Post by Guy Stair SaintyPost by p***@hotmail.comI would like to expand upon what George wrote about Sao Miguel da Ala.
The Royal Brotherhood of Saint Michael of the Wing is an active Roman
Catholic confraternity established by an ordinary according to Canon
Law with the Duke of Braganca as the hereditary Judge. The Royal Order
of Saint Michael of the Wing is an order (according to the Grand
Master, Dom Duarte Pio Duke of Braganca) and does nothing unto itself
as all activities are conducted through the Confraternity. In other
words, no one can be a member of the Royal Order of Saint Michael of
the Wing without first being a member of the Royal Brotherhood of Saint
Michael of the Wing. The changes in the Royal Order of Saint Michael of
the Wing from 1981 and 2001 are dramatic, the revived order of 1981 was
based upon the order founded by King Dom Miguel I of Portugal as a
political-military order to combat Socialism, Freemasonry and
anti-Clericalism in mid-ninteenth century Portugal. The colours of the
ribbon of this order, both 1848 and 1981, were red and blue which are
the colours of the House of Braganca while at war. The duke, wanting to
return the Royal Order of Saint Michael of the Wing to its origins as a
religious order of knighthood replaced the militant colours of red and
blue with a red ribbon which reflects the historic origins of the
Portuguese order as a former branch of the Spanish Religious Military
Order of Santiago.
I believe one should look at this slightly differently. the use of the
Order as an award for legitimist loyalism by Dom Miguel was in no
way connected with the original canonical foundation. This was already
extinct under the norms of canon law.
This is an interesting point. I've been trying to sort this one out in my
own reading.
What makes it difficult to really evaluate is the skimpiness of the
historical record.
There is clear evidence for the brief early existence of the order as a
religious-military order under Portuguese royal authority and references are
made to Papal approbation - although the specific Papal Bull is appararntly
not to be found. Peter Bander van Duren in The Cross on the Sword provides a
rather difficult to follow discussion of the issue of whether there was
proof that the Order of St. Michael of the Wing was founded/authorized by
Papal Bull but points to several good sources of confirmation. At the same
time it appears clear that this was an order whose headship is hereditarily
linked to the Portuguese crown and whose rule has had its own meanderings.
Edward Potkowski in Rycerze w Habitach notes that the 12th century rule of
the Order of St. Michael of the Wing was already very different than that
other military-religious orders and had a strong confraternal and
socio-political rather than military-monastic character. In this way the
Order was more similar to later mediaeval orders than either its Iberian or
Crusading contemporaries. The serving knights were for example married, and
threy made only a solemn promise of fidelity to God, Pope and King. They
were required to periodically gather for common prayers but had no other
religious obligations. Potkowski notes that they were at the outset more
similar to the later mediaeval monarchical chivalric orders or aristocratic
fraternities than to the military-monastic orders of that period. A strong
monarchical political role is not surprising given the way in which the
early Portuguese kings also used the military-monastic Order of Avis as an
instrument not only for the Reconquista but also the consolidation of power
against regional foes.
At some point the actual authority is apparently transferred to the
Cistercians and became perhaps more religious in character but again the
historical record is skimpy as to how active an existence the order has
(uncertain in terms of primary sources), although I've seen a secondary
source list grand-masters of the order into the late seventeenth century -
and these are the Kings of Portugal as of course the grandmastership of the
order was hereditary in the Portuguese throne. I can't tell when the last
knights were admitted but there is indication lay brothers were admitted
well into the 18th century. The question would then be as to whether the
military aspect of the order had simply fallen into disuse or whetehr the
order had become extinct and whether it was primarily Canon Law or Royal
Will that had governed the Order (and governed its legal continuity). There
just seems to be too little material available to know. On balance though it
would appear that it continued at the very least through the continued
existence of the hereditary grandmastership vested in the King and whatever
role the Abbots of Alcobaca had in maintaining its corporate existence. The
ambiguity of its nominal existence appears to have carried over to 17th
century foreign commentators such as Ashmole or Abbot Guistinian who both
describe the order yet respectively indicate it is in disuse or raise doubts
about its continuity. At the same time there are the published 1630 revised
statutes of and Guistinian's 17th century listing of masters and past
knights which speaks to some continuity.
The first clearer indication of its modern reconfirmation/reestablishment is
the 19th century Miguelist military-political order. Now the question here
seems to be whether it is a reform of a long dormant or nominally existing
confraternal royal order or the creation of a new military-political order -
but certainly Miguel's rule was autocratic and he would have been free to
create, restore, reform or reestablish according to his lights. The
potential challenges to seeing his actions as a reform and reconfirmation
might be as to his rightful rule (whether he or Pedro of Brasil were the
intended heir) and whether the Order existed to be reformed (in which case
it was a new creation) if the original Order were solely dependent on the
Holy See. The 19th century order would have been a significant departure
from a military-monastic order but of course less so for monarchical
military-political order. It is nonetheless clear that Miguel saw it as his
right to lead the order by virtue of inherited perogative. The 1848 statutes
of the Order are from the period after his overthrow but of course he had
not abdicated but continued to act from Austrian exile.
Guy appears to see the 12th century order in similar terms to contemporary
monastic-military orders and sees its existence as ended 100 years after the
last of its military knights had passed away (whever that was) as it was
essentially an entity of Canon Law. I am open, following the difference in
its 12th century rule to the view that it had a monarchical character and a
Catholic character that presaged later European monarchical foundations and
may be seen as nominally existing even when the King of Portugal was the
only knight and at teh same time master of the Order.
But I'll take one more stab at a Canon Law based principle of extinction:
Foundation 1147 (or thereabouts) - active in reconquista
End of military role (after 1280 or therabouts) - political role diminishing
Continued under Cistercian administration with new statutes 1630 (with both
a military and religious wing)
Last knight admitted ? Last serving brothers admitted before 1789
Secularization of religious military orders 1789
Restoration of St. Michael by Miguel as secret military-political order 1848
(apparently with Papal approval)
Last knight admitted circa 1912
Restored 1981 with the newest statutes in 2001
In strictly canonical terms - if we accept that it nominally continued and
admitted or potentially admitted some knights (otherwise the 1630 statutes
would have not included this element) to consider the order to be extinct it
would have had to have been sometime after 1630 after the last knight was
appointed and counting 100 years from last surving knight. Except that in
terms of the 1630 statutes (looking strictly from the Canon Law norm) the
corporate existence continued although the chivalric wing may have been in
abeyance without the admission of new knights except for the status of the
King as knight and Grand Master. After all the Canon Law standard referred
to relates really to the corporate existence. In fact a case can be made
that the 1630 statutes strengthened the Canon Law corproate continuity of
the order by allowing its continued existence as a corporate entity in
Church law even as the admission fo new knights went into abeyance.
Notwithstanding any of this if we accept the truth of the Papal approval of
the restoration of the order in 1848 (it was not continued by the monarchy
in 1789 as a secularised order) then that act would seem to overide any
other canonical provision and be an affirmation of Miguel's authority to
revive the order and alter its purpose. If the Pope assented to the revival
than clearly it was by definition canonically revivable (even if it was like
the revival of Lazarus - the biblical Lazarus not the order :) - couldn't
resist). The Pope is free to override any administrative provision of his
own laws.
Arguments can be made that there was no canonical extinction fo the order
(although again there is a speculative element).
Post by Guy Stair SaintyThe "order" that is part of the Brotherhood, like the latter is a new
foundation, and as far as I can see is essentially no different from it,
whatever the distinctions betweeb the ribbons. It is a different institution to
both the original religious-military foundation and the Miguelist award.
I wonder how this squares with the decree of Dom Duarte (I've copied this
from an earlier thread on rec.heraldry with the participation of Guy Sainty,
Pier Felice degli Uberti and carlos Evaristo)
DECRETO DE APROVACAO DE ESTATUTOS
Declaro que os presentes Estatutos da Real Irmandade da Ordem de São
Miguel da Ala, que constam de quarto Capítulos com tres Artigos, foram
aprovados por minha expressa vontade a 8 de Maio de 2001 e substituem
pos Estatutos de 1630, 1848 e 1981, anteriormente utilizados pela
Ordem de São Miguel da Ala.
Festa do Anjo Custódio de Portugal, 10 de Junho de 2001.
Dom Duarte Pio de Bragança
Juiz da Real Irmandade de São Miguel da Ala
Grão-Mestre Nato da Ordem de São Miguel da Ala
- wherein he seems to imply that the new statutes replace the earlier
Miguelist statutes which replace the earlier Alcobaca statutes - all quite
different and all at the same time connected to the same order. He also
reconfirms his hereditary status as Grand-Master. I would also note that in
1986 when he reconfirmed his claim to the three dynastic orders he specified
that his claim to Vila Vicosa and St. Isabel flowed by succession from King
Manuel and his claim to St. Michael flowed from King Miguel (reflecting the
reunion of the Miguelist and Manuelist succession in his father Dom Duarte
Nuno). It would seem that Dom Duarte would disagree with both David's and
Guy's positions on this point. The new statutes describe a chivalric
confraternity and within that confraternity the renewed chivalric order. The
Order is within a confraternity is not the same as the order is the
confraternity,
The same dual formulation of Judge of the Brotherhood and Grand Master of
the Order appears on the official web-page of the Royal House -
"É Grão Mestre da Ordem de Nossa Senhora da Conceição de Vila Viçosa, Grão
Mestre da Real Ordem de São Miguel da Ala e Juiz da Real Irmandade de São
Miguel da Ala, Bailio Grã-Cruz de Honra e Devoção da Ordem Soberana Militar
de Malta e possui o Tosão de Ouro, com que foi agraciado pelo Arquiduque
Otão de Habsburgo, entre outras ordens com que foi agraciado."
Now, I am aware that the Duke of Braganca has received a variety of
different bits of advice as to how to reform the Order based on different
people's notions or suppositions as to whether the Order was a solely a
subject of Canon Law and had become extinct or whether it continued a
nominal existence through its hereditary grandmaster. I'm not surprised by
these various interpretations given the skimpiness of the historical record
and the differences simply reflect the notions of their authors, about the
nature of the 12th century order, as they read into the skimpy record. If
the authors are convinced it was juridicially like the Templars or St. John
then it would be reasonable to believe it had become extinct as a subject of
Canon Law. If it was a creature of the monarchy it may have continued a
nominal existence in its hereditary masters at the very least. There is in
my mind no clear way to determine which of these positions is historically
more defensible and so I compromise calling it old and new at the same time.
Perhaps the deciding voice should go to the Duke of Braganca who certainly
sees a distinction between the Order and the Confraternity of the same name
the Order is now contained within. He uses distinct titles to distinguish
the two roles he has vis a vis the Confraternity and the Order. The
Confraternity is certainly a new vehicle for the social aspects of the order
and distinguishes between the religious-social functions of the brotherhood
and the chivalric order itself. The structure is a unique one, but that is
Dom Duarte's current choice.
That would suggest that as far as our view of the Order itself we have four
possible choices - the first would be to recognize it as Dom Duarte's
renewal (within a new confraternity) of an ancient long disused order that
has been hereditary in the throne of Portugal (and perhaps also as a reform
of the Miguelist nineteenth century political order); second to deny the
historical continuity of the order and see it as the brand new creation of
a non-reigning pretender (akin to the Savoy Civil Order of Merit); third to
gloss over Dom Duarte's statements that there continues within the Order and
maintain that it is simply a new grade within a new chivalric confraternity;
or simply deny that the chivalric awards of Dom Duarte or any non-reigning
monarch have chivalric standing.
My preference is toward the first interpretation which seems to align with
that of the Duke of Braganca, David's view also appears to favour the first
except bypassing the Miguelist heritage, Guy's argument seems to follow the
third option of glossing over the existence Order and focusing only on the
confraternity (based on his belief that the order is long extinct) and I'm
guessing that John might prefer the fourth.
Now if anyone has some compelling other information or argument I'm open to
revising my view.
George Lucki