During state visits by a head of state to a foreign country, 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 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 the 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 who 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.
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) 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. He had the day before 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: 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 – in the best case – have made no contribution to The Netherlands.
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 samen 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).
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, who is one of the most senior founding entrepreneurs in the German media sector (Kiev, 2021). Hunzinger is a well-known 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 century 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.
Cultural preservation
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 of 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 Portugalare modernised versions of the aforementioned Foros of the Royal House of Bragança. They no longer enjoy state-recognition and bestow no privileges, but remain nonetheless monuments of Portugal’s monarchical history and part of its rich cultural heritage.
Legal aspects
The Portuguese government correctly states that monarchs in exile do not loose 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 governement 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.
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 ranks of Knight-Grand Collar, Knight-Grand Cross and Knight-Grand Officer elevate the recipient into 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 in 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). I could not find permission for any of these foreign Orders (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, 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 as valid this practice. 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 manikongoaround1509, 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 and commander in the Order of Leopold, 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 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.
Procedure
There is a more or less standard procedure for transferring ownership of a feudal barony.
Once the deposit and the intermediary’s (seller’s agent) buyer’s premium have been paid, the intermediary will instruct the selling solicitor to issue the title deeds and the drafts of the transfer documentation. The buyer’s solicitor examines and reports to the buyer on the terms of the titles (the bundle of rights in the property that the buyer will own). If these documents prove existence and ownership of the barony, the buyer’s solicitor will draw up the contract for the purchase on the buyer’s behalf and deal with the assignation (transfer) of the barony.
When the legal procedure reaches the final phase and a date of completion is agreed the buyer’s solicitor will ask the buyer to transfer the balance of the purchase price, the Scottish Barony Register registration dues and his/her solicitor’s fee to our client account. The funds are then paid to the seller’s solicitor in exchange for the signed Assignation. When the purchase is completed the buyer’s solicitor registers the Assignation in the Scottish Barony Register. The seller cannot draw down the purchase price until the Assignation has been registered.
Scottish Barony Register
The Scottish Barony Register is a Private Limited Company by guarantee. The company was incorporated on 22 November 2004 to enable registration of barony titles as a remedy for the introduction of the mentioned Abolition of Feudal Tenure Act. The purpose of registration in the Register is to prevent the sale of irregular titles. The people behind the Register are listed in the registers of Company House (Company number SC276349).
Register of Feudal Lords and Barons of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
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 recognise the holder of a barony as qualifying to petition for Scottish arms, but only as long as the conveyance has been accepted by the Scottish Baronial Register. What has been changed is the fact that Lyon will no longer mention the dignity of feudal baron on 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), 2e hertog en 3e graaf van 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.
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, 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.
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 buitengewoon interessante proefschrift over Nederlandse ridderlijke orden, komt jhr. dr. Versélewel de Witt Hamer tot een aantal belangrijke 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) op dit punt 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.
De erkenning door de regering van de huidige Duitse Orde als ridderlijke orde is twijfelachtig
De Duitse orde, balije Utrecht, is op 27 februari 1811 door Napoleon opgeheven en weer hersteld 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. Onder de term “Wij” moet worden verstaan: Koning plus Ministers. In het licht van deze Koninklijke Besluiten zou kunnen worden gezegd dat de huidige Duitse Orde van regeringswege is erkend. Het Besluit draagvolgorde onderscheidingen heeft dan ook vanuit dit perspectief een wettelijke grondslag om de Duitse Orde op te nemen. Aan de andere kant is de huidige ‘Ridderlijke Duitsche Orde, Balije van Utrecht’ een particuliere vereniging, die is ingeschreven bij de Kamer van Koophandel (inschrijvingsnummer: 40478069). Of met de wet van 1815 ook deze vereniging is erkend (en de erkenning dus zonder meer doorloopt), kan worden betwijfeld omdat ook geredeneerd kan worden dat een nieuwe rechtspersoon is ontstaan.
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 Grootkruis
1.2 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 Grootkruis
6.2 Commandeur
6.3 Ridder
7
Orde van Oranje-Nassau
7.1 Ridder Grootkruis
7.2 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 Grootkruis
9.2 Groot Erekruis
9.3 Erekruis
10
Kruis van Trouw en Verdienste van de Huisorde van Oranje
10.1 in goud
10.2 in zilver
11
Eremedaille voor Voortvarendheid en Vernuft
12
Eremedaille voor Kunst en Wetenschap
13
Kroonorde
13.1 Grootkruis
13.2 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 zilver
20.2 in brons
C2. Onderscheidingen voor verdiensten
21
Erepenning voor Verdiensten jegens Openbare Verzamelingen (Museumpenning)
21.1 in goud
21.2 in zilver
21.3 in brons
22
Onderscheidingsteken ter erkenning van uitstekende daden bij watersnood verricht (Watersnoodmedaille)
22.1 in zilver
22.2 in brons
23
De Ruytermedaille
23.1 in goud
23.2 in zilver
23.3 in brons
24
Medaille van het Nederlandsche Roode Kruis (Regeringsmedaille)
25
Erkentelijkheidsmedaille
25.1 in zilver
25.2 in brons
26
Ereteken voor Verdienste (Defensie)
26.1 in goud
26.2 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 that 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 an 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 a 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 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. Who ever 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 business man 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 (that is registered by a state, in e.g. 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 appearantly 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 a 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 to 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 a 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 a 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 (10-09-1948, n. 5143 bis, n. 23828/48 R. G., della VII sezione della pretura di Roma): “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 […].”
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. K. They state that (letter 1) the request by mr. K. 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. K. 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. K. then called with the ministry to obtain a letter that there is 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 total 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 that 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. 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 trail 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 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 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 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. Nonetheless, the Pope suspended the order (see appendix 1, below for the details).
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 extend 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, and now in the Bibliotèque Méjanes at Aix-en-Provence. Cited AQC, vol 81 (1968). Cf. Mackey’s Encyclopedia for a 1680 birth date).
It was in Paris where 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 of 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 (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):
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. Some time 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.
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 Hesse Cassel. 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 Templars 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 rivival of the Templar Order. In 1804 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).
In 1804 two French Freemasons, Philippe Ledru (1754-1832) and Bernard-Raymond Fabré-Palaprat (1775-1838) founded the Order of the Temple (l’Ordre du Temple). Fabré-Palaprat was made its grandmaster. The order attracted 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).
Palaprat’s order was not a continuity of the Knights Templar, although Fabré-Palaprat fabricated the so-called Larmenius Charter. This document, started in Latin in 1324, listed 22 successive Grand Masters of the Knights Templar from 1324 to 1804, with Fabré-Palaprat’s name appearing last on the list.
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 by the Greek archbishop a Templars’ cross (left in Acre by Richard Lionheart) in gratitude. This cross opened the 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 and taking over the old activities of the order of Saint-John (since Malta was then in the hands of the British). He managed to get Augustus-Frederick, Duke of Sussex (1773-1843) interested in 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, but 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’
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 “Legitimate” and Masonic priories. 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), having as its ‘Regent’ Théodore Covias. 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 is the further development of the Order. Vandenberg 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. Vandenberg was one of the eight founding members of the Sovereign and Military Order of the Temple in 1932, 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, he issued a Decree transferring the office and the custody of the archive to Antonio de Sousa Fontes, Grand Prior of Portugal. 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, but, not being able to swim, he drowned. Vandenberg 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. The International Order (OSMTH) became divided. Some Priories rejected De Sousa Fontes’ leadership. Two years later 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. His actively pursued memberships 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 remained a member of the Supreme Council. Formerly he had been Grand Prior of the U.S. 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. Edelen was chosen the first Grand Prior. The Prince Regent 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 the 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 did not bring back unity to OSMTH.
Dom Fernando Pinto Pereira de Sousa Fontes, The 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 held in London. In 1995, a proposed agenda, calling for basic reforms, was sent to De Sousa Fontes, now calling himself 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 were 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. Besides the fate of De Sousa Fontes, during the Salzburg meetings, the future structure of the Order and its administration was discussed. On 2 November 2 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. The separation from De Sousa Fontes was settled 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.
Conclusions and recommendations
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 Napoleon Bonaparte, by imperial decree 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. In my opinion, it is therefore a legitimate commemorative order. Wikipedia’s description of the OSMTH is incorrect.
I recommend the following regarding the future development of the OSMTH.
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 singer René Murat Auberjonois. There are also 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 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 and of the imperial family, the Great Duke of Berg and Clèves, King of Naples and the Two Sicilies, member of the imperial family.
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 sould be related to the persons mentioned in this article.
Adequately conserve the archives of the Order, by making a professional description of its content and then make sure the archives are stored in a solid public library, such as the Bibliothèque nationale de France (already containing important documents regarding the Order of the Temple) or the Library of Congress. Interesting documents can be found in city the archives Reims as well.
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.
Appendix 2: Grandmasters OSMTH and its predecessors
1804-1839 Bernard Fabre-Palaprat (Order of the Temple)
1839-1840 Sir William Sidney Smith
1840-1850 Edward VII, King of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions and Emperor of India – George V., King of Hanover
1850 Narcisse Valleray (Regent)
1866 A.G.M. Vernois (Regent)
1892 Joséphin Péladan (Regent)
1894 Secretariat International des Templiers
1934 Conseil de Regence – Joseph Vandenberg (Ordo Supremus Miltaris Templi Heirosolimytani)
1935 Théodore Covias (Regent)
1935-1942 Emile Isaac (Vandenberg) (Regent)
1942-1960 Antonio de Sousa Fontes (Regent)
1960- 1999 Fernando de Sousa Fontes (Regent)
The current Grandmaster of the Order is Patrick E. Rea, Brigadier General, US Army (Ret.)
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. 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.
1. Introduction
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 an 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 extend 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 will of the Paternò Castello family, the princes of Biscari, starting from the late 17th century, 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 favor of his first son as well as in favor of his second son. To his first son (Francesco) he left the claims to the prerogatives 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 honor 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 honor by the King of the Two Sicilies.
5. Legality of the claims
The pretensions of the House of Paternò Castello where 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 whether as 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 the 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 honor 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. Doorgaan met het lezen van “Haarlemse rechter ‘corrigeert’ het Europees Hof”
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””
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.
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.
