario Internazionale – C Santippolito
1985 RAM Messina Corpus Historiae Genealogicae Italiae et Hispaniae – J.W. Imhof 1702 Nurnberg
Los Condes de Barcelona Vindicados Cronologia y Genealogia – Prospero de Bofarull y Mascaro Secretario de SM Archivero de la Corona de Aragon
1836 Barcelona Rivista Araldica 1922 p295-305, 343-346
Rivista Araldica 1913 p330-335
Anales de la Corona de Aragon by Jerònimo Zurita, Tom 1 libro IV cap.126
J Lee Shneidman, The Rise of the Aragonese-Catalan Empire 1200-1350, New York and London 1970
I wish to thank mr Stephen Screech for his contributions and help.
Appendix 1
A diploma of nobility, issued by Thorbjorn Paternò Castello typically contains the following considerations and conditions:
We, Our Royal Highness Thorbjorn I Paternò Castello di Carcaci Guttadauro di Valencia D’Ayerbe D’Aragona D’Emanuel etc… etc… For the grace of God and by right of hereditary succession, Sovereign Prince, Head of Line and Arms of the Royal House of Valencia and Sardinia, by land and by sea, to all those who will read the present paper, under the eternal protection of the Lord, Having evaluated the high merits and the illustrious and distinguished deeds of Faith, Virtue, Compassion, Feats and Intelligence and the worthy and beseeching requests by [name].(…)
We have decreed and proclaim, certain in science and out of our free will, with a decided and resolute spirit, for special grace and in the fullness of Our Royal Authority at every effect of the ius nobilitandi according to civil, religious, noble, heraldic and chivalric laws, and according to the ways and customs of any time and place, every Country and Nation, that We recognize, concede and bestow on [name] The title of [e.g. Count] with the predicate of [geographical name]. (…)
With the right to transmit them perpetually from male to male in order of primogeniture, and, in the absence of heirs, to the first born of the closest line, and, in the absence of males, una tantum to females. Both male and female collaterals have the title of “Noble of the“, as is the custom, and in any case, the title of “Don” and “Donna” to the most beloved Don [name] [title, e.g. Count] of [geographical name]of the Sovereign House of Valencia (…).
Ordinary tribunal of Rome Section for appeal from attachment measures
Composed by the Messrs. Judges: Dott. Filippo Steidi President Dott. Roberta Conforti Judge Dott. Laura Previti Judge Gathered in the council chamber, under dissolution of the reservation undertaken at the hearing of 19 December 2013, have pronounced the following
ORDER on the appeal from a preventive attachment measure, presented on behalf of Paterno Castello Dei Duchi di Carcaci Principi d’Emmanuel Thorbjorn Francesco Giuseppe Nicola Roberto, dated 9 December 2013, regarding a decree issued with respect to the suspect dated 26 November by the GIP of the Tribunal of Rome – – – – –
The objection is well founded and is admitted. Paterno Castello Dei Duchi di Carcaci Principi d’Emmanuel Thorbjorn Francesco Giuseppe Nicola Roberto has instituted appeal against the decree indicated above, by virtue of which are subjected to preventive attachment the bank accounts with Cariparma in the name of the Sovereign Order of St John of Jerusalem with Branch 4 of Reggio Emilia and with Banca Intesa in the name of Delio Cardilli with branch Roma Ostia 12, in connection with the crime of forming a criminal association aimed at committing crimes of serious fraud through the constitution of a false chivalric order, of having committed continuous fraud in unison as well as the crime of illicit conferment of decorations under art. 8 of law 178/1951, better described in the provisional indictments which are deemed integrally inserted here. The defense has contested the existence of suspicion of crimes committed, attaching a voluminous documentation, having examined which, the Court deems the exception well founded. In the first place it must become clear that the Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem Knights of Malta O.S.J., according to the accusatory hypothesis mainly organized and promoted by Paterno Castello and used to confuse an indeterminate multitude of subjects, thus as to draw unjust profits through the conferment of false decorations, is a real order and operating at a supranational level falling under the list of the non authorized “non-national Orders”, as appearing from the annex C to f.n. M_D GMIL III 10 4/051891 of the Ministry of Defense, produced by the defense in Annex 7. To correctly define the question, it is useful to recall the norms issued in the matter of conferment and use of decorations which were introduced after the birth of the republican order with law 178/1951 which, by instituting the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic, sanctioned the general prohibition for Italian citizens if not authorized by the President of the Republic at the proposal of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to use in the Republic’s territory honors, decorations or chivalric distinctions conferred to them in non-national Orders or by Foreign States (art. 7). The norm maintains the dispositions valid before with regard to the use of honors and chivalric distinctions of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. Article 8 of the law cited on the other hand forbids the conferment of honors, decorations and chivalric distinctions on behalf of entities, associations and private parties.
On the basis of a systematic reading of the two norms, it appears that the subject law distinguishes with regard to the penal effects between the activity of conferment of honors and their use. In the case of Non-national Orders or foreign States, the conferment of honors, of which it may not be excluded this can also take place on the national territory, remains indifferent to the Italian national order which is only concerned with the use, which is prohibited, unless, it is repeated, the use is authorized. In all other cases (institutions and private parties) the possibility of conferment, with the measure of the criminal sanction, is fundamentally excluded From this follows the permissibility, in abstracto, of the conferment of the honors granted by the O.S.J., being a non-national Order. It remains in concreto to verify the possibility of Paterno Castello to confer these honors, or rather the entitledness of the suspect to the ius honorum (the faculty to create nobles and chivalric arms) which transfers itself iure sanguinis to the proper descendants, in the person of the Head of the Name and Arms of the Dynasty. Well, on the basis of the voluminous documentation produced by the defense, the attribution to Paterno Castello of the power to confer honors, decorations and chivalric distinctions, cannot be doubted. The suspect is a descendent of the Paterno dynasty, whose consanguinity with the House of Aragon was recognized by numerous judicial findings; the Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem Knights of Malta, whose Grand Master was H.R.H. Prince Don Roberto II Paterno Castello di Carcaci Ayerbe-Aragona, ascendent of the present suspect, to whom the Grand Mastership was transferred by public act, is a branch historically derived from the original Hospital Order of Malta; from which follows that Paterno Castello as Grand Master of the Order and titulary to the fons honorum (including the ius honorum and the ius maiestatis) had and has the power to confer honors of the same Order. Furthermore, in view of the existence of the Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem, the question might be raised of induction in error of ignorant subjects beneficiaries of the honors, through taking advantage of the similarity (in the symbols and the insignia) with the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, whose honors can be used on Italian soil. However, this hypothesis can already be excluded by reading the document ” list of documents to be annexed to the request for admission” which is furnished to who wishes to become part of the order and wherein the difference between the O.S.J. and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta is expressly set out. In conclusion, the decree objected to, is annulled because of the non existence of suspicion of committed crimes with respect to the alleged crimes.
FOR THESE MOTIVES, ANNULLS
The decree objected to and orders the Chancery to do the necessary Rome, 19 December 2013 The Editing Judge
Deposited at the Chancery Rome, 31 December 2013 The Chancellor
Adélina Soulouque (b. c. 1795-after 1859), née Lévêque, was Empress Consort of Haiti from 1849 until 1859, as wife of Faustin I of Haiti.
The order or line of succession is the sequence of members of a royal family in the order in which they stand in line to the throne. The basis for the succession is often determined in the nation’s constitution. As a matter of personal interest, I have examined the line of succesion of the emperors of Haiti, starting with Faustin I.
The Constitution made the Imperial Dignity hereditary amongst the natural and legitimate direct descendants of Emperor Faustin I, by order of primogeniture and to the perpetual exclusion of females and their descendants. The Emperor could adopt the children or grandchildren of his brothers, and become members of his family from the date of adoption. Sons so adopted enjoyed the right of succession to the throne, immediately after the Emperor’s natural and legitimate sons (Les constitutions dHaiti, 1801-1885).
Art. 108. — La dignité impériale est héréditaire dans la descendance directe, naturelle et légitime, de Faustin Soulouque, de mâle en mâle, par ordre de progéniture, et à l’exclusion perpétuelle des femmes et de leur descendance.
Art, 109. — La personne de l’Empereur est inviolable et sacrée.
Art. 110. — L’Empereur Faustin Soulouque est proclamé sous le nom de Faustin 1er.
Art. 112. — L’Empereur pourra nommer son successeur, s’il n’a point d’héritier mâle et s’il n’a point de fils adoptif. Cette nomination devra être secrète et enfermée dans une cassette déposée au palais impérial de la capitale.
Art. 115.— A défaut d’adoption et de nomination par l’empereur, le grand conseil de l’Empire nomme son successeur. Jusqu’au moment où l’élection du nouvel empereur est consommée, le grand conseil exerce le pouvoir exécutif.
Art. 134. — Les princes et les princesses de la famille impériale ne peuvent se marier sans l’autorisation de l’Empereur.
Art. 135. — Les enfants mâles deviennent membres à vie du Sénat lorsqu’ils ont atteint l’âge de 18 ans.
Art. 145. — Il est institué un grand conseil de l’Empire, composé de neuf grands dignitaires choisis par l’Empereur. L’Empereur préside le grand conseil ou en délègue le pouvoir à un de ses membres.
Art. 146. — Les attributions du grand conseil sont :
1° D’exercer l’autorité exécutive dans le cas où il y aurait empêchement pour l’Empereur de l’exercer lui-même;
2° De nommer le successeur de l’Empereur et d’exercer le pouvoir exécutif dans les cas prévus par l’article 115;
3° D’élire le régent dans le cas de l’article 141 ;
4° D’être le conseil de la régence ;
5° De procéder à l’ouverture de la cassette qui renfermera le nom du successeur de l’Empereur, conformément à l’article 112.
Sword with Scabbard of Faustin I (1782–1867), Emperor of Haiti. Inscription: Inscribed on the guard beneath the crowned coat of arms of Haiti: DIEU MA PATRIE ET MON EPEE LIBERTE INDEPENDENCE; on the obverse of the blade: HOMMAGE DU G•O•D’ HAITI; on the reverse of the blade: A L.’ ILL. FAUSTIN SOULOUQUE EMPEREUR D’ HAITI (The Metropolitan Museum of Art)
Genealogy
In order to see how the line of succession has developed, I have tried to make a fragment of the genealogy of the imperial family.
I. Marie-Catherine Soulouque. b. at Port-au-Prince, Saint-Domingue, 1744. A slave of the Mandingo race. She d. at Port-au-Prince, 9 August 1819.
IIa. H.I.M. Faustin-Élie Soulouque (Faustin I), by the grace of God , and the Constitution of the Empire, Emperor of Haiti. b. at Petit-Goâve, 1782. Freed by Felicite Sonthonax 29 August 1793. Fought in the War of independence as a private soldier 1803-1804, Cmsnd. as Lieut. and ADC to General Lamarre 1806, Lieut. Horse Guards under Presdt. Petion 1810, prom. Capt., prom. Maj. under Presdt. Rivière-Hérard, prom. Col. under Presdt. Guerier 1843, prom. Brig-Gen. and later Lt-Gen. and supreme commander of the guards under Presdt. Riche. Became President of the Republic of Haiti (*1) and took the oath of office 2 March 1847.
Crown of Faustin-Élie Soulouque, decorated with emeralds, diamands, garnets, and other jewels. It had been exhibited in the Musée du Panthéon National Haïtien (MUPANAH)
Proclaimed as Emperor Faustin I, by the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies, and assumed the style of His Imperial Majesty, 26 August 1849. Crowned at Port-au-Prince, by the Abbe Cessens according to Episcopalian (Franc-Catholique) rites, 18 April 1852. Attempted to conquer, but failed to take, Santo Domingo in 1856. Founded the Military Order of St Faustin and the Civil Haitian Order of the Legion of Honour, 21st September 1849. Also founded the Orders of St Mary Magdalen and St Anne, 31 March 1856. Deposed 15 January 1859.
Founded the Imperial Academy of Arts in 1856. Fled to the French legation, seeking asylum, but was later taken into exile in Jamaica, aboard a British warship 22 January 1859 (1). Married at Port-au-Prince, December 1849, H.I.M. Empress Adélina (b. ca. 1795), raised to the title of Empress of Haiti with the style of Her Imperial Majesty 26th August 1849, Crowned with her husband at Port-au-Prince 18th April 1852, daughter of Marie Michel Lévêque. After the death of her husband, Adélina fled to the Dominican Republic and then went to Spain, where she was received by the King of Spain himself. She remained at the Royal Palace of Spain in Madrid from 1868 to 1874.
Adélina then left for France and remained there from 1875 to 1877. She ended her days in Rome, Italy in 1879, until her death at the age of about 84 years. She was buried first in Rome near the Vatican and then in Haiti near her husband in 1907, 28 years after his death (*2).
Daughter:
1) H.I.H. Princess Célita Soulouque, m. Jean-Philippe Lubin, Count of Petionville, who was very rich. Together they had four children: three daughters and a son who died at birth.
Adopted daughter:
2) H.S.H. Princess Geneviève Olive [Madame]. b. 1842 (quinze à seize ans in September 1858), d. 1936. Adopted by Emperor Faustin, raised to the title of Princess and granted the style of Her Serene Highness 1850. m. Amitié Lubin (b. ca. 1800), son of Jean Philippe Vil Lubin, Count de Pétion-Ville, by his wife, Elizabeth Ulcénie, née Amitié (*3). Princess Olive travelled around the world: France (1893-1894); Portugal (1894-1899) with her daughter Marie; Canada 1901; America (Philadelphia) (1902-1913); Dominican Republic (1913-1914); France (1914-1918); Dominican Republic (1918-1923); Thailand (1923-1927) as a guest of a friend of the Royal Family; Australia (1927-1929); Haiti 1929-1936) (*4) [Oliva Soulouque, Biografia].
Prince Mainville Joseph and Prince Jean Joseph Soulouque
IIb. (Prince) Jean-Joseph Soulouque. He d. after 1850, having had issue, eleven sons and daughters, including:
1. H.I.M. (Prince) Mainville-Joseph Soulouque, pretender under the name Joseph I, m. 1854 with Princess Olive (IIa,2). He did participate in some attempts to restore the monarchy in Haiti, without success and d. in 1891. Children:
a. “S.A.S. la princesse” Maria Soulouque, d. Portugal 1899.
b. H.I.M. (Prince)Joseph Soulouque, “prince impérial”, (born 1856) pretender to the throne as Joseph II, left for France with his mother in 1914, fought for the Allies in WWI, returned to the Dominican Republic in 1918 and lived there until his death on 18 June 1922. In 1930 Princess Geneviève Olive received a letter from the new pretender to the throne, her great grandson of 31 years told her that his wife was pregnant. Their names are unknown to me.
c. “S.A.S. le prince” Faustin-Joseph Soulouque, lived in the United States (Philadelphia) until his death in 1913.
d. Marie Adelina Soulouque, daughter of Mainville-Joseph Soulouque with Marie d’Albert. Daughter: Marie Adelina Soulouque, who married Johan Carl Sictus Weijgel Quast (*1, *5), pharmacist [Santa Domingo].
Son?
De Curaçaosche Courant 24-07-1852 delpher.nl
H.I.H. Princess Célita Soulouque is said to have been the only daughter of Faustin. It has been reported in the Curacaosche Courant of 24 July 1852 that Faustin made preparations for his son “Bobo” to marry the actress Lola Montez. In 1846, the actress arrived in Munich, where she was discovered by and became the mistress of, Ludwig I of Bavaria. Ludwig made her Countess of Landsfeld on his birthday, 25 August 1847. Along with her title, he granted her a large annuity. In 1848 Ludwig abdicated, and Montez fled Bavaria, her career as a power behind the throne at an end. From 1851 to 1853, Lola Montez performed as a dancer and actress in the eastern United States, one of her offerings being a play called Lola Montez in Bavaria.
Interesting comments by mr Christopher Buyers (FB 27 January 2016):
Bobo was actually an escaped galley-slave who had been “candidate” for president several times, but was persuaded to join Soulouque’s cause. After the latter became Emperor, Bobo was ennobled and created a Prince. In April 1851, while serving as Governor and C-in-C of the Northern Province, he was suspected of rebellion and summoned to court. Fearing a certain death, he fled. Later captured and executed along with some other generals the following year. He is mentioned by Helen O’Donnell Holdredge in her biography “The Woman in Black: The Life of Lola Montez”, Putnam, 1955. There, he is described on p 141 as Grand Chamberlain to Faustin I, sent by him to persuade Lola Montez to visit his court in Haiti. Prince Bobo had a son named Alexandre, who was in turn the father of Dr Pierre François Joseph Benoit Bobo aka “Rosalvo”, who was a leading politician, Secretary of State for the Interior, and leader of the revolution which toppled President Sam II in 1915, prompting the US to intervene and occupy Haiti to prevent him becoming president.
(*3) Roman Catholic Church Kingston (Jamaica) Marriages 1839-1869. Act of marriage: Pierre Joseph Amitie Vil Lubin, native of Haiti, lawful son of His Lordship Earl Philippe Vil Lubin and by his wife, Elizabeth Ulcénie. Lord Amitie Vil Lubin, maried on 26 December 1861 HSH Princess Geneviève Olive Soulouque, native of Haiti, lawful daughter of Emperor Faustin Elie Soulouque and Empress Adélina Lévêque. Witnesses: Alexandre Bravo, Charles Grant, widow Lubin, Amitie Lubin, widow of Louis Lubin, Elizabeth Grant, James Male, Jean Baptiste Vil Lubin, George Clermont, A.M. Lhoste, Felicite Faustin, Ameisima Amitie, Elina Mainvaille, L. Bedonet, Elizabeth Bourke, Caroline Crosswell. Source: website of Thierry Jean-Baptiste Soulouque Vil Lubin.
Constitutions of the World from the late 18th Century to the Middle of the 19th Century, The Americas. Multi-volumed work Constitutions of the World from the late 18th Century to the Middle of the 19th Century Sources on the Rise of Modern Constitutionalism / Quellen zur Herausbildung des modernen Konstitutionalismus. Ed. by Dippel, Horst The Americas Vol. 10 Constitutional Documents of Haiti 1790–1860 / Documents constitutionnels d’Haïti 1790-1860 / Verfassungsdokumente Haitis 1790-1860 Ed. by Dubois, Laurent / Gaffield, Julia / Acacia, Michel
Hartog, [dr.] Johan Curaçao; From Colonial dependence to autonomy. Oranjestad, Aruba: De Wit publishers 1968 (Faustin’s exile on the island of Curaçao)
Discovery (1)
I recently discovered that Faustin I was a member of a Masonic lodge in France. This was in tradition with other Haitian leaders. In 1743, after the death of Louis de Pardaillan de Gondrin , duke of Antin, Louis de Bourbon-Condé (1709-1771), count of Clermont, prince of the blood and future member of the Académie française, succeeded him as “Grand Master of all regular lodges in France”. He remained in office until his death in 1771. Around 1744 there were around 20 lodges in Paris and 20 in the provinces. Lodges in the provinces were most often founded by Masons out of Paris on business or via the intermediary of military lodges in regiments passing through a region – where a regiment with a military lodge left its winter quarters, it was common for it to leave behind the embryo of a new civil lodge there. The many expressions of military origin still used in Masonic banquets of today date to this time, such as the famous “canon” (cannon, meaning a glass) or “poudre forte” (strong gunpowder, meaning the wine).
Discovery (2)
Imperial and Military Order of St Faustin
In France, only decorations recognised by the Chancery of the Legion of Honour may be worn publicly, and permission must be sought and granted to wear any foreign awards or decorations. Failure to comply is punishable by law. A non-exhaustive list of collectively authorised orders is published by the French government. According to a report in Chambers’s Journal of Popular Literature, Science, and Art, XI, jan-jun-1859, pp. 150-152), the Order of Saint Faustin seems to have been recognized by the Legion of Honour. Further research is being conducted.
Today, in the UK and in certain Commonwealth realms and in the Philippines, a number of men are entitled to the prefix of ‘Sir’, including knights bachelor, knights of the orders of chivalry and baronets. The dignity of knighthood carries the prefix of ‘Sir’, but unlike a baronetcy it is only held for life. Although in the UK foreign nationals can be awarded these honours, they are explicitly excluded using the prefix. Instead they use the associated post-nominal letters. British nationals who have been awarded an honour by another country including countries of which the Queen is head of state, other members of the commonwealth and by all other foreign countries may not use any associated title, that the award might bestow, in the United Kingdom.
United Kingdom
Baronet (Bt.) is a British hereditary dignity, first created by King James I of England in May 1611. The baronetage is not part of the peerage, nor is it an order of knighthood. A baronet ranks below barons but above all knights except, in England, Knights of the Garter and, in Scotland, Knights of the Garter and of the Thistle. In England and Ireland a baronetcy is inherited by the male heir, but in Scotland ladies may succeed to certain baronetcies where it has been specified at the time of their creation.
Knight of the Order of the Garter (KG). The Order of the Garter is the most senior and the oldest British Order of Chivalry and was founded by Edward III in 1348. The Order, consisting of the King and twenty-five knights, honours those who have held public office, who have contributed in a particular way to national life or who have served the Sovereign personally. The patron saint of the Order is St George (patron saint of soldiers and also of England) as well as of all orders of chivalry. The spiritual home of the Order is St George’s Chapel, Windsor.
Knight of the Order of the Thistle (KT). The Order of the Thistle represents the highest honour in Scotland. It is second only in precedence in the UK to the Order of the Garter.The Order honours Scottish men and women who have held public office or who have contributed in a particular way to national life.The date of the foundation of the Order is not known, although legend has it that it was founded in 809 when King Achaius made an alliance with the Emperor Charlemagne.
Knight Commander or Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath (KCB/GCB). Originally membership comprised the British monarch, a great master of the order, and 36 knights. Membership regulations have undergone numerous changes over the centuries. Three classes of knights were instituted in 1815 to commemorate the end of the Napoleonic Wars. Corresponding classes were added in 1847 for a civilian division. The order currently includes the monarch, members of the royal family, foreigners (known as “honorary members”), and the classes of knights—115 Knights or Dames Grand Cross (GCB), 328 Knights or Dames Commanders (KCB or DCB, respectively), and 1,815 Companions (CB). Investiture into the two highest classes (Knight/Dame Grand Cross and Knight/Dame Commander) means induction into knighthood, if the candidate does not already hold that honour, and the right to the title of “Sir” or “Dame” as appropriate. (Knights and Dames Grand Cross, together with Knights of the Garter and of the Thistle, may be granted the use of supporters with their arms.) The officers of the order are the Dean (usually the Dean of Westminster), Bath King of Arms, Registrar, Usher of the Scarlet Rod, and Secretary. Ladies are admitted to all classes of the order.
In 1725 King George I created a new military Order and called it the Order of the Bath; the civil branch was established in 1847. Broadly speaking, the Order is awarded to officers of the armed forces, and to high-ranking civil servants.
The Order now consists of the Sovereign, a Great Master (presently the Prince of Wales, who was installed in 1975), and three classes of members, each of which is divided into civil and military divisions: Knights and Dames Grand Cross; Knights and Dames Commanders; Companions.
Knight Commander or Knight Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of St Michael and St George (KCMG/GCMG). William IV instituted the three classes of knights of the order, which (in descending order of rank) are Knight Grand Cross or Dame Grand Cross (GCMG), Knight Commander or Dame Commander (KCMG or DCMG, respectively), and Companion (CMG). Membership is limited to 120 Knights Grand Cross, 390 Knights Commanders, and 1,775 Companions. Conferment of the two highest classes of the order entails admission into knighthood, if the candidate is not already a knight or dame, and the right to the title of “Sir” or “Dame” as appropriate. (Knights and Dames Grand Cross may be granted the use of supporters with their arms.) The order’s officers are Prelate, Chancellor, Secretary, King of Arms, Registrar, and Gentleman Usher of the Blue Rod.
Knight Commander or Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order (KCVO/GCVO). The Royal Victorian Order is given by The Queen to people who have served her or the Monarchy in a personal way. These may include officials of the Royal Household, family members or perhaps British Ambassadors who have helped organise a State Visit to a particular country. The Order was founded in April 1896 by Queen Victoria as a way of rewarding personal service to her, on her own initiative rather than by ministerial recommendation. The Order was, and is, entirely within the Sovereign’s personal gift. The anniversary of the institution of the Order is 20 June, the day of Queen Victoria’s accession to the throne.There have never been any limits on the number of appointments made. Today, people receive their award either privately from The Queen or another member of the Royal Family, or during an Investiture.
Knight Commander or Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire (KBE/GBE). The Order of the British Empire recognises distinguished service to the arts and sciences, public services outside the Civil Service and work with charitable and welfare organisations of all kinds.Today the Order of the British Empire is the order of chivalry of British democracy. Valuable service is the only criterion for the award, and the Order is now used to reward service in a wide range of useful activities. Citizens from other countries may also receive an honorary award, for services rendered to the United Kingdom and its people. There are more than 100,000 living members of the Order throughout the world.
Knight Bachelor (Kt.). A knighthood (or a damehood, its female equivalent) is one of the highest honors an individual in the United Kingdom can achieve. While in past centuries knighthoods used to be awarded solely for military merit, today they also recognize significant contributions to national life. Recipients range from actors to scientists, and from school head teachers to industrialists. A knighthood cannot be bought and it carries no military obligations to the Sovereign. The Queen (or a member of the Royal Family acting on her behalf) confers knighthoods in Britain, either at a public investiture or privately. The ceremony involves the ceremonial dubbing of the knight by The Queen, and the presentation of insignia.
Antigua and Barbuda
In Antigua and Barbuda, Knights Companion of the The Most Distinguished Order of the Nation may use the prefix ‘Sir’ in front of their forename, and their wives may use the title ‘Lady’ in front of their husband’s surname. Similarly, Dames Companion of the Order may use the title ‘Dame’ in front of their forename. No specific privilege exists for their husbands. The Order of the National Hero was first established and constituted by the Parliament of Antigua and Barbuda under the National Heroes Act 1994, in 1998 reestablished and most recently amended in 2015.
The honour of the Order of National Hero may be conferred upon any person who was born in Jamaica or is, or at the time of his or her death was, a citizen of Jamaica and rendered to Jamaica service of a most distinguished nature. National Heroes are entitled to be styled “The Rt Excellent” and the motto of the Order is “He built a city which hath foundations”.
Knight Commander, Knight Grand Cross, or Knight Grand Collar of the Order of the Nation (KCN/KGCN/KGN). The honour of the Order of the Nation (ON) may be conferred upon any Governor-General of Jamaica and upon any person who has been appointed as Prime Minister of Jamaica, not being a person upon whom the honour of the Order of National Hero has been conferred. A member of the Order is styled “The Most Honourable” and the spouse of the member is also entitled to be so styled. The motto of the Order is “One Nation Under God”
Members of these orders are not entitled to the prefix of Sir, contrary to my earlier remarks.
Australia
Order of Australia (AK; for male Australian subjects only). The Queen is the Sovereign Head of the Order of Australia and the Governor-General is the Principal Knight or Dame, as the case may be, and as Chancellor is charged with the administration of the Order. The Official Secretary to the Governor-General is the Secretary of the Order of Australia. From 1976 to 1986 there was provision for the appointment of Knights and Dames in the Order of Australia. On 25 March 2014, Knights and Dames were reinstated as the highest awards in the Order of Australia. Knights and Dames are already included in the Order of Wearing Australian Honours and Awards above Companion. Please note: this gain has been suspended by the current Prime Minister Mr. Malcolm Turnbull and his government in November 2015.
Barbados
Knight of St. Andrew of the Order of Barbados (KA). The Order of Barbados was instituted by Letters Patent on July 25, 1980, as part of the Barbados National Honours and Decorations System. The Knight or Dame of St. Andrew is the highest order given by the Queen of Barbados, and is awarded for “extraordinary and outstanding achievement and merit in service to Barbados or to humanity at large”.
New Zealand
Knight Companion or Knight Grand Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit (KNZM/GNZM).The New Zealand Order of Merit was instituted by Royal Warrant dated 30 May 1996. The Order is awarded to those “who in any field of endeavour, have rendered meritorious service to the Crown and the nation or who have become distinguished by their eminence, talents, contributions, or other merits”. On 10 April 2000 it was announced that The Queen had approved the discontinuation of titles (damehoods and knighthoods) within the Order. The new designations were principal companions and distinguished companions. The first appointments to the re-designated levels were made in The Queen’s Birthday Honours on 5 June 2000.
On 8 March 2009 it was announced that The Queen had given approval for the reinstatement of the titles of Knight and Dame Grand Companion and Knight and Dame Companion. The first appointments to the redesignated levels were made in The Queen’s Birthday Honours on 31 May 2009.
Philippines
Knights of the Order of Knights of Rizal prefix Sir to their forenames and add the relevant post-nominal according to their rank at the end of their names while wives of Knights prefix “Lady” to their first names. The Order of the Knights of Rizal is a fraternal and cultural organization created to honor and uphold the ideals of Philippine national hero Jose Rizal. Established on December 30, 1911, the organization was granted a legislative charter by the President of the Philippines as a civic and patriotic organization on 14 June 1951 by Republic Act 646. Although the Order is not a state entity, it enjoys state recognition. This means the state recognizes the insignia corresponding to its ranks. The sword and kneeling ceremony during dubbing states: “Vested upon the By-Laws of the Order, I dub (name of new member) – By virtue of the Order (he taps left shoulder with sword). Arise, Sir (name of new member).” (excerpt by Sir Justo P. Torres jr., KGCR Supreme Commander, Manila, Philippines, December 30, 1985). The prefix is mentioned in the diploma of the recipient. Some notable members of the Order, such as King Juan Carlos of Spain, former American Foreign Secretary and Nobel peace prize laureate, Henry Kissinger and other noted Filipinos who are recipients of the Order’s decoration certainly give credence and dignity to it. The Archbishop of Manila is also a member of the Order dispelling any notion that the Order could be Masonic. The late Jaime Cardinal L. Sin was honored with the highest degree of the Knighthood. He also blessed the building where the Order established its international headquarters in Manila. Other famous members include:
Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George
The first known British subject to be invested into the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George was Lieutenant Colonel John Pritchard in 1798. Captain Sir William D’Arley was also invested in 1801, receiving the decoration from King Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies. In the same year, he obtained a Royal Licence from King George III of Great Britain which permitted him to be styled as “Sir William” and to wear the Order’s decoration at Court. However, please note that this is not currently being practiced.
A protocol from Buckingham Palace and the Foreign Office preventing such usage of foreign knighthoods was published in The London Gazette of 1 June 2016. It states that in line with the long-established convention concerning foreign titles, British nationals who have been awarded an honour by another country may not use any associated title, that the award might bestow, in the United Kingdom. Only those British nationals, including dual nationals, awarded a British Knighthood or appointed to a British Order of Chivalry as a Dame, may use the title ‘Sir’ or ‘Dame’ in the United Kingdom.
Comments by mr Christopher Buyers:You may like to check the Antigua & Barbuda section again. Commentary more relevant to Jamaica seems to have crept in. The 2016 Gazette notification does rely on some ‘smoke and mirrors’ and ‘eyewash’ to make its case. Perhaps because the writer knew that the reader would not necessarily understand the finer points of the Law. In English and British law there is, in fact, no such thing as a foreigner. There is only “subject” and “alien”. HM’s subjects from Commonwealth realms, indeed even those citizens of Commonwealth republics of which she is not Head of State, are not aliens in UK law. They are entitled to join the armed forces, be appointed to judicial positions, stand for parliament and take part in elections. The traditional exclusion regarding “foreign” titles is one that applied to aliens only.
I would like to gratefully and sincerely thank mr Christopher Buyers, for his contributions.
“Nowadays, the Dutch orders of chivalry are the recognized successors of the old religious military orders from the time of the crusades, not to be confused with orders of knighthood, which are state merit orders. Chivalry is a criterion of the Dutch Supreme Council of Nobility. It refers to a noble order which has formulated a clear admission policy in its charter like the Order of Saint John in the Netherlands and the Order of Malta. Any organization in the Netherlands is free to call itself an order of chivalry, although the guidelines of the Supreme Council of Nobility state that it will belong to the unrecognized orders.”
Is dit wel juist, kan men zich afvragen?
Johanniter Orde
Het is in deze blog wat onzinnig om diep in te gaan op de geschiedenis van de verschillende Orden die zich als Orde van Sint Jan presenteren (of iets wat hier op lijkt) omdat hierover al zeer veel is geschreven. Eigenlijk is met betrekking tot oorsprong van de Johanniter Orde in Nederland een enkel feit van belang. De Johanniter Orde in Nederland bij Koninklijk Besluit no. 33 van 5 maart 1946 gesticht, na het verbreken van de banden met de Duitse Johanniter Orde. Een opvolger van de Orde die in de middeleeuwen bekend stond als Orde van Sint Jan is het zeker dus niet. Het is niet integer dat de Orde de illusie propageert een oude Orde te zijn. Eerlijker zou het zijn om te spreken van een Orde die de ridderlijke traditie probeert hoog te houden. Daarvan zijn er echter honderden. Het Koninklijk Besluit geeft het geheel natuurlijk wat meer distinctie, maar niet meer historie.
SMOM
De “Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta” (Italiaans: “Sovrano Militare Ordine Ospedaliero di San Giovanni di Gerusalemme di Rodi e di Malta”) wordt door de onderzoeker (voorlopig althans) kennelijk ook gezien als een opvolger van de Orde uit de tijd van de kruistochten. Naar de SMOM en andere Orders van Sint Jan is diepgaand onderzoek verricht door mijn collega Hans Hoegen Dijkhof. Hij komt tot de navolgende conclusie in zijn proefschrift: The Legitimacy of Orders of Saint John (p.218):
“The interim conclusion is that the original Order founded around 1050, carried on till 1154, respectively 1798 and in the course of its history, Anglican and Protestant split-offs occurred. In 1798, Napoleon dissolved this original Order. Czar Paul I was then validly elected in 1798 as Grandmaster of what States and Priories have seen as the original Order continued. Then in 1803, a ‘coup d’état’ by Pope Pius VII, facilitated by Czar Alexander I and a marionet provisional Sacred Council, took place and this started a new Papal Order in 1803. The new Order started in 1798 under Czar Paul I, in principle legally remained established in St. Petersburg and carried on somehow in Russia during the rest of the 19 th century.”
Napoleon heeft deze antieke Orde dus in ieder geval in 1798 opgeheven. In 1803 heeft de Paus een nieuwe Orde gesticht met een andere naam. Ook de SMOM is dus geen rechtstreekse opvolger van de oude middeleeuwse Orde. Wel kan worden gesteld dat zij in de traditie hiervan treedt, maar daarin is de SMOM niet exclusief, zoals blijkt uit onderstaande jurisprudentie.
In 2012 verloor de SMOM een belangrijke dispuut (door de SMOM zelf getart) over de rechtmatigheid van het exclusieve gebruik van het witte Maltezer kruis. Inzet was dat de SMOM de oudste rechten op het merk- en beeldrecht had. De US Federal Appeals Court heeft in zijn uitspraak (kort samengevat) bevestigd dat de Russische en de Vaticaanse Orde van Sint Jan, voorafgaande aan 1798 dezelfde wortels hebben en dat de SMOM heeft gefraudeerd bij de registratie van haar merken en schrapte de desbetreffende registraties. De SMOM had dus niet de exclusieve historische rechten; zie:
De Hoge Raad van Adel is ingesteld bij Besluit van de Soevereine Vorst van 24 juni 1814, nr. 10. De Wet op de adeldom van 10 mei 1994 (Staatsblad 360) regelt de samenstelling en bevoegdheid van de Raad. Als vast college van advies over de uitvoering in zaken van bestuur van het Rijk (ingevolge art. 79 van de Grondwet) adviseert de Raad (www.hogeraadvanadel.nl):
de minister van Algemene Zaken over naamgeving, titulatuur en wapenverlening van leden van het koninklijk huis, het Rijkswapen en de Nederlandse vlag;
de minister van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties over adelszaken en de samenstelling en wijziging van de wapens van publiekrechtelijke lichamen;
de minister van Justitie over verzoeken tot naamswijziging, waarbij de namen van adellijke geslachten of van heerlijkheden betrokken zijn;
de minister van Defensie over ontwerpen van emblemen en medailles van de krijgsmachtsonderdelen.
Op het gebied van erkenning van Orden heeft de Raad dus geen enkele wettelijke taak. Het probleem hier is dat er geen enkele staatsautoriteit bestaat. De Kanselarij der Nederlandse Orden gaat hier immers ook niet over, zoals wellicht gedacht kan worden. De Kanselarij is bij Koninklijk Besluit (KB) van 3 juni 1844 ingesteld. Zij is de overheidsorganisatie die adviseert over voordrachten voor Koninklijke onderscheidingen en verantwoordelijk is voor het beheer en de uitgifte van Koninklijke onderscheidingen. De Kanselarij heeft de volgende taken:
adviseren aan de regering over het instellen of wijzigen van onderscheidingen en herinneringstekenen;
ondersteunen van het Kapittel voor de Civiele Orden en het Kapittel der Militaire Willems-Orde bij het adviseren over voordrachten voor Koninklijke onderscheidingen;
registreren en archiveren van verleende onderscheidingen;
verwerven, beheren en verstrekken van orde- en herinneringstekenen en bijbehorende oorkondes;
innemen van ordetekenen en registratie.
Het instellen van Ridderorden is dus geen taak van de Hoge Raad van Adel of de Kanselarij der Nederlandse Orden. Zij hebben dus ook geen autoriteit op het gebied van de erkenning hiervan. Maar wie is dan wel de autoriteit op dit gebied?
Echte ridderorden
Nederland kent twee soorten orden: orden die door de regering en orden die door het hoofd van de regerende dynastie persoonlijk worden toegekend. Bij het verlenen van onderscheidingen uit de eerstgenoemde categorie is het ministerieel contraseign vereist, bij de tweede categorie, de zogenoemde huisorden, niet. Hoewel de tekst dit niet uitdrukkelijk bepaalt, heeft art. 111 Grondwet (“Ridderorden worden bij de wet ingesteld.”) alleen betrekking op de eerste categorie. De drie momenteel bestaande ridderorden in deze zin zijn de Militaire Willemsorde (ingesteld bij wet van 30 april 1815, Stb. 33), de Orde van de Nederlandse Leeuw (ingesteld bij wet van 29 september 1815, Stb. 47), en de Orde van Oranje-Nassau (ingesteld bij wet van 4 april 1892, Stb. 55).
Behalve ridderorden bestaan er ook andere koninklijke onderscheidingen – niet zijnde ridderorden –, die sinds 1817 zijn ingesteld. Deze onderscheidingen dienen in het algemeen ter beloning van of ter herinnering aan een bepaalde daad of een bepaald feit. Zij worden ingesteld bij koninklijk besluit. Een reëel verschil tussen de bij wet ingestelde ridderorden en de bij koninklijk besluit ingestelde koninklijke onderscheidingen bestaat vooral hierin dat deze laatsten geen ‘ridderorden’ in de zin van de wet zijn (zie www.nederlandrechtstaat.nl).
De Johanniter Orde, de Orde van Malta en de Duitse Orde behoren tot de door de Nederlandse regering erkende ridderlijke orden (zie: Besluit draagvolgorde onderscheidingen van 25 juli 2013). Het zijn nieuw opgerichte Orden, hetgeen destijds door de overheid bij de oprichting uitdrukkelijk werd vermeld (zie: E. Renger de Bruin, p. 599). Het zijn ook geen ridderorden.
Conclusies
Mijn conclusie is dat geen van de hiervoor genoemde Orden eerlijkerwijs kan stellen dat hij een rechtstreekse historische opvolger is van de Orde van Sint Jan uit de tijd van de kruistochten. Dat deze pretentie wel bestaat, is (diplomatiek gezegd) niet correct (www.johanniterorde.nl): “De Johanniter Orde is een Ridderlijke Orde met een protestants-christelijke grondslag. De Orde is bijna duizend jaar geleden door kruisvaarders gesticht als de Ridderlijke Orde van het Hospitaal van Sint Jan en heeft dan ook een rijke historie.“
Naast de officiële ridderorden die door de wet zijn ingesteld, zijn alle “Orden” min of meer in gelijke zin legaal. De veronderstelling in de samenvatting van het onderzoek van Versélewel de Witt Hamer is dus niet correct. De Johanniters en de SMOM zijn geen “erkende” opvolgers van de oorspronkelijke orden uit de kruistochten, hoewel de Johanniter, Maltezer en Duitse Orde door de Nederlandse regering als ridderlijk zijn erkend.
Er zijn – naast de orden met enig indirect historisch fundament – veel fantasie-orden, zonder enige historische grondslag. Deze zijn (vanuit een internationaal perspectief) deels opgesomd in het standaard (maar niet foutloze) werk van Stair Sainty. De vraag naar de historische legitimiteit is dus wel interessant. Wellicht dat Versélewel de Witt Hamer hier op doelt. Het is te hopen dat de onderzoeker de moed heeft om een transparante en vernieuwende kijk op het fenomeen “ridderorde” te geven, zonder te vervallen in het nakwekken van gekleurd onderzoek van anderen. Gelet op de uitstekende reputatie van Versélewel de Witt Hamer, acht ik de kans van slagen groot.
H.J. Hoegen Dijkhof, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John. A historical and legal analysis and case study of a para-religious phenomenon, Amsterdam 2006.
M. Heshusius, Honderd jaar Johanniter Orde in Nederland 1909-2009. Zwolle, Waanders 2009.
Onlangs is het proefschrift van Versélewel de Witt Hamer uitgegeven door het Koninklijk Nederlandsch Genootschap voor Geslacht- en Wapenkunde. Het is een indrukwekkende studie geworden met veel materiaal dat weinig bekend was. Het boek is prettig leesbaar en opvallend neutraal. Kennelijk heeft Versélewel de Witt Hamer een objectieve houding tot het onderwerp weten te bewaren. Het is hem gelukt om met een zekere afstand naar het fenomeen ‘ridderlijke orde’ te kijken. De studie heeft een flinke diepgang en een goede opbouw.
Ik kan een ieder aanbevelen om dit verfrissende standaardwerk aan te schaffen. Het boek kan worden besteld via de webwinkel van het KNGGW.
Duitsland, dat moet worden beschouwd als rechtsopvolger van het Heilige Roomse Rijk der Duitse Natie, heeft de adel als stand in 1919 bij wet afgeschaft. Artikel 109, derde lid, tweede volzin, van de Grondwet van de Republiek Weimar van 1919 Weimarer Reichsverfassung) luidt immers als volgt: “Öffentlich-rechtliche Vorrechte oder Nachteile der Geburt oder des Standes sind aufzuheben. Adelsbezeichnungen gelten nur als Teil des Namens und dürfen nicht mehr verliehen werden”. Openbare voorrechten van geboorte en stand zijn middels deze bepaling sedertdien blijvend opgeheven. Onder meer de voorheen adellijke titel “Freiherr” maakt vanaf 1919 uitsluitend onderdeel uit van de geslachtsnaam. De overgang van dit onderdeel van de naam wordt in Duitsland niet beheerst door adelrechtelijke bepalingen, maar door regels van naamrecht, zoals geregeld in het Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch. De vraag kan worden gesteld hoe het zit met het onterecht voeren van adellijke titels in Duitsland. Doorgaan met het lezen van “Is het in Duitsland strafbaar om ten onrechte een adellijke titel te voeren?”
In een zaak die in 2012 bij de rechtbank in Haarlem diende (ECLI:NL:RBHAA:2012:BW5042), ging het over de vraag of kinderen binnen hetzelfde gezin met dezelfde achternaam, allemaal hetzelfde adelspredicaat moeten kunnen voeren. Vader en grootvader hadden wel het predicaat maar het (klein)kind (verzoeker) niet.
De casus
De grootvader van verzoeker had een verzoek tot inlijving in de Nederlandse adel ingediend in 1994, vijf maanden voordat de Wet op de Adeldom (Woa) van kracht werd. Hoewel de (positieve) beslissing op het verzoek van de grootvader is gegeven na de invoering van deze wet, te weten 3 oktober 1995, was op dat verzoek niet het nieuwe, maar het oude adelsrecht van toepassing. Verzoeker, geboren in 1990, viel als erkende (klein)zoon om die reden buiten de werking van het toen geldende adelsrecht (aldus de Hoge Raad van Adel). Hoewel de Woa overgang van adeldom op buiten huwelijk geboren kinderen momenteel wel mogelijk maakt (artikel 3), heeft dit artikel volgens een uitspraak van de Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State van 5 januari 2005 geen terugwerkende kracht en geldt daarom alleen voor kinderen geboren na de invoering van de wet, aldus de Hoge Raad van Adel.
Verzoeker had met brief van 17 maart 2008 verzocht om inschrijving in het filiatieregister van de Nederlandse adel, waarop bij brief van 29 april 2008 negatief is gereageerd. Verzoeker verzoekt de rechtbank de ambtenaar van de burgerlijke stand te gelasten zijn geboorteakte aan te vullen in die zin dat op de geboorteakte het predicaat jonkheer wordt aangetekend.
Als het gaat om de erfopvolging binnen vorstenhuizen, wordt regelmatig een beroep gedaan op de zogenoemde Lex Salica. De Frankische koning Chlodowich I (Clovis) gaf tussen 507 en 511 de opdracht de zogenoemde Lex Salica op schrift vast te leggen. Het is interessant na te gaan in hoeverre een beroep hierop gerechtvaardigd is.
Verspreiding van de Lex Salica
De Salische Franken kwamen in 358 het Romeinse Rijk binnen bij Toxandrië (een gouw die zich uitstrekte van de Kempen in het zuiden tot de Maas in het noorden). In 440 stichtten ze een koninkrijk met als centrum Doornik. Ze breidden hun rijk steeds verder uit naar het zuiden. De Salische Franken leefden voorafgaande aan de Grote Volksverhuizing rond de IJssel, maar zij verplaatsten zich later naar het tegenwoordige Vlaanderen en Frankrijk. Onder Karel de Grote werden stammen in Duitsland, Zwitserland en Noord-Italië onderworpen. Hierdoor kwam een groot deel van West-Europa onder de Salische Wet (zie het proefschrift van W. J. D Boone, De Franken van hun eerste optreden tot de dood van Childerik, Groningen 1954). Doorgaan met het lezen van “Lex Salica”
In de literatuur over adel wordt regelmatig de term “fons honorum” gebruikt. Uitgereikte (adellijke) titels en decoraties worden pas als “echt” gezien als de verlenende persoon of instantie een fons honorum heeft. Mij is nooit geheel duidelijk geworden wat hieronder binnen een juridische context wordt verstaan. In een Italiaanse zaak, de zogenaamde Paterno-case, wordt wel duidelijk dat het al dan niet hebben van een fons honorum van groot belang is als het gaat om misleiding en fraude bij het verlenen van onderscheidende kwalificaties als “baron” en “ridder in de Orde van (…)”.
Juridische positie
De term “fons honorum” ben ik niet tegengekomen in nationale of internationale wetgeving. De verschillende definities hebben dan ook geen actuele juridische grondslag. Fons honorum is naar mijn mening gekoppeld aan het internationaal staatsrechtelijke beginsel van soevereiniteit omdat het recht om eerbewijzen te verlenen naar zijn aard een vorm van erkenning impliceert door een staat. Voor een definitie van het begrip staat wordt vaak artikel 1 van de Conventie van Montevideo aangehaald (Convention on the rights and duties of states; Montevideo, 26 december 1933 (165 LNTS p. 19). Het betreft hier de bekendste formulering van de criteria voor het ontstaan van een staat; Werner 2007, p. 166):
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations.
In de onderlinge relaties tussen staten betekent soevereiniteit dat staten niet in een hiërarchische verhouding tot elkaar staan, maar dat zij in juridische zin aan elkaar gelijk(waardig) zijn (zie ook: art. 2, eerste lid, Handvest van de VN: “De Organisatie is gegrond op het beginsel van soevereine gelijkheid van al haar leden”). Doorgaan met het lezen van “De term “fons honorum””
H. K. Ostenfeld
Fra mine Ungdomsaar har jeg interesseret mig for de geistlige Ridderordener, og som Medlem af den russisk orthodoxe Kirke studerede jeg særlig den Souveraine Malterridderordenes Forhold til Kejser Poul 1. af Russland som 1798 blev valgt til Ordenens Stormester. Efter Kajser Pouls Død existerede den russiske Provins af Ordenen videre og selv efter at Kajser Alexanser 1 – som ikke var Ordenens Stormester og derfor (siden) uden Berretigelse greb ind i den souveræne Orden og indstillede dens Virksomhed i Rusland, existerede den dog videre om end det var en passiv Tilværelse. Nye Medlemmer kunde ikke optages, men de arvelige Komturer muliggjorde Ordenens fortsatte Existens, i Rusland ogsaa efter 1817. Se nærmere herom i den sidste Redegørelse.
Net als met de weigering van de adeldom via de vrouwelijke lijn werd ‘de geest der wet’ belangrijker geacht: “. Bij de Grondwetsherziening van 1887 werd het kiesrecht uitgebreid tot kiezers die ‘over tekenen van welstand en bekwaamheid beschikten’, maar er werd ook uitdrukkelijk opgenomen dat alleen mannelijke ingezetenen kiesrecht hadden. Er zou dus een nieuwe grondwetswijziging nodig zijn om vrouwenkiesrecht mogelijk te maken. Pas in 1917 werd in Nederland het passief kiesrecht voor vrouwen ingevoerd. Vrouwen konden toen voor politieke functies gekozen worden, maar mochten niet zelf stemmen. In 1919 kregen vrouwen eindelijk het felbegeerde actief kiesrecht, waardoor ze zelf mochten stemmen.
Nobiliary law - Adelsrecht - Droit nobiliaire 
