Foreign Arms in England (was Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction)

[s***@slis.sjsu.edu]

M . J. Sayer writes some interesting things about registrations of
foreign arms with the College of Arms in his "English Nobility: The
Gentry, the Heralds and the Continental Context" (Norfolk Heraldry
Society, 1979). On pages 17-18 Sayer writes "where foreign arms are
recognized in England, they of course rank in England as ensigns of
nobility, even if the family was not noble abroad, an anomaly
reflecting the greater success of the English crown's control over
arms." A footnote continues: "Sir Anthony Wagner kindly informs me
that 'foreign arms for which the authority of a document from a
Sovereign or heraldic authority can be produced have a head start
towards recognition here over Burgher arms. Nevertheless, though
acceptance of the document may be the first stage, it has often been
thought necessary that there should be a second stage of confirmation
of the right to use the arms in this country. One sees that there
could in theory, and sometimes in practice, be a clash with the design
of existing English arms. At the present day we keep a record entitled
Foreign Arms where such documents are entered when accepted as valid,
but over and above this there needs to be acceptance by Patent or
otherwise for use in England.' (30 March 1978)...Grants by foreign
authorities to persons not within their jurisdictions, i.e. to
nationals of a third country, are not accepted for registration."

The College of Arms has at times contacted foreign governments to
ascertain the status of their native heraldic authorities. On 4 May
1981 Michael J. Robinson of the British Embassy in Madrid, Spain, wrote
to John Brooke-Little, then Norroy and Ulster King of Arms: "In his
letter of 3 February the Ambassador promised to write again as soon as
we had been able to consult the Ministry of Justice in connection with
your enquiry of 26 January about the validity of the 'grants' of
arms made by the last remaining Spanish Chronicler King of Arms. I am
now writing to say, in the Ambassador's temporary absence on official
tour, that the Ministry have confirmed to us that your understanding of
the position is entirely correct and that (as they stated in their
document dated 4 May 1979) all that the Spanish authorities (ie the
Ministry of Justice) do in respect of Sr. Cadenas' 'grants' is to
authenticate his signature not his action. In confirming the above,
the Ministry have again stressed to us that they neither approve,
recognise nor attach any official value to Sr. Cadenas' 'grants';
and therefore the question in your paragraph 5 of their having to
approve or acknowledge the Chronicler King of Arms' actions does not
arise. They have explained in this connection that under the terms of
the Decree of 13 April 1951 and Sr. Cadenas' own Letter of
Appointment as Chronicler King of Arms, his 'grants' are privately
issued documents with no official validity whatsoever. No official
endorsement is given to his 'grants' of arms by any Spanish
authority, either before or after issue. I regret the length of length
of time it has taken us to extract this information from the Ministry.
But I think the Ministry's position has now been made abundantly
clear and trust that the information will be of use to you in
connection with your dealings with your colleagues in Scotland and
Ireland..."

On 31 March 1982 C. T. Humphrey of the British Embassy in Madrid wrote
to Brooke-Little: "We have as requested consulted the Spanish
Ministry of Justice about the validity of the Certificate of Arms
issued to Dona Elva Sanchez y Lopez, of Nuevo Leon, Mexico, by the
Spanish Cronista Rey de Armas. They have confirmed that even if Senora
Sanchez were of Spanish origin, which they are unable to verify, the
Certificate has no official value whatsoever. They have pointed out in
this connection that, as stated in the first paragraph, line six, of
the document enclosed with your letter under reference the Senora's
'arms' are of new creation, so that Sr Cadenas was not certifying
any ancient arms. The Ministry of Justice have again been most
emphatic to us about the private nature of Sr Cadenas' 'grants'
of arms in the light of their earlier statements (Michael Robinson's
letter of 4 May 1981), which implies that they have no official
validity and that none of them carries the endorsement of the Spanish
authorities, still less that of the Spanish Crown."

These findings are, of course, correct. The Spanish Ministry of
Justice hasn't approved, recognized nor attach any official value to
Spanish armorial certificates since July 1915 when King Alfonso XIII
issued a royal decree that, among other things, made the heralds
personally responsible for the accuracy of these certificates. The
Ministry of Justice distanced itself from these certificates in order
to avoid the embarrassment experienced in 1913 when a Spanish herald,
Luis Vilar y Vilar, certified the false arms and title of a French
citizen. A Ministerial decree of 13 April 1951 also put an end to the
Spanish heralds' status as court functionaries, abolished their
government salaries, ended their role as public servants and
established armorial certificates as private documents. The above
misconception that Spanish armorial certificates pretend to be grants,
however, is groundless and betrays a lack of understanding about the
history of Spanish heraldry. The College of Arms may very well
consider registering foreign arms from Spain granted by the King of
Spain, such as these arms granted in 1992 to the Count de Latores:

Loading Image...

-Sebastian Nelson

I recently wrote to the College of Arms about registering my South
African arms with them and found their answer very interesting.
They characterized my South African badge and coat of arms as

"foreign"

(not Commonwealth) arms and informed me that such arms are only
registered if there is a need for them to be borne in Britain,
presumeably excluding Scotland. This strongly implies that the

College

of Arms claims no jurisdiction outside of Britain, not even in New
Zealand, a country which has explicitly recognized their

jurisdiction.

It also raises the question of whether the College of Arms would
register truly foreign arms from, say, Spain. What about arms from

the

Republic of Ireland?

[Sean J Murphy]

<***@slis.sjsu.edu> wrote in message

. . . . .

Post by s***@slis.sjsu.edu
The Spanish Ministry of
Justice hasn't approved, recognized nor attach any official value to
Spanish armorial certificates since July 1915 when King Alfonso XIII
issued a royal decree that, among other things, made the heralds
personally responsible for the accuracy of these certificates. The
Ministry of Justice distanced itself from these certificates in order
to avoid the embarrassment experienced in 1913 when a Spanish herald,
Luis Vilar y Vilar, certified the false arms and title of a French
citizen. A Ministerial decree of 13 April 1951 also put an end to the
Spanish heralds' status as court functionaries, abolished their
government salaries, ended their role as public servants and
established armorial certificates as private documents.

. . . . .
. . . . .

Post by s***@slis.sjsu.edu

What about arms from the Republic of Ireland?

The relationship between the College of Arms and the new Irish Genealogical
Office (later also Office of the Chief Herald) was thrashed out in 1943
through correspondence and a series of meetings between Garter Wollaston and
MacLysaght and other Irish officials. Hood summarises these exchanges in
'Royal Roots, Republican Inheritance', pages 191-96, wherein Wollaston is
quoted as eventually accepting that he should 'recognise the granting and
confirming . . . of armorial bearings by the Éire Genealogical Office',
subject to 'well-defined limits'. Unfortunately, the correspondence in
question is still classed as 'uncatalogued' and therefore accessible only to
favoured scholars, not including the undersigned. It is not clear how things
now stand with the College of Arms in the light of the MacCarthy Mór affair
and the current crisis over the legal validity of Irish arms grants.
Although others and myself have advised that an Irish heraldry (and
genealogy) act should be passed, a Spanish-style solution involving
'privatisation' of the GO/OCHI is not impossible.

Sean Murphy
An Irish Arms Crisis
http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/armscrisis.htm

[Derek Howard]

Post by Sean J Murphy
The relationship between the College of Arms and the new Irish

Genealogical

Post by Sean J Murphy
Office (later also Office of the Chief Herald) was thrashed out in 1943
through correspondence and a series of meetings between Garter

Wollaston and

Post by Sean J Murphy
MacLysaght and other Irish officials. Hood summarises these exchanges in
'Royal Roots, Republican Inheritance', pages 191-96, wherein Wollaston is
quoted as eventually accepting that he should 'recognise the granting and
confirming . . . of armorial bearings by the Éire Genealogical

Office',

Post by Sean J Murphy
subject to 'well-defined limits'. Unfortunately, the correspondence in
question is still classed as 'uncatalogued' and therefore accessible only to
favoured scholars, not including the undersigned.

The correspondence is not completely uncatalogued. The Sadleir papers
at the NLI are partially catalogued on-line and contain the following :
"1000/1/1/3 College of Arms
Letters mainly concern Sadleir's proposed appointment to the College
of Arms in London, and difficulties with same. Butler, Windsor Herald,
College of Arms, London, states 12 April 1943 'I think there will be
little doubt that the proposed genealogical bureau will peter out and
that the work will gradually drift here, that is to you.' Anthony
Wagner, College of Arms, London states Aug 1943 'I am sorry to see
that they propose to go on issuing patents from Dublin'. Later
letters concern outstanding Office of the Ulster King of Arms heraldic
matters. Wollaston states in 1946 that 'the right of MacLysaght to
issue patents was difficult, but it was deemed more difficult to
dispute legally'."

Post by Sean J Murphy
Although others and myself have advised that an Irish heraldry (and
genealogy) act should be passed, a Spanish-style solution involving
'privatisation' of the GO/OCHI is not impossible

As for the OCHI's future - in the Dail on 1 December, Mr. O'Donoghue,
Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, in reply to Mr. Howlin, repeated
his intention given on 20 October saying: "It is my intention to bring
into effect the provisions of the 1997 Act giving the autonomy to the
National Library as soon as discussions between officials at my
Department, the Department of Finance and staff of the museum, now
nearing finality, are bought to a conclusion. I expect to move on this
over the next few weeks. I am satisfied that the best course is to
await the appointment of the new board of the National Library and
allow it appoint a chief herald as it is required to do under the
Act.". An interim solution I have recommended several times. I suspect
we shall see further developments around February.

Derek Howard

[Sean J Murphy]

Post by Derek Howard
The correspondence is not completely uncatalogued. The Sadleir papers
at the NLI are partially catalogued on-line [at

http://www.nli.ie/pdfs/mss%20lists/sadleir.pdf] . . . . .

These are the private papers of Thomas U Sadleir, deposited in 2001-02,
which I am glad to see are now catalogued. Access to significant portions of
the historic records of the GO, later OCHI, to which I was referring, is
still closely guarded, but I will continue to make periodic applications.
Again, there is a large quantity of these closed 'uncatalogued' documents,
which also feature Ulster Office material going back as far as the late 19th
century, as cited teasingly by Hood in 'Royal Roots'.

Post by Derek Howard
. . . . .
As for the OCHI's future - in the Dail on 1 December, Mr. O'Donoghue,
Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, in reply to Mr. Howlin, repeated
his intention given on 20 October saying: "It is my intention to bring
into effect the provisions of the 1997 Act giving the autonomy to the
National Library as soon as discussions between officials at my
Department, the Department of Finance and staff of the museum, now
nearing finality, are bought to a conclusion. I expect to move on this
over the next few weeks. I am satisfied that the best course is to
await the appointment of the new board of the National Library and
allow it appoint a chief herald as it is required to do under the
Act.". An interim solution I have recommended several times. I suspect
we shall see further developments around February.

We shall see. Recall the solemn promise of Minister de Valera in 1999 to
establish a committee to review procedures for recognising chiefs in the
wake of exposure of the Mac Carthy Mór hoax, of course never implemented. My
own suspicions, which may prove to be wrong, are that the powers that be
have finally cottoned on to the fact that the mess in the GO/OCHI relates
not only to some minor shennanigans involving Terence MacCarthy, but
involves long term maladministration and corruption and questions over the
very legal basis of the office and its right to grant arms in particular.

Sean Murphy
An Irish Arms Crisis
http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/armscrisis.htm

[Sean J Murphy]

Looking again at the account of the Sadleir Papers donated to the National
Library of Ireland in 2001-01 at
http://www.nli.ie/pdfs/mss%20lists/sadleir.pdf It is clear that some of the
correspondence, particularly that with Ulster Wilkinson, is official rather
than personal, and should not have been removed from Ulster's Office by
Sadleir. We know that there was a thorough purge of documents from Ulster
Vicars's time following the Crown Jewels scandal in 1907. Could it be that
the letter from Lord Walter Fitzgerald berating Vicars for neglect of
Kildare Archaeological Society duties ('you are hopeless') is one which
Sadleir or a donor decided to preserve as it was interesting, perhaps useful
in giving a certain, largely justified, impression of Vicars as an
administrator, but not dangerous to the establishment? An exasperated
MacLysaght complained of Sadleir's unhelpfulness when he was taking over the
office, and noted as well that copies of correspondence had not been kept
('Changing Times', page 182). We know now that some official correspondence
at least had been removed by Sadleir. It would not be unreasonable to
suggest that a similar but much more sinister weeding was performed in the
OCHI in or about 1995, particularly with regard to records relating to
MacCarthy and other bogus chiefs. As historians, genealogists and heraldists
in particular will know, we have a long way to go yet in Ireland to secure
our archives and establish an accepted ethic in relation to preservation of
public records.

Sean Murphy
Report on O Long http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/olong.htm

[j***@yahoo.ca]

Very interesting. What is the nature of the Spanish chroniclers' of
arms appointments if they can't certify arms?

I'm leary of reading too much into that correspondence since the lack
of "official" status doesn't necessarily make something less than
legally binding. German rolls of arms aren't "official" either (in the
sense of constituting a government office), but they do create the
underpinnings for a court case if someone usurps one's arms in Germany.

The anglosphere seems very caught up on the idea of arms being granted
by officialdom, rather surprising for countries in which one can
usually change one's name by simply asking other people to call one
something else or by making a simple written declaration to that
effect.

There is a marked difference in philosophy between countries that focus
on people needing permission for arms and those that facilitate legal
protection for arms that people assume.

[s***@slis.sjsu.edu]

Spanish Chroniclers of Arms can and do certify arms. They are
appointed by government officials, and even though their certificates
are private rather than public documents, their right to certify arms
is referred to in the text of their appoinments.

The office of Chronicler of Arms of Castile and Leon was established by
Decree of the Junta, or regional governmet, of the Spanish province of
Castile-Leon on 9 May 1991 (http://www.jcyl.es). This decree regulated
the use of municipal heraldry in Castile-Leon, and I have included the
sections of the Decree concerning the office of Chronicler of Arms of
Castile and Leon below. If you can't read Spanish, it grants the
Chronicler of Arms of Castile and Leon the traditional powers of the
ancient Chroniclers, Kings of Arms and Heralds of Castile-Leon. The
1991 Decree specifically mentions the Royal and Ministerial Decrees of
29 July 1915 and 13 April 1951 which confirm the Chroniclers' right to
certify private arms:

JUNTA DE CASTILLA Y LEON

Decreto 105/1991, de 9 de mayo, por el que se regula el procedimiento y
normas heraldicas de aprobacion, modificacion y rehabilitacion de
escudos y banderas municipales en Castilla y Leon.

Boletin Oficial no. 92, de 16 de mayo de 1991.

...

EL CRONISTA DE ARMAS

Articulo 15.- El Cronista de Armas, que debera ser Licenciado en
Derecho o en Letras y experto en Heraldica de reconocido prestigio,
sera nombrado por Decreto del Presidente de la Junta de Castilla y
Leon.

Articulo 16.- El Cronista de Armas de Castilla y Leon debera informar
cuantas cuestiones de su especialidad le sometan la Junta de Castilla y
Leon y las Diputaciones Provinciales, y ostentara las facultades y
competencies tradicionales de los antiguos Cronistas, Reyes de Armas y
Heraldos de Castilla y Leon, contenidas en el Real Decreto de 29 de
julio de 1915, y el Decreto de 13 de abril de 1951. El desempeno de
este cargo no sera remunerado.

El Cronista de Armas de Castilla y Leon, por indicacion de la Junta de
Castilla y Leon a traves de la Consejeria de Presidencia y
Administracion Territorial y a instancia de la Corporacion municipal
que incoe el expediente, debera redactor la memoria a que hace
referencia el apartado b) del articulo 5 de este Decreto.

Articulo 17.- El Cronista de Armas debera reunir cuantos antecedents
se conserven sobre la Heraldica y la Vexilologia municipales
castellano-leonesa; depositando los minutarios anuales con sus informes
y dictamentes en el Archivo Central de la Administracion de Castilla y
Leon.

...

El presente Decreto entrara en vigor al dia siguiente de su publicacion
en el Boletin Oficial de Castilla y Leon.

Valladolid, 9 de mayo de 1991.

El Presidente de la Junta de Castilla y Leon, JESUS POSADA MORENO.
El Consejero de Presidencia y Administracion Territorial, CESAR
HUIDOBRO DIEZ.

(in A. de Ceballos-Escalera y Gila, Heraldos y Reyes de Armas en la
Corte de España, Madrid, 1993. pp 380-385)
Cheers,

Sebastian Nelson

***@slis.sjsu.edu

[Derek Howard]

Thanks for the web link to the Boletin Oficial de Castilla y Leon.

Post by s***@slis.sjsu.edu
If you can't read Spanish, it grants the
Chronicler of Arms of Castile and Leon the traditional powers of the
ancient Chroniclers, Kings of Arms and Heralds of Castile-Leon. The
1991 Decree specifically mentions the Royal and Ministerial Decrees of
29 July 1915 and 13 April 1951 which confirm the Chroniclers' right to

<snip>

Post by s***@slis.sjsu.edu
Articulo 16.- El Cronista de Armas de Castilla y Leon debera informar
cuantas cuestiones de su especialidad le sometan la Junta de Castilla y
Leon y las Diputaciones Provinciales, y ostentara las facultades y
competencies tradicionales de los antiguos Cronistas, Reyes de Armas y
Heraldos de Castilla y Leon, contenidas en el Real Decreto de 29 de
julio de 1915, y el Decreto de 13 de abril de 1951.

Could you clarify a little further please? The Decree 111/1991 of 9 May
1991 is entirely concerned with municipal arms. Article 16 which you
cite referring to the 1915 and 1951 decrees requires the Cronista to
"show the faculties and traditional competences of the former
Cronistas, Kings of Arms and Heralds of Castille and León, contained
in the Royal Decree of 29 July 1915, and the Decree of 13 April 1951".
This does not at first sight suggest that this decree is granting the
Cronista the same powers as may have been granted previously. I take it
this Article specifies the personal attributes which any Cronista must
have before appointment and that these should be the same as in the
earlier Decrees. Where is mention made of the Cronista's right to
certify arms? Or have I misread the Spanish or missed something in the
earlier decrees?

The Official Bulletin also published the same day, 16 May 1991, the
Decree 111/1991, of 15 May appointing Excma Sr. D. Alfonso de
Ceballos-Escalera Gila, Marqués de la Floresta as Cronista de Armas de
Castilla y León. In signing this the President of the Junta of
Castilla y León specifically refers to the appointment being under the
powers given him by Article 15 of the Decree 105/1991, of 9 May 1991,
by which the procedure and heraldic regulations of approval, change and
rehabilitation of shields and municipal flags are regulated. There is
no mention of the Cronista certifying private arms nor of the powers of
earlier Kings of Arms.

I don't deny Marqués de la Floresta may have the right to issue
certificates to private individuals but on the face of it this right
looks to be a private one, or at least not recognised under the
Castille & León legislation.

Derek Howard

[s***@slis.sjsu.edu]

Post by Derek Howard
Thanks for the web link to the Boletin Oficial de Castilla y Leon.

Post by s***@slis.sjsu.edu
If you can't read Spanish, it grants the
Chronicler of Arms of Castile and Leon the traditional powers of the
ancient Chroniclers, Kings of Arms and Heralds of Castile-Leon. The
1991 Decree specifically mentions the Royal and Ministerial Decrees of
29 July 1915 and 13 April 1951 which confirm the Chroniclers' right to

<snip>

Post by s***@slis.sjsu.edu
Articulo 16.- El Cronista de Armas de Castilla y Leon debera

informar

Post by Derek Howard

Post by s***@slis.sjsu.edu
cuantas cuestiones de su especialidad le sometan la Junta de

Castilla

Post by Derek Howard
y

Post by s***@slis.sjsu.edu
Leon y las Diputaciones Provinciales, y ostentara las facultades y
competencies tradicionales de los antiguos Cronistas, Reyes de Armas y
Heraldos de Castilla y Leon, contenidas en el Real Decreto de 29 de
julio de 1915, y el Decreto de 13 de abril de 1951.

Could you clarify a little further please? The Decree 111/1991 of 9 May
1991 is entirely concerned with municipal arms. Article 16 which you
cite referring to the 1915 and 1951 decrees requires the Cronista to
"show the faculties and traditional competences of the former
Cronistas, Kings of Arms and Heralds of Castille and León, contained
in the Royal Decree of 29 July 1915, and the Decree of 13 April 1951".
This does not at first sight suggest that this decree is granting the
Cronista the same powers as may have been granted previously. I take it
this Article specifies the personal attributes which any Cronista must
have before appointment and that these should be the same as in the
earlier Decrees. Where is mention made of the Cronista's right to
certify arms? Or have I misread the Spanish or missed something in the
earlier decrees?

In July 1915 King Alfonso XIII issued a royal Decree that among other
things confirmed the Chroniclers' right to issue various certificates,
including certificates of armorial bearings, with the authorization of
the Ministry of Grace and Justice. "Tendran validez las certificaciones
de los Reyes de Armas...en material de nobleza, genealogia y escudos de
armas, siempre que vayan autorizadas por el Ministro de Gracia y
Justicia...Dado en Palacio a vientenueve de julio de mil novecientos
quince. =ALFONSO=" (A. de Ceballos-Escalera y Gila, Heraldos y Reyes de
Armas en la Corte de España, Madrid, 1993., pp. 360-361). This Decree
referred to in the 1991 Decree.

The 1951 Decree cited in the 1991 Decree also deals with private arms.
In terms of "escudos de armas, las certificaciones de los Cronistas de
Armas con autorizacion para el uso solo tendran validez con el visto
bueno del Ministerio de Justicia...Decreto, dado en Madrid a trece de
abril de mil novecientos cincuenta y uno. =FRANCISCO FRANCO=" (Escalera
y Gila, op.cit. p. 363).

Post by Derek Howard
The Official Bulletin also published the same day, 16 May 1991, the
Decree 111/1991, of 15 May appointing Excma Sr. D. Alfonso de
Ceballos-Escalera Gila, Marqués de la Floresta as Cronista de Armas de
Castilla y León. In signing this the President of the Junta of
Castilla y León specifically refers to the appointment being under the
powers given him by Article 15 of the Decree 105/1991, of 9 May 1991,
by which the procedure and heraldic regulations of approval, change and
rehabilitation of shields and municipal flags are regulated. There is
no mention of the Cronista certifying private arms nor of the powers of
earlier Kings of Arms.
I don't deny Marqués de la Floresta may have the right to issue
certificates to private individuals but on the face of it this right
looks to be a private one, or at least not recognised under the
Castille & León legislation.
Derek Howard

If the Chronicler of Arms of Castile and Leon did not have the right to
deal with private arms, it is surprising that the King of Spain would
rely on him to prepare grants of new arms.

-Sebastian Nelson

[Derek Howard]

Post by s***@slis.sjsu.edu

Post by Derek Howard

Post by s***@slis.sjsu.edu
y ostentara las facultades y
competencies tradicionales de los antiguos Cronistas, Reyes de
Armas y Heraldos de Castilla y Leon, contenidas en el Real
Decreto de 29 de julio de 1915, y el Decreto de 13 de abril
de 1951.

Could you clarify a little further please? The Decree 111/1991
of 9 May 1991 is entirely concerned with municipal arms.
Article 16 which you cite referring to the 1915 and 1951 decrees
requires the Cronista to "show the faculties and traditional
competences of the former Cronistas, Kings of Arms and Heralds of
Castille and León, contained in the Royal Decree of 29 July 1915,
and the Decree of 13 April 1951". This does not at first sight
suggest that this decree is granting the Cronista the same powers
as may have been granted previously. I take it this Article
specifies the personal attributes which any Cronista must have
before appointment and that these should be the same as in the
earlier Decrees. Where is mention made of the Cronista's right
to certify arms? Or have I misread the Spanish or missed
something in the earlier decrees?

Well, yes, it does appear that I was being simplistic in my reading of
the Spanish. I have since discussed the wording with a native Spaniard
who indicates that the use of "ostentara" implies not only showing or
exhibiting but also having the power of the former Cronistas etc..

Post by s***@slis.sjsu.edu
In July 1915 King Alfonso XIII issued a royal Decree that among other
things confirmed the Chroniclers' right to issue various
certificates, including certificates of armorial bearings, with the
authorization of the Ministry of Grace and Justice. "Tendran validez
las certificaciones de los Reyes de Armas...en material de nobleza,
genealogia y escudos de armas, siempre que vayan autorizadas por el
Ministro de Gracia y Justicia...Dado en Palacio a vientenueve de
julio de mil novecientos quince. =ALFONSO=" (A. de Ceballos-Escalera
y Gila, Heraldos y Reyes de Armas en la Corte de España, Madrid,
1993., pp. 360-361). This Decree referred to in the 1991 Decree.
The 1951 Decree cited in the 1991 Decree also deals with private
arms. In terms of "escudos de armas, las certificaciones de los
Cronistas de Armas con autorizacion para el uso solo tendran validez
con el visto bueno del Ministerio de Justicia...Decreto, dado en
Madrid a trece de abril de mil novecientos cincuenta y uno.
=FRANCISCO FRANCO=" (Escalera y Gila, op.cit. p. 363).

Thanks.

Post by s***@slis.sjsu.edu
If the Chronicler of Arms of Castile and Leon did not have the right
to deal with private arms, it is surprising that the King of Spain
would rely on him to prepare grants of new arms.

In light of my comment above your interpetation seems sound.
Derek Howard

[Cillian Roberto Fani Ó Broin]

Post by j***@yahoo.ca
Very interesting. What is the nature of the Spanish chroniclers' of
arms appointments if they can't certify arms?

(snip)

Post by j***@yahoo.ca
The anglosphere seems very caught up on the idea of arms being granted
by officialdom (snip)

The same applies (applied) for Italy ... where arms no longer enjoy any
legal status.

I have recently been part in much debate over the legal status of the
certificates the Spanish chronicler issues. The arguement for legal status
has yet to convince me. It is my present understanding that he can indeed
certify arms (this is provided for in the decree 3 April 1951), however,
while the documents he can issue are considered (nobility, genealogy and
arms) their nature is not. The certificates remain therefore private
documents with no official value.

Moreover, I also understand that arms - other than in said decree - are not
considered under Spain law.

Rec.heraldry thoughts on the above would be most welcome.

Cillian Roberto Fani Ó Broin

[j***@yahoo.ca]

Post by Cillian Roberto Fani Ó Broin
I have recently been part in much debate over the legal status of the
certificates the Spanish chronicler issues. The arguement for legal status
has yet to convince me. It is my present understanding that he can indeed
certify arms (this is provided for in the decree 3 April 1951), however,
while the documents he can issue are considered (nobility, genealogy and
arms) their nature is not. The certificates remain therefore private
documents with no official value.

If they are private documents of no official value could anyone issue
such certificates? If so, what is the point of the government
decreeing that a particular person can issue them?

Post by Cillian Roberto Fani Ó Broin
Moreover, I also understand that arms - other than in said decree - are not
considered under Spain law.

Are grants by the Spanish king himself of no legal significance? Has
the Spanish law of arms (if there ever was one) ceased to exist?

I know none of the answers, I'm just trying to make sense of the
situation for myself.

[p***@hotmail.com]

Dear Jonathan,

Good questions.

Post by j***@yahoo.ca
If they are private documents of no official value could anyone issue
such certificates? If so, what is the point of the government
decreeing that a particular person can issue them?
Are grants by the Spanish king himself of no legal significance? Has
the Spanish law of arms (if there ever was one) ceased to exist?

Obviously the certifications of arms of both Don Vicente and Don
Alfonso must have some value or the years of legislation and official
appoinments to office would not have been made.

The certifications of arms that Don Vicente issues start with the
following paragraph:

"Vicente de Cadenas y Vicent de Gaztanaga y Nogues, Chronicler King of
Arms by Nomination, the sole and only one recognised by the decree of
13th July 1951, Dean of the Corps and the only one lawfully accredited
before the Ministry of Justice for the expedition of genealogical,
nobiliary and armorial certificates"

The documents drawn up by Don Alfonso and countersigned by HM King Juan
Carlos I of Spain are considered grants of noble arms and are not
certifications of arms.

Kindest regards to all,

David Pritchard

[s***@slis.sjsu.edu]

According to some of Guy Sainty's rec.heraldry postings over the years
("Spanish Certificate" 8 August 1996; "Spanish certificate painting of
my arms" 14 December 1996; "It doesn't matter whether your Mac or Rac!
Lyon grants" 19 September 2004) some of Don Alfonso's armorial
certificates are countersigned by the President of the Junta de
Castilla y Leon in Valladolid.

-Sebastian Nelson

[p***@hotmail.com]

Dear Sebastian,

This is correct. A friend of mine has a certification of arms
countersigned in such a manner.

I do not know if this is still done by Don Alfonso as there was a court
ruling on this a few years ago. If I remember correctly, you are
familiar with the issues involving devoloution of national authority to
regional authorites in Spain and the legal contradictions and
ambiguities between regional and national legislation that were not
harmonized.

David

Post by s***@slis.sjsu.edu
According to some of Guy Sainty's rec.heraldry postings over the years
("Spanish Certificate" 8 August 1996; "Spanish certificate painting of
my arms" 14 December 1996; "It doesn't matter whether your Mac or Rac!
Lyon grants" 19 September 2004) some of Don Alfonso's armorial
certificates are countersigned by the President of the Junta de
Castilla y Leon in Valladolid.
-Sebastian Nelson

[Cillian Roberto Fani Ó Broin]

Post by j***@yahoo.ca
If they are private documents of no official value could anyone issue
such certificates? If so, what is the point of the government
decreeing that a particular person can issue them?

This is the ambiguity of the present situation. The decree of 1951 has
established the persona of the Cronista and also specified the three types
of certificates he can issue. It did not, however, establish what legal
value his certificates carry. Here comes the "tricky" bit. Please - you and
all interested rec.heraldry users - tell if and where I stray off the mark.

The Cronista - although a persona provided for by Royal Decree - does not
hold a state office and is therefore not a state official. If he did and
were he would not need for his signature to be certified. All the Min.
Justice does with the Cronista's certificates is countersign his signature.
The Min. Justice does not enter the matter of what the Cronista has issued -
it is not their business to do so - and indeed said decree specifically says
he issues certificates under his own responsibility. This implies that the
signature-certification by the Min. Justice goes no further than the
signature and it is therefore NOT the Min. Justice's action that gives the
certificate "official status".

I have understood the Cronista to be the expert the Ministry relies upon for
these matters. They take his word for good. However, while this certainly
gives him a great amount of prestige, it does not imply that his
certificates are official state documents. Such a matter could not be simply
"implied", it would necessarily have to be specifically provided for by law.

Post by j***@yahoo.ca
Are grants by the Spanish king himself of no legal significance? Has
the Spanish law of arms (if there ever was one) ceased to exist?
I know none of the answers, I'm just trying to make sense of the
situation for myself.

I too am trying to make sense of the situation. I understand titles of
nobility are regulated in Spain while arms are (sadly) not - there is no
legislation regarding heraldry other than said decree 1951. I do not believe
anyone would dare question a grant of arms ordered and countersigned by the
king himself, however, arms themselves have no specific legal protection.

[Derek Howard]

Cillian Roberto Fani Ó Broin wrote:
[snip]

Post by Cillian Roberto Fani Ó Broin

Are grants by the Spanish king himself of no legal significance? Has
the Spanish law of arms (if there ever was one) ceased to exist?
I know none of the answers, I'm just trying to make sense of the
situation for myself.

I too am trying to make sense of the situation. I understand titles of
nobility are regulated in Spain while arms are (sadly) not - there is no
legislation regarding heraldry other than said decree 1951. I do not believe
anyone would dare question a grant of arms ordered and countersigned by the
king himself, however, arms themselves have no specific legal

protection.

Only partly true. There is still a law of arms in Spain and very up to
date it is - or rather they are for more than one regime exists. It
is just that the laws of arms currently apply to municipal arms rather
more than to personal arms.

The legislation in the region of Castile and Leon has been mentioned
already on this thread but there is, for instance, also the legislation
in force in the region of Catalonia. Catan law includes detailed
regulation of symbols for local authorities, local consortia,
autonomous organs, companies and other bodies dependant on a local
authority (Decree 263/1991 of 25 November 1991) and general provisions
under Articles 36-38 of Decree 2/2003 of 28 April 2003 -formerly
Articles 35-37 of the Law 8/1987 - on municipalities and local
authorities. Styles of shield, blazon, brisures, coronets, adoption
processes, registration and publication are all issues covered and
there is specific prohibition on the use of the registered arms by
private entities and individuals without permission. Hundreds of arms
have been registered in the last decade and a half. This modern
heraldic legislation following administrative devolution has developed
in much the same way as the Belgian municipal arms legislation and it
is not impossible that similar devolved heraldic regimes could later be
expanded to cover personal arms as has happened in the Flemish and
French Community of Belgium.

Derek Howard

[Cillian Roberto Fani Ó Broin]

Post by Derek Howard
Only partly true. There is still a law of arms in Spain and very up to
date it is - or rather they are for more than one regime exists. It
is just that the laws of arms currently apply to municipal arms rather
more than to personal arms.

(snip)

Thank you very much for that. The situation is then very similar to Italy
where state bodies (regions, provinces, cities, military units, etc.) are
also issued arms whereas private arms are disregarded altogether.

I was, however, focusing on private arms alone. I apologise, I should have
made that clearer. My previous post (query) therefore still stands regarding
private arms.

[p***@hotmail.com]

Dear Derek,

The devoloution of heraldic privilages in Spain to autonomous
communities was established under the following legislation: Codi de
Regim Local Real Decreto 2569/1986, de 28 de noviembre, Titulo VI,
Capitulo 1, Seccinó 5a de los honores y distinciones, Articulo 186 y
Articulo 187. It appears somewhere on the Internet as I have a copy of
it. I do remembered that I searched for a very long time to locate this
law.

Best wishes,

David Pritchard

[j***@yahoo.ca]

I do not believe anyone would dare question a grant of arms
ordered and countersigned by the king himself, however,
arms themselves have no specific legal protection.

That's actually one of the things I've been wondering. If Spanish arms
have no legal standing, then why would the College of Arms recognize
arms granted by a Spanish king over those certified by a Spanish
chronicler of arms?

[Cillian Roberto Fani Ó Broin]

I do not believe anyone would dare question a grant of arms
ordered and countersigned by the king himself, however,
arms themselves have no specific legal protection.
That's actually one of the things I've been wondering. If Spanish arms
have no legal standing, then why would the College of Arms recognize
arms granted by a Spanish king over those certified by a Spanish
chronicler of arms?

An example would be handy here.

[j***@yahoo.ca]

I have none, but the first message in this thread terminates thus:

"The above misconception that Spanish armorial certificates pretend to
be grants, however, is groundless and betrays a lack of understanding
about the history of Spanish heraldry. The College of Arms may very
well consider registering foreign arms from Spain granted by the King
of Spain, such as these arms granted in 1992 to the Count de Latores:
http://heraldry.freeservers.com/Grant.jpg "

[p***@hotmail.com]

Dear Jonathan,

I think the issues with the College of Arms recognising Spanish arms
are:

1. Protecting their turf. Technically England and Ireland were Spanish
territory during the marriage of Queen Mary and Phillip II; then after
Mary's death because Elizabeth I was illegitimate. A cheaper source for
arms would hurt the College of Arms' income.

2. By denigrating Spanish arms the College of Arms is creating the
impression that their grants are superior. The difference between the
Cronistas and the Heralds is that the Heralds receive about 50 euros a
year from the Queen which keeps them officially in Her Majesty's pay.
One would suppose that if King Juan Carlos were to cut a few checks
each year to the Cronistas that a different reason to reject Spanish
arms would be invented.

3. A long tradition of anti-Catholicsm in British society is also a
contributing factor to the denegration and refusal to recognise
Spanish arms.

David Pritchard

[j***@yahoo.ca]

Sigh. You may well be right.

I wish heraldic officials would grow up and focus on making heraldic
emblems widely available and enforceable rather than alienating people
in order to make themselves feel important. I have more and more
sympathy for the U.S. declining to regulate private heraldry. It's too
easy to get caught in the ego trap.

[Don Aitken]

Post by p***@hotmail.com
Dear Jonathan,
I think the issues with the College of Arms recognising Spanish arms
1. Protecting their turf. Technically England and Ireland were Spanish
territory during the marriage of Queen Mary and Phillip II; then after
Mary's death because Elizabeth I was illegitimate. A cheaper source for
arms would hurt the College of Arms' income.

Nonsense.

"provided, enacted and established by the authority of this present
parliament, that your Majesty as our only queen, shall and may solely
and as a sole queen, use, have and enjoy the crown and sovereignty of
and over your realms, dominions and subjects, with all the
preeminences, prerogatives, dignities, authorities, jurisdictions ...
in such sole and only estate and in as large and ample manner and form
in all degrees, acts, exercises and conditions, from and after the
solemnization of the said marriage, and at all times during the same,
which God grant long to continue and endure, as your Highness now
hath, useth, exerciseth and enjoyeth the same ... without any right,
title, estate, claim or demand to be given, come or grow unto the said
most noble prince as tenant by the courtesy of this realm, or in or by
any other means by force of the said marriage, of in and to your said
imperial crown, sovereignty, realms ... by any laws, usage or custom
whatsoever; the said marriage or any statute, custom, prescription or
other thing to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding."

Also "in case that no children being left, the said most noble queen
do die before him, the said lord prince shall not challenge any right
at all in the said kingdom, but without any impediment shall permit
the succession thereof to come unto them to whom it shall belong and
appertain by the right and laws of the said realm".

From the marriage treaty. For the whole thing, see
http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/ast/mary.html#164

[p***@hotmail.com]

Dear Don,

That maybe the UK take on the situation but the Kingdom of Ireland was
transfered to King Phillip II by the Pope. There were no proper heirs
other than Mary Queen of Scots, Edward VI being a heratic and Elizabeth
I being a bastard and a heretic.

DAP

Post by Don Aitken

Post by p***@hotmail.com
Dear Jonathan,
I think the issues with the College of Arms recognising Spanish arms
1. Protecting their turf. Technically England and Ireland were Spanish
territory during the marriage of Queen Mary and Phillip II; then after
Mary's death because Elizabeth I was illegitimate. A cheaper source for
arms would hurt the College of Arms' income.

Nonsense.
"provided, enacted and established by the authority of this present
parliament, that your Majesty as our only queen, shall and may solely
and as a sole queen, use, have and enjoy the crown and sovereignty of
and over your realms, dominions and subjects, with all the
preeminences, prerogatives, dignities, authorities, jurisdictions ...
in such sole and only estate and in as large and ample manner and form
in all degrees, acts, exercises and conditions, from and after the
solemnization of the said marriage, and at all times during the same,
which God grant long to continue and endure, as your Highness now
hath, useth, exerciseth and enjoyeth the same ... without any right,
title, estate, claim or demand to be given, come or grow unto the said
most noble prince as tenant by the courtesy of this realm, or in or by
any other means by force of the said marriage, of in and to your said
imperial crown, sovereignty, realms ... by any laws, usage or custom
whatsoever; the said marriage or any statute, custom, prescription or
other thing to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding."
Also "in case that no children being left, the said most noble queen
do die before him, the said lord prince shall not challenge any right
at all in the said kingdom, but without any impediment shall permit
the succession thereof to come unto them to whom it shall belong and
appertain by the right and laws of the said realm".
From the marriage treaty. For the whole thing, see
http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/ast/mary.html#164
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".

[p***@hotmail.com]

Dear Don,

That maybe the UK take on the situation but the Kingdom of Ireland was
transfered to King Phillip II by the Pope. There were no proper heirs
other than Mary Queen of Scots, Edward VI being a heretic and Elizabeth
I being a bastard and a heretic.

DAP

Post by Don Aitken

Post by p***@hotmail.com
Dear Jonathan,
I think the issues with the College of Arms recognising Spanish arms
1. Protecting their turf. Technically England and Ireland were Spanish
territory during the marriage of Queen Mary and Phillip II; then after
Mary's death because Elizabeth I was illegitimate. A cheaper source for
arms would hurt the College of Arms' income.

Nonsense.
"provided, enacted and established by the authority of this present
parliament, that your Majesty as our only queen, shall and may solely
and as a sole queen, use, have and enjoy the crown and sovereignty of
and over your realms, dominions and subjects, with all the
preeminences, prerogatives, dignities, authorities, jurisdictions ...
in such sole and only estate and in as large and ample manner and form
in all degrees, acts, exercises and conditions, from and after the
solemnization of the said marriage, and at all times during the same,
which God grant long to continue and endure, as your Highness now
hath, useth, exerciseth and enjoyeth the same ... without any right,
title, estate, claim or demand to be given, come or grow unto the said
most noble prince as tenant by the courtesy of this realm, or in or by
any other means by force of the said marriage, of in and to your said
imperial crown, sovereignty, realms ... by any laws, usage or custom
whatsoever; the said marriage or any statute, custom, prescription or
other thing to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding."
Also "in case that no children being left, the said most noble queen
do die before him, the said lord prince shall not challenge any right
at all in the said kingdom, but without any impediment shall permit
the succession thereof to come unto them to whom it shall belong and
appertain by the right and laws of the said realm".
From the marriage treaty. For the whole thing, see
http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/ast/mary.html#164
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".

[GJKS]

I feel forced to make some comment on the foregoing remarks:

Elizabeth I was not a bastard and to call her such, besides being
ungentlemanly and unchivalrous, is incorrect because Henry VIII's marriage
to his first wife was annulled. If you disagree with this statement, I
think that you need to again read about the establishment of the Church of
England and Henry VIII's assumption of the title of 'Defender of the Faith'.

A heretic? She would only be classed as such by members of the Roman
Catholic faith, of which, she was not.

Post by p***@hotmail.com
Dear Don,
That maybe the UK take on the situation but the Kingdom of Ireland was
transfered to King Phillip II by the Pope. There were no proper heirs
other than Mary Queen of Scots, Edward VI being a heretic and Elizabeth
I being a bastard and a heretic.
DAP

Post by Don Aitken

Post by p***@hotmail.com
Dear Jonathan,
I think the issues with the College of Arms recognising Spanish arms
1. Protecting their turf. Technically England and Ireland were

Spanish

Post by Don Aitken

Post by p***@hotmail.com
territory during the marriage of Queen Mary and Phillip II; then

after

Post by Don Aitken

Post by p***@hotmail.com
Mary's death because Elizabeth I was illegitimate. A cheaper source

for

Post by Don Aitken

Post by p***@hotmail.com
arms would hurt the College of Arms' income.

Nonsense.
"provided, enacted and established by the authority of this present
parliament, that your Majesty as our only queen, shall and may solely
and as a sole queen, use, have and enjoy the crown and sovereignty of
and over your realms, dominions and subjects, with all the
preeminences, prerogatives, dignities, authorities, jurisdictions ...
in such sole and only estate and in as large and ample manner and

form

Post by Don Aitken
in all degrees, acts, exercises and conditions, from and after the
solemnization of the said marriage, and at all times during the same,
which God grant long to continue and endure, as your Highness now
hath, useth, exerciseth and enjoyeth the same ... without any right,
title, estate, claim or demand to be given, come or grow unto the

said

Post by Don Aitken
most noble prince as tenant by the courtesy of this realm, or in or

by

Post by Don Aitken
any other means by force of the said marriage, of in and to your said
imperial crown, sovereignty, realms ... by any laws, usage or custom
whatsoever; the said marriage or any statute, custom, prescription or
other thing to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding."
Also "in case that no children being left, the said most noble queen
do die before him, the said lord prince shall not challenge any right
at all in the said kingdom, but without any impediment shall permit
the succession thereof to come unto them to whom it shall belong and
appertain by the right and laws of the said realm".
From the marriage treaty. For the whole thing, see
http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/ast/mary.html#164
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".

[Don Aitken]

Post by GJKS
Elizabeth I was not a bastard and to call her such, besides being
ungentlemanly and unchivalrous, is incorrect because Henry VIII's marriage
to his first wife was annulled.

As was his marriage to his *second* wife (by the same Archbishop),
which was followed by an Act which specifically provided that
Elizabeth was illegitimate. This was never repealed - the Act of
Succession of 1544, which allowed her to succeed, merely described her
as "the Lady Elizabeth, the King's second daughter". Mary subsequently
had her own "Parliamentary" illegitimacy reversed both by Parliament
and by the Pope - Elizabeth never bothered.

Post by GJKS
If you disagree with this statement, I
think that you need to again read about the establishment of the Church of
England and Henry VIII's assumption of the title of 'Defender of the Faith'.

Which has nothing to do with it.

Post by GJKS
A heretic? She would only be classed as such by members of the Roman
Catholic faith, of which, she was not.

Heresy, especially around that time, is a matter of dates.

[p***@hotmail.com]

Dear Geoff,

Ungentlemanly and unchivalrous? Not the first time you called me these
names is it? Probably not the last either, that is unless you have
another heart attack and deprive me of your name calling.

The marriage to Catherine of Aragon was annuled by a renegade branch of
the church. It was not a canonically proper annulment. The title of
Defender of the Faith was given to Henry VIII by the Holy Father
because of Henry's very strong opposition to the schismatics in Germany
and Switzerland. That it has been retained after Henry VIII turned his
back on the Church is what makes the FD title such a joke. Actually I
believe that the bastard Elizabeth was a Catholic until she compelled
the English and Welsh bishops to vote to break away.
Best wishes on your future health,

David

[p***@hotmail.com]

PS: The title of Fidie Defensor (Defender of the Faith) was granted to
King Henry VIII in 1521 by His Holiness Pope Leo X.


DAP

[Stephen]

I believe a truly gentlemanly description would be "illegitimate".

I think most English Roman Catholics are totally at ease with history
and have no need for name-calling.

Yours aye

Stephen

[Guy Stair Sainty]

In article <***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Stephen
says...

Post by Stephen
I believe a truly gentlemanly description would be "illegitimate".
I think most English Roman Catholics are totally at ease with history
and have no need for name-calling.
Yours aye
Stephen

I agree that name calling is unneccessary; and it is certainly not necessary to
personalise this as one of the commentators has done (someone who expresses the
wish for the death of another is hardly a good advertisement for Catholicism!).
However I would not say that Ebglish Catholics are necessarily
"at ease" with history, which as it has been written in England was from the
early-19th (when the great 19th century historians Carlyle, Macaulley, et al
emerged) to the 1960s took a position that seriously mis-stated the actuality.
There is no doubt that most English Catholics, i.e. all English Christians,
bitterly resented the imposition of protestantism; the seizure of Church lands
and the closure of monastic houses led to the sudden removal of schools and
medical services and relief for the poor for large numbers of people who had
relied upon the church. There was (particularly under Edward VI) large scale
destruction of an astonshing artistic legacy (completed under Cromwell). Tens of
thousands of illuminated manuscripts and thousands of splendid missals were
destroyed, along with stained glass and sculpture. Thousands of Catholics were
tortured and murdered, - the attempts by later historians to give some parallel
to the executions under Mary Tudor, mostly of people who had directly supported
the risings for Lady Jane Grey organized by her amibtious family,
- and for three centuries submitted to financial and other judicial penalties.

Of course now we can look to the future and the past 20 years since the last
restrictions against Catholics was lifted as a new period, and there is no point
in dwelling on this in dealing with today's problems. But one cannot pretend the
past did not happen.

[Joseph McMillan]

I don't suppose that *most* English Christians cared one way or the
other about the imposition of Protestantism, such as it was, since
initially, at least, it would have been virtually invisible to them.
I'd also doubt that Piers the Plowman was particularly enamored of the
wealthy local abbot or was such a connoisseur of the finer things to
regret the loss of treasures that were not accessible to him. He may
have objected, when the time came for iconoclastic purging of graven
images, to the loss of the saints to whom he was accustomed to praying,
but also may have welcomed the introduction of English in place of
Latin when Cranmer's prayer book was introduced. But ultimately any
attempt to read the minds of a largely illiterate population from a
distance of almost five centuries is essentially speculative.

And, as Guy suggests in his last paragraph, there's no point in
dwelling on this now--or in attempting to judge whether the executions
of Hugh Latimer and Nicholas Ridley were more or less justified than
those of Thomas More and John Fisher.

Joseph McMillan

[Guy Stair Sainty]

In article <***@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Joseph
McMillan says...

Post by Joseph McMillan
I don't suppose that *most* English Christians cared one way or the
other about the imposition of Protestantism, such as it was, since
initially, at least, it would have been virtually invisible to them.
I'd also doubt that Piers the Plowman was particularly enamored of the
wealthy local abbot or was such a connoisseur of the finer things to
regret the loss of treasures that were not accessible to him. He may
have objected, when the time came for iconoclastic purging of graven
images, to the loss of the saints to whom he was accustomed to praying,
but also may have welcomed the introduction of English in place of
Latin when Cranmer's prayer book was introduced. But ultimately any
attempt to read the minds of a largely illiterate population from a
distance of almost five centuries is essentially speculative.

But we do have plenty of evidence to the contrary; the pilgrimage of Grace
was just one of many such popular revolts against the imposition of
protestantism. The local priests played a major role in their societies -
most of them from relatively modest backgrounds and the stark decision
they faced, to convert or risk royal and episcopal displeasure had a huge
impact on themselves and their immediate societies. The church tried to
hang on to its lands but the abbeys and monastic foundations - which despite
your beliefe that they were led by rich abbots luxuriating in their
cellars and pantries were actually the principal source of education for
any bright boy and of help and succor for the poor. For them the reformation
was an absolute disaster.

Contemporary continental witnesses had attested to the piety and devotion of the
English, and pockets of Catholic loyalty remained for centuries even despite
horrendous persecution.

Post by Joseph McMillan
And, as Guy suggests in his last paragraph, there's no point in
dwelling on this now--or in attempting to judge whether the executions
of Hugh Latimer and Nicholas Ridley were more or less justified than
those of Thomas More and John Fisher.

Latimer and Ridley had both challenged the legitimacy of the succession; they
like many of the protestant "martyrs" had first demonstrated their disloyalty.
I have a 16th century ancestor, a graduate of Magdalen, Oxford, who took
Holy Orders and was ordained in 1543, was a chaplain at Christ Church, married
in 1552 and on 11 April 1553 was given his first parish. Despite evidently being
a protestant, he was merely deprived of his parish (one year later) and
then given a better one in 1558. This was how the vast majority of the
protestant clergy were treated under Mary; whereas every single Catholic priest
who suffered arrest under Edward VI and Elizabeth suffered horrendous
torture and either fled the country opr was executed. Those hidden from view
by loyal Catholics lived lives of terrible danger and suffering, purely on
account of their conscience. There was a vast difference between the way Mary
treated her protestant subjects and how her predecssors and successor treated
theirs - and it is worth noting, not simply pushing under the carpet and
pretending it did not happen.

To give some false equivalence has too many later echoes in justifying
all manner of persecutions.

[Guy Stair Sainty]

Post by GJKS
Elizabeth I was not a bastard and to call her such, besides being
ungentlemanly and unchivalrous, is incorrect because Henry VIII's marriage
to his first wife was annulled. If you disagree with this statement, I
think that you need to again read about the establishment of the Church of
England and Henry VIII's assumption of the title of 'Defender of the Faith'.
A heretic? She would only be classed as such by members of the Roman
Catholic faith, of which, she was not.

It is a strange annulment; done by a church which did not of itself recognize
the power to annul marriages in the circumstances alleged to be the reason for
the annulment of Henry's marriage to Catherine. Henry was given the title of
Defender of the Faith by the Pope, no less, for his defence of Catholic teaching
against Luther. He proved a singularly poor defender thereof; a revolting and
immoral dictator whose thirst for a son led to the deveastation of a major part
of England's astonishing ecclesiastical artistic legacy, the murder of thousands
of devout Catholics and the brutal suppression of the Church of which the vast
majority of the population were devout followers. Only a tiny majority of
reformist clergy and ambitious politicians embraced protestantism - it was luck
for Henry but bad for most of the rest of the population that he was able to
find in their revolt against the teachings of the Catholic Church a good excuse
to discharge his faithful and loyal wife for an ambitious trollop. This
oligarchy of fanatics then forcibly imposed their own beliefs by brutality and
financial penalties imposed on the rest.

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

Post by Guy Stair Sainty

Post by GJKS
Elizabeth I was not a bastard and to call her such, besides being
ungentlemanly and unchivalrous, is incorrect because Henry VIII's
marriage to his first wife was annulled. If you disagree with
this statement, I think that you need to again read about the
establishment of the Church of England and Henry VIII's assumption
of the title of 'Defender of the Faith'.
A heretic? She would only be classed as such by members of the
Roman Catholic faith, of which, she was not.

It is a strange annulment; done by a church which did not of itself
recognize the power to annul marriages in the circumstances alleged
to be the reason for the annulment of Henry's marriage to Catherine.
Henry was given the title of Defender of the Faith by the Pope, no
less, for his defence of Catholic teaching against Luther. He proved
a singularly poor defender thereof; a revolting and immoral dictator
whose thirst for a son led to the deveastation of a major part of
England's astonishing ecclesiastical artistic legacy, the murder of
thousands of devout Catholics and the brutal suppression of the
Church of which the vast majority of the population were devout
followers. Only a tiny majority of reformist clergy and ambitious
politicians embraced protestantism - it was luck for Henry but bad
for most of the rest of the population that he was able to find in
their revolt against the teachings of the Catholic Church a good
excuse to discharge his faithful and loyal wife for an ambitious
trollop. This oligarchy of fanatics then forcibly imposed their own
beliefs by brutality and financial penalties imposed on the rest.

I am not a fan of H VIII, especially since he had at least four of my
ancestors executed and one of whom was even beatified as a result. I
think he was paranoid, if not mad, from 1537 or so.

However I think we must compare the effects of the Tudors with the
continual wars of succession and bloodshed that preceded them, almost
since the Norman conquest. By and large there were no more civil wars
in England after Bosworth Field, much as there might have been the odd
uprising. Henry VIII would have been very aware of this. He would as a
result have been almightily concerned to ensure that he was not the
cause of another civil war of succession. Never before had a woman
been allowed to rule as sovereign queen so he had to have a son; this
may have unhinged him but there was no doubt that this was, till then,
the English tradition. Prior to this I believe there is evidence that
the popes had been sensible about such matters for other sovereigns of
other countries and allowed a wife to be put away who did not bear sons.
Accordingly I believe the pope was just stupid in denying this to H
VIII - and with disastrous consequences for the popes.

Fortunately though, this then led to the establishment of sovereign
queens and of the monstrous regiment of half the human population being
allowed eventually to contribute to running the whole (if they did not
do so already).

[p***@hotmail.com]

Dear Tim,

You forget the great efforts that Henry VIII made to marry the widow of
his brother Arthur Prince of Wales. He moved heaven and earth to obtain
Papal approval to marry Catherine.

David Pritchard

Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
Accordingly I believe the pope was just stupid in denying this to H
VIII - and with disastrous consequences for the popes.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

Post by p***@hotmail.com
Dear Tim,
You forget the great efforts that Henry VIII made to marry the widow of
his brother Arthur Prince of Wales. He moved heaven and earth to obtain
Papal approval to marry Catherine.

But that was years before she got to the stage of having no surviving
sons, was it not? I can't see that it is relevant.

Yesterday's decisions were to yesterday's problems. Today's decisions
are on today's problems. Don't be bogged down by precedent,
particularly if you are an absolute monarch! (And it keeps the
underlings on their toes, following the latest mood swings.)

[Stephen]

Tim is correct to point out the political situation Henry VIII lived
in. England had suffered decades of Civil War and was keen to avoid
another at all costs. I suppose it came down to which duty came first,
his duty to his throne & country or to the Church. For good or ill he
chose the former. It is a big "what if" had Mary become Queen of a
Catholic England still in harmony with Rome.

[Guy Stair Sainty]

Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
Prior to this I believe there is evidence that
the popes had been sensible about such matters for other sovereigns of
other countries and allowed a wife to be put away who did not bear sons.
Accordingly I believe the pope was just stupid in denying this to H
VIII - and with disastrous consequences for the popes.

It was not stupidity; perhaps Henry and his father should have thought more
carefully before asking for a Papal dispensation to marry Catherine in the
beginning - it is difficult to see how a later Pope could so handily dispense
with the dispensation by claiming the marriage was null on the very grounds
for which the dispensation had been sought!!! Henry and his father were
simply greedy; they wanted to hang on to Catherine's dowry and the English
people paid the price.

[George Lucki]

Geoff,
The title of 'Defender of the Faith' is as I recall a Papal honour granted
to this English monarch!
The question of the status in Church Law of Elizabeth's birth is to some
extent a matter of record and to some extent a matter of one's frame of
reference.
It is safe to say that history has overtaken some of the issues raised
earlier in this thread. I don't see any of the Catholic-Protestant or
English-Spanish considerations as being particularly relevant today. They
were certainly during the period of civil war and reciprocal religious
persecution and perhaps continued for longer than they should have through
systematic discrimination against those who continued to adhere to their
ancient faith. Even that is a matter of history. One can only hope that the
former rifts that are resurrected in such threads will eventually be fully
healed and Christians reunited in one common (Catholic - in the sense of
universal) Church.
Kind regards, George Lucki

Post by GJKS
Elizabeth I was not a bastard and to call her such, besides being
ungentlemanly and unchivalrous, is incorrect because Henry VIII's marriage
to his first wife was annulled. If you disagree with this statement, I
think that you need to again read about the establishment of the Church of
England and Henry VIII's assumption of the title of 'Defender of the Faith'.
A heretic? She would only be classed as such by members of the Roman
Catholic faith, of which, she was not.

Post by p***@hotmail.com
Dear Don,
That maybe the UK take on the situation but the Kingdom of Ireland was
transfered to King Phillip II by the Pope. There were no proper heirs
other than Mary Queen of Scots, Edward VI being a heretic and Elizabeth
I being a bastard and a heretic.
DAP

Post by Don Aitken

Post by p***@hotmail.com
Dear Jonathan,
I think the issues with the College of Arms recognising Spanish arms
1. Protecting their turf. Technically England and Ireland were

Spanish

Post by Don Aitken

Post by p***@hotmail.com
territory during the marriage of Queen Mary and Phillip II; then

after

Post by Don Aitken

Post by p***@hotmail.com
Mary's death because Elizabeth I was illegitimate. A cheaper source

for

Post by Don Aitken

Post by p***@hotmail.com
arms would hurt the College of Arms' income.

Nonsense.
"provided, enacted and established by the authority of this present
parliament, that your Majesty as our only queen, shall and may solely
and as a sole queen, use, have and enjoy the crown and sovereignty of
and over your realms, dominions and subjects, with all the
preeminences, prerogatives, dignities, authorities, jurisdictions ...
in such sole and only estate and in as large and ample manner and

form

Post by Don Aitken
in all degrees, acts, exercises and conditions, from and after the
solemnization of the said marriage, and at all times during the same,
which God grant long to continue and endure, as your Highness now
hath, useth, exerciseth and enjoyeth the same ... without any right,
title, estate, claim or demand to be given, come or grow unto the

said

Post by Don Aitken
most noble prince as tenant by the courtesy of this realm, or in or

by

Post by Don Aitken
any other means by force of the said marriage, of in and to your said
imperial crown, sovereignty, realms ... by any laws, usage or custom
whatsoever; the said marriage or any statute, custom, prescription or
other thing to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding."
Also "in case that no children being left, the said most noble queen
do die before him, the said lord prince shall not challenge any right
at all in the said kingdom, but without any impediment shall permit
the succession thereof to come unto them to whom it shall belong and
appertain by the right and laws of the said realm".
From the marriage treaty. For the whole thing, see
http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/ast/mary.html#164
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".

[Guy Stair Sainty]

Post by p***@hotmail.com
Geoff,
The title of 'Defender of the Faith' is as I recall a Papal honour granted
to this English monarch!
The question of the status in Church Law of Elizabeth's birth is to some
extent a matter of record and to some extent a matter of one's frame of
reference.
It is safe to say that history has overtaken some of the issues raised
earlier in this thread. I don't see any of the Catholic-Protestant or
English-Spanish considerations as being particularly relevant today. They
were certainly during the period of civil war and reciprocal religious
persecution and perhaps continued for longer than they should have through
systematic discrimination against those who continued to adhere to their
ancient faith. Even that is a matter of history. One can only hope that the
former rifts that are resurrected in such threads will eventually be fully
healed and Christians reunited in one common (Catholic - in the sense of
universal) Church.

One might dismiss all manner of historical disputes on the grounds of
irrelevance, but that is basically to confine the study of history to thje past
and pretend that too is irrelevant. Of course it is not irrelevant, either to
the past or the present. We see the consequences of the reformation, both good
and bad in many aspects of our cultural life today; we see it in the fate of
Ireland and of whole communities uprooted in different regions of
England and Scotland. The history of much of the continent was completely
reshaped by the reformation.

It is certainly fashionable in today's all-inclusive society where no-one must
offend anyone else's sensibilities to pretend that terrible things were not done
by one group to another and that there is no historic responsibility. Perhaps
you might explain this to the Jews, or the Armenians, or the Ukranians, or even
the Poles and Czechs - both of which continue to reap profit from the forced
explusion of millions of ethnic Germans, while justifying this on the grounds of
their own suffering. All of this must be taken into account and cannot usefully
be brushed under the carpet.

In the case of anti-Catholicism in England, you are surely forgetting that this
still has a real historical legacy - in this last century there have been
numerous examples of policy both government and royal being influenced by
historic (and still real) anti-Catholic prejudice or legal bias; even in the
last 20 years. You may not remember the fuss about the Queen's first visit to
the Pope, or the public protests when he visited Great Britain - in how many
other modern industrial democracies would this still be a factor? The Duke of
Fife was refused to permission to marry a Catholic, in the 1950s, even though
then only 16th in line of succession. It was not until 1984 that it became
possible for the Lord Chancellor to be a Catholic - he could have been a
polytheist pagan, but not a Catholic.

[George Lucki]

Guy,
To keep this in context (I think your response is a broader one relative to
anti-Catholic discrimination rather than anti-Catholic sentiment in the
CofA) - this thread related earlier to the response given by David Pritchard
to Jonathan Makepeace in which David imputed that the College of Arms were
ill disposed to Spanish certifications of Arms because

Post by Guy Stair Sainty

Post by p***@hotmail.com

"Dear Jonathan, I think the issues with the College of Arms recognising

Spanish arms are: 1. Protecting their turf. Technically England and Ireland
were Spanish territory during the marriage of Queen Mary and Phillip II;
then after Mary's death because Elizabeth I was illegitimate. A cheaper
source for arms would hurt the College of Arms' income. 2. By denigrating
Spanish arms the College of Arms is creating the impression that their
grants are superior. The difference between the Cronistas and the Heralds is
that the Heralds receive about 50 euros a year from the Queen which keeps
them officially in Her Majesty's pay. One would suppose that if King Juan
Carlos were to cut a few checks each year to the Cronistas that a different
reason to reject Spanish arms would be invented. 3. A long tradition of
anti-Catholicsm in British society is also a contributing factor to the
denegration and refusal to recognise Spanish arms. David Pritchard <<<<

Geoff Kingman-Sugars in turn took offence to David Pritchard's remarks and
my response is in this context.
In this regard I do not believe that the College of Arms is motivated by any
Catholic-Protestant nor any historical Spanish-English considerations. The
question of Elizabeth's legitimacy and Henry's marriages are also similarly
unlikely to be particularly relevant in this context. That does not make the
historical issues less relevant or less interesting in themselves - simply
less relevant to this isuue at this time (CofA attitudes to Spanish
certifications). I also believe a strong case could be made that they were
formally more relevant in the politics and appointments to offices in the
Royal Household (the Catholic issue continue for much longer than any
political necessity could have justified). Except for the wistful thought
about Christian unity as a goal that was if you re-read my post the extent
of my comments.

Of course the discrimination experienced by the Catholic minority in England
was grievous and prolonged and relicts of it have continued into the
contemporary period. You pose the question of where else such discrimination
may have persisted to such recent times - and regrettably it may have
continued in some segments of US society as well as in some of the emerging
democracies of Eastern and Southern Europe - where a Papal visit might still
not be possible or where it has been a source of some tensions. The ongoing
impact of historical divisions is a regrettable relict in several corners of
Christian Europe.

I will comment on the question of "the Poles and Czechs - both of which
continue to reap profit from the forced explusion of millions of ethnic
Germans, while justifying this on the grounds of their own suffering."
You've made similar statements previously. There is I believe in your
comment a real misunderstanding of the historical realities in that corner
of the world at that time. The Poles and Germans were actually both victims
of a Soviet policy of expanding the Soviet Union by shoving people westward.
Both were displaced and both lost out. The bitter irony for Poles is that
their losses were at the hands of one of the 'Allied pwers' with the tacit
approval of Britain who Poles had shed blood defending.

The second world war ended for the west in 1945. Poland endured another
invasion by the Soviet Union and another brutal occupation. Many Poles who
had survived Nazi camps just found their way right into Soviet ones. The
allocation of new borders to Poland was a Soviet imperative (done inspite of
Poland) that was accepted by the West but not by the legitimate Polish
government in exile. The legitimate Polish leadership remaining in Poland
was jailed, deported or executed by the Soviets and their followers. In line
with Soviet policies millions of ethnic Poles were displaced from their
homes and property in Eastern Poland and transported to the North and West
and millions of ethnic Germans were transported wesward into occupied
Germany (also under Soviet control). No one wanted to leave their homes.
Poles suffered incredibly at the hands of the Nazis but the forcible
relocation of Poland westward was a Soviet policy not a Polish iniative and
the 'justification' of this was also rooted in Communist pseudo-history.
Previously in 1939 at the same time that Germany invaded Poland from the
south, west and north, the Soviet Union invaded from the east and Poland was
partitioned between the Nazi and Soviet state according to a line of
demarcation agreed by them. From Easten Poland there were mass executions
and deportations of Poles to Siberian gulags. My mother survived Siberia
while much of her family perished. Their homes were razed, orchard burned
and no trace of their having ever been their left. My mother was fortunate
to make her way to India but many Poles returned from Siberia forbidden from
returning to what the Soviets had declared to no longer be their homeland
and settled where Germans had been evicted in what was now western Poland.
Hardly 'reaping profit'! The same holds true for my father's family, some of
whom now live in what was formerly Germany, while what had been their home
for centuries was now somehow no longer Poland and where they were no longer
welcome to stay. In addition to those killed by Nazis or Soviets hundreds of
thousands of Poles were killed by Ukranian nationalists. What I am saying is
that those Poles who came to live in what is now western Poland did not
'profit'. They had lost everything and in their unwilling resettlement were
as much victims of Soviet ethnic cleansing as the Germans who lost their
homes and communities. The borders are nonetheless where they are and there
is no easy way to restore things to the situation before the war without
incredible dislocation. What is done is terribly unfair but it is done and
for my part I think acknowedging that a wrong has been done us should teach
the lesson of compassion. From my perspective I understand and share
(through analogous experience) the sense of loss of the ethnic Germans whose
ancestral homes are now in Poland. I am a Pole whose homeland is now Belarus
and the Ukraine from where we have been evicted - the 'history' of which has
subtely been re-written as though we were never there. Nonetheless, I would
not say that the Ukrainians and Belarussians now living there have
'profited' from the expulsion of millions of ethnic Poles. Those who now
live there are also victims of or survivors of the Soviet regime. In fact I
wish them and all of us Poles, Germans, Ukrainians, etc. well and hope for a
better future for all. All these things and all the suffering should also
not be forgotten but I hope that there will be a time when all the wounds
can be healed and people can see Europe as a shared homeland free of the
evils of exclusivist nationalism. Maybe for example it is time to rediscover
the centuries of peace and close bonds that have overall characterized the
history of Polish-German relations and to see the nineteenth and twentieth
century in a context where perhaps we lost our way in this corner of Europe
blinded by modern nationalism and by totalitarian -isms.

Kind regards, George Lucki

Post by Guy Stair Sainty

Post by p***@hotmail.com
Geoff,
The title of 'Defender of the Faith' is as I recall a Papal honour granted
to this English monarch!
The question of the status in Church Law of Elizabeth's birth is to some
extent a matter of record and to some extent a matter of one's frame of
reference.
It is safe to say that history has overtaken some of the issues raised
earlier in this thread. I don't see any of the Catholic-Protestant or
English-Spanish considerations as being particularly relevant today. They
were certainly during the period of civil war and reciprocal religious
persecution and perhaps continued for longer than they should have through
systematic discrimination against those who continued to adhere to their
ancient faith. Even that is a matter of history. One can only hope that the
former rifts that are resurrected in such threads will eventually be fully
healed and Christians reunited in one common (Catholic - in the sense of
universal) Church.

One might dismiss all manner of historical disputes on the grounds of
irrelevance, but that is basically to confine the study of history to thje past
and pretend that too is irrelevant. Of course it is not irrelevant, either to
the past or the present. We see the consequences of the reformation, both good
and bad in many aspects of our cultural life today; we see it in the fate of
Ireland and of whole communities uprooted in different regions of
England and Scotland. The history of much of the continent was completely
reshaped by the reformation.
It is certainly fashionable in today's all-inclusive society where no-one must
offend anyone else's sensibilities to pretend that terrible things were not done
by one group to another and that there is no historic responsibility. Perhaps
you might explain this to the Jews, or the Armenians, or the Ukranians, or even
the Poles and Czechs - both of which continue to reap profit from the forced
explusion of millions of ethnic Germans, while justifying this on the grounds of
their own suffering. All of this must be taken into account and cannot usefully
be brushed under the carpet.
In the case of anti-Catholicism in England, you are surely forgetting that this
still has a real historical legacy - in this last century there have been
numerous examples of policy both government and royal being influenced by
historic (and still real) anti-Catholic prejudice or legal bias; even in the
last 20 years. You may not remember the fuss about the Queen's first visit to
the Pope, or the public protests when he visited Great Britain - in how many
other modern industrial democracies would this still be a factor? The Duke of
Fife was refused to permission to marry a Catholic, in the 1950s, even though
then only 16th in line of succession. It was not until 1984 that it became
possible for the Lord Chancellor to be a Catholic - he could have been a
polytheist pagan, but not a Catholic.
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm

[Guy Stair Sainty]

Guy,
{snip interesting and important comments on Polish-German-Soviet terrirotial
problems)

My point is that while there are no absolute wrongs or rights, there were wrongs
done and received and they need measured consideration rather than dismissal.
The problem I refer to is when one people minflict on the innocebt victims of
another revenge for something done by a government that the latter may or may
not have supported. Poland suffered appallingly under the Soviets and under
German occupation, but IMO this did not justify reprisals against the
descendants of families which had lived there for hundreds of years. Ditto in
Czechoslovakia. I think that governments handily dismiss such claims and cite
some improper equivalence to avoid taking financial responsibility for
liabilities incurred by their own states because of the behaviour of prior
governments of which they are the successor.

Both Poles who suffered thanks to the Germans and Germans who suffered from
Polish excesses after 1945 should have their claims recognized and they should
receive a proper accounting through compensation. Then both sides can move on
and be truly reconciled. When you steal something it is not enough to say sorry,
you must also recompense the victim. Ditto with Czechoslovakia.

To go back to the original; I disputed D. P.'s claim that there was some kind
of Catholic bias against Spanish grants as simply preposterous, as the College
in particular has been a Catholic redoubt for decades. Nonetheless, there has
been in many other aspects of British government an anti-catholic bias.

[George Lucki]

Much of the following is off-topic for this newsgroup but addresses issues
raised here that IMHO are important ones.

Post by Guy Stair Sainty

Guy,
{snip interesting and important comments on Polish-German-Soviet terrirotial
problems)

My point is that while there are no absolute wrongs or rights, there were wrongs
done and received and they need measured consideration rather than dismissal.

Absolute agreement!

Post by Guy Stair Sainty
The problem I refer to is when one people minflict on the innocebt victims of
another revenge for something done by a government that the latter may or may
not have supported.

This is a premise that actually has little basis in fact. It is merely a
stupid propaganda rationale provided by the Soviets as a way of justifying
its ethnic cleansing of Poland's former eastern territories and to justify
it sarbitrary reallocation of Europe's national boundaries (in this case at
the expense of Poland and Germany). The Soviets wanted to appropriate the
eastern half of Poland and expel the Polish population who had lived there
for centuries. They did so for reasons of their own. They made room for
these people by expelling the Germans who had lived there. The Poles
expelled from the East lost everything and the Soviets 'compensated' them by
resettling them on in the west in what had previously been Germany. This was
not reprisal by Poland but rather the action of the Soviet regime.

Poland suffered appallingly under the Soviets and under

Post by Guy Stair Sainty
German occupation, but IMO this did not justify reprisals against the
descendants of families which had lived there for hundreds of years. Ditto in
Czechoslovakia. I think that governments handily dismiss such claims and cite
some improper equivalence to avoid taking financial responsibility for
liabilities incurred by their own states because of the behaviour of prior
governments of which they are the successor.
Both Poles who suffered thanks to the Germans and Germans who suffered from
Polish excesses after 1945 should have their claims recognized and they should
receive a proper accounting through compensation.

An interesting but ultimately historically flawed argument. I would still
suggest that the responsibility for the expulsion of Germans in 1945 rests
with the Soviet state who arbitraily moved national boundaries. You
attribute far too much power to the Soviet controlled 'Polish government' -
the PKWN. The responsibility rests with the occupier. Similarly one could
not consider 'Quisling governemnt of Nazi occupied Norway to be legitimately
Norwegian. The DDR later expressed its acceptance of these events but
similarly I cannot see these as legitimate and I would similarly say that
the the Soviet Union and not the Bundesrepublik bears responsibility for the
actions of the DDR.

Then both sides can move on

Post by Guy Stair Sainty
and be truly reconciled. When you steal something it is not enough to say sorry,
you must also recompense the victim.

Actually I agree fully with you and this points us to the problem - there
may be no way to obtain compensation for all of these harms as the criminals
who perpetrated Nazism and Communism have so utterly harmed so many that
such redress is not possible. I have had this discussion with Polish friends
who seek compesation for the losses their families experienced from the
Soviets. I typically make several points - If compensation is to be sought
it should be sought from those responsible following the chain of actual
responsibility and it should not ever be gained from those who were not
responsible or worse still from those who were also victims of the same
evils. When we seek redress for a harm we often must settle for general
rather than specific redress. I will use an example close to home. My
grandfather's former farm in Belarus is apparently now farmed by people who
were forced in collectivization and now have no other livelihood other than
little plots of land. I would not seek compensation from them. They are
victims. The perpetrators of this theft and my grandfather's murder were in
Moscow - but I would also not wish to hold the current Russian government
repsonsible as I (with some justiffication) would see the Soviet state as a
criminal organization who oppressed and robbed and enslaved and murdered
Russian people as well and I would not wish to see them bearing the cost of
repairing the damage done by criminals who victimized them as well. My
paternal grandfather's home became a school building. His land was
collectivized. From what I understand it has been slowly ruined and depleted
under communist rule. In this case there is a twist. In addition to family
members killed by Soviets or Nazis there were also the actions of organized
Ukrainian peasant nationalist bandits who murdered and robbed family members
and who operated outside of Nazi or Soviet control and who also bear
responsibility. Although bandits they were also nationalists bent on killing
the Polish squires to create a 'new Ukraine'. I could not hold the current
Ukrainian democratic government responsible for the actions of these thugs.
Ukraine is still a nascent state and it is an open question as to how and
whether it will survive its legacy of divisions and suffering. Ultimately
responsibility for these crimes rests with the Nazi and Soviet criminal
states and with local bands of murderous thugs. The people are victims of
these crimes and the new democratic states are reemerging from occupation by
totalitarian regimes. If restitution were possible from the perpetrators of
crimes I would seek it. This does not seem possible. It would be wrong to
seek restitution from those who were not. Some of the claims made by victims
of past harm made against their own current governemnts or the current
governments of previously enslaved states are seeking redress from the wrong
party.
The next point I often make is that healing is quite different from
restitution. Healing needs occur and can occur even where restitution is not
possible. Even when restitution can be obtained, restitution does not in
itself heal. Healing is ultimately a psychological process. Nothing the
perpetrator of a crime does heals the victim. The perpetrator of a crime is
responsible for his actions but the victim is responsible for his healing
and the victim for his. Healing relations is also based really not on
restoration but on the transformation of those relations. The legal notions
of restorative justice simply do not go far enough to facilitate the healing
of relationships. In the end those relations must be transformed. In this
regard Poles and Germans and Ukrainains and others must learn to transform
their relationships so as to collectively create the conditions under which
such crimes perpetrated against them would be far less likely. This means a
process of reaching out and learning from one another about the experience
of each and it means focusing attention on what is far more important than
restoration and that is healing itself.
Finally I appreciate the hurt people feel when they lose things of great
value, but the basic flaw in the argument is the mistaken belief based still
on nationalist categories of thinking that to use your words "both sides can
move on and be truly reconciled". This is a short-cut in this case for
Polish and German equated to Communist and Nazi. Reconcilitaion of Polish
and German relationships is not the same as settling the many claims that
Poles and Germans each have against the Nazi and Communist regimes that
damaged them both. Otherwise Polish and German (Russian, Ukrainian,
Austrian, etc.) victims of both Nazism and Communism will continue to
mistakingly be pointing the finger at each other - victim to victim - and
saying you must restore to me what huge bands of criminals have done.
I appreciate that for many people these arguments are difficult to accept
because they rely on a deeper reading of history and so are difficult grasp
and because they lead to the sense of helplessness and loss that is
inevitable when any of us recognizes that we have experienced a grievous and
terrible loss and that no one one may be able to make it right and that
those truly responsible have for the most part escaped all accountability.
And yet such are the circumstances I and many others whose roots go back
into Central Europe must face, accept and move forward with. (If anyone can
suggest mechanisms for ensuring the real accountability of the perpetrators
of these crimes I would be pleased to support this).

Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Ditto with Czechoslovakia.

Somewhat different circumstances but enough similarity of the general
argument that I should not repeat it.

Post by Guy Stair Sainty
To go back to the original; I disputed D. P.'s claim that there was some kind
of Catholic bias against Spanish grants as simply preposterous, as the College
in particular has been a Catholic redoubt for decades. Nonetheless, there has
been in many other aspects of British government an anti-catholic bias.

We are in agreement on both points.
BTW what compensation should be obtained by the Catholic minority from the
British government and crown? :)

Kind regards, George Lucki

Post by Guy Stair Sainty
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm

[Guy Stair Sainty]

More Off Topic,l but please skip to end for On Topic part.

I agree with much what George says, but would not impose the responsibility for
compensation on the personal heirs of those who carried out the policy of forced
migrations, land seizure, but on the legal successors of those governments which
tolerated or ordered them. Somewhere sometime there has to be a cut off for such
compensation, it cannot be perpetual. I would suggest that the cut off date for
making such a claim should be the death of the last person to be so
dispossessed. I.e. the cut off date for German Czech, German Polish claims or
Polish German claims, etc, should be the death of the last person who was
actually expelled - which, of course, includes minors. This should include the
whole class, however, and not just the claimant. Thus the cut off date for all
claims against Germany by Poland should be the death of the last Polish child
still alive during the German occupation of Poland whose parents or grandparents
were deprived of property.

This is a reasonable standard, although a more generous version (for the
victims) has been accorded to the heirs of those Jewish art collectors whose
works were confiscated by the Nazis, as such claims have been allowed by the
distant descendants or collateral heirs of such collectors even when born long
after World War II. There is now a foundation, the Art Loss Register, which
includes a listing of all claims for lost works of art and works are regularly
being found that are listed on this register, and these are either returned to
the heirs or compensation is paid at current market rates.

This seems a valid basis for allowing such compensation.

To revert to topic; it would be interesting to learn if there could be valid
claims by, say, a British holder of Arms granted in (for example) 1650, against
a French armiger whose arms were registered in 1700. With the European union
gradually developing a syster of laws and regulations that govern the conduct of
governments and citizens on the same basis in all the states of the Union, can
we envisage a time when heraldic jurisdiction may also be given a common
regulation? While the EU may not agree to regulate personal arms, it may surely
find itself involved in dipsutes over corporate or municpal arms, when such are
duplicated by different institutions in the members states.

I have postulated this in the context of a common system of regulations for the
use and wearing of Orders and decorations as I suspect that it will not be long
before the Presidency of the European Union carries with it the prerogative to
award an Order, yet to be instituted, perhaps "The Order of Charlemagne". With
the attempt to have a European Military force, it will be difficult to sustain
different regulations for the wearing of awards between different units under
the same command structure and wearing the same uniforms - I am sure that a
system of military bravery, good conduct and service awards will be so
developed.

It seems to me that those in any positions of influence in the EU bureaucratic
power structure might usefully keep their eyes open for the development of such
a plan, and seek to influence it so that people with knowledge and understanding
of the issues shape these regulations, whether concerning heraldry or orders and
decorations.

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

In message of 25 Jan, Guy Stair Sainty <***@sainty.org> wrote:

<snip>

Post by Guy Stair Sainty
To revert to topic; it would be interesting to learn if there could
or inyvq claims by, say, a British holder of Arms granted in (for
example) 1650, against a French armiger whose arms were registered in
1700. With the European union gradually developing a syster of laws
and regulations that govern the conduct of governments and citizens
on the same basis in all the states of the Union, can we envisage a
time when heraldic jurisdiction may also be given a common
regulation? While the EU may not agree to regulate personal arms, it
may surely find itself involved in dipsutes over corporate or
municpal arms, when such are duplicated by different institutions in
the members states.
I have postulated this in the context of a common system of
regulations for the use and wearing of Orders and decorations as I
suspect that it will not be long before the Presidency of the
European Union carries with it the prerogative to award an Order, yet
to be instituted, perhaps "The Order of Charlemagne". With the
attempt to have a European Military force, it will be difficult to
sustain different regulations for the wearing of awards between
different units under the same command structure and wearing the same
uniforms - I am sure that a system of military bravery, good conduct
and service awards will be so developed.
It seems to me that those in any positions of influence in the EU
bureaucratic power structure might usefully keep their eyes open for
the development of such a plan, and seek to influence it so that
people with knowledge and understanding of the issues shape these
regulations, whether concerning heraldry or orders and decorations.

Oh cripes! Not more ghastly bureaucracy and rules by the EU
functionaries. What we want is definitely fewer rules from them lot.

[Guy Stair Sainty]

Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
<
Oh cripes! Not more ghastly bureaucracy and rules by the EU
functionaries. What we want is definitely fewer rules from them lot.

I am not proposing that this should happen, merely suggesting that it might,
and if so that it is better that whoever sets this all up is well-advised,
otherwise I can forsee major troubles.

[Joseph McMillan]

I'm not a European so have little standing to comment on what the EU
ought to do, but I recently did an on-line search for every use I could
find of "argent a saltire gules." As I recall, I found nearly 50
examples, including several in which the same arms were used by widely
separated families in the same country.

So, in the first place, it would be a nightmare to go about
adjudicating rival claims to arms.

In the second, and I know I'm speaking heresy here, isn't this a bit
trivial to absorb the attention of officials with better things to do?
I'll accept that actionable usurpation of arms is wrong and actionable,
but don't see any serious negative consequences from the fact that
different people legitimately bear the same arms in the modern world.
No one needs one's personal cognizance displayed to distinguished
friend from foe in battle. No one is even identified exclusively by
his armorial seal anymore--the seal is invariably accompanied by a
signature. Apart from the remote possibility that M. Denis de
Trobriand might steal one of the spoons at dinner with the Duke of
Leinster, and then claim it was really his on the grounds that it was
engraved with "d'argent au sautoir de gueules," what practical positive
purpose would be served by getting the Eurocrats into this issue?

[Guy Stair Sainty]

In article <***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Joseph
McMillan says...

Post by Joseph McMillan
In the second, and I know I'm speaking heresy here, isn't this a bit
trivial to absorb the attention of officials with better things to do?
I'll accept that actionable usurpation of arms is wrong and actionable,
but don't see any serious negative consequences from the fact that
different people legitimately bear the same arms in the modern world.
No one needs one's personal cognizance displayed to distinguished
friend from foe in battle. No one is even identified exclusively by
his armorial seal anymore--the seal is invariably accompanied by a
signature. Apart from the remote possibility that M. Denis de
Trobriand might steal one of the spoons at dinner with the Duke of
Leinster, and then claim it was really his on the grounds that it was
engraved with "d'argent au sautoir de gueules," what practical positive
purpose would be served by getting the Eurocrats into this issue?

I am not an advocate of more European bureaucracy; in fact I am not a
particularl enthusiast of the EU at all. My point was to suggest that it is very
possible that there will be some regulations established to institute (a)
military decorations and awards for the new EU military arm; (b) awards for
civilians serving the EU commission; and (c) awards for citizens of the EU who
have "served" the EU or the commission in some fashion. I thought it probable
that as the EU administration is composed of bureaucrats from countries which
have such a national system of honours that they are like to model whatever may
be instituted on existing national award systems. If this happens, however,
member states will clearly have to agree to harmonise regulations concerning the
use by their citizens of such awards; this may in turn lead to harmonization of
the system of national awards - as, perhaps, members states award the citizens
of other states with greater frequency.

All this to me seems more likely than unlikely.

As for heraldry, I suggested that within the national heraldic jurisdictions
there are rules and regulations which are in some countries enforceable to
protect personal heraldic symbols. I was simply wondering whether, if there were
disputes between citizens of different members states, there would be a means to
settle this.

[w***@hotmail.com]

Apologies for bumping such an old thread, but regarding Arms granted to English/British subjects by a foreign sovereign, I can think of at least two notable examples: Captain John Smith (he of Pocahontas fame) was Knighted and granted Arms by the Prince of Transylvania, and Sir Woodbine Parish K.C.H., who was granted an Augmentation of the Arms of Argentina by the legislative assembly of that country to his existing Arms for his work in bringing about the first treaty to recognise Argentina as an independent nation.I know that the latter was allowed by Royal Warrant, but I'm unsure as regards the former, but I seem to recall the College of Arms would not recognise his title of Sir.

[e***@yahoo.fr]

On Thursday, February 21, 2013 8:22:50 PM UTC+1, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
The Imperial Chancery would speak of "amelioratio" of the coat of arm.

[o***@gmail.com]

Hang on, how can South African Arms be 'not commonwealth' Arms when South Africa is a member of the Commonwealth, the period 1961-1994 when it wasn't notwithstanding? Are Arms registered with the South African Bureau of Heraldry any less valid than those granted by the Kenyan College of Arms (also a republic and also a member of the Commonwealth)?

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

Post by o***@gmail.com
Hang on, how can South African Arms be 'not commonwealth' Arms when
South Africa is a member of the Commonwealth, the period 1961-1994
when it wasn't notwithstanding? Are Arms registered with the South
African Bureau of Heraldry any less valid than those granted by the
Kenyan College of Arms (also a republic and also a member of the
Commonwealth)?

They are certainly as valid as USA arms. In other words you have only
to check whether the arms were originated according to the laws, if any,
of that country.

It is a moot point what 'valid' means in England. If you are not or
cannot be prosecuted or sued for using some, then are they valid?

And I have never heard of 'Commonwealth arms'.

[o***@gmail.com]

I was simply referring to the above post. I've never heard of 'Commonwealth Arms' either.

[w***@hotmail.com]

Apologies for bumping such an old thread, but regarding Arms granted to English/British subjects by a foreign sovereign, I can think of at least two notable examples: Captain John Smith (he of Pocahontas fame) was Knighted and granted Arms by the Prince of Transylvania, and Sir Woodbine Parish K.C.H., who was granted an Augmentation of the Arms of Argentina by the legislative assembly of that country to his existing Arms for his work in bringing about the first treaty to recognise Argentina as an independent nation.I know that the latter was allowed by Royal Warrant, but I'm unsure as regards the former, but I seem to recall the College of Arms would not recognise his title of Sir.

[Guy Stair Sainty]

Post by p***@hotmail.com
Dear Jonathan,
I think the issues with the College of Arms recognising Spanish arms
2. By denigrating Spanish arms the College of Arms is creating the
impression that their grants are superior.

They claim they are superior because Spanish confirmations are not of themselves
evidence of gentility, whereas the British heraldic jursidction is based on this
now completely artificial premise (how many petitions have been rejected in the
last 30 years because the petitioner did not meet the social
test?).

Post by p***@hotmail.com
3. A long tradition of anti-Catholicsm in British society is also a
contributing factor to the denegration and refusal to recognise
Spanish arms.

Actually there has been a conspicuous and disproportionate Catholic influence in
the College for several generations - the previous Garter and several of his
predecessors as well as other recent Kings and present heralds and pursuivants
are or were Catholics. I do not think this is anythinh at all to do with it -
the second reason is the most likely, but the excuse used is that the Cronista's
even with the most liberal interpretation of their prerogatives could only
"confirm" arms. What the College refused to accept was that these confirmations
could be of perfectly lawfully assumed arms, since neither England nor Scotland
recognise any right of assumption.

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

Post by Guy Stair Sainty

Post by p***@hotmail.com
I think the issues with the College of Arms recognising Spanish arms
2. By denigrating Spanish arms the College of Arms is creating the
impression that their grants are superior.

They claim they are superior because Spanish confirmations are not of
themselves evidence of gentility, whereas the British heraldic
jursidction is based on this now completely artificial premise (how
many petitions have been rejected in the last 30 years because the
petitioner did not meet the social test?).

I agree that there is evidence that in the times of the visitations
that people were rejected as armigers on the grounds that they were not
gentlemen. However nowhere have I seen any definition of Gentleman,
save perhaps that of "armiger" which little other than tautologous.
Accordingly I wonder how the "British heraldic tradition can be based on
this now completely artificial premise"?

Post by Guy Stair Sainty

Post by p***@hotmail.com
3. A long tradition of anti-Catholicsm in British society is also a
contributing factor to the denegration and refusal to recognise
Spanish arms.

Actually there has been a conspicuous and disproportionate Catholic
influence in the College for several generations - the previous
Garter and several of his predecessors as well as other recent Kings
and present heralds and pursuivants are or were Catholics. I do not
think this is anythinh at all to do with it - the second reason is
the most likely, but the excuse used is that the Cronista's even with
the most liberal interpretation of their prerogatives could only
"confirm" arms. What the College refused to accept was that these
confirmations could be of perfectly lawfully assumed arms, since
neither England nor Scotland recognise any right of assumption.

I don't think England has anything to do with recognising or not
assumed arms, much as Scotland may be different. The College of Arms
may not recognise assumed arms and has been known to insist on fussy
changes to arms borne for centuries to avoid this, but England has
little to say on the matter, if anything the laws (of the state, not the
laws of arms) allow one to do what one wants.

[Guy Stair Sainty]

Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe

Post by Guy Stair Sainty

Post by p***@hotmail.com
I think the issues with the College of Arms recognising Spanish arms
2. By denigrating Spanish arms the College of Arms is creating the
impression that their grants are superior.

They claim they are superior because Spanish confirmations are not of
themselves evidence of gentility, whereas the British heraldic
jursidction is based on this now completely artificial premise (how
many petitions have been rejected in the last 30 years because the
petitioner did not meet the social test?).

I agree that there is evidence that in the times of the visitations
that people were rejected as armigers on the grounds that they were not
gentlemen. However nowhere have I seen any definition of Gentleman,
save perhaps that of "armiger" which little other than tautologous.
Accordingly I wonder how the "British heraldic tradition can be based on
this now completely artificial premise"?

I can cite some examples that I gave in appendix 1 of my book, The Orders of
Saint John, on Noble Proofs; I quoted Chris Given-Wilson, The English Nobility
in the Late Middle Ages (1978), and M. J. Sayer, English nobility, the Gentry,
Heralds and the Continental Context (1979) as well as conversations with the
then York Herald, later Garter King (Sir Conrad Swan). Being a gentleman, and
therefore entitled to record coat armour, was perceived as being a specific rank
- a grant of Richard II of a pension to one of his servants "to enable him to
support the estate of a gentleman to which the king has advanced him". The
county gentry in the 16-17th century being those landed families with an annual
income in excess of twenty pounds sterling; the parish gentry having incomes of
5 - 20 pounds annually. A merchant who had just acquired such an estate,
however, would not be considered part of the gentry class until his family had
enjoyed this state for 3 or 4 generations. The heralds when considering a
petition would have taken into account both the wealth and social prominence of
the family, and would have expected a certain minimum ecpnomic standing. York
communicated to me verbally then that "the college of Arms when granting Arms to
a British subject of foreign descent, may grant similar or identical arms to
those born by that person by right of a foreign jurisdiction, disregarding the
fact that the original arms might be burgher, rather than noble arms. However
such grant is only made if the petitioner can demonstrate that he and his family
are now generally accepted in England as gentle." In a written communication
York stated: "Within the Earl Marshal's jurisdiction the (sometime Continental
burghal) family concerned holds tesserae gentilitatis as evidenced by the King
of Arms patent ... following the Naturalization of nthat family as British
subjects ... therefore there is no attempt to invest the burghal ancestors with
nobiliary status."

Whitaker's Almanack states: "The Lord Lyon presides and judicially establishes
rights to existing arms.... As Royal Commissioner in Armore he grants Patents of
Arms (which constitute the grantee and heirs noble in the Noblesse of Scotland)
to 'virtuous and well-deserving Scotsmen, and petitioners.... " Of course this
definition comes from Lyon, and is not necessarily based on historical reality
(in reference to the "noblesse"). Thus suggests that a Lyn grant confers
nobility, by delegated authority, which had tyhe privilege of nobility actually
conferred any real privileges might have been a view of the prerogatives of Lyon
that the Crown would have resisted, retaining for itself rather than delegating.
As "noblesse" is in Scottish law a meaningless definition in that the "state" of
the person is not in any way changed by its possession, the Crown does not have
much interest one way or the other.

Sayer defines offices that are proof of gentlemanly status as being High
Sheriff, Justices of the Peace, Heralds (unsurprisingly), Serjeants-at-Arms,
Serjeants-at-Law, Doctors of divinity and Dignified Prebends, and
Barristers-at-law.

In my study that I have cited I explored this whole issue in much greater detail
than space or time permits here; but I believe there wasn sufficient evidence to
claim that a standard that was once applied is now ignored and has become merely
a pretext for defining the qualities required for a grant rather than any
reference to the reality of the social standing of the petitioner.

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

Post by Guy Stair Sainty

Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe

Post by Guy Stair Sainty

Post by p***@hotmail.com
I think the issues with the College of Arms recognising Spanish arms
2. By denigrating Spanish arms the College of Arms is creating the
impression that their grants are superior.

They claim they are superior because Spanish confirmations are not of
themselves evidence of gentility, whereas the British heraldic
jursidction is based on this now completely artificial premise (how
many petitions have been rejected in the last 30 years because the
petitioner did not meet the social test?).

I agree that there is evidence that in the times of the visitations
that people were rejected as armigers on the grounds that they were not
gentlemen. However nowhere have I seen any definition of Gentleman,
save perhaps that of "armiger" which little other than tautologous.
Accordingly I wonder how the "British heraldic tradition can be based on
this now completely artificial premise"?

I can cite some examples that I gave in appendix 1 of my book, The
Orders of Saint John, on Noble Proofs; I quoted Chris Given-Wilson,
The English Nobility in the Late Middle Ages (1978), and M. J. Sayer,
English nobility, the Gentry, Heralds and the Continental Context
(1979) as well as conversations with the then York Herald, later
Garter King (Sir Conrad Swan). Being a gentleman, and therefore
entitled to record coat armour, was perceived as being a specific
rank - a grant of Richard II of a pension to one of his servants "to
enable him to support the estate of a gentleman to which the king has
advanced him". The county gentry in the 16-17th century being those
landed families with an annual income in excess of twenty pounds
sterling; the parish gentry having incomes of 5 - 20 pounds annually.
A merchant who had just acquired such an estate, however, would not
be considered part of the gentry class until his family had enjoyed
this state for 3 or 4 generations. The heralds when considering a
petition would have taken into account both the wealth and social
prominence of the family, and would have expected a certain minimum
ecpnomic standing. York communicated to me verbally then that "the
college of Arms when granting Arms to a British subject of foreign
descent, may grant similar or identical arms to those born by that
person by right of a foreign jurisdiction, disregarding the fact that
the original arms might be burgher, rather than noble arms. However
such grant is only made if the petitioner can demonstrate that he and
his family are now generally accepted in England as gentle." In a
written communication York stated: "Within the Earl Marshal's
jurisdiction the (sometime Continental burghal) family concerned
holds tesserae gentilitatis as evidenced by the King of Arms patent
... following the Naturalization of nthat family as British subjects
... therefore there is no attempt to invest the burghal ancestors
with nobiliary status."

I happen to have a copy of the London Visitation of 1633-5. While many
of the families show descent from some country cousins, most are
securely merchants in London with no evidence of any landed property.
It may even be that their merchants premises were rented and that they
owned no land at all.

It seems then that the values you mention were not of rentals but of raw
income. In other words there was little meaning to "gent" than "not
poor".

<snip, including of Scots practices of which I know nothing and which
are indeed different to English>

Post by Guy Stair Sainty
In my study that I have cited I explored this whole issue in much
greater detail than space or time permits here; but I believe there
wasn sufficient evidence to claim that a standard that was once
applied is now ignored and has become merely a pretext for defining
the qualities required for a grant rather than any reference to the
reality of the social standing of the petitioner.

My suspicion is that the granting of arms was flexible, as was much of
England's social practices and to insist on strict categorisation is to
regard England as part of legalistic Continental European practices.
There was no noble class in England, much as there may have been a few
nobles; thankfully we were preserved from such ossification.

Finally it sounds as if you accept the tautologous definition of
armiger:

An armiger is a gent if he is an armiger.

A non-armiger is not a gent.

This is not a definition, save in the sense of a dictionary definition.

[Guy Stair Sainty]

Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
Finally it sounds as if you accept the tautologous definition of
An armiger is a gent if he is an armiger.
A non-armiger is not a gent.

Actually I do not, and this is a point I attempted to make in my study of the
question of noble proofs. There are a fifteen hereditary peers in the UK
peerage who are not armigers and twenty-seven baronets; in the 1920s the then
Lord Strickland, descended in the direct male line from the standard bearer of
Saint George at the battle of Agincourt, was unable to prove his right to arms
when applying for entry to the Order of Malta. It strikes me as an untenable
hypothesis to suggest that none of these could be included in the class of
gentry; could one really consider the ancient landowning family of Strickland
before they were elevated to the peerage somewhere down below serjeants at law?

[m***@earthlink.net]

I think I understand this perfectly...always a risky statement.

It's not that Spanish arms have no legal standing, it's that the
College of Arms will not recognize arms that are not *granted* under
the authority of a sovereign. As I thought was clear, Spanish
cronistas do not *grant* arms; they may certify an applicant's right to
use existing arms or they may certify newly assumed arms. By contrast,
when the king, as the fons honorum, *grants* arms they are indisputable
granted, not recorded, not registered, not certified. Is this not
correct?

Joseph McMillan

[p***@hotmail.com]

Dear Joseph,

I believe that your statement is as accurate as has yet been written.
King Juan Carlos I does not use the word granted however but the word
confirmed. The Portuguese kings used the word conceeded as did the
Brazilian emperors.

By the way are you the Joseph McMillan invovled with historical flags?
If so I have enjoyed your reseach, especially all the Brazilian flags.

David Pritchard

Post by m***@earthlink.net
I think I understand this perfectly...always a risky statement.
It's not that Spanish arms have no legal standing, it's that the
College of Arms will not recognize arms that are not *granted* under
the authority of a sovereign. As I thought was clear, Spanish
cronistas do not *grant* arms; they may certify an applicant's right to
use existing arms or they may certify newly assumed arms. By

contrast,

Post by m***@earthlink.net
when the king, as the fons honorum, *grants* arms they are

indisputable

Post by m***@earthlink.net
granted, not recorded, not registered, not certified. Is this not
correct?
Joseph McMillan

[m***@earthlink.net]

Yep, that's me, and thanks for the kind words.

Joseph McMillan

[j***@yahoo.ca]

Post by m***@earthlink.net
It's not that Spanish arms have no legal standing, it's that the
College of Arms will not recognize arms that are not *granted* under
the authority of a sovereign. As I thought was clear, Spanish
cronistas do not *grant* arms; they may certify an applicant's right to
use existing arms or they may certify newly assumed arms. By

contrast,

Post by m***@earthlink.net
when the king, as the fons honorum, *grants* arms they are

indisputable

Post by m***@earthlink.net
granted, not recorded, not registered, not certified. Is this not
correct?

I don't know. The logic of English heraldic practice long ago escaped
me.

Does the College of Arms then refuse to recognize arms granted by the
Chief Herald of Ireland because they aren't honours (regardless of
whether they're legal)? What about the Flemish Heraldic Council's
grants? Is it the word "grant" that is important or the honorary
nature of the arms, or both?

And I believe the College of Arms recently wrote to me that I could
register my (definitely neither granted nor honorary) South African
arms with them because I don't live in England, etc., not because they
wouldn't recognize the South African registrations.