Discussion:
16th Century Grant by a Patriarch
(too old to reply)
s***@slis.sjsu.edu
2006-11-28 00:26:05 UTC
Permalink
Hi all,

I hope you find this piece of information as interesting as I did:

A painted roll of arms now belonging to the Society of Antiquaries
(Soc. Ant. MS. 664, Vol. VI, ff. 1-11b) was described by Mill
Stephenson and Ralph Griffin in 1918 in Archaeologia (A Roll of Arms
Belonging to the Society of Antiquaries by Mill Stephenson in
Archaeologia Volume 69, London: Society of Antiquaries, 1918):

"...Or a cross ermine between 4 popinjays reguardant vert, beaks and
legs gu., on a chief az., between 2 roses or, the serpent of Milan
arg., crowned or, swallowing a demi-idol or...confirmation in Latin by
Wriothesley and Benolt, dated London, 26 August 1528, to Geoffrey
Chamber, on his petition to register the arms which had been granted to
him in 1518 by Caesar de Riario, patriarch of Alexandria and bishop of
Malacita..." page 76

-Sebastian Nelson
Don Aitken
2006-11-28 01:52:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@slis.sjsu.edu
Hi all,
A painted roll of arms now belonging to the Society of Antiquaries
(Soc. Ant. MS. 664, Vol. VI, ff. 1-11b) was described by Mill
Stephenson and Ralph Griffin in 1918 in Archaeologia (A Roll of Arms
Belonging to the Society of Antiquaries by Mill Stephenson in
"...Or a cross ermine between 4 popinjays reguardant vert, beaks and
legs gu., on a chief az., between 2 roses or, the serpent of Milan
arg., crowned or, swallowing a demi-idol or...confirmation in Latin by
Wriothesley and Benolt, dated London, 26 August 1528, to Geoffrey
Chamber, on his petition to register the arms which had been granted to
him in 1518 by Caesar de Riario, patriarch of Alexandria and bishop of
Malacita..." page 76
There would at that time heve been, I think, four Patriarchs of
Alexandria. I presume from the name and the bishopric that this would
be the Latin Patriarch, rather than any of the others, so the grant
ought to be governed by the rules of the Roman Catholic Church in
these matters. No doubt Guy will be able to tell us whether a grant by
a Patriarch conforms to those rules.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
2006-11-28 02:08:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
Post by s***@slis.sjsu.edu
Hi all,
A painted roll of arms now belonging to the Society of Antiquaries
(Soc. Ant. MS. 664, Vol. VI, ff. 1-11b) was described by Mill
Stephenson and Ralph Griffin in 1918 in Archaeologia (A Roll of Arms
Belonging to the Society of Antiquaries by Mill Stephenson in
"...Or a cross ermine between 4 popinjays reguardant vert, beaks and
legs gu., on a chief az., between 2 roses or, the serpent of Milan
arg., crowned or, swallowing a demi-idol or...confirmation in Latin by
Wriothesley and Benolt, dated London, 26 August 1528, to Geoffrey
Chamber, on his petition to register the arms which had been granted to
him in 1518 by Caesar de Riario, patriarch of Alexandria and bishop of
Malacita..." page 76
There would at that time heve been, I think, four Patriarchs of
Alexandria.
Just as there was more than one Pope at one time, once upon a time....

I presume from the name and the bishopric that this would
Post by Don Aitken
be the Latin Patriarch, rather than any of the others, so the grant
ought to be governed by the rules of the Roman Catholic Church in
these matters. No doubt Guy will be able to tell us whether a grant by
a Patriarch conforms to those rules.
Except that Guy is biased on such matters.


---
William Baldwin, Jr MBA HCM program Univ of Phoenix
Ground below Zero New Orleans, La. ***@ureach.com
www.coastguardauxiliaryfc61.org/katrina_photos_page.html
Joseph McMillan
2006-11-28 22:49:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
I presume from the name and the bishopric that this would
Post by Don Aitken
be the Latin Patriarch, rather than any of the others, so the grant
ought to be governed by the rules of the Roman Catholic Church in
these matters. No doubt Guy will be able to tell us whether a grant by
a Patriarch conforms to those rules.
Except that Guy is biased on such matters.
There are several Guys who are periodically active in the group and
it's not clear to me which one you think would be biased, but may I
suggest that the laws of the Ottoman Empire (which conquered Egypt in
1516) might be more relevant than those of the Roman Catholic Church.
If I'm not mistaken, the Latin Patriarch of Alexandria was probably
considered by the Ottoman authorities as the head of the Latin
community in Egypt at the time, and he may well have exercised power to
grant arms in that capacity. I don't know that for a fact, but it
seems a plausible guess.

Joseph McMillan
WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
2006-11-29 00:55:28 UTC
Permalink
--
Post by Joseph McMillan
Post by Don Aitken
I presume from the name and the bishopric that this would
Post by Don Aitken
be the Latin Patriarch, rather than any of the others, so the grant
ought to be governed by the rules of the Roman Catholic Church in
these matters. No doubt Guy will be able to tell us whether a grant by
a Patriarch conforms to those rules.
Except that Guy is biased on such matters.
There are several Guys who are periodically active in the group and
it's not clear to me which one you think would be biased,
All too true, it does get confusing. It was my assumption that "Don Aitken"
was referring to GSS, as an expert in Catholic orders and grants, etc. I
tend to agree, but GSS has admitted being RC, and his belief that only the
RC is a sovereign, anything granted by (non-RC) Patriarchs can only be
church awards, etc...

but may I
Post by Joseph McMillan
suggest that the laws of the Ottoman Empire (which conquered Egypt in
1516) might be more relevant than those of the Roman Catholic Church.
Certainly. I see no evidence to rule that out.
Post by Joseph McMillan
If I'm not mistaken, the Latin Patriarch of Alexandria was probably
considered by the Ottoman authorities as the head of the Latin
community in Egypt at the time, and he may well have exercised power to
grant arms in that capacity.
Possibly so.

---
William Baldwin, Jr MBA HCM program Univ of Phoenix
Ground below Zero New Orleans, La. ***@ureach.com
www.coastguardauxiliaryfc61.org/katrina_photos_page.html
g***@yahoo.com
2006-11-29 03:48:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
...but GSS has admitted being RC, and his belief that only the
RC is a sovereign, anything granted by (non-RC) Patriarchs can only be
church awards, etc...
Hmmmmm..... that's three out of four Guys (counting Guye) who are known
Roman Catholics.

--Guy Power
g***@yahoo.com
2006-11-29 03:51:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@yahoo.com
Hmmmmm..... that's three out of four Guys (counting Guye) who are known
Roman Catholics.
===========

That is, counting Guye as a Guy, not as a Catholic. If Guye is also
Catholic, that will be four out of four.

--Guy Power
Guy Stair Sainty
2006-11-29 15:54:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
Post by Joseph McMillan
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
Except that Guy is biased on such matters.
There are several Guys who are periodically active in the group and
it's not clear to me which one you think would be biased,
All too true, it does get confusing. It was my assumption that "Don Aitken"
was referring to GSS, as an expert in Catholic orders and grants, etc. I
tend to agree, but GSS has admitted being RC, and his belief that only the
RC is a sovereign, anything granted by (non-RC) Patriarchs can only be
church awards, etc...
So my judgment of an issue of law or heraldry is biased because of my
religious allegiance? Do you consider the opinion of others similarly biased?
What would you conclude would be the attitude of, say, a Mormon on this issue?
Or a member of the Free Presbyterian Church (who do consider the Pope to
be Anti-Christ) or the more moderate main stream presbyterians who deny the
validity of the episcopate?

May we learn your religious identity so we may judge your views in a similar
fashion?
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Sergei
2006-11-29 18:40:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
Post by Joseph McMillan
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
Except that Guy is biased on such matters.
There are several Guys who are periodically active in the group and
it's not clear to me which one you think would be biased,
All too true, it does get confusing. It was my assumption that "Don Aitken"
was referring to GSS, as an expert in Catholic orders and grants, etc. I
tend to agree, but GSS has admitted being RC, and his belief that only the
RC is a sovereign, anything granted by (non-RC) Patriarchs can only be
church awards, etc...
So my judgment of an issue of law or heraldry is biased because of my
religious allegiance? Do you consider the opinion of others similarly biased?
What would you conclude would be the attitude of, say, a Mormon on this issue?
Or a member of the Free Presbyterian Church (who do consider the Pope to
be Anti-Christ) or the more moderate main stream presbyterians who deny the
validity of the episcopate?
May we learn your religious identity so we may judge your views in a similar
fashion?
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
You forgot Freemasons ;-)
I'd still be interested though in hearing what you think about this.


Sergei Oudman
WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
2006-11-30 02:33:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
Except that Guy is biased on such matters.
All too true, it does get confusing. It was my assumption that "Don Aitken"
was referring to GSS, as an expert in Catholic orders and grants, etc. I
tend to agree, but GSS has admitted being RC, and his belief that only the
RC is a sovereign, anything granted by (non-RC) Patriarchs can only be
church awards, etc...
Try to focus on the above paragraph where I admit your expertise in
heraldry, the RC, and etc. Skip the poorly worded "admitted being RC" for a
moment, and read "his belief that only the
RC is a sovereign anything granted by (non-RC) Patriarchs can only be
church awards, etc..."

So I think I know what you're judgement would be on a grant by a Sovereign
Patriarch of the Orthodox church not in communion with Rome. If wrong, I
couldn't possibly be more pleasantly surprised to learn of this error.
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
So my judgment of an issue of law or heraldry is biased because of my
religious allegiance?
No. Your statements on the RC vs Orthodox schism. I hope that wasn't taken
as flame or insult, I would not intend to do either to a fellow Catholic.
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Do you consider the opinion of others similarly biased?
What would you conclude would be the attitude of, say, a Mormon on this issue?
Since Mormons think the RC and the Orthodox both "have it wrong", the
average (with a few inevitable exceptions) Mormon would be less biased on RC
vs Orthodox issues, yes. (again, with exceptions.)
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Or a member of the Free Presbyterian Church (who do consider the Pope to
be Anti-Christ) or the more moderate main stream presbyterians who deny the
validity of the episcopate?
You wouldn't have a problem with someone who thinks the Pope is the
Anti-Christ making a judgement on the limit / or validity of the Pope's
Jurisdiction?
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
May we learn your religious identity so we may judge your views in a similar
fashion?
GSS, you don't remeber me? After all those RC vs Ortho debates, you've
forgotten???


---
William Baldwin, Jr
MBA HCM program Univ of Phoenix
Ground below Zero New Orleans, La. ***@ureach.com
www.coastguardauxiliaryfc61.org/katrina_photos_page.html
Sergei
2006-11-30 09:27:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
Except that Guy is biased on such matters.
All too true, it does get confusing. It was my assumption that "Don Aitken"
was referring to GSS, as an expert in Catholic orders and grants, etc. I
tend to agree, but GSS has admitted being RC, and his belief that only the
RC is a sovereign, anything granted by (non-RC) Patriarchs can only be
church awards, etc...
Try to focus on the above paragraph where I admit your expertise in
heraldry, the RC, and etc. Skip the poorly worded "admitted being RC" for a
moment, and read "his belief that only the
RC is a sovereign anything granted by (non-RC) Patriarchs can only be
church awards, etc..."
So I think I know what you're judgement would be on a grant by a Sovereign
Patriarch of the Orthodox church not in communion with Rome. If wrong, I
couldn't possibly be more pleasantly surprised to learn of this error.
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
So my judgment of an issue of law or heraldry is biased because of my
religious allegiance?
No. Your statements on the RC vs Orthodox schism. I hope that wasn't taken
as flame or insult, I would not intend to do either to a fellow Catholic.
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Do you consider the opinion of others similarly biased?
What would you conclude would be the attitude of, say, a Mormon on this issue?
Since Mormons think the RC and the Orthodox both "have it wrong", the
average (with a few inevitable exceptions) Mormon would be less biased on RC
vs Orthodox issues, yes. (again, with exceptions.)
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Or a member of the Free Presbyterian Church (who do consider the Pope to
be Anti-Christ) or the more moderate main stream presbyterians who deny the
validity of the episcopate?
You wouldn't have a problem with someone who thinks the Pope is the
Anti-Christ making a judgement on the limit / or validity of the Pope's
Jurisdiction?
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
May we learn your religious identity so we may judge your views in a similar
fashion?
GSS, you don't remeber me? After all those RC vs Ortho debates, you've
forgotten???
---
William Baldwin, Jr
MBA HCM program Univ of Phoenix
www.coastguardauxiliaryfc61.org/katrina_photos_page.html
Hhhm, I think everybody is biased in a sense. So if one would be
Orthodox would that define a certain preference on the topic? I think
that depends if the person is either a New Calendar or an Old Calendar
follower. (Remind you they almost had a civil war on that in Greece)
Also is the person just an Orthodox by name, and question is what his
political preference is. The same with Mormons. In the end I think its
important anyways a rule that we all have in common, to treat others
the same way we want to be treated. (okay there are exceptions :-p )

Now I think we can all agree despite the religious differences that in
this question you should limit the discussion to the administrative
powers and regulations and to leave God out if it and someone's
religion as well. The guy issued a grant, so let's summarize what
some of us want to know:

� Was he allowed by the Ottomans,
� Was he allowed by the Catholics,
� What were his intentions,
� Is the darn thing recognised,

The Ottoman Empire had unique developments, the Greeks e.g. were aided
in the local struggle at one time by the Egyptian Sultan Mohammed Ali
(no not the boxer), they even honor him with a statue until today. At
the battle of Kosovo Serbs were fighting at the side of the Ottomans,
and yes even Greeks. So Catholic, Mormon or Orthodox, if you want to
look for differences you will find them.....

Sergei Oudman
radu.bogdan
2006-11-30 09:47:38 UTC
Permalink
At the battle of Kosovo Serbs were fighting at the side of the Ottomans,
and yes even Greeks.
Sergei Oudman
Of course, because the political problems at the time were more
important than the religious. This did not happen in the Orthodox world
exclusively. There were "RC" kings that neglected their Christian
duties and allied with Islam : "le très-chrétien roi de France".
There were "defenders of the Faith" who did not pay much attention to
the Faith. And so on...
WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
2006-11-30 23:02:06 UTC
Permalink
www.coastguardauxiliaryfc61.org/katrina_photos_page.html
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
Except that Guy is biased on such matters.
All too true, it does get confusing. It was my assumption that "Don Aitken"
was referring to GSS, as an expert in Catholic orders and grants, etc. I
tend to agree, but GSS has admitted being RC, and his belief that only the
RC is a sovereign, anything granted by (non-RC) Patriarchs can only be
church awards, etc...
Try to focus on the above paragraph where I admit your expertise in
heraldry, the RC, and etc. Skip the poorly worded "admitted being RC" for a
moment, and read "his belief that only the
RC is a sovereign anything granted by (non-RC) Patriarchs can only be
church awards, etc..."
So I think I know what you're judgement would be on a grant by a Sovereign
Patriarch of the Orthodox church not in communion with Rome. If wrong, I
couldn't possibly be more pleasantly surprised to learn of this error.
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
So my judgment of an issue of law or heraldry is biased because of my
religious allegiance?
No. Your statements on the RC vs Orthodox schism. I hope that wasn't taken
as flame or insult, I would not intend to do either to a fellow Catholic.
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Do you consider the opinion of others similarly biased?
What would you conclude would be the attitude of, say, a Mormon on this issue?
Since Mormons think the RC and the Orthodox both "have it wrong", the
average (with a few inevitable exceptions) Mormon would be less biased on RC
vs Orthodox issues, yes. (again, with exceptions.)
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Or a member of the Free Presbyterian Church (who do consider the Pope to
be Anti-Christ) or the more moderate main stream presbyterians who deny the
validity of the episcopate?
You wouldn't have a problem with someone who thinks the Pope is the
Anti-Christ making a judgement on the limit / or validity of the Pope's
Jurisdiction?
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
May we learn your religious identity so we may judge your views in a similar
fashion?
GSS, you don't remeber me? After all those RC vs Ortho debates, you've
forgotten???
---
William Baldwin, Jr
MBA HCM program Univ of Phoenix
www.coastguardauxiliaryfc61.org/katrina_photos_page.html
[Now I think we can all agree despite the religious differences that in
[this question you should limit the discussion to the administrative
[powers and regulations and to leave God out if it and someone's
[religion as well.

For the most part, that's true. But if a judge has already stated his views
on whether a certain act is legal, and *then* that very issue comes to
court, the question of bias will at least be in play. I certainly don't have
a problem with someone being a Roman Catholic, (as I attend RC churches..).
--
William Baldwin, Jr
MBA HCM program Univ of Phoenix
Ground below Zero New Orleans, La. ***@ureach.com
Michael F. McCartney
2006-12-01 05:22:47 UTC
Permalink
Alright combatants, return to your respective corners. They say
there's nothing new under the sun -- looks like there's not much new
here either, since we plowed this ground years ago.

Bottom line -- the general consensus (majority pinion) was that, as
Pope (Bishop of Rome, head f the church) the Pope had no more "fons
honorum" to grant titles & arms than any other cleric, including the
Orthodox Patriarchs. As temporal Head of State of Vatican Ciry (a
city-state, the Pope did have that authority, & in this regard is
somewhat unique since AFAIK no other Christian clerics are also heads
of state.

Perhaps, as noted by others, there was the occasional Christian cleric
under Ottoman rule who also exercied some level of temporal authority
over his flock; & thus would have whatever temporal authority to grnt
arms as other temporal authorities. I'm a bit sceptical, but don't
know enough about Ottoman polity to judge. Apparently someone (I
forget who) accepted the arms for registration; whether that would
happen nowadays I'm very doubtful.

All of the above is of course only relevant in the context of arms as
"honors" and fons hororem, which IMO luckily is only a distant
spectator sport from this side of the pond. All that matters here is
whether arms are reasonably unique and actually used, not who (if
anyone) "granted" them. But then, that's my own bias!
Don Aitken
2006-12-01 17:28:18 UTC
Permalink
On 30 Nov 2006 21:22:47 -0800, "Michael F. McCartney"
Post by Michael F. McCartney
Alright combatants, return to your respective corners. They say
there's nothing new under the sun -- looks like there's not much new
here either, since we plowed this ground years ago.
Bottom line -- the general consensus (majority pinion) was that, as
Pope (Bishop of Rome, head f the church) the Pope had no more "fons
honorum" to grant titles & arms than any other cleric, including the
Orthodox Patriarchs. As temporal Head of State of Vatican Ciry (a
city-state, the Pope did have that authority, & in this regard is
somewhat unique since AFAIK no other Christian clerics are also heads
of state.
I don't remember any such consensus. The Pope was granting arms long
before the Vatican City, or this distinction between "church" and
"temporal" functions, were invented.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
George Lucki
2006-12-01 17:52:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
On 30 Nov 2006 21:22:47 -0800, "Michael F. McCartney"
Post by Michael F. McCartney
Alright combatants, return to your respective corners. They say
there's nothing new under the sun -- looks like there's not much new
here either, since we plowed this ground years ago.
Bottom line -- the general consensus (majority pinion) was that, as
Pope (Bishop of Rome, head f the church) the Pope had no more "fons
honorum" to grant titles & arms than any other cleric, including the
Orthodox Patriarchs. As temporal Head of State of Vatican Ciry (a
city-state, the Pope did have that authority, & in this regard is
somewhat unique since AFAIK no other Christian clerics are also heads
of state.
I don't remember any such consensus. The Pope was granting arms long
before the Vatican City, or this distinction between "church" and
"temporal" functions, were invented.
The temporal rule of the Pope is ancient and predates the modern creation of
the Vatican by many many centuries :)
George Lucki
Sergei Oudman
2006-12-01 17:59:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Lucki
Post by Don Aitken
On 30 Nov 2006 21:22:47 -0800, "Michael F. McCartney"
Post by Michael F. McCartney
Alright combatants, return to your respective corners. They say
there's nothing new under the sun -- looks like there's not much new
here either, since we plowed this ground years ago.
Bottom line -- the general consensus (majority pinion) was that, as
Pope (Bishop of Rome, head f the church) the Pope had no more "fons
honorum" to grant titles & arms than any other cleric, including the
Orthodox Patriarchs. As temporal Head of State of Vatican Ciry (a
city-state, the Pope did have that authority, & in this regard is
somewhat unique since AFAIK no other Christian clerics are also heads
of state.
I don't remember any such consensus. The Pope was granting arms long
before the Vatican City, or this distinction between "church" and
"temporal" functions, were invented.
The temporal rule of the Pope is ancient and predates the modern creation of
the Vatican by many many centuries :)
George Lucki
Yes that would be like arguing if a country could be seen as a legal
successor of a medieval entity. Thats like opening a can of worms.
Nowadays we have Globalism, I wonder how we will discuss this same
topic in lets say 50 years from now? That is if we didnt blow us all
up, or ruined the Ozon layer......

Sergei Oudman
Guy Stair Sainty
2006-12-02 11:49:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
On 30 Nov 2006 21:22:47 -0800, "Michael F. McCartney"
Post by Michael F. McCartney
Alright combatants, return to your respective corners. They say
there's nothing new under the sun -- looks like there's not much new
here either, since we plowed this ground years ago.
Bottom line -- the general consensus (majority pinion) was that, as
Pope (Bishop of Rome, head f the church) the Pope had no more "fons
honorum" to grant titles & arms than any other cleric, including the
Orthodox Patriarchs. As temporal Head of State of Vatican Ciry (a
city-state, the Pope did have that authority, & in this regard is
somewhat unique since AFAIK no other Christian clerics are also heads
of state.
I don't remember any such consensus. The Pope was granting arms long
before the Vatican City, or this distinction between "church" and
"temporal" functions, were invented.
The Pope is sovereign sui generis and not by virtue of his exercise of
sovereignty over Vatican City. The right to grant arms, doctorates, and
even the title of Count Palatine was delegated to a variety of clerics
at various times, but from the early 18th century onwards successive
Popes took various measures to limit these delegated powers. All were
effetively repealed by Pope Gregory XVI in the 1840s.
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Don Aitken
2006-12-02 19:37:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by Don Aitken
On 30 Nov 2006 21:22:47 -0800, "Michael F. McCartney"
Post by Michael F. McCartney
Alright combatants, return to your respective corners. They say
there's nothing new under the sun -- looks like there's not much new
here either, since we plowed this ground years ago.
Bottom line -- the general consensus (majority pinion) was that, as
Pope (Bishop of Rome, head f the church) the Pope had no more "fons
honorum" to grant titles & arms than any other cleric, including the
Orthodox Patriarchs. As temporal Head of State of Vatican Ciry (a
city-state, the Pope did have that authority, & in this regard is
somewhat unique since AFAIK no other Christian clerics are also heads
of state.
I don't remember any such consensus. The Pope was granting arms long
before the Vatican City, or this distinction between "church" and
"temporal" functions, were invented.
The Pope is sovereign sui generis and not by virtue of his exercise of
sovereignty over Vatican City. The right to grant arms, doctorates, and
even the title of Count Palatine was delegated to a variety of clerics
at various times, but from the early 18th century onwards successive
Popes took various measures to limit these delegated powers. All were
effetively repealed by Pope Gregory XVI in the 1840s.
One such right, I think, was never delegated. A mere king could create
nobles, but only the Pope could create a university; his monopoly in
this sphere was universally recognised until the Reformation, and in
Catholic countries for a long time after it.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
p***@hotmail.fr
2006-12-04 20:28:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by Don Aitken
On 30 Nov 2006 21:22:47 -0800, "Michael F. McCartney"
Post by Michael F. McCartney
Alright combatants, return to your respective corners. They say
there's nothing new under the sun -- looks like there's not much new
here either, since we plowed this ground years ago.
Bottom line -- the general consensus (majority pinion) was that, as
Pope (Bishop of Rome, head f the church) the Pope had no more "fons
honorum" to grant titles & arms than any other cleric, including the
Orthodox Patriarchs. As temporal Head of State of Vatican Ciry (a
city-state, the Pope did have that authority, & in this regard is
somewhat unique since AFAIK no other Christian clerics are also heads
of state.
I don't remember any such consensus. The Pope was granting arms long
before the Vatican City, or this distinction between "church" and
"temporal" functions, were invented.
The Pope is sovereign sui generis and not by virtue of his exercise of
sovereignty over Vatican City. The right to grant arms, doctorates, and
even the title of Count Palatine was delegated to a variety of clerics
at various times, but from the early 18th century onwards successive
Popes took various measures to limit these delegated powers. All were
effetively repealed by Pope Gregory XVI in the 1840s.
One such right, I think, was never delegated. A mere king could create
nobles, but only the Pope could create a university; his monopoly in
this sphere was universally recognised until the Reformation, and in
Catholic countries for a long time after it.
Although universities were created by imperial authority sometimes long
before they received papal sanction.
Joseph McMillan
2006-12-01 17:44:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael F. McCartney
Bottom line -- the general consensus (majority pinion) was that, as
Pope (Bishop of Rome, head f the church) the Pope had no more "fons
honorum" to grant titles & arms than any other cleric, including the
Orthodox Patriarchs. As temporal Head of State of Vatican Ciry (a
city-state, the Pope did have that authority, & in this regard is
somewhat unique since AFAIK no other Christian clerics are also heads
of state.
Consensus or not ("all synods and councils may err though the frailty
inseparable from humanity"--Westminster Confession of Faith), this
strikes me as incorrect. There was a considerable period of time from
the consolidation of the Kingdom of Italy to the Lateran Concordat of
1929 when the Pope was not a temporal head of state, and yet he
continued to function as a fons honorum granting titles, etc.,
throughout that period. It seems to me that the Pope functions as a
fons by virtue of being head of the Holy See, which historically
enjoyed a status vis-a-vis the secular governments of Western
Christendom that had not parallel in the church-state relationship in
the East. At the time heraldry, titles of nobility, orders of
chivalry, etc., were developing, it was accepted that the Pope, as head
of the Holy See, had the power to make emperors and kings. It would
have seemed ludicrous to argue that the kings created by the Pope could
grant honors, arms, etc., but the Pope himself could not. It was this
historical status as a more-than-equal of the secular rulers that made
the Pope unique among bishops as a fons honorem, not the ownership of a
few hectares of real estate.

Joseph McMillan
Sergei Oudman
2006-12-01 18:08:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph McMillan
when the Pope was not a temporal head of state, and yet he
continued to function as a fons honorum granting titles, etc.,
throughout that period. It seems to me that the Pope functions as a
fons by virtue of being head of the Holy See, which historically
enjoyed a status vis-a-vis the secular governments of Western
Christendom that had not parallel in the church-state relationship in
the East.
Either way it would look strange if he would have stopped.

At the time heraldry, titles of nobility, orders of
Post by Joseph McMillan
chivalry, etc., were developing, it was accepted that the Pope, as head
of the Holy See, had the power to make emperors and kings. It would
have seemed ludicrous to argue that the kings created by the Pope could
grant honors, arms, etc., but the Pope himself could not.
Yes but there were certainly hopes that the Pope would stop.

It was this
Post by Joseph McMillan
historical status as a more-than-equal of the secular rulers that made
the Pope unique among bishops as a fons honorem, not the ownership of a
few hectares of real estate.
Well there was a guy named Machiavelli that said some things about
that. Well before his time I might say.

Sergei Oudman
Sergei
2006-12-01 13:44:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
For the most part, that's true. But if a judge has already stated his views
on whether a certain act is legal, and *then* that very issue comes to
court, the question of bias will at least be in play.
Of course, thats why there are additional laws and protocols for judges
to follow. But its also politics, does one speak as a judge or was it a
personal opinion.
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
I certainly don't have
a problem with someone being a Roman Catholic, (as I attend RC churches..).
I dont mind what people believe, its a free country and since most
religions believe the same I am more interested if a person actually
practices his "faith" by doing good. I think the Pope this week said
there shouldn't any amnosity between Christians and Muslims since we do
worship the same God. I think thats a positive approach that will
create more comon ground and that shows mutual respect not only for
Catholics and Muslims but believers in general despite their
religion/faith.

As for the grant. Is there any info on where (geographic position) it
was given? I find that also particularly interesting.

Sergei Oudman
Joseph McMillan
2006-12-01 17:23:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
For the most part, that's true. But if a judge has already stated his views
on whether a certain act is legal, and *then* that very issue comes to
court, the question of bias will at least be in play.
That's not bias--it's consistency. If a judge has previously given a
judicial opinion to the effect that the President of Togo has no power
to confer nobility, and then a case comes before him in which someone
claims to have been created a duke by the President of Togo, we can't
conclude that bias led the judge to reject the "duke's" claim merely
because the judge had previously expressed an opinion on the matter.
If such judgments are to be deemed as "biased," then no judge could
ever rule on the same law more than once.

Joseph McMillan
WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
2006-12-02 15:28:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph McMillan
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
For the most part, that's true. But if a judge has already stated his views
on whether a certain act is legal, and *then* that very issue comes to
court, the question of bias will at least be in play.
That's not bias--it's consistency. If a judge has previously given a
judicial opinion to the effect that the President of Togo has no power
to confer nobility, and then a case comes before him in which someone
claims to have been created a duke by the President of Togo, we can't
conclude that bias led the judge to reject the "duke's" claim merely
because the judge had previously expressed an opinion on the matter.
We couldn't cite it as proof, no. Possible bias, certainly. Invariably
someone would point out that the Judge doesn't beleive the President had the
power in the first place, thought the whole thing was silly, and was biased.
"Look at his previous statements and see for yourself", they would say. If
you were the (alleged) Duke would you choose him over someone else who
*hasn't* already made his views known? Would you not at least *think* of
making a motion for the Judge to remand himself on the case? (in legal
systems that have such a thing..) Many Judges will remand themselves from a
case regardless of bias if a reasonable case can be made for it. Why waste
your time, reasearch, and effort when your impartial judgement won't be
accepted as impartial anyway?
Post by Joseph McMillan
If such judgments are to be deemed as "biased," then no judge could
ever rule on the same law more than once.
And indeed, such is the case many times. (YMMV, especially as your
jurisdiction and legal system vary) Pull the C-span tapes of candidates for
U.S. Supreme Court Justice before the Senate. See just how quick they are to
share their views on the constitutionality of outlawing abortion. Also note
the reason they give for not giving their opinion, that they would not be
able to hear a case on the issue if they gave an opinion on it in a
confirmation hearing. Interestingly, there seems to be a difference between
pronouncements in court vs. statements at a social event. The latter being
harder to explain away, the former easier to claim as "restricted to the
context of that case, I might have felt differently if the facts before me
were different in a different case."
--
William Baldwin, Jr
MBA HCM program Univ of Phoenix
Ground below Zero New Orleans eir ikr ***@urea ch.co m
www.coastguardauxiliaryfc61.org/katrina_photos_page.html
Sergei
2006-11-29 07:55:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph McMillan
Post by Don Aitken
I presume from the name and the bishopric that this would
Post by Don Aitken
be the Latin Patriarch, rather than any of the others, so the grant
ought to be governed by the rules of the Roman Catholic Church in
these matters. No doubt Guy will be able to tell us whether a grant by
a Patriarch conforms to those rules.
Except that Guy is biased on such matters.
There are several Guys who are periodically active in the group and
it's not clear to me which one you think would be biased, but may I
suggest that the laws of the Ottoman Empire (which conquered Egypt in
1516) might be more relevant than those of the Roman Catholic Church.
If I'm not mistaken, the Latin Patriarch of Alexandria was probably
considered by the Ottoman authorities as the head of the Latin
community in Egypt at the time, and he may well have exercised power to
grant arms in that capacity. I don't know that for a fact, but it
seems a plausible guess.
Joseph McMillan
Ottoman law dictates a substantial amount of freedom for both Catholics
and Orthodox churches. They were free to do what they wanted in their
our atmosphere of freedom. I think its not that much a matter if the
Ottoman authorities allowed it but more a question if the Catholic
Church endorsed the action. Either way, issuing arms under another
administrational rule that doesnt accept and maybe even endorse it make
the grant an interesting political item. I presume we are talking about
the bishopric of Don Caesar Riario (1519-1540).

Sergei Oudman
Joseph McMillan
2006-11-30 00:34:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sergei
Ottoman law dictates a substantial amount of freedom for both Catholics
and Orthodox churches. They were free to do what they wanted in their
our atmosphere of freedom. I think its not that much a matter if the
Ottoman authorities allowed it but more a question if the Catholic
Church endorsed the action.
That makes sense; my only thought was that a Catholic patriarch who had
a temporal political function (as ethnarch of the Latin community in
Egypt) might have been considered as capable of exercising heraldic
jurisdiction in that capacity, even if canon law did not give him the
power to do so in his episcopal capacity. Again, just a theory.

Joseph McMillan
p***@hotmail.fr
2006-12-04 19:06:48 UTC
Permalink
Joseph McMillan a �crit :

<...>
Post by Joseph McMillan
There are several Guys who are periodically active in the group and
it's not clear to me which one you think would be biased, but may I
suggest that the laws of the Ottoman Empire (which conquered Egypt in
1516) might be more relevant than those of the Roman Catholic Church.
If I'm not mistaken, the Latin Patriarch of Alexandria was probably
considered by the Ottoman authorities as the head of the Latin
community in Egypt at the time, and he may well have exercised power to
grant arms in that capacity.
You are of course completely mistaken: Latin Patriarchs of Alexandria
were always non resident, except for very brief periods of time. The
opinion of the Ottoman authorities on his right to confer coat-of-arms,
admitting they had any which is doubtful, is irrelevant.

Pierre
WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
2006-12-04 23:34:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph McMillan
suggest that the laws of the Ottoman Empire (which conquered Egypt in
1516) might be more relevant than those of the Roman Catholic Church.
If I'm not mistaken, the Latin Patriarch of Alexandria was probably
considered by the Ottoman authorities as the head of the Latin
community in Egypt at the time, and he may well have exercised power to
grant arms in that capacity.
[You are of course completely mistaken: Latin Patriarchs of Alexandria
[were always non resident, except for very brief periods of time. The
[opinion of the Ottoman authorities on his right to confer coat-of-arms,
[admitting they had any which is doubtful, is irrelevant.

So Joeseph is completely off base, we cannot even entertain that somone who
is non-resident (except for very brief periods of time) could have exercised
any powers because of this non-residency rule? Don't presidents, monarchs,
and even nobles exercise whatever there powers are regardless of whether
they are resident?
--
William Baldwin, Jr
MBA HCM program Univ of Phoenix
Ground below Zero New Orleans, La.
www.coastguardauxiliaryfc61.org/
p***@hotmail.fr
2006-12-05 02:02:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
Post by Joseph McMillan
suggest that the laws of the Ottoman Empire (which conquered Egypt in
1516) might be more relevant than those of the Roman Catholic Church.
If I'm not mistaken, the Latin Patriarch of Alexandria was probably
considered by the Ottoman authorities as the head of the Latin
community in Egypt at the time, and he may well have exercised power to
grant arms in that capacity.
[You are of course completely mistaken: Latin Patriarchs of Alexandria
[were always non resident, except for very brief periods of time. The
[opinion of the Ottoman authorities on his right to confer coat-of-arms,
[admitting they had any which is doubtful, is irrelevant.
So Joeseph is completely off base, we cannot even entertain that somone who
is non-resident (except for very brief periods of time)
Brief periods of time in the history of the Latin patriarchate, not in
the life of each individual patriarch: the one we are discussing was
not resident at all.
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
could have exercised
any powers because of this non-residency rule? Don't presidents, monarchs,
and even nobles exercise whatever there powers are regardless of whether
they are resident?
In case it was not voluntary: you missed the point, which was not that
the Latin patriarch had not the power to do what he did but that, if he
ever had, the Ottoman authorities had nothing to do in it.

Pierre
WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
2006-12-05 02:37:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
[You are of course completely mistaken: Latin Patriarchs of Alexandria
[were always non resident, except for very brief periods of time. The
[opinion of the Ottoman authorities on his right to confer coat-of-arms,
[admitting they had any which is doubtful, is irrelevant.
So Joeseph is completely off base, we cannot even entertain that somone who
is non-resident (except for very brief periods of time)
[Brief periods of time in the history of the Latin patriarchate, not in
[the life of each individual patriarch: the one we are discussing was
[not resident at all.

Yeah, yeah, but are you saying that said non-residency precludes exercising
authority? By what mechanism?
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
could have exercised
any powers because of this non-residency rule? Don't presidents, monarchs,
and even nobles exercise whatever there powers are regardless of whether
they are resident?
[In case it was not voluntary: you missed the point, which was not that
[the Latin patriarch had not the power to do what he did but that, if he
[ever had, the Ottoman authorities had nothing to do in it.

In case it was not voluntary: you missed the point: I didn't address whether
the Ottoman authorities had nothing to do in it; the word Ottoman and/or
authority was nowhere in my post. My question was by what theory or
mechanism do you believe this non-residency (of any type) to be relevant?
--
William Baldwin, Jr
MBA HCM program Univ of Phoenix
Ground below Zero New Orleans, La.
www.coastguardauxiliaryfc61.org/

<***@hotmail.fr> wrote in message news:***@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
George Lucki
2006-12-05 02:50:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
[You are of course completely mistaken: Latin Patriarchs of Alexandria
[were always non resident, except for very brief periods of time. The
[opinion of the Ottoman authorities on his right to confer coat-of-arms,
[admitting they had any which is doubtful, is irrelevant.
So Joeseph is completely off base, we cannot even entertain that somone who
is non-resident (except for very brief periods of time)
[Brief periods of time in the history of the Latin patriarchate, not in
[the life of each individual patriarch: the one we are discussing was
[not resident at all.
Yeah, yeah, but are you saying that said non-residency precludes
exercising authority? By what mechanism?
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
could have exercised
any powers because of this non-residency rule? Don't presidents, monarchs,
and even nobles exercise whatever there powers are regardless of whether
they are resident?
[In case it was not voluntary: you missed the point, which was not that
[the Latin patriarch had not the power to do what he did but that, if he
[ever had, the Ottoman authorities had nothing to do in it.
In case it was not voluntary: you missed the point: I didn't address
whether the Ottoman authorities had nothing to do in it; the word Ottoman
and/or authority was nowhere in my post. My question was by what theory or
mechanism do you believe this non-residency (of any type) to be relevant?
William,
Generally no Latin patriarch would have had any authority to grant arms - a
role reserved for sovereigns. The speculation that Joseph engaged in was
whether the Latin Patriarch of Alexandria might have had some delegated
authority from the Ottomans as a local ruler but Pierre points out that the
patriarchs were non-resident and thus had no delgated authority. On this
basis the grant remains a curiosity.
George
p***@hotmail.com
2006-12-05 06:12:57 UTC
Permalink
Some years ago I attended Vespers and dinner with the Melkite Catholic
Patriarch of Antioch and his many attending bishops and priests. It was
explained to me that a patriarch be they Orthodox or Catholic could
purchase a document from the Turkish Sultan called a firman which would
allow the Patriarchate to have a certain amount of sovereignty over the
members of their church which included the establishment criminal and
civil courts to try the members according to established Christian Law
rather than Islamis Law. To raise the large sum of money for the
firman, all of the regular believers of the particular patriarchate
would have to save for years to purchase the limited freedom offered by
the Turkish Sultanate.

David
Post by George Lucki
Generally no Latin patriarch would have had any authority to grant arms - a
role reserved for sovereigns. The speculation that Joseph engaged in was
whether the Latin Patriarch of Alexandria might have had some delegated
authority from the Ottomans as a local ruler but Pierre points out that the
patriarchs were non-resident and thus had no delgated authority. On this
basis the grant remains a curiosity.
George
p***@hotmail.fr
2006-12-05 13:20:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
[You are of course completely mistaken: Latin Patriarchs of Alexandria
[were always non resident, except for very brief periods of time. The
[opinion of the Ottoman authorities on his right to confer coat-of-arms,
[admitting they had any which is doubtful, is irrelevant.
So Joeseph is completely off base, we cannot even entertain that somone who
is non-resident (except for very brief periods of time)
[Brief periods of time in the history of the Latin patriarchate, not in
[the life of each individual patriarch: the one we are discussing was
[not resident at all.
Yeah, yeah, but are you saying that said non-residency precludes exercising
authority? By what mechanism?
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
could have exercised
any powers because of this non-residency rule? Don't presidents, monarchs,
and even nobles exercise whatever there powers are regardless of whether
they are resident?
[In case it was not voluntary: you missed the point, which was not that
[the Latin patriarch had not the power to do what he did but that, if he
[ever had, the Ottoman authorities had nothing to do in it.
In case it was not voluntary: you missed the point: I didn't address whether
the Ottoman authorities had nothing to do in it; the word Ottoman and/or
authority was nowhere in my post. My question was by what theory or
mechanism do you believe this non-residency (of any type) to be relevant?
I do not believe that: the previous poster suggested the residency
*was* relevant, and I pointed the said prelate was not residant, so
that the question was void. I suggest you refrain from answering to
post you did not read.

Pierre
Sergei Oudman
2006-12-05 18:05:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.fr
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
[You are of course completely mistaken: Latin Patriarchs of Alexandria
[were always non resident, except for very brief periods of time. The
[opinion of the Ottoman authorities on his right to confer coat-of-arms,
[admitting they had any which is doubtful, is irrelevant.
So Joeseph is completely off base, we cannot even entertain that somone who
is non-resident (except for very brief periods of time)
[Brief periods of time in the history of the Latin patriarchate, not in
[the life of each individual patriarch: the one we are discussing was
[not resident at all.
Yeah, yeah, but are you saying that said non-residency precludes exercising
authority? By what mechanism?
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
could have exercised
any powers because of this non-residency rule? Don't presidents, monarchs,
and even nobles exercise whatever there powers are regardless of whether
they are resident?
[In case it was not voluntary: you missed the point, which was not that
[the Latin patriarch had not the power to do what he did but that, if he
[ever had, the Ottoman authorities had nothing to do in it.
In case it was not voluntary: you missed the point: I didn't address whether
the Ottoman authorities had nothing to do in it; the word Ottoman and/or
authority was nowhere in my post. My question was by what theory or
mechanism do you believe this non-residency (of any type) to be relevant?
I do not believe that: the previous poster suggested the residency
*was* relevant, and I pointed the said prelate was not residant, so
that the question was void. I suggest you refrain from answering to
post you did not read.
Pierre
Ok time to add up.
1. Area was under Ottoman rule and administration, so question is did
they recognize the grant or not?
2. Lets say not, lets say it was only recognised in lets say Spain.
Which is by all means very cute but it was still a piece of paper
without value in the reals of the Ottoman empire,
3. Ottoman rule had some clear rules and laws, some of them we know
today. That is if you are a resident you are subjected to the laws and
tax,

So then we can ask ourselves:
1. Was the dude a resident or a tourist?

If he was a resident then you have your answer. For those who want to
go beyond. What if he issued the grant in Ottoman territory without
being sanctioned and later on the area would be "liberated", would the
grant then be valid?? Or lets say he would grant it in Alexandria in
the same manner you sign a letter on the location and date where you
are at that moment....which makes him a tourist.....
p***@hotmail.fr
2006-12-05 18:46:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sergei Oudman
Post by p***@hotmail.fr
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
[You are of course completely mistaken: Latin Patriarchs of Alexandria
[were always non resident, except for very brief periods of time. The
[opinion of the Ottoman authorities on his right to confer coat-of-arms,
[admitting they had any which is doubtful, is irrelevant.
So Joeseph is completely off base, we cannot even entertain that somone who
is non-resident (except for very brief periods of time)
[Brief periods of time in the history of the Latin patriarchate, not in
[the life of each individual patriarch: the one we are discussing was
[not resident at all.
Yeah, yeah, but are you saying that said non-residency precludes exercising
authority? By what mechanism?
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
could have exercised
any powers because of this non-residency rule? Don't presidents, monarchs,
and even nobles exercise whatever there powers are regardless of whether
they are resident?
[In case it was not voluntary: you missed the point, which was not that
[the Latin patriarch had not the power to do what he did but that, if he
[ever had, the Ottoman authorities had nothing to do in it.
In case it was not voluntary: you missed the point: I didn't address whether
the Ottoman authorities had nothing to do in it; the word Ottoman and/or
authority was nowhere in my post. My question was by what theory or
mechanism do you believe this non-residency (of any type) to be relevant?
I do not believe that: the previous poster suggested the residency
*was* relevant, and I pointed the said prelate was not residant, so
that the question was void. I suggest you refrain from answering to
post you did not read.
Pierre
Ok time to add up.
1. Area was under Ottoman rule and administration, so question is did
they recognize the grant or not?
Which area are you speaking about? The title of Latin Patriarch of
Alexandria was in partibus and has been since the latter Middle Ages,
except for a very very short period in the 19th century. Its recipient
had no relation whatsoever with Egypt: he was a Latin prelate with a
sounding dignity living in Europe and dealing only with Europeans. In
more recent times, the few Roman Catholics of Latin rite living in
Egypt were under the authority of a simple apostolic vicar who had no
relation with the titular Latin patriarch, still living in Europe. In
those recent times, there was also a Catholic patriarch of Coptic rite,
but that was an animal entirely different from the Medieval and Modern
titular Latin patriarch (and from the Coptic and Orthodox patriarchs of
Alexandria for that matter).

<...>
Post by Sergei Oudman
1. Was the dude a resident or a tourist?
Neither: he never put a feet in Egypt and did not care of what the
Ottomans could have thought of him, supposing they even knew there was
some guy in Europe who was called the Patriarch of Alexandria.

Pierre
p***@hotmail.fr
2006-12-05 18:46:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sergei Oudman
Post by p***@hotmail.fr
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
[You are of course completely mistaken: Latin Patriarchs of Alexandria
[were always non resident, except for very brief periods of time. The
[opinion of the Ottoman authorities on his right to confer coat-of-arms,
[admitting they had any which is doubtful, is irrelevant.
So Joeseph is completely off base, we cannot even entertain that somone who
is non-resident (except for very brief periods of time)
[Brief periods of time in the history of the Latin patriarchate, not in
[the life of each individual patriarch: the one we are discussing was
[not resident at all.
Yeah, yeah, but are you saying that said non-residency precludes exercising
authority? By what mechanism?
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
could have exercised
any powers because of this non-residency rule? Don't presidents, monarchs,
and even nobles exercise whatever there powers are regardless of whether
they are resident?
[In case it was not voluntary: you missed the point, which was not that
[the Latin patriarch had not the power to do what he did but that, if he
[ever had, the Ottoman authorities had nothing to do in it.
In case it was not voluntary: you missed the point: I didn't address whether
the Ottoman authorities had nothing to do in it; the word Ottoman and/or
authority was nowhere in my post. My question was by what theory or
mechanism do you believe this non-residency (of any type) to be relevant?
I do not believe that: the previous poster suggested the residency
*was* relevant, and I pointed the said prelate was not residant, so
that the question was void. I suggest you refrain from answering to
post you did not read.
Pierre
Ok time to add up.
1. Area was under Ottoman rule and administration, so question is did
they recognize the grant or not?
Which area are you speaking about? The title of Latin Patriarch of
Alexandria was in partibus and has been since the latter Middle Ages,
except for a very very short period in the 19th century. Its recipient
had no relation whatsoever with Egypt: he was a Latin prelate with a
sounding dignity living in Europe and dealing only with Europeans. In
more recent times, the few Roman Catholics of Latin rite living in
Egypt were under the authority of a simple apostolic vicar who had no
relation with the titular Latin patriarch, still living in Europe. In
those recent times, there was also a Catholic patriarch of Coptic rite,
but that was an animal entirely different from the Medieval and Modern
titular Latin patriarch (and from the Coptic and Orthodox patriarchs of
Alexandria for that matter).

<...>
Post by Sergei Oudman
1. Was the dude a resident or a tourist?
Neither: he never put a feet in Egypt and did not care of what the
Ottomans could have thought of him, supposing they even knew there was
some guy in Europe who was called "the Patriarch of Alexandria".

Pierre
Sergei Oudman
2006-12-05 20:02:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.fr
Post by Sergei Oudman
Post by p***@hotmail.fr
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
[You are of course completely mistaken: Latin Patriarchs of Alexandria
[were always non resident, except for very brief periods of time. The
[opinion of the Ottoman authorities on his right to confer coat-of-arms,
[admitting they had any which is doubtful, is irrelevant.
So Joeseph is completely off base, we cannot even entertain that somone who
is non-resident (except for very brief periods of time)
[Brief periods of time in the history of the Latin patriarchate, not in
[the life of each individual patriarch: the one we are discussing was
[not resident at all.
Yeah, yeah, but are you saying that said non-residency precludes exercising
authority? By what mechanism?
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
could have exercised
any powers because of this non-residency rule? Don't presidents, monarchs,
and even nobles exercise whatever there powers are regardless of whether
they are resident?
[In case it was not voluntary: you missed the point, which was not that
[the Latin patriarch had not the power to do what he did but that, if he
[ever had, the Ottoman authorities had nothing to do in it.
In case it was not voluntary: you missed the point: I didn't address whether
the Ottoman authorities had nothing to do in it; the word Ottoman and/or
authority was nowhere in my post. My question was by what theory or
mechanism do you believe this non-residency (of any type) to be relevant?
I do not believe that: the previous poster suggested the residency
*was* relevant, and I pointed the said prelate was not residant, so
that the question was void. I suggest you refrain from answering to
post you did not read.
Pierre
Ok time to add up.
1. Area was under Ottoman rule and administration, so question is did
they recognize the grant or not?
Which area are you speaking about? The title of Latin Patriarch of
Alexandria was in partibus and has been since the latter Middle Ages,
except for a very very short period in the 19th century. Its recipient
had no relation whatsoever with Egypt: he was a Latin prelate with a
sounding dignity living in Europe and dealing only with Europeans. In
more recent times, the few Roman Catholics of Latin rite living in
Egypt were under the authority of a simple apostolic vicar who had no
relation with the titular Latin patriarch, still living in Europe. In
those recent times, there was also a Catholic patriarch of Coptic rite,
but that was an animal entirely different from the Medieval and Modern
titular Latin patriarch (and from the Coptic and Orthodox patriarchs of
Alexandria for that matter).
<...>
Post by Sergei Oudman
1. Was the dude a resident or a tourist?
Neither: he never put a feet in Egypt and did not care of what the
Ottomans could have thought of him, supposing they even knew there was
some guy in Europe who was called "the Patriarch of Alexandria".
Pierre
Well Egypt was divided into 24 districts with an emir. They had
baronial authority if you will say. I find it interesting because at
one time the regional leader became more powerful then the authority in
Istanbul. I know its recipient had no relation, that is not my point. I
was referring to Riario.

I do believe the Ottomans were aware of the presence of a guy calling
himself "the Patriarch of Alexandria". They were well informed in their
regional developments. True in general most Ottomans were easily
distracted by affairs on the outskirts of their empire but I believe
Egypt to be somewhat different.

Are you sure he(Riario) never set foot in Alexandria? No reference
whatsoever in European sources? Since Alexandria was hit several times
but the occasional looting and other spare time activities of locals.

Sergei
p***@hotmail.fr
2006-12-05 20:51:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sergei Oudman
Post by p***@hotmail.fr
Post by Sergei Oudman
Post by p***@hotmail.fr
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
[You are of course completely mistaken: Latin Patriarchs of Alexandria
[were always non resident, except for very brief periods of time. The
[opinion of the Ottoman authorities on his right to confer coat-of-arms,
[admitting they had any which is doubtful, is irrelevant.
So Joeseph is completely off base, we cannot even entertain that somone
who
is non-resident (except for very brief periods of time)
[Brief periods of time in the history of the Latin patriarchate, not in
[the life of each individual patriarch: the one we are discussing was
[not resident at all.
Yeah, yeah, but are you saying that said non-residency precludes exercising
authority? By what mechanism?
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
could have exercised
any powers because of this non-residency rule? Don't presidents, monarchs,
and even nobles exercise whatever there powers are regardless of whether
they are resident?
[In case it was not voluntary: you missed the point, which was not that
[the Latin patriarch had not the power to do what he did but that, if he
[ever had, the Ottoman authorities had nothing to do in it.
In case it was not voluntary: you missed the point: I didn't address whether
the Ottoman authorities had nothing to do in it; the word Ottoman and/or
authority was nowhere in my post. My question was by what theory or
mechanism do you believe this non-residency (of any type) to be relevant?
I do not believe that: the previous poster suggested the residency
*was* relevant, and I pointed the said prelate was not residant, so
that the question was void. I suggest you refrain from answering to
post you did not read.
Pierre
Ok time to add up.
1. Area was under Ottoman rule and administration, so question is did
they recognize the grant or not?
Which area are you speaking about? The title of Latin Patriarch of
Alexandria was in partibus and has been since the latter Middle Ages,
except for a very very short period in the 19th century. Its recipient
had no relation whatsoever with Egypt: he was a Latin prelate with a
sounding dignity living in Europe and dealing only with Europeans. In
more recent times, the few Roman Catholics of Latin rite living in
Egypt were under the authority of a simple apostolic vicar who had no
relation with the titular Latin patriarch, still living in Europe. In
those recent times, there was also a Catholic patriarch of Coptic rite,
but that was an animal entirely different from the Medieval and Modern
titular Latin patriarch (and from the Coptic and Orthodox patriarchs of
Alexandria for that matter).
<...>
Post by Sergei Oudman
1. Was the dude a resident or a tourist?
Neither: he never put a feet in Egypt and did not care of what the
Ottomans could have thought of him, supposing they even knew there was
some guy in Europe who was called "the Patriarch of Alexandria".
Pierre
Well Egypt was divided into 24 districts with an emir. They had
baronial authority if you will say. I find it interesting because at
one time the regional leader became more powerful then the authority in
Istanbul. I know its recipient had no relation, that is not my point. I
was referring to Riario.
I also did: he was the recipient of the dignity of patriarch of
Alexandria.
Post by Sergei Oudman
I do believe the Ottomans were aware of the presence of a guy calling
himself "the Patriarch of Alexandria".
Excuse me but are you playing some game: HE WAS NOT PRESENT!
Post by Sergei Oudman
They were well informed in their
regional developments. True in general most Ottomans were easily
distracted by affairs on the outskirts of their empire but I believe
Egypt to be somewhat different.
Are you sure he(Riario) never set foot in Alexandria? No reference
whatsoever in European sources?
Yes I am sure: no Latin Patriarch of Alexandria was a resident passed
the 1220'. It was a see in partibus and the dignity was not even
continuously conferred and when it was, it was often to a prelate who
hold a less important dignity, to assure him a higher rank, as for
Egidio (1311-1322), also patriarch of Grado, Oddone (1323-1328), also
archbishop of Pisa, or Guillaume de Chanac (1342-1351), also bishop of
Paris. He had no more to do with Alexandria than the Prince of Orange
has today with the city of Orange. The right to a Latin Patriarchs of
Alexandria to grant arms is entirely a matter for canon law and has
nothing to do with Ottoman law.

Pierre
p***@hotmail.fr
2006-12-05 21:00:06 UTC
Permalink
***@hotmail.fr a écrit :

<...>
Post by p***@hotmail.fr
it was often to a prelate who
hold a less important dignity, to assure him a higher rank, as for
Egidio (1311-1322), also patriarch of Grado, Oddone (1323-1328), also
archbishop of Pisa, or Guillaume de Chanac (1342-1351), also bishop of
Paris. He had no more to do with Alexandria than the Prince of Orange
has today with the city of Orange.
<...>

That's precisely the case in the document we are discussing since our
"patriarch of Alexandria" is actually a mere bishop of Malaga. But it
is more enjoyable to rank as a Patriarch than as a bishop.

Pierre
George Lucki
2006-12-05 23:03:31 UTC
Permalink
<***@hotmail.fr> wrote in message news:***@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...

***@hotmail.fr a écrit :

<...>
Post by p***@hotmail.fr
it was often to a prelate who
hold a less important dignity, to assure him a higher rank, as for
Egidio (1311-1322), also patriarch of Grado, Oddone (1323-1328), also
archbishop of Pisa, or Guillaume de Chanac (1342-1351), also bishop of
Paris. He had no more to do with Alexandria than the Prince of Orange
has today with the city of Orange.
<...>

That's precisely the case in the document we are discussing since our
"patriarch of Alexandria" is actually a mere bishop of Malaga. But it
is more enjoyable to rank as a Patriarch than as a bishop.

Pierre

---------------
Pierre,
While we are focus on the titular Patriarch of Alexandria which was a
niminal title (much like the titular reference to lost sees in the titles of
curial or auxillary bishops) we are setting aside the question of the grant
of arms.
I think it important to note that the law of arms was not quite the same in
the early 16th century as we might see it today and an important
consideration would be whether the good bishop looking at the circumstances
*thought* it expedient or advantageous to issue arms to a particular
Englishman. After all the good bishop was in Spain and the armiger was an
Englishman ... The issue of the acceptance of these Spanish/Alexandrian arms
in England also needs to be looked at pragmatically. This fellow thought
himself deserving of arms and the reviewer of his grnat would have to weigh
out the advantage v the disadvantage of accepting these arms given due
consideration to *who* the armiger was and why it would be a good thing for
him to do so. The grnat and its acceptance should probably be seen for what
it is - a curiosity, and one that informs us about the sensibilities of the
day. A strict legal construction will likely get us nowhere, but Derek's
look into who the armiger might be and what would give him influence is an
interesting hypothesis.
George Lucki
Derek Howard
2006-12-06 10:43:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Lucki
While we are focus on the titular Patriarch of Alexandria which was a
niminal title (much like the titular reference to lost sees in the titles of
curial or auxillary bishops) we are setting aside the question of the grant
of arms.
I think it important to note that the law of arms was not quite the same in
the early 16th century as we might see it today and an important
consideration would be whether the good bishop looking at the circumstances
*thought* it expedient or advantageous to issue arms to a particular
Englishman. After all the good bishop was in Spain
The evidence points to the good bishop being in Italy at the time
though his bishopric lay in Spain. Chamber was in Italy around 1517,
the grant is dated 1518, and the bishop was from an Italian family and
did not take up his post in Spain until 1519.
Post by George Lucki
and the armiger was an
Englishman ... The issue of the acceptance of these Spanish/Alexandrian arms
in England also needs to be looked at pragmatically. This fellow thought
himself deserving of arms and the reviewer of his grnat would have to weigh
out the advantage v the disadvantage of accepting these arms given due
consideration to *who* the armiger was and why it would be a good thing for
him to do so. The grant and its acceptance should probably be seen for what
it is - a curiosity, and one that informs us about the sensibilities of the
day. A strict legal construction will likely get us nowhere, but Derek's
look into who the armiger might be and what would give him influence is an
interesting hypothesis.
I would like to find out more about Chamber. What was he doing in
Italy, was it purely a cultural grand tour or was he serving, say, as a
diplomat? Did he have official dealings with the Papacy during his
stay? Was the English King involved at this date?

I would also like to know whether Riario was acting at the time as a
Papal official rather than just in his personal capacity reflected in
his titles. I would also like to know whether anyone here has access to
Heraldica Collegii Cardinalium, vol. I, and can tell us what the
Cardinals Riarii used as their coats of arms? I have already indicated
one element of Chamber's arms may be from the personal coats of
Riario's relatives, were there others? Do any of the elements reflect
any Papal interest?

Derek Howard
p***@hotmail.fr
2006-12-06 15:27:37 UTC
Permalink
George Lucki a écrit :

<...>
Post by George Lucki
Pierre,
While we are focus on the titular Patriarch of Alexandria which was a
niminal title (much like the titular reference to lost sees in the titles of
curial or auxillary bishops) we are setting aside the question of the grant
of arms.
<...>

I agree with you but I am not competent to comment on that. I don't
know if I was competent to comment on the titular patriarchate anyway,
but it was obvious it was going in a wrong direction by referring to
Ottoman authorities.
However, I would be curious to know what Canon law exactly says on the
granting of arms, supposing it says something of course.

Pierre
WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
2006-12-06 23:04:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
[In case it was not voluntary: you missed the point, which was not that
[the Latin patriarch had not the power to do what he did but that, if he
[ever had, the Ottoman authorities had nothing to do in it.
In case it was not voluntary: you missed the point: I didn't address whether
the Ottoman authorities had nothing to do in it; the word Ottoman and/or
authority was nowhere in my post. My question was by what theory or
mechanism do you believe this non-residency (of any type) to be relevant?
[I suggest you refrain from answering to
[post you did not read.

Or you could reread your own posts before answering. Might help you to
understand the question.

[I do not believe that: the previous poster suggested the residency
[*was* relevant, and I pointed the said prelate was not residant, so
[that the question was void.

And here you, again, state that the prelate was not resident (so making the
question void.) In another post you point out the non-residency and scream
"HE WAS NOT PRESENT." This fact obviously means something to you. What
exactly does it mean to you?
--
William Baldwin, Jr
MBA HCM program Univ of Phoenix
Ground below Zero New Orleans, La. e i r@ ikr ***@ureach.com
web www.coastguardauxiliaryfc61.org/katrina_photos_page.html
Guy Stair Sainty
2006-11-29 15:49:29 UTC
Permalink
In article <ETMah.214$***@newsfe02.lga>, WILLIAM BALDWIN JR says...
No doubt Guy will be able to tell us whether a grant by
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
Post by Don Aitken
a Patriarch conforms to those rules.
Except that Guy is biased on such matters.
And since you presume my bias, can you perhaps tell me where it would lead
me?
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
2006-11-30 02:04:36 UTC
Permalink
--
Post by Don Aitken
No doubt Guy will be able to tell us whether a grant by
Post by WILLIAM BALDWIN JR
Post by Don Aitken
a Patriarch conforms to those rules.
Except that Guy is biased on such matters.
And since you presume my bias, can you perhaps tell me where it would lead
me?
Apparently it's led you to respond to the same post in two different
threads...
---
William Baldwin, Jr
MBA HCM program Univ of Phoenix
Ground below Zero New Orleans, La. ***@ureach.com
www.coastguardauxiliaryfc61.org/katrina_photos_page.html
Derek Howard
2006-12-01 10:04:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@slis.sjsu.edu
Hi all,
A painted roll of arms now belonging to the Society of Antiquaries
(Soc. Ant. MS. 664, Vol. VI, ff. 1-11b) was described by Mill
Stephenson and Ralph Griffin in 1918 in Archaeologia (A Roll of Arms
Belonging to the Society of Antiquaries by Mill Stephenson in
"...Or a cross ermine between 4 popinjays reguardant vert, beaks and
legs gu., on a chief az., between 2 roses or, the serpent of Milan
arg., crowned or, swallowing a demi-idol or...confirmation in Latin by
Wriothesley and Benolt, dated London, 26 August 1528, to Geoffrey
Chamber, on his petition to register the arms which had been granted to
him in 1518 by Caesar de Riario, patriarch of Alexandria and bishop of
Malacita..." page 76
Well spotted.

I assume the Caesar de Riario mentioned is, however, nothing whatsoever
to do with the Ottoman empire. I think he is the same as Don Caesar
Riario, bishop of M�laga (Malacitana) from 1519 to 1540. There could
perhaps be some confusion over end-year dating between 1518 for the
grant and 1519 for his taking up the bishopric. Caesar Riario may well
have also held the, by then, purely titular dignity of Latin
Patriarchate of Alexandria. I have not had time to check Sollerius
(Jean Baptist du Sollier: Acta sanctorum quotquot toto orbe coluntur
vel a catholicis scriptoribus celebrantur, quae ex Latinis et Graecis
aliarumque gentium antiquis monumentis) who apparently gives the names
of the Latin patriarchs from 1219 to 1547 (the appropriate volumes seem
to be vols 4-5 in 1748, and vols 6-7 in 1749). Riario was most probably
a member of the Riarii family related in the 15th century to the Sforza
(hence no doubt the heraldic serpent of Milan) and to Pope Sixtus IV
and who produced at least three cardinals and who for a while held the
Principality of Forli and Imola.

Derek Howard
Derek Howard
2006-12-05 19:28:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Derek Howard
Post by s***@slis.sjsu.edu
Hi all,
A painted roll of arms now belonging to the Society of Antiquaries
(Soc. Ant. MS. 664, Vol. VI, ff. 1-11b) was described by Mill
Stephenson and Ralph Griffin in 1918 in Archaeologia (A Roll of Arms
Belonging to the Society of Antiquaries by Mill Stephenson in
"...Or a cross ermine between 4 popinjays reguardant vert, beaks and
legs gu., on a chief az., between 2 roses or, the serpent of Milan
arg., crowned or, swallowing a demi-idol or...confirmation in Latin by
Wriothesley and Benolt, dated London, 26 August 1528, to Geoffrey
Chamber, on his petition to register the arms which had been granted to
him in 1518 by Caesar de Riario, patriarch of Alexandria and bishop of
Malacita..." page 76
Well spotted.
I assume the Caesar de Riario mentioned is, however, nothing whatsoever
to do with the Ottoman empire. I think he is the same as Don Caesar
Riario, bishop of Málaga (Malacitana) from 1519 to 1540. There could
perhaps be some confusion over end-year dating between 1518 for the
grant and 1519 for his taking up the bishopric. Caesar Riario may well
have also held the, by then, purely titular dignity of Latin
Patriarchate of Alexandria. I have not had time to check Sollerius
(Jean Baptist du Sollier: Acta sanctorum quotquot toto orbe coluntur
vel a catholicis scriptoribus celebrantur, quae ex Latinis et Graecis
aliarumque gentium antiquis monumentis) who apparently gives the names
of the Latin patriarchs from 1219 to 1547 (the appropriate volumes seem
to be vols 4-5 in 1748, and vols 6-7 in 1749). Riario was most probably
a member of the Riarii family related in the 15th century to the Sforza
(hence no doubt the heraldic serpent of Milan) and to Pope Sixtus IV
and who produced at least three cardinals and who for a while held the
Principality of Forli and Imola.
Does anyone here have access to an institution having a subscription to
the Acta sanctorum which can be found on-line at
<http://acta.chadwyck.com/> ? It would be useful to know if Riario's
name crops up under the listing of purely titular (and non-resident)
Latin
Patriarchs of Alexandria and, if so, for what dates.

The second chap to check out is the grantee, Geoffrey Chamber. In
History Today, v 41, 6, June 1991, pp 43-47
<http://www.historytoday.com/dt_main_allatonce.asp?gid=13319&aid=&tgid=&amid=13319&g13319=x&g9382=x&g30026=x&g20991=x&g21010=x&g19965=x&g19963=x>
Janet Backhouse in "Arms and the Manuscripts: The King's Illuminated
Books" writes: "One of the earliest [books in Henry VII's library, now
part of the Royal Library] is a magnificent Italian humanist book,
complete with its original binding of scarlet leather adorned with
lace-like tooling in gold. It contains the Dialogues of Lucian of
Samosata, a Greek satirist who lived in the second century, translated
into Latin in the fifteenth century by Livio Guidolotti of Urbino,
together with the Lucianesque Apologues of Pandolfo Collenuccio of
Pesaro, who died in 1504. These two works are prefaced by a letter of
dedication revealing that the manuscript was commissioned by an
Englishman named Geoffrey Chamber, who had it 'written in the most
elegant W style of writing whereby the reading of the book should be
rendered more enjoyable still'. Chamber was apparently travelling in
Italy when he ordered the book ... ". The article goes on to provide a
rough date for the manuscript by associating it with another one by the
same artist in 1517.

If this is the same Geoffrey Chamber - and it sounds like the man - and
he was travelling in Italy at the time it seems most likely that he met
up with and gained his grant from Riario after the latter had been
nominated Bishop of Malaga but before he (Riario) had left Italy to
take up his post in Spain. His offering of the volume to Henry VIII may
have bought favour reflected in the confirmation of arms.

We may be on less secure grounds with a Geoffrey Chamber, lord of the
manor of Great Stanmore, Middlesex in 1544 mentioned in the VCH
<http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=26908> but
nevertheless potentially the same man, minor gentry, the sort who may
have done the grand tour early in life and borne a coat of arms.

Derek Howard
Sergei Oudman
2006-12-05 20:04:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Derek Howard
Does anyone here have access to an institution having a subscription to
the Acta sanctorum which can be found on-line at
<http://acta.chadwyck.com/> ? It would be useful to know if Riario's
name crops up under the listing of purely titular (and non-resident)
Latin
Patriarchs of Alexandria and, if so, for what dates.
I have, when I am there I will take a quick peek to see what I can
find.

Sergei
Derek Howard
2006-12-05 20:21:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sergei Oudman
Post by Derek Howard
Does anyone here have access to an institution having a subscription to
the Acta sanctorum which can be found on-line at
<http://acta.chadwyck.com/> ? It would be useful to know if Riario's
name crops up under the listing of purely titular (and non-resident)
Latin Patriarchs of Alexandria and, if so, for what dates.
I have, when I am there I will take a quick peek to see what I can
find.
Sergei
Excellent. Thanks, Sergei. I look forward to seeing the results.
Post by Sergei Oudman
We may be on less secure grounds with a Geoffrey Chamber, lord of the manor of Great
Stanmore, Middlesex in 1544 mentioned in the VCH <http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=26908>
but nevertheless potentially the same man, minor
gentry, the sort who may have done the grand tour early in life and borne a coat of arms.
In 1541 and 1542 this Geoffrey Chamber seems to have been the overseer
and receiver general of the King's purchased lands - a suitable
position for him to have held if he were making expensive gifts to the
King. (Did he get the job before or after the gift giving?). Four years
later he died, his goods inventoried, his widow Alice was involved in a
court case over his lands at St. Sepulchre's without Newgate, in London
and lands formerly his at Great Stanmore, Middlesex were later surveyed
as can be seen from the following A2A and National Archives catalogue
entries:

Survey of manors of Newport Pagnell with members, Great Linford and
Little Linford dated 1541, taken by Geoffrey Chamber, overseer and
receiver general of the King's purchased lands, Sept. 33 Hen. VIII
[also includes survey of manor of Moulsoe and copy St. Leger leases of
parts of the estate, including Newport corn mill, Newport Park, Walton
Hall in Newport Pagnell, messuage called Backhouse and lands in Little
Linford, barn of 3 leys in town of Newport, 1521-1540]. (Centre for
Buckinghamshire Studies ref. D-U/2/18).

Survey, dated 1542, taken by Geoffrey Chamber of above manors which the
King has had in exchange from John St. Leger, with the value of all
woods and underwoods, Dec. 34 Hen. VIII (Centre for Buckinghamshire
Studies ref. D-U/2/19).

Inventory dated 38 Hen VIII of goods of Geoffrey Chamber, late receiver
of the king's purchased lands, at Great Stanmore, Middx (National
Archives E 154/6/34).

Inventory dated 38 Hen VIII of goods of Geoffrey Chamber, late receiver
of the king's purchased lands at St Sepulchre's, London, (National
Archives E 154/6/35).

Alice, late the wife of Geoffrey Chamber, and Gilbert Walker, v.
Emmanuel L. . . . Under lease of half a stable and land in St.
Sepulchre's without Newgate belonging to the lodging of the abbot of
Leicester.: London. (National Archives C 1/1293/26-27).

Warrant from Sackville to Hugh Losse, [surveyor], and William Dyx,
auditor of the presto, to survey the possessions at Great Stanmore,
Midd, once of Geoffrey Chambers and lately in the tenure of Sir Peter
Gambon. (National Archives E 314/65/21).

I wonder whether there are any visitation records for him and whether
there were any armorial monument at St Sepulchre's or Great Stanmore.
Anybody know?

Derek Howard
Derek Howard
2006-12-08 09:49:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Derek Howard
Post by Sergei Oudman
We may be on less secure grounds with a Geoffrey Chamber, lord of the manor of Great
Stanmore, Middlesex in 1544 mentioned in the VCH <http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=26908>
but nevertheless potentially the same man, minor
gentry, the sort who may have done the grand tour early in life and borne a coat of arms.
In 1541 and 1542 this Geoffrey Chamber seems to have been the overseer
and receiver general of the King's purchased lands - a suitable
position for him to have held if he were making expensive gifts to the
King. (Did he get the job before or after the gift giving?). Four years
later he died, his goods inventoried, his widow Alice was involved in a
court case over his lands at St. Sepulchre's without Newgate, in London
and lands formerly his at Great Stanmore, Middlesex were later surveyed
as can be seen from the following A2A and National Archives catalogue
<snip>
Post by Derek Howard
I wonder whether there are any visitation records for him and whether
there were any armorial monument at St Sepulchre's or Great Stanmore.
Anybody know?
The notes on the emblazoned shield no. 104, in the reference given at
the head of the thread to Stephenson and Griffin's article in
'Archaeologia, v 69, 1917-18', 1920, p 76, "A roll of arms
belonging to the Society of Antiquaries temp Henry VIII, c 1540",
continue by referring to the confirmation of arms in 1528 as being
Harleian ms. 4900, fol. 20b. [Foster's "Grantees of Arms ... to the
end of the seventeenth century", 1916, referring to the confirmation
of 26 Aug 1528 by Wriothesley and Benolte mentions in addition to this
copy a further two copies in Stowe ms 671, fol 75b, and Harleian ms
5887, fol.1]. Stephenson and Griffin further note that "the petition
proves that in 1528 he [Geoffrey Chamber] was of Stanmore,
Middlesex".

So, my earlier hypothesis that this man - the overseer and receiver
general of the King's purchased lands, who died 38 Henry VIII - was the
same Geoffrey Chamber who was in Italy in 1517 and was the grantee in
1518 looks correct. We can start to build a picture of the grantee. He
was a royal official in later life and it is by no means uncertain that
he was not employed by the King from a much earlier period. Thinking
more about the reasons he may have had for being in Italy, I am far
from convinced that in the early 16th century the Grand Tour would be
the most likely explanation, this is more probable at the end of the
century. I tend to think that in 1517-8 the more probable explanation
would be that he was in some way involved in the negotiations for the
Treaty of Universal Peace otherwise known as the Treaty of London, the
first international peace treaty to develop the concept of collective
security. This would ahve involved English diplomats in Italy. Italian
states such as the Papacy, Venice and Urbino were amongst the over
twenty parties including England, France, the Emperor, Spain, Denmark,
Portugal, the Swiss, Guelders, etc., and, as its name suggests, it was
eventually signed in London - on 2 October 1518 [J J Scarisbrick, Henry
VIII, 1968, p 102 et seq.; J D MacKie, The Earlier Tudors, 1952, 308].
This would certainly be a good reason for diplomatic grants of arms
during negotiations in Italy. But this also brings up the intriguing
possibility that the grant just may have taken place in England - if
Riario had travelled as one of the diplomatic corps with Cardinal
Campeggio, the Papal legate a latere (and was using the latter's
authority). This is a possibility worth exploring. Perhaps something
will turn up in Letters and Papers.

Sims' index of pedigrees contained in the heralds' visitations in
the British Museum shows an entry for Chamber under Middlesex and
refers to Harleian ms. 890, fol. 30b. However, Harl. 890 is a copy of
the visitations for Huntingdon and Northampton of 1564. The former
appears to be unpublished but the latter is published at "The
Visitations of Northamptonshire, 1564 and 1618-9; with Northamptonshire
pedigrees from various Harleian MSS", ed. W C Metcalfe, 1877. This
should be checked for a possible Chamber entry.

That Geoffrey Chamber of Stanmore had descendants bearing the 1518 arms
appears probable. Berry's Encyclopaedia Heraldica, v 3 includes an
entry for Chambre [sic] Or a cross Ermine between four martlets Azure
on a chief of the last a serpent between two roses of the first, Crest:
a cock Gules holding three ears of wheat Or. This is borne it is said
"by the late Sir Allan Chambre, Knt. Of Lincoln's Inn Fields,
London, formerly one of the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas, who
died 1823". It is not identical to Chamber of Stanmore but close
enough for it to be but artistic difference over two centuries and not
a similar grant (of which none is recorded in Berry or Edmondson nor
anything obvious in Grantees of Arms).

Other variant but unattributed entries for Chamber include Or a cross
between four martlets Vert; and for Chambers Sable a cross coupled
Ermine between four martlets rising Or (with crest of a demi-eagle
displayed Gules wings Or on a ducal coronet) - though most Chambers
have variants, irrelevant here, of ermine and chevrons, several with
punning gun barrels.

Derek Howard
Derek Howard
2013-07-23 12:45:26 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, December 5, 2006 8:28:04 PM UTC+1, Derek Howard wrote:
<snip>
Post by Derek Howard
The second chap to check out is the grantee, Geoffrey Chamber. In
History Today, v 41, 6, June 1991, pp 43-47
<http://www.historytoday.com/dt_main_allatonce.asp?gid=13319&aid=&tgid=&amid=13319&g13319=x&g9382=x&g30026=x&g20991=x&g21010=x&g19965=x&g19963=x>
Janet Backhouse in "Arms and the Manuscripts: The King's Illuminated
Books" writes: "One of the earliest [books in Henry VII's library, now
part of the Royal Library] is a magnificent Italian humanist book,
complete with its original binding of scarlet leather adorned with
lace-like tooling in gold. It contains the Dialogues of Lucian of
Samosata, a Greek satirist who lived in the second century, translated
into Latin in the fifteenth century by Livio Guidolotti of Urbino,
together with the Lucianesque Apologues of Pandolfo Collenuccio of
Pesaro, who died in 1504. These two works are prefaced by a letter of
dedication revealing that the manuscript was commissioned by an
Englishman named Geoffrey Chamber, who had it 'written in the most
elegant W style of writing whereby the reading of the book should be
rendered more enjoyable still'. Chamber was apparently travelling in
Italy when he ordered the book ... ". The article goes on to provide a
rough date for the manuscript by associating it with another one by the
same artist in 1517.
If this is the same Geoffrey Chamber - and it sounds like the man - and
he was travelling in Italy at the time it seems most likely that he met
up with and gained his grant from Riario after the latter had been
nominated Bishop of Malaga but before he (Riario) had left Italy to
take up his post in Spain. His offering of the volume to Henry VIII may
have bought favour reflected in the confirmation of arms.
<snip>

I have now found why Geoffrey Chamber was in Italy and what he was doing there. He was a travelling companion of Thomas Cromwell (for whom he later worked). The account, first published in "The acts and monuments of John Foxe" can be read at
<http://archive.org/stream/thomascromwell00merruoft#page/n37/>

Derek Howard
s***@gmail.com
2013-07-25 01:37:50 UTC
Permalink
*apologies in advance if this has already been mentioned in this thread* Assuming wikipedia is correct (not always the safest thing to type), Cesare de Riario appears to be the son of the famous Caterina Sforza (1463-1509), which would make Cesare de Riario the grandson of Galeazzo Maria Sforza, Duke of Milan, and the great-grandson of Bianca Maria Visconti (1425-1468).

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caterina_Sforza#Issue

This explains the Visconti “Biscione” in the chief of Geoffrey Chamber's arms. Maybe the roses in his chief derive from the Riario arms?

-Sebastian Nelson

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...