Burkes International REegister of Arms

An greatest shameless mockery.....It is a shame for any person who
bears an legal coat of arms to be entered in such a shameless
publication.....Where the Burke's owners? Who allows publishing here
such a shameless heraldic vandalism and humiliation for such a honest
authority as Burke's Peerage was for many centures....??? What
happened with Burke's??? Who is inventor of such a provocation as
this "armorial" nothing is???

***No any assumed and officially non-confirmed heraldic devise (except
coat of arms of catholic clergy (because such a right (ex-officio) is
officially allowed and recognized) and Polish family arms for
descendents from noble ancestors (by traditional law) may be included
into any honest and respectful publication. It must be a rule. It is
the only way to destroy the heraldic vandalism***

StephenP

2006-01-28 09:21:36 UTC

I fear you may be starting the old argument about the vlaidity of
assumed Arms in countries without a heraldic authority. Heraldic
snobbery?

George Lucki

2006-01-28 16:49:08 UTC

Post by StephenP
I fear you may be starting the old argument about the vlaidity of
assumed Arms in countries without a heraldic authority. Heraldic
snobbery?

Stephen - the problem here isn't with Americans assuming arms, but with some
folks assuming too much. This Count Archbishop Baron Bishop fellow didn't
just assume arms but also all sorts of appurtenances of rank in a concoction
that is more a parody of heraldry than anything else. There are any number
of people who would wish to take advantage of a 'register' like Burkes as
yet another attempt to prove to others that their various odd claims are
'legitimate'. If the register does not set high quality control standards
and includes the various dodgy gongs, mail order nobillary titles, etc. then
this will simply lower the reputation of the register and by association
Burkes.

Stephen, are you involved in this venture?
Kind regards,
George

Andrew

2006-01-28 17:30:03 UTC

.............StephenP wrote:........

Post by StephenP
I fear you may be starting the old argument about the vlaidity of
assumed Arms in countries without a heraldic authority. Heraldic
snobbery?
Not only are you wishing to restrict who can register their Arms but
you now require all links to be vetted down to each and every page?!

Are you involved in this venture? It is good idea to rise a good money
( 50 GBP per entry), but it is better to keep the dignity and honour
and to reject any "heraldic" rubbish, even if a self-styled "armiger"
will suggest 1.000.000 GBP. The good name is much more important.
Includes the various rubbish ( it does not matter how much Pounds was
suggested for such a entry) into the Register (hidden under the Burke's
name ) is a genuine heraldic snobbery and dishonesty. If such a present
unnormal practice will not be stopped immediately it will destroy the
Burke's good name and reputation for nothing.
Yes, any or many links with advertising of dishonest information and of
a fraudulent bodies must be vetted down to each and every page. It is
the only way to keep the good name and high standards reputation.

George Lucki gave a good ansver:

If the Register does not set high quality control standards
and includes the various dodgy gongs, mail order nobillary titles, etc.
then
this will simply lower the reputation of the register and by
association
Burkes.

StephenP

2006-01-28 18:53:14 UTC

I have no financial interest in this project. I merely wish the
project well. As has been stated before, the criteria has still to
settle down

Martin Goldstraw

2006-01-28 20:02:52 UTC

I have been watching this thread with some interest - some of the
attitudes displayed herein are enlightening to say the least.
The brief of The International Register of Arms is to record armorial
bearings already in use. There is a very strict and strong acceptance
criterion which, very briefly, could be summed up thus:

i) That the arms be lawfully borne by the applicant within their
country of domicile.
ii) That the applicant has a lawful right to the achievement and that
the arms are used by the applicant.
iii) That any style, title or award claimed is genuine and awarded by a
"real" sovereign authority.

We have not deviated from our policy, nor will we.

In regard to the criteria set out above there has been some specific
comment about one of the achievements in the register. This achievement
does not fall foul of any laws within the United States of America (the
armiger's domicile) where it is perfectly lawful to assume any form
of armorial bearings. Concern has been expressed about the meaning
behind the use of various coronets within the achievement in question
but these comments are based upon the false impression that said
coronets are accepted by the register as indicative of rank or title
- they are not. The register has not accorded any name, style or
title to anyone who has failed to satisfy it that they are entitled to
them. If the register had been satisfied that the armiger was the
holder of a title of nobility the fact would have been record.

The simple fact is that in many countries it is perfectly legal to
adopt any or all of the bells and whistles and, like it or not, a great
many citizens of those countries have done so. The register does not
advise anyone on matters of good taste nor should it since it is simply
there to record arms already in use. Just like a fashion magazine we
intend to report what actually is out there on the streets and not what
the censors who participate in this forum think the rest of the world
ought to believe is out on the streets; we will not hide the truth.

We will not publish any armorial bearings which are unlawful and we
will not promote bogus titles and awards - in fact we would be
pleased to be notified of any such situation.

Regards,
Martin Goldstraw of Whitecairns
For and on behalf of Burke's International Armorial Register

http://armorial-register.com

Post by Andrew
.............StephenP wrote:........

Are you involved in this venture? It is good idea to rise a good money
( 50 GBP per entry), but it is better to keep the dignity and honour
and to reject any "heraldic" rubbish, even if a self-styled "armiger"
will suggest 1.000.000 GBP. The good name is much more important.
Includes the various rubbish ( it does not matter how much Pounds was
suggested for such a entry) into the Register (hidden under the Burke's
name ) is a genuine heraldic snobbery and dishonesty. If such a present
unnormal practice will not be stopped immediately it will destroy the
Burke's good name and reputation for nothing.
Yes, any or many links with advertising of dishonest information and of
a fraudulent bodies must be vetted down to each and every page. It is
the only way to keep the good name and high standards reputation.
If the Register does not set high quality control standards
and includes the various dodgy gongs, mail order nobillary titles, etc.
then
this will simply lower the reputation of the register and by
association
Burkes.

Andrew

2006-01-28 20:35:08 UTC

What a coat of arms ( ensigns armorial ) is:

Nisbett,System of Heraldry, Chap.II, p.9. "Hereditary mark of honour ,
regularily composed of certain tinctures and figures, granted or
authorised by sovereigns, for distinguishing, differencing, and
illustrating persons, families and communities." " The words granted or
authorised by sovereigns exclude all arbitrary marks and signs; such as
thouse assumed by ignoble at their own pleasure , which can not be
called ensigns of honour, however like to arms they may seem".

As an suggestion:
If administration of the Register would like to prepare genuine piece
of history and wouldn't like to cardinally change rules of entry, the
Register itself may be parted by 2 absolutely and clearly different
parts :

1. Ensigns Armorial as Ensigns of Honour: any arms granted by virtue of
exercising of sovereign prerogative, including authorized by sovereigns
and special heraldic official bodies; and variation of such armorial
bearings as well (may be of different form).

2. Personal heraldic devises (marks and signs, such as those assumed by
private persons at their own pleasure, sometimes registered with
commercial organizations and different societies).

How it possible, for example, to put on the same line an heraldic pic.
of observed "Bishop Count Baron Archbishop" and coat of arms of
HIRH Prince Charles, or, the Duke of Noto, for example? If the
register clamed to be a honest body, the definition must be very and
very clear. If no, it will be an useful material for conman and
fraudsters (Lafosse dream).

And, to avoid any advertising of (internet resources) doubtful and scam
information will be very useful.

Martin Goldstraw

2006-01-28 20:55:50 UTC

Andrew, the above comments re: 1 and 2 are perfectly valid - and we may
make amendments to that effect - for the moment each armiger is
identified by country of origin/grant and whilst you and I are aware of
which of those countries arms are assumed and which are otherwise - I
agree that those outwith our informed community may not be so aware.
What I will not get into however is the debate about whether arms in
one country are "noble" arms and those in another are not - that is a
matter of opinion.

I can not accept your continuing reference to "Bishop Count Baron
Archbishop" as we have no such person within the register but in the
unlikely even that the Duke of Rothesay pays to join the register I can
assure you that his prominence will be markedly different to those
signed up so far.

I can promise you that we endeavour to avoid any dubious advertising
but should we fall foul of such I would appreciate a personal approach
rather than the hitherto utterly unproductive norms of this forum; that
way we can react in the best interests of everyone.

Regards,
Martin

Andrew

2006-01-28 21:05:46 UTC

Dear Whitecairns,
Thanks for appreciation of my comments. I hope the partition of the
Register on the 2 parts will be very useful.
I appreciate your suggestions as well.

Tim Powys-Lybbe

2006-01-28 21:34:07 UTC

Post by Andrew
Nisbett,System of Heraldry, Chap.II, p.9. "Hereditary mark of honour ,
regularily composed of certain tinctures and figures, granted or
authorised by sovereigns, for distinguishing, differencing, and
illustrating persons, families and communities." " The words granted or
authorised by sovereigns exclude all arbitrary marks and signs; such as
thouse assumed by ignoble at their own pleasure , which can not be
called ensigns of honour, however like to arms they may seem".
If administration of the Register would like to prepare genuine piece
of history and wouldn't like to cardinally change rules of entry, the
Register itself may be parted by 2 absolutely and clearly different
1. Ensigns Armorial as Ensigns of Honour: any arms granted by virtue of
exercising of sovereign prerogative, including authorized by sovereigns
and special heraldic official bodies; and variation of such armorial
bearings as well (may be of different form).
2. Personal heraldic devises (marks and signs, such as those assumed by
private persons at their own pleasure, sometimes registered with
commercial organizations and different societies).

Certainly in England there has to be a third category, those who
assumed arms before the establishment of a formal granting authority
and which arms have subsequently become acceptable. There are quite a
few of these still in use. Probably the same applies to most other
countries with some granting (or whatever) body.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe ***@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

George Lucki

2006-01-28 22:36:10 UTC

Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe

Excellent observations - the distinction between arms as ensigns of honour
(or similar concepts) and as self-assumed marks of identity is an excellent
one. The category of arms of ancient origin I would see as being in most
countries a subset of the first category of arms as ensigns of honour as
these arms inevitably became part of the officially recognized and
sanctioned heraldry of various lands. The later arms granted by sovereign
authority were not typically held in higher regard - in fact the antiquity
of arms was often recognized as giving them a particular status. In any case
this is a historical pecularity. In most European nations the process of
assuming arms by the privileged classes was closed by the end of the 15th
century or so. There are also self-assumed arms of later date that have
entered the official or quasi-official registries of various lands and I
have no problem with these in the first category. I am pleased that Burkes
is open to revisiting its criteria.
Kind regards, George Lucki

George Lucki

2006-01-28 22:52:08 UTC

Martin,
The project is undoubtedly well-intentioned and I am intending my responses
to be constructive.
The criteria are unfortunately neither strong not strict. The Esposito arms
really speak to the issue.

Post by Martin Goldstraw
i) That the arms be lawfully borne by the applicant within their
country of domicile.

With the exception of Scotland the reality is that any sort of 'arms' or
armorial like devices (except trademarks, arms of national soverignty and
some international symbols or in some cases the arms granted to armigers)
may be borne by anyone without contravening any real law. That is a
reflection on the amount of real heraldic protection and the state of
heraldic law.

Post by Martin Goldstraw
ii) That the applicant has a lawful right to the achievement and that
the arms are used by the applicant.

If the arms are not unlawfully borne per i) then in most states (anything
not prohibited being permitted) anyrhing anyone creates may be lawfully
borne, however it violates heraldic traditions.

Post by Martin Goldstraw
iii) That any style, title or award claimed is genuine and awarded by a
"real" sovereign authority.

Using "real" in quotation marks underlines the potential issue. Are the
external ornaments of Mr. Esposito's arms granted by "real" sovereign
authority - of course not. There are actually few Churches - the Catholic,
Episcopalian and Orthodox being two examples who have their heraldic
tradition seperate from that of the states in which they might function.
I'll return to this.

Post by Martin Goldstraw
We have not deviated from our policy, nor will we.
In regard to the criteria set out above there has been some specific
comment about one of the achievements in the register. This achievement
does not fall foul of any laws within the United States of America (the
armiger's domicile)

True, but even a papal tiara and royal crown would not contravene US law! No
heraldic doodad however inappropriately used would conteavene US law. But it
does not make it heraldically correct.

where it is perfectly lawful to assume any form

Post by Martin Goldstraw
of armorial bearings. Concern has been expressed about the meaning
behind the use of various coronets within the achievement in question
but these comments are based upon the false impression that said
coronets are accepted by the register as indicative of rank or title
- they are not.

That is not at all clear applying the if it walks like a duck and quacks
like a duck - it is likely a duck standard. The reason people assume such
coronets is to precisely convey that they are legitimately of that rank.
Waht else does a comital shield on an achievement mean - that the armiger is
a citizen of a republic? The various external additiments to arms do carry a
conventional insignial meaning.

The register has not accorded any name, style or

Post by Martin Goldstraw
title to anyone who has failed to satisfy it that they are entitled to
them. If the register had been satisfied that the armiger was the
holder of a title of nobility the fact would have been record.

Is the (Lord) Bishop's episcopal rank and title recognized by the world-wide
Orthodox community? Are the appertunances of rank the correct ones for an
Orthodox prelate? There are of course both real Orthodox bishops and mail
order ones - leaders of so-called Churches with more bishops than adherents.
I know nothing of this particular Orthodox Church or Bishop. Is it
recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarch or other Orthodox Churches within the
fold? I presume you would know the answer to that question.

Post by Martin Goldstraw
The simple fact is that in many countries it is perfectly legal to
adopt any or all of the bells and whistles and, like it or not, a great
many citizens of those countries have done so. The register does not
advise anyone on matters of good taste nor should it since it is simply
there to record arms already in use. Just like a fashion magazine we
intend to report what actually is out there on the streets and not what
the censors who participate in this forum think the rest of the world
ought to believe is out on the streets; we will not hide the truth.

My concern has beeen precisely is that uou will have exactly that - a
FASHION MAGAZINE of heraldry. This is not about hiding the truth or
censorship at all. It is about editorial standards. Heraldry has its own
historical traditions and conventions. It is not a question of fashion at
all but of tradition. I have no difficulty with heraldic innovation and the
evolution of guidelines from practice but my concern here is not about
this - the problem is with arms that do not innovate as much as they usurp.
Martin, you are free to choose however high or low you set the bar. Even
fashion magazines vary widely in their editorial standards. My own
recommendation is to set it several notches higher - but that is up to you
and to Burkes. One last observation - all sorts of "arms" are in use -
including those provided by bucket shops. I presume someone called Norfolk
in the US could could think to themselves - aha, isn't the Earl Marshal,
Earl of Norfolk - must be my arms as well. I'll use them. Not illegal in the
US to do so. No injherent claim to nobility by the use of the bells and
whistles. No problem entering them as assumed arms in the register (If I
read your policy, without a matriculation US residents are still entitled to
register assumed arms that are identical to someone else's arms of the same
name.)
Sheesh.

The wonderful thing about receiving feedback this early in your process is
that it could help you avoid some of the pitfalls that can come with such a
complex and ambitious undertaking. I have provided you with my thoughts
privately as well, but it is your project and you are free to continue on
any course. Good luck.

Kind regards, George Lucki

Post by Martin Goldstraw
We will not publish any armorial bearings which are unlawful and we
will not promote bogus titles and awards - in fact we would be
pleased to be notified of any such situation.
Regards,
Martin Goldstraw of Whitecairns
For and on behalf of Burke's International Armorial Register
http://armorial-register.com

Post by Andrew
.............StephenP wrote:........

Are you involved in this venture? It is good idea to rise a good money
( 50 GBP per entry), but it is better to keep the dignity and honour
and to reject any "heraldic" rubbish, even if a self-styled "armiger"
will suggest 1.000.000 GBP. The good name is much more important.
Includes the various rubbish ( it does not matter how much Pounds was
suggested for such a entry) into the Register (hidden under the Burke's
name ) is a genuine heraldic snobbery and dishonesty. If such a present
unnormal practice will not be stopped immediately it will destroy the
Burke's good name and reputation for nothing.
Yes, any or many links with advertising of dishonest information and of
a fraudulent bodies must be vetted down to each and every page. It is
the only way to keep the good name and high standards reputation.
If the Register does not set high quality control standards
and includes the various dodgy gongs, mail order nobillary titles, etc.
then
this will simply lower the reputation of the register and by
association
Burkes.

Martin Goldstraw

2006-01-28 23:56:59 UTC

George I have to say that the register has no wish to discriminate on
religious grounds against any Church - we are not in the business of
deciding whether a church is recognised by any other - in the case in
point it is recognised by the Government of the United States and who
are we to argue with that?

I will not argue with you about tradition and conventions as it is the
usage of armorial bearings which creates such conventions - we simply
wish to record what is already out there.

We will not accept arms that are "used" in the bucket shop sense you
referred to; we will only accept arms which are borne by an armiger.

I thank you for your good wishes.

Martin

Martin Goldstraw

2006-01-29 00:30:20 UTC

George said: "(If I read your policy, without a matriculation US
residents are still entitled to
register assumed arms that are identical to someone else's arms of the
same
name.) Sheesh. "

Come on Guys lets get back down to earth here - Nowhere on our
acceptance criteria does it say that we would knowingly allow Fred
Bloggs from Pitsburg to register his assumed arms which were identical
to the arms of the Chief of Clan McBubba. Some arms are easy to check,
others less so, but should any incidence of usurpation come to our
attention we would act accordingly. One of our most basic requirements
is that armigers resident in a country without official authority
should have his arms registered with that country's heraldry society
prior to registering with us.

If we ever did register such arms I openly invite the participants of
this forum to inform us - we will act.

I also find it difficult to reconcile your concern that a coronet borne
in the assumed arms of an American would lead anyone to think that they
were a titled nobleman especially when said comment comes from a person
who uses assumed arms with a helmet and coronet which could be mistaken
for that of a Danish count. That helmet would never be allowed to an
untitled person in the UK but no one minds because they are Polish
assumed arms and these things are acceptable in Poland; It is all down
to knowing the country of origin before making any sweeping judgements.
Knowing that the arms are assumed in the USA goes hand in hand with
knowing that there is no titled nobility in the USA.

By all keep a watching brief but please .. work with us here; believe
me, none of you have yet come up with a problem that we haven't already
thrashed out and decided on a strategy.

Martin

George Lucki

2006-01-29 02:41:57 UTC

Post by Martin Goldstraw
I also find it difficult to reconcile your concern that a coronet borne
in the assumed arms of an American would lead anyone to think that they
were a titled nobleman especially when said comment comes from a person
who uses assumed arms with a helmet and coronet which could be mistaken
for that of a Danish count. That helmet would never be allowed to an
untitled person in the UK but no one minds because they are Polish
assumed arms and these things are acceptable in Poland; It is all down
to knowing the country of origin before making any sweeping judgements.

Not an apt retort at all. I'm actually peeved that you would think that my
concerns are somehow hypocritically raised. Actually, Martin, my arms not
assumed arms at all unless you meant going back a very very very long time.
I use nothing but the arms I have inherited. Further I don't think assuming
such arms would be OK at all in terms of Polish armorial traditions. Some
info about the details that might help... the crest coronet is of course not
of a Danish count but is the typical coronet of an untitled Polish noble.
Such a form is common through much of Central Europe. The helmet has no
particular meaning in Polish heraldry. In a different style of emblazonment
a different helm could easily be sustituted. As you said it *is* down to
knowing the country of origin before making any sweeping judgements. That
will be one of the challenges in a project like this.

Post by Martin Goldstraw
Knowing that the arms are assumed in the USA goes hand in hand with
knowing that there is no titled nobility in the USA.

I look forward to some fascinating armorial concoctions from the US in your
register.

Post by Martin Goldstraw
By all keep a watching brief but please .. work with us here; believe
me, none of you have yet come up with a problem that we haven't already
thrashed out and decided on a strategy.

I understand that you are content with your approach. I really don't have
anything else to add for now.

Kind regards,
George Lucki

Martin Goldstraw

2006-01-29 09:20:51 UTC

George said: "Not an apt retort at all. I'm actually peeved that you
would think that my concerns are somehow hypocritically raised.
Actually, Martin, my arms not assumed arms at all unless you meant
going back a very very very long time. I use nothing but the arms I
have inherited. Further I don't think assuming
such arms would be OK at all in terms of Polish armorial traditions.
Some info about the details that might help... the crest coronet is of
course not of a Danish count but is the typical coronet of an untitled
Polish noble. Such a form is common through much of Central Europe. The
helmet has no particular meaning in Polish heraldry. In a different
style of emblazonment a different helm could easily be sustituted. As
you said it *is* down to knowing the country of origin before making
any sweeping judgements. That will be one of the challenges in a
project like this. "

My apologies for the clumsy retort and of course your arms are entirely
worthy and ancient. Of course I am fully aware that the coronet you use
is common to an untitled noble in Poland, it is none the less
practically identical to that of a titled noble in another country and
absent details of country of origin could be easily mistaken, in
addition your comment " The helmet has no particular meaning in Polish
heraldry" sums up my point precisely in that depictions of coronets or
style of helm in the USA have absolutely no meaning either and
therefore knowledge of the country of origin is important.

I have little more to say on this topic but would finish by openly
informing the forum that one of our gravest concerns is that we
unwittingly accept an equivalent of the self styled prince of Albany
(whatever the degree claimed); should we do so I would hope that
members of this forum would inform us immediately. Upon receipt of such
information such entry would be removed. Pretenders need not apply.

As the late Alastair Cooke used to say "if you have been, thanks for
listening"
Martin

g***@sainty.org

2006-01-29 17:58:38 UTC

That is fair enough; but surely you must know that in the Esposito case
these titles have been assumed by the registrant, and that the use of
the coronet is precisely because he does want this assumption to be
made that his title and arms with its coronet and episcopal hat are all
equally legitimate. So unlike George's coronet of an untitled noble,
which does not mean anymore than that he is indeed of the untitled
Polish nobility, Mr Esposito's coronet and episcopal hat are outward
signs of his claim to the titles of count and bishop.

Surely, since the US does not recognize titles at all, there is an
argument to be made for not according any nobiliary attributes to US
citizens - even those who descend from well-established titled
families. I would have thought there was a stronger case for this
position, than for the reverse - allowing the use of any nobiliary
attributes.

If, on the other hand, an American citizen's arms have been registered
by a Spanish Cronista (say by the late Vicente de Cadenas, or by the
marques de la Floresta before his right to confirm private arms and
register them with the Junta and Ministry of Justice was withdrawn), or
for that matter by the College of Arms or Lord Lyon, and such
confirmations and registrations
include such coronets, then that is clearly legitimate since Spain,
England and Scotland do recognize nobility and
knighthood.

While I understand that you do not want to distinguish between "noble"
and "burgher" arms, where a country has never had a
nobiliary tradition, are there any grounds at all for recognizing
assumed arms (whether or not they have recorded by a private body such
as the American College of Heraldry) with assumed nobiliary attributes?

If your would-be registrants are genuine interested in simply having
their arms recorded, rather than using them as support for their claims
to nobiliary or episcopal titles, then they will surely not mind having
thes assumed attributes omitted.

In the case of RC Bishops, the Vatican, a sovereign state with ancient
nobiliary and heraldic traditions, does maintain a proper registry
thereof, so there should be no problem in recording the arms of an
American Bishop of the RC Church, should one want them registered.

George Lucki

2006-01-29 19:55:10 UTC

Post by g***@sainty.org
That is fair enough; but surely you must know that in the Esposito case
these titles have been assumed by the registrant, and that the use of
the coronet is precisely because he does want this assumption to be
made that his title and arms with its coronet and episcopal hat are all
equally legitimate.

These aren't the only claims made by Mr. Esposito.
One internet site shows his arms and the following label (I have no idea
what all of the acronyms mean but they appear to include HE (in this case
for His Emminence no less:
H.E. the Rt. Rev. +Kyrill (Kristie-Esposito), Conte di Gerasa, Bishop of
Montgomery,
KCCStI, GCHS, GOMZ, CGKR, KCTJ, KCTS, KJ, KSA, DD
Arms:
Per pale Argent and Gules, issuant from base a demi-horse forcene
countercharged, on a chief nebuly Azure, between two estoiles of eight rays
Or, a Greek cross Argent flammant between the arms rayed Or. Above the
escutcheonis placed a Count's coronet of rank proper and thereupon a helm
befitting his degree.
Mantling: Gules, doubled Argent.
Crest: out of a Baron's coronet, is set for crest,a demi-horse forcene
Gules.
Motto: Fidus et Audax.
Arms granted by the Collegium Heraldicum Russiae; also Registered and
Granted under the Imperial Ethiopian College of Heraldry of the Solomonic
Crown, recognised by HIH Crown Prince Zere Yacobe Asfa Wossen Hailie
Selassie

The various awards claimed by Mr. Esposito are summarized by 'Prince Michael
of Thornley' as follows:
The Sovereign Grand Master
HSH Prince Michael KST, Prince of the Cross and Crozier
is proud to announce the granting of the rank
Knight Commander
to Bishop Kyrill Kristie-Esposito BA MA DD
Bishop of Montgomery for the
Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of Western Europe and the Americas
{Synod of Milan}
Comte di Gerasa
Knight Grand Officer Imperial Ethiopian Order of St. Mary of Zion
Knight Grand Cross Orthodox Order of the Holy Sepulchre
Knight Grand Cross Orthodox Order of the Cross of Constantine
Grand Knight of many Chivalric and Holy Orders

There are numerous groups styling themselves as Orthodox Churches that are
not recognized by the Orthodox Churches in communion with the Ecumenical
Patriarch. A listing of the 19 Churches that are part of the Orthodox Church
is on http://oca.org/OCworldindex.asp?SID=2
A listing of the rather 'diverse' collection of other groups is on
http://aggreen.net/other_orthodox/other.html
Mr. Esposito appears on this page as a Bishop of a diferent such group.

Kind regards, George Lucki

Martin Goldstraw

2006-01-29 23:45:16 UTC

We have taken note of the comments on this forum. We maintain our
initial stance as to the freedom of the citizens of the USA to adopt
any armorial bearings they so wish. However as this discussion has
progressed it has become apparent that the register may have been
mislead. Assertions have been made within this thread that a certain
gentleman has not simply adopted arms with coronets with no particular
meaning but has used these ensigns along with certain titles of
nobility outwith the register entry and therefore purports to be a
titled noble. In order to prevent any further embarrassment to the
person concerned we will be asking for absolute proof that the titles
in question were granted by true sovereign authorities (as opposed to
fantasy ones) and whilst we await such proof we will be pleased to show
the armorial bearings simpliciter.

It is not our intention to promote fantasy titles or orders. Those who
seek to legitimise such titles and orders need not apply. We are
extremely grateful to those who have taken the time and trouble to
assist us.

Martin Goldstraw of Whitecairns
For and on behalf of Burke's International Armorial Register

g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk

2006-01-31 16:23:36 UTC

The main problem with the proposed register, as far as I can see, is
that it will exclude the one group of people who could lend it lustre
and authenticity, namely the British aristocracy, who certainly would
not dream of paying to be included in such a register. One only needs
to consider that many Scottish aristocrats (Dukes included) do not
bother to matriculate their arms and haven't done so for centuries. The
only option is for the Register to include the British aristocracy for
free (the arms and blazons have already been digitized for the Peerage
and Landed Gentry) and then charge the rest to join such august
company. However, since arms are personal property I can forsee that
many aristocrats WILL take the trouble to object to being (without
their consent) part of a scheme which is a) designed to make money for
someone else (i.e. Burkes) and b) likely to include all sorts of people
with whom they have no wish to be associated.

Andrew

2006-01-31 18:38:14 UTC

The main problem with the proposed register......etc

This is really a resonable and useful note.

Mark

2006-02-01 10:54:33 UTC

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
However, since arms are personal property I can forsee that
many aristocrats WILL take the trouble to object to being (without
their consent) part of a scheme which is a) designed to make money for
someone else (i.e. Burkes) and b) likely to include all sorts of people
with whom they have no wish to be associated.

Just to clarify, as often discussed on rec.heraldry: there is no need
to obtain the consent of someone to reproduce their blazon or to create
a fresh representation of their arms for such a work. The author would
not be usurping arms. Of course, it would be absurdly difficult to
create an up-to-date directory of arms without being in contact with
the relevant armigers, but not impossible.

Mark

g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk

2006-02-01 13:35:25 UTC

Post by Mark

Interesting. I didn't know that. Can you briefly cite the authorities?

StephenP

2006-02-01 13:48:58 UTC

Post by Mark
Just to clarify, as often discussed on rec.heraldry: there is no need
to obtain the consent of someone to reproduce their blazon or to create
a fresh representation of their arms for such a work. The author would
not be usurping arms. Of course, it would be absurdly difficult to
create an up-to-date directory of arms without being in contact with
the relevant armigers, but not impossible.
Mark

Interesting. I didn't know that. Can you briefly cite the authorities?

Or put it round the other way, can anyone cite an authority that says
you cannot? Otherwise, a whole host of Burke's & Debrett's
publications could be in the mire.

Derek Howard

2006-02-01 14:29:30 UTC

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Interesting. I didn't know that. Can you briefly cite the authorities?

The Court of Chivalry, Manchester case, 1954, drew a distinction
between display (as on a theatre curtain) and use (as on a seal). The
former was not sufficient to find against the defendants but the later
was.

Derek Howard

g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk

2006-02-02 12:07:48 UTC

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Interesting. I didn't know that. Can you briefly cite the authorities?

This is not correct. Although a distinction between the display of arms
and the use of arms on a seal was made during the case, it was not as
clear as you suggest; it was merely stated that had the case been about
display only this would have been more difficult, not that the
judgement would have been different (See 'The High Court of Chivalry',
G. D. Squibb, p. 126-7). In the judgement, which is what matters, it
was stated that 'the Plaintiffs lawfully bear the arms, crest, motto
and supporters in this case libellate and that the defendants have
DISPLAYED representations of said arms, crest, motto and supporters in
the manner in this cause libellate and contrary to the will of the
Plaintiffs and the laws and usages of arms and we inhibit and strictly
enjoin the Defendants that they do not presume to DISPLAY the said
arms, crest, motto and supporters or any of them' (My emphasis). This
seems pretty clear to me, namely that it is contrary to the laws of
arms to display the arms of an armiger without their consent. Of
course, the Manchester Palace of Varieties was not directly using the
arms of Manchster Corporation to make money (as would be the case with
the proposed register). On this basis, an English armiger could apply
to the Court of Chivalry to prevent the use of his arms in the proposed
register.

Graham Senior-Milne

Martin Goldstraw

2006-02-02 13:00:30 UTC

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
On this basis, an English armiger could apply
to the Court of Chivalry to prevent the use of his arms in the proposed
register.
Graham Senior-Milne

Mr. Senior-Milne need not be concerned about anyone being included in
the register without their consent. Put simply, inclusion in the
register is like any other shopping experience; if you wish to use the
product you purchase it; if you do not wish to use the product you do
not. It an an exercise of free choice, anyone who wishes to be included
in the register will apply and those who do not wish to be in the
register will not - I have no difficulty with this concept.

For those who seek reference material containing the armorial bearings
of the UK peerage etc. there are ample other publications available and
the register does not seek, or need, to duplicate these. If anyone is
included in any of these reference books without their consent surely
it would be a matter for them to seek a remedy?

Regards,
Martin
http://armorial-register.com

g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk

2006-02-02 21:18:06 UTC

Clearly, the whole thing is a pig's ear and nothing more than a grubby
money-making venture. I would advise Burke's to steer well clear of it,
otherwise their reputation will be permanently and irrevocably ruined.

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan

2006-02-02 23:39:07 UTC

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Interesting. I didn't know that. Can you briefly cite the authorities?

When we first decided to commission coloured drawings of peers' arms
for inclusion in Cracroft's Peerage, I took advice from both the
College of Arms and from the Lyon Court.

As one might expect, the CoA advice revolved around the distinction
betwwen "usage" and "mere display" . I am glad to say that the CoA
confirmed my own view that there would be no problem with "mere
display". Mr Senior-Milne's interpretation of the Manchester Case is
most interesting if a little novel - I have a copy of the
transcription in my library here (still available to purchase from the
Heraldry Society!) which i have read from cover to cover several
times, and my reading was that the crux of the Manchester Case ewas
that the theatre used the arms of the City of Manchester on their
common seal, which is tantamount to claiming the arms for themselves.

The LC were equally relaxed about the whole matter.

We regularly send pre-publication proofs out to peers and none has
made any objections to the depictions of their arms.

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan FCA HonFHS
Director - Heraldic Media Limited
http://www.heraldicmedia.com
Publishers of "Cracroft's Peerage"
The complete guide to the British Peerage
http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk

g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk

2006-02-02 23:57:09 UTC

Post by Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
When we first decided to commission coloured drawings of peers' arms
for inclusion in Cracroft's Peerage, I took advice from both the
College of Arms and from the Lyon Court.
As one might expect, the CoA advice revolved around the distinction
betwwen "usage" and "mere display" . I am glad to say that the CoA
confirmed my own view that there would be no problem with "mere
display". Mr Senior-Milne's interpretation of the Manchester Case is
most interesting if a little novel - I have a copy of the
transcription in my library here (still available to purchase from the
Heraldry Society!) which i have read from cover to cover several
times, and my reading was that the crux of the Manchester Case ewas
that the theatre used the arms of the City of Manchester on their
common seal, which is tantamount to claiming the arms for themselves.
The LC were equally relaxed about the whole matter.
We regularly send pre-publication proofs out to peers and none has
made any objections to the depictions of their arms.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan FCA HonFHS

I quoted the actual wording of the judgement in the case, which refers
to display. The meaning is quite clear and it is the judgement that
matters. Frankly, you can read your transcription as many times as you
like but it makes no difference. If the College of Arms and Lyon Court
are now saying something different perhaps you could quote exactly what
they have said and clarify whether these are official views. In
practice, most peers will not object to being included in a
peerage-type publication, however unknown it may be, but many will not
like the idea of inclusion in the proposed register, which is a rather
different proposition. The Manchester case makes it clear that they
would have a legal basis to challenge inclusion if they so wished. As I
said, it will ruin Burke's reputation.

Tim Powys-Lybbe

2006-02-03 09:13:37 UTC

Would you care to comment on Susan Peters' entirely correct
transcription of the judgements of the 1954 case, as this makes it
clear that you had not "quoted the actual wording of the judgement in
the case"?

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe ***@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Susan Peters

2006-02-03 01:51:32 UTC

[Verbatim Report on the Case in The High Court of Chivalry, Manchester vs
Manchester Palace of Varieties 1954, Heraldry Society 1955]

Surrogate : "To deal then with the present complaint, two matters are
alleged; the display of the arms in the auditorium of the theatre, and the
use of the arms in the City as the common seal of the Defendent Company. The
latter does seem to me to a legitimate subject of complaint. The Corporation
of a great City can properly object to their arms being used on any seal but
their own...With regard to the display in the auditorium if that were the
only complaint I should have felt it raised a matter of some difficulty. I
am by no means satisfied that nowadays it would be right for the Court to be
put in motion merely because some arms whether of a Corporation or of a
family have been displayed by way of decoration or embellishment. Whatever
may have been the case 250 years ago one must I think take into account
practices and usages which have for so many years prevailed without
interference. It is common knowledge that armorial bearings are widely used
as a decoration or embellishment without complaint... Where then is one to
draw the line? It can I think only be done by the exercise of common sense
and by saying that use or display in such circumstances would not be a
ground for intervention by this Court. "

It seems pretty clear to me that the Judgement rested entirely on the use of
arms on the seal of Manchester Palace.

In a general sense, a case brought to the Court would need to prove
damages/loss (??) I don't see how reproducing a coat of arms in a register
causes damages to the armiger. There is no representation of the arms as
belonging to someone else. If the blazon were copyright protected - even
then - isn't the infringement of copyright based on some economic impact or
potential impact on the copyright holder?

Susan

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Interesting. I didn't know that. Can you briefly cite the authorities?

When we first decided to commission coloured drawings of peers' arms
for inclusion in Cracroft's Peerage, I took advice from both the
College of Arms and from the Lyon Court.
As one might expect, the CoA advice revolved around the distinction
betwwen "usage" and "mere display" . I am glad to say that the CoA
confirmed my own view that there would be no problem with "mere
display". Mr Senior-Milne's interpretation of the Manchester Case is
most interesting if a little novel - I have a copy of the
transcription in my library here (still available to purchase from the
Heraldry Society!) which i have read from cover to cover several
times, and my reading was that the crux of the Manchester Case ewas
that the theatre used the arms of the City of Manchester on their
common seal, which is tantamount to claiming the arms for themselves.
The LC were equally relaxed about the whole matter.
We regularly send pre-publication proofs out to peers and none has
made any objections to the depictions of their arms.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan FCA HonFHS
Director - Heraldic Media Limited
http://www.heraldicmedia.com
Publishers of "Cracroft's Peerage"
The complete guide to the British Peerage
http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk

g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk

2006-02-03 12:51:10 UTC

Post by Susan Peters
[Verbatim Report on the Case in The High Court of Chivalry, Manchester vs
Manchester Palace of Varieties 1954, Heraldry Society 1955]
Surrogate : "To deal then with the present complaint, two matters are
alleged; the display of the arms in the auditorium of the theatre, and the
use of the arms in the City as the common seal of the Defendent Company. The
latter does seem to me to a legitimate subject of complaint. The Corporation
of a great City can properly object to their arms being used on any seal but
their own...With regard to the display in the auditorium if that were the
only complaint I should have felt it raised a matter of some difficulty. I
am by no means satisfied that nowadays it would be right for the Court to be
put in motion merely because some arms whether of a Corporation or of a
family have been displayed by way of decoration or embellishment. Whatever
may have been the case 250 years ago one must I think take into account
practices and usages which have for so many years prevailed without
interference. It is common knowledge that armorial bearings are widely used
as a decoration or embellishment without complaint... Where then is one to
draw the line? It can I think only be done by the exercise of common sense
and by saying that use or display in such circumstances would not be a
ground for intervention by this Court. "
It seems pretty clear to me that the Judgement rested entirely on the use of
arms on the seal of Manchester Palace.
In a general sense, a case brought to the Court would need to prove
damages/loss (??) I don't see how reproducing a coat of arms in a register
causes damages to the armiger. There is no representation of the arms as
belonging to someone else. If the blazon were copyright protected - even
then - isn't the infringement of copyright based on some economic impact or
potential impact on the copyright holder?
Susan

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Interesting. I didn't know that. Can you briefly cite the authorities?

When we first decided to commission coloured drawings of peers' arms
for inclusion in Cracroft's Peerage, I took advice from both the
College of Arms and from the Lyon Court.
As one might expect, the CoA advice revolved around the distinction
betwwen "usage" and "mere display" . I am glad to say that the CoA
confirmed my own view that there would be no problem with "mere
display". Mr Senior-Milne's interpretation of the Manchester Case is
most interesting if a little novel - I have a copy of the
transcription in my library here (still available to purchase from the
Heraldry Society!) which i have read from cover to cover several
times, and my reading was that the crux of the Manchester Case ewas
that the theatre used the arms of the City of Manchester on their
common seal, which is tantamount to claiming the arms for themselves.
The LC were equally relaxed about the whole matter.
We regularly send pre-publication proofs out to peers and none has
made any objections to the depictions of their arms.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan FCA HonFHS
Director - Heraldic Media Limited
http://www.heraldicmedia.com
Publishers of "Cracroft's Peerage"
The complete guide to the British Peerage
http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk

You quote something that is NOT the judgement and then go on to say '
It seems pretty clear to me that the Judgement rested entirely on the
use of arms on the seal of Manchester Palace.' Read the judgement,
which refers to display without distinction as to whether it is on a
seal or a curtain. As far as loss is concerned, if someone else makes
money out of your property, don't you suffer a loss (of the income you
could have made yourself by such means)?

Jan Böhme

2006-02-03 13:31:47 UTC

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
You quote something that is NOT the judgement and then go on to say '
It seems pretty clear to me that the Judgement rested entirely on the
use of arms on the seal of Manchester Palace.' Read the judgement,
which refers to display without distinction as to whether it is on a
seal or a curtain.

But surely the content of a precedent isn't limited to the wording of
the actual judgement?

Jan Böhme

g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk

2006-02-03 15:29:59 UTC

Post by Jan BÃ¶hme

But surely the content of a precedent isn't limited to the wording of
the actual judgement?
Jan Böhme

George Lucki

2006-02-03 15:46:47 UTC

Post by Jan BÃ¶hme

But surely the content of a precedent isn't limited to the wording of
the actual judgement?
Jan Böhme

Quite correct but it is the judgement that is the decision of the
court. My understanding is that if the judgement is clear it stands on
its own and over-rides anything said in court that is not part of the
judgement.

------------
The judgement is on a particular case and we can't draw too many inferences
yet. If there was at sometime a subsequent case (and I don't believe we'll
see the court convened again) about the display of arms it would have to be
argued and decided again how that judgement and that case related to the new
circumstances and in discerning whether the judge's comments gave some
direction it would be relevant that we were dealing with issues of arms on
seals and arms on a theatre curtain. For now using someone's arms (as on a
seal) is not OK, but the judgement does not create any difficulties for
someone illustrating the arms of others in a publication.

George Lucki

Tim Powys-Lybbe

2006-02-03 13:30:30 UTC

Post by Susan Peters
[Verbatim Report on the Case in The High Court of Chivalry,
Manchester vs Manchester Palace of Varieties 1954, Heraldry Society
1955]
Surrogate : "To deal then with the present complaint, two matters
are alleged; the display of the arms in the auditorium of the
theatre, and the use of the arms in the City as the common seal of
the Defendent Company. The latter does seem to me to a legitimate
subject of complaint. The Corporation of a great City can properly
object to their arms being used on any seal but their own...With
regard to the display in the auditorium if that were the only
complaint I should have felt it raised a matter of some difficulty.
I am by no means satisfied that nowadays it would be right for the
Court to be put in motion merely because some arms whether of a
Corporation or of a family have been displayed by way of decoration
or embellishment. Whatever may have been the case 250 years ago one
must I think take into account practices and usages which have for
so many years prevailed without interference. It is common
knowledge that armorial bearings are widely used as a decoration or
embellishment without complaint... Where then is one to draw the
line? It can I think only be done by the exercise of common sense
and by saying that use or display in such circumstances would not
be a ground for intervention by this Court. "
It seems pretty clear to me that the Judgement rested entirely on
the use of arms on the seal of Manchester Palace.
In a general sense, a case brought to the Court would need to prove
damages/loss (??) I don't see how reproducing a coat of arms in a
register causes damages to the armiger. There is no representation
of the arms as belonging to someone else. If the blazon were
copyright protected - even then - isn't the infringement of
copyright based on some economic impact or potential impact on the
copyright holder?
Susan

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Interesting. I didn't know that. Can you briefly cite the authorities?

The Court of Chivalry, Manchester case, 1954, drew a distinction
between display (as on a theatre curtain) and use (as on a
seal). The former was not sufficient to find against the
defendants but the later was.
Derek Howard

This is not correct. Although a distinction between the display
of arms and the use of arms on a seal was made during the case,
it was not as clear as you suggest; it was merely stated that had
the case been about display only this would have been more
difficult, not that the judgement would have been different (See
'The High Court of Chivalry', G. D. Squibb, p. 126-7). In the
judgement, which is what matters, it was stated that 'the
Plaintiffs lawfully bear the arms, crest, motto and supporters in
this case libellate and that the defendants have DISPLAYED
representations of said arms, crest, motto and supporters in the
manner in this cause libellate and contrary to the will of the
Plaintiffs and the laws and usages of arms and we inhibit and
strictly enjoin the Defendants that they do not presume to
DISPLAY the said arms, crest, motto and supporters or any of
them' (My emphasis). This seems pretty clear to me, namely that
it is contrary to the laws of arms to display the arms of an
armiger without their consent. Of course, the Manchester Palace
of Varieties was not directly using the arms of Manchster
Corporation to make money (as would be the case with the proposed
register). On this basis, an English armiger could apply to the
Court of Chivalry to prevent the use of his arms in the proposed
register.
Graham Senior-Milne

When we first decided to commission coloured drawings of peers'
arms for inclusion in Cracroft's Peerage, I took advice from both
the College of Arms and from the Lyon Court.
As one might expect, the CoA advice revolved around the
distinction betwwen "usage" and "mere display" . I am glad to
say that the CoA confirmed my own view that there would be no
problem with "mere display". Mr Senior-Milne's interpretation of
the Manchester Case is most interesting if a little novel - I
have a copy of the transcription in my library here (still
available to purchase from the Heraldry Society!) which i have
read from cover to cover several times, and my reading was that
the crux of the Manchester Case ewas that the theatre used the
arms of the City of Manchester on their common seal, which is
tantamount to claiming the arms for themselves.
The LC were equally relaxed about the whole matter.
We regularly send pre-publication proofs out to peers and none has
made any objections to the depictions of their arms.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan FCA HonFHS
Director - Heraldic Media Limited
http://www.heraldicmedia.com
Publishers of "Cracroft's Peerage"
The complete guide to the British Peerage
http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk

You quote Susan peters transcript at the top of this post and then deny
that it contains what it does.

The salient words are:

"To deal then with the present complaint, two matters are
alleged; the display of the arms in the auditorium of the theatre,
and the use of the arms of the City as the common seal of the
Defendent Company. The latter does seem to me to a legitimate subject
of complaint. The Corporation of a great City can properly object to
their arms being used on any seal but their own ... With regard to the
display in the auditorium if that were the only complaint I should
have felt it raised a matter of some difficulty."

This clearly distinguishes use of arms on a seal, which Goddard thought
was actionable and use of arms as decoration which he thought was not
actionable.

Can you please explain how you interpret these words to mean, as you
wrote above:

"Read the judgement, which refers to display without distinction as to
whether it is on a seal or a curtain."

This sentence of yours is, quite simply, false.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe ***@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk

2006-02-03 15:27:15 UTC

Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe

Post by Susan Peters
[Verbatim Report on the Case in The High Court of Chivalry,
Manchester vs Manchester Palace of Varieties 1954, Heraldry Society
1955]
Surrogate : "To deal then with the present complaint, two matters
are alleged; the display of the arms in the auditorium of the
theatre, and the use of the arms in the City as the common seal of
the Defendent Company. The latter does seem to me to a legitimate
subject of complaint. The Corporation of a great City can properly
object to their arms being used on any seal but their own...With
regard to the display in the auditorium if that were the only
complaint I should have felt it raised a matter of some difficulty.
I am by no means satisfied that nowadays it would be right for the
Court to be put in motion merely because some arms whether of a
Corporation or of a family have been displayed by way of decoration
or embellishment. Whatever may have been the case 250 years ago one
must I think take into account practices and usages which have for
so many years prevailed without interference. It is common
knowledge that armorial bearings are widely used as a decoration or
embellishment without complaint... Where then is one to draw the
line? It can I think only be done by the exercise of common sense
and by saying that use or display in such circumstances would not
be a ground for intervention by this Court. "
It seems pretty clear to me that the Judgement rested entirely on
the use of arms on the seal of Manchester Palace.
In a general sense, a case brought to the Court would need to prove
damages/loss (??) I don't see how reproducing a coat of arms in a
register causes damages to the armiger. There is no representation
of the arms as belonging to someone else. If the blazon were
copyright protected - even then - isn't the infringement of
copyright based on some economic impact or potential impact on the
copyright holder?
Susan

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Interesting. I didn't know that. Can you briefly cite the authorities?

The Court of Chivalry, Manchester case, 1954, drew a distinction
between display (as on a theatre curtain) and use (as on a
seal). The former was not sufficient to find against the
defendants but the later was.
Derek Howard

This is not correct. Although a distinction between the display
of arms and the use of arms on a seal was made during the case,
it was not as clear as you suggest; it was merely stated that had
the case been about display only this would have been more
difficult, not that the judgement would have been different (See
'The High Court of Chivalry', G. D. Squibb, p. 126-7). In the
judgement, which is what matters, it was stated that 'the
Plaintiffs lawfully bear the arms, crest, motto and supporters in
this case libellate and that the defendants have DISPLAYED
representations of said arms, crest, motto and supporters in the
manner in this cause libellate and contrary to the will of the
Plaintiffs and the laws and usages of arms and we inhibit and
strictly enjoin the Defendants that they do not presume to
DISPLAY the said arms, crest, motto and supporters or any of
them' (My emphasis). This seems pretty clear to me, namely that
it is contrary to the laws of arms to display the arms of an
armiger without their consent. Of course, the Manchester Palace
of Varieties was not directly using the arms of Manchster
Corporation to make money (as would be the case with the proposed
register). On this basis, an English armiger could apply to the
Court of Chivalry to prevent the use of his arms in the proposed
register.
Graham Senior-Milne

When we first decided to commission coloured drawings of peers'
arms for inclusion in Cracroft's Peerage, I took advice from both
the College of Arms and from the Lyon Court.
As one might expect, the CoA advice revolved around the
distinction betwwen "usage" and "mere display" . I am glad to
say that the CoA confirmed my own view that there would be no
problem with "mere display". Mr Senior-Milne's interpretation of
the Manchester Case is most interesting if a little novel - I
have a copy of the transcription in my library here (still
available to purchase from the Heraldry Society!) which i have
read from cover to cover several times, and my reading was that
the crux of the Manchester Case ewas that the theatre used the
arms of the City of Manchester on their common seal, which is
tantamount to claiming the arms for themselves.
The LC were equally relaxed about the whole matter.
We regularly send pre-publication proofs out to peers and none has
made any objections to the depictions of their arms.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan FCA HonFHS
Director - Heraldic Media Limited
http://www.heraldicmedia.com
Publishers of "Cracroft's Peerage"
The complete guide to the British Peerage
http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk

You quote Susan peters transcript at the top of this post and then deny
that it contains what it does.
"To deal then with the present complaint, two matters are
alleged; the display of the arms in the auditorium of the theatre,
and the use of the arms of the City as the common seal of the
Defendent Company. The latter does seem to me to a legitimate subject
of complaint. The Corporation of a great City can properly object to
their arms being used on any seal but their own ... With regard to the
display in the auditorium if that were the only complaint I should
have felt it raised a matter of some difficulty."
This clearly distinguishes use of arms on a seal, which Goddard thought
was actionable and use of arms as decoration which he thought was not
actionable.
Can you please explain how you interpret these words to mean, as you
"Read the judgement, which refers to display without distinction as to
whether it is on a seal or a curtain."
This sentence of yours is, quite simply, false.
--
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

You have taken the words 'with regard to the display in the auditorium
if that were the only complaint I should have felt it raised a matter
of some difficulty' into a positive decision of the Court that the
display of arms was not contrary to the law of arms. This is patent
nonsense. 'Some difficulty' does not equal a decision; the judgement is
the decision. Read the judgement.

StephenP

2006-02-03 13:48:29 UTC

This seems to be descending into an "is, isn't" sort of thread.
Getting back to the original topic, the Armorial Register has said they
will not include anyone who does not apply.

Regarding making money from things that are not yours. How is it any
more moral to take a book that is out of copyright, make a digital copy
and then sell that copy for profit? It is legal and I have bought CD
copies but is it any more legitimate than including other peoples'
Arms in a publication.

George Lucki

2006-02-03 14:55:07 UTC

Post by StephenP
This seems to be descending into an "is, isn't" sort of thread.
Getting back to the original topic, the Armorial Register has said they
will not include anyone who does not apply.
Regarding making money from things that are not yours. How is it any
more moral to take a book that is out of copyright, make a digital copy
and then sell that copy for profit? It is legal and I have bought CD
copies but is it any more legitimate than including other peoples'
Arms in a publication.

The difference might be...
With the book - the copyright is extinguished after a period of time and the
material is in the public domain - that is the law.
With the arms, the ownership of the arms passes from generation to
generation in a prescribed fashion until a line is extinguished - that is
also the law.

George Lucki

Mark

2006-02-01 18:33:00 UTC

I don't know of any detailed study of copyright as it applies to
heraldry, either in the US or UK, so can't refer to an authority. It is
not easy to make definitive statements about copyright as so much
depends on matters of originality and intent that are individual to
each case. There's also Fair Use, though that is less applicable to
for-profit publications (but highly applicable to this forum, and to
scholarly publications). But I do follow copyright practice with
interest, and suggest that:

A freshly drawn image is never going to create copyright problems, so
long as the intent is to ilustrate the arms rather than to usurp them
(a problem in Scotland, at least), or to imitate a trademark. In
general, when commercial questions of imitation of design arise, they
are typically pursued under "passing off" legislation rather than
copyright, as copyright only gives limited protection to the appearance
of something.

It's arguable that using the exact wording of a blazon might infringe
copyright, but I think a court would look at questions of originality -
are all the blazons from one source? What was the intent of the
original publisher of the blazon? How many different ways can something
be expressed? It's difficult to argue that a heraldic authority does
not wish the descriptions of arms to be promulgated.

Of course, any of this only applies to recently granted arms, as many
older editions of Burke's etc are out-of-copyright.

Ultimately I'd have to point to common-sense. Burke's and other
publishers have been publishing arms, sometimes without permission, for
many years. My search of the frequent discussions of copyright on
rec.heraldry has not uncovered any authorities to the contrary. I think
it's important in copyright to act with regard to the law, but not to
suggest restrictions exist where they don't.

Mark

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan

2006-02-01 11:24:24 UTC

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
The main problem with the proposed register, as far as I can see, is
that it will exclude the one group of people who could lend it lustre
and authenticity, namely the British aristocracy, who certainly would
not dream of paying to be included in such a register. One only needs
to consider that many Scottish aristocrats (Dukes included) do not
bother to matriculate their arms and haven't done so for centuries. The
only option is for the Register to include the British aristocracy for
free (the arms and blazons have already been digitized for the Peerage
and Landed Gentry) and then charge the rest to join such august
company. However, since arms are personal property I can forsee that
many aristocrats WILL take the trouble to object to being (without
their consent) part of a scheme which is a) designed to make money for
someone else (i.e. Burkes) and b) likely to include all sorts of people
with whom they have no wish to be associated.

Which sort of brings us back to my original point that perhaps it
would be better if the proposed register was produced by an official
body rather than by a commercial organisation - then we get the
problem of paying for it, and so the argument goes round and round!

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan FCA HonFHS
Director - Heraldic Media Limited
http://www.heraldicmedia.com
Publishers of "Cracroft's Peerage"
The complete guide to the British Peerage
http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk

Derek Howard

2006-02-01 19:48:07 UTC

Post by Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Which sort of brings us back to my original point that perhaps it
would be better if the proposed register was produced by an official
body rather than by a commercial organisation - then we get the
problem of paying for it, and so the argument goes round and round!

The comprehensive 4 volume publication of the arms of the nobility in
Belgium by Paul Janssens and Luc Duerloo: "Armorial de la noblesse
belge" (1992-1994) was undertaken by a cultural sponsorship and
publishing arm of a local bank, the then Crédit Communal de Belgique.
Similarly the 4 volumes of arms of the communes of Belgium have been
published by Crédit Communal's successor Dexia Bank. In both cases
there has been active support and I believe subsidy from public
authorities with the heraldic authorities concerned allowing the
production of illustrations taken from the original registers. I dnot
believe all the armigers were approached for permission. These
productions are quasi official.

For more recent grants of noble arms the "Adelbrieven verleend door ZM
Albert II Koning der Belgen 1993-2000" was published through a
commercial publisher but was edited under the auspices of the Conseil
de Noblesse / Raad van Adel by the greffier of the Council and official
in charge of the nobility service of the Foreign Ministry, and contains
forwards by the two Presidents of the Council. This may be considered a
fully offical production.

The quality of these works indicates the benefit of officials being
involved in the writing and production, of working closely with
heraldic authorities where they exist, especially to obtain rights to
reproduce the original artwork.

Despite the precedence set by Reitstap, I also think it highlights the
need for any heraldic reference whether in print or on the web which
purports to be comprehensive to be in separate parts relating to
different countries or regions with their separate authorities, records
and laws and traditions. An umbrella format is fine but I see far too
many problems ahead in pooling the material.

Derek Howard

Martin Goldstraw

2006-01-29 23:47:56 UTC

Andrew

2006-01-30 01:46:32 UTC

Dear Whitecairns,
You may be sure that no one of the "titles" has been granted to him by
any legitimate authority or inherited from noble ancestors, or
recognized upon him by virtue of sovereign prerogative. The same
situation with all his mail "titles" from the mail "church". It is
a simple scam and no more. It is an instrument to mislead the people
(for well known purposes).
The title of Count presently, technically and customary in grant by the
2 sovereigns: The Holy See and the King of Spain (he is not a grantee).
The King of the Belgians grants just a title of Viscount as a maximal
honour.If he imagine himself that 'HIH Crown Prince Zere Yacobe Asfa
Wossen Hailie Selassie ' may grant any titles of nobility or
knighthood, rather than a simple jacket decoration
(home "Orders per ami"), he was extremely misleaded....

g***@sainty.org

2006-01-30 11:16:30 UTC

Post by Andrew
The title of Count presently, technically and customary in grant by the
2 sovereigns: The Holy See and the King of Spain (he is not a grantee).
The King of the Belgians grants just a title of Viscount as a maximal
honour.If he imagine himself that 'HIH Crown Prince Zere Yacobe Asfa
Wossen Hailie Selassie ' may grant any titles of nobility or
knighthood, rather than a simple jacket decoration
(home "Orders per ami"), he was extremely misleaded....

For what it is worth, the King of the Belgians can and has granted the
titles of Count and Prince in recent years. One may also accept,
perhaps, that the recognition of a title by a state which maintains a
nobiliary jurisdiction could be legitimate - for example, Spanish
nobiliary law still provides for the recognition of foreign titles in
certain rerstrictive circumsgtances.

One cannot (in my opinion) entirely rule out the prerogatives of former
reigning sovereigns or their heirs, where these former sovereigns or
heirs enjoyed the prerogative of granting titles during the monarchy.
One may see that the Holy See, for
example, has recognized in diplomas, etc, titles granted by king
Umberto II of Italy in exile, as has the SMOM. The grand
dukes Kyrill and Wladimir and the grand duchess Maria Wladimirovna,
each granted titles of nobility and in at least one
case such a title was recognized by the SMOM. Since the present Russian
Federation officially authorizes the use of the
decorations of the Order of st nicholas the Miracle Worker on the
Russian military uniform (indeed, the head of the Duma of this Order
has an office in the Russian Ministry of defence) one may perhaps argue
for the recognition of such titles. There are historic precedents for
the recognition by states of titles granted by the heirs of former
monarchies, and Spain in 1948 recognized the titles granted by the
Carlist Kings in exile.

The issue is whether such recognitions, confirmations or grants or done
by a legitimate heir to a genuine monarchy who, if he or she was
reigning would have had the power to grant such titles. The case of the
late king Peter II of Yugoslavia is a good example of a former
sovereign who purported to grant titles, but who was specifically
prohibited from doing so under the Royal Yugoslav Constitution.

Andrew

2006-01-30 15:36:09 UTC

Post by g***@sainty.org
For what it is worth, the King of the Belgians can and has granted the
titles of Count and Prince in recent years.

Dear Sr Sainty,
Your knowledge in such a subject is nondoubtful. I just some surprised
with these facts. Perhaps these titles of Count and Prince recently
were granted to members of the Royal family. I know that the titles of
ordinary creations are a Chevalier, Baron and Viscount. A recognition
of titles from the Holy See and the SMOM, as sovereign entities, is
absolutely valid of course. About HIH Grand Prince Kyrill and HIH Grand
Prince Wladimir and the former Princess of Russia ( never Grand Ducess)
and present divorced Princess of Prussia HH Maria Wladimirovna "grants"
- such acts of course invalid, because no one of these person was ever
rightful sovereign or even an Rihtful hear to the Throne. Legetimasy (
in matter of sucession of the Throne or a Headsip in dynasty) of the
"Kyrillovichs" =0. It was well known since 1907 and was observed many
time since 1917. About eventual recognition of one of such a "grant"
by the SMOM (if you told about it, it is nondoubtful fact in my
opinion), I consider it not as a "recognition" (because there is not
any object or subject to recognize, because the said title is
non-existent and may not be created apriory) but as new creation of a
title of nobility ( although Grand Masters of the SMOM avoid to do like
this). About titles of nobility granted by rightful Head of the former
ruling dynasties ( HRH Dom Duarte, HIRH Otto, Tuscan titular Grand
Dukes, etc) it will become valid from the time of recognition by any
Sovereign entity ( The Spanish Crown, or The Holy See or the SMOM for
example).
Present Russian Federation allows a lot of rubbish, "granted" by
self-styled "Orders of Malta", "Order of St. Stanislas", "Order of the
Temple", etc, by self- styled Princes (as Arkadiy Bugaev-Ponyatovski is
for example). It is well known, that even former President Eltzin was
"created" a "Knight of Malta" of the "Ecumenical Order of Malta" on the
grandiose ceremony and, he also was "granted" and "received" a
"title" of "Grand Prince of Russia" from the said "Head of the
Universal Monarchical Court, The Most Grandest Duke Arkadiy
Bugaev-Ponyatovski".

Derek Howard

2006-01-30 17:40:23 UTC

Post by g***@sainty.org
For what it is worth, the King of the Belgians can and has granted the
titles of Count and Prince in recent years.

<snip>

Perhaps the following example may refresh your mind:
"Par arrêtés royaux du 14 juillet 2002 les faveurs nobiliaires
suivantes sont accordées :
- concession du titre personnel de comte au chevalier Jacques Rogge;
...";
or this one :
"Par arrêté royal du 8 novembre 1999 concession du titre de comte
pour eux-mêmes et tous leurs descendants est accordée au baron Henri
d'Udekem d'Acoz et à MM. Raoul et Patrick d'Udekem d'Acoz,
écuyers...";
or again:
"Par arrêtés royaux du 5 juillet 1998 les faveurs nobiliaires
suivantes sont accordées :
- concession du titre de comte pour lui-même et tous ses descendants
à M. Maurice Lippens, écuyer;..."
Not one from the royal family, though a member of the second family
married in.

Derek Howard

Andrew

2006-01-30 18:04:37 UTC

Dear Mr Howard,
Thank you for the lesson. The information you gave is really very
useful. As I understand 3 Comitial titles, 2 of them hereditary (1 for
person who intermarried with Royal family),1 personal. But what about
Princely title? Who is recipient? It is very interesting.

Derek Howard

2006-01-31 10:54:46 UTC

Post by Andrew
Dear Mr Howard,
Thank you for the lesson. The information you gave is really very
useful. As I understand 3 Comitial titles, 2 of them hereditary (1 for
person who intermarried with Royal family),1 personal. But what about
Princely title? Who is recipient? It is very interesting.

Sorry to say your summary is incorrect. 5 comital titles: 4 of which
hereditary (3 for the father and brothers of a person who married with
the Royal family) and one personal.

As for the princely title: Lorenz Otto Carl Amedeus, Archiduc
d'Autriche-Este, was created Prince de Belgique in 1995.

Derek Howard

Andrew

2006-01-31 11:15:08 UTC

Post by Derek Howard
Sorry to say your summary is incorrect. 5 comital titles: 4 of which
hereditary (3 for the father and brothers of a person who married with
the Royal family) and one personal.
As for the princely title: Lorenz Otto Carl Amedeus, Archiduc
d'Autriche-Este, was created Prince de Belgique in 1995.

If it was meant HIRH Lorenz Otto Carl Amedeus, Archiducd'Autriche-Este
(was created Prince de Belgique in 1995 ) it is well known fact and it
is nothing to do with a title resent creation (11 years ago). I simple
thought that it was any more creation and to any person without
connection to Royal family. In the same manner we might to mention the
Earldom of Wessex as new creation of comital rank, and a lot of other
events with such a creation for relatives of ruling Royal Houses.

So, if I not in mistake again, just one comital title (ad personam) to
a person who has not any relation to Royal Family was recently created
by the King of the Belgians. It is a summary. If it so, my statement
regardind the custom of creation was not so far away from the real
status quo.

Derek Howard

2006-01-31 11:57:17 UTC

Prince Lorenz while son-in-law is not a son of the Belgian monarch and
cannot quite be equated to the Earl of Wessex in that regard. As for
period, I am not sure how often you expect titles of Prince to be
awarded. Anything in the 1990s seems reasonable to consider recent.
Having said that the Earldom of Wessex is certainly a creation of
comital rank. A large number of higher titles in England as elsewhere
stem ultimately from junior members of the RF or illegitimate offspring
of the RF. I am not sure why you are isolating these dismissively.

Post by Andrew
So, if I not in mistake again, just one comital title (ad personam) to
a person who has not any relation to Royal Family was recently created
by the King of the Belgians. It is a summary. If it so, my statement
regardind the custom of creation was not so far away from the real
status quo.

Sorry to be a pedant and say it but you are again mistaken in reading
the evidence. Neither Rogge nor Lippens are related to the RF so that
is 2. The 3 d'Udekem d'Acoz while related by marriage are not by blood,
they are defiitely not in the RF.

Derek Howard

Andrew

2006-01-31 12:29:05 UTC

Post by Derek Howard
Sorry to be a pedant and say it but you are again mistaken in reading
the evidence. Neither Rogge nor Lippens are related to the RF so that
is 2. The 3 d'Udekem d'Acoz while related by marriage are not by blood,
they are defiitely not in the RF.

Thanks again. But any way, although thay are not of the RF, but they
are the RF relatives. But, my opinion (about the titles of comital rank
is an extrem.-exceptional honour in our time) is not changing ( I do
not consider here any member of RF and their relatives, becouse it is
not an award but , merely , courtesy acts). Ok, even 2 comital titles
from the Belgian Crown to ordinary subjects... Therefore just the King
of Spain is a source of a majority of comital titles (and titles higher
then comital rank: Marquis and Duke) in our time. Comital titles of the
Holy See creation, again, is exceptionally rare honour in our time.

Derek Howard

2006-01-31 19:23:38 UTC

Andrew wrote:
<snip>

Post by Andrew
Therefore just the King
of Spain is a source of a majority of comital titles (and titles higher
then comital rank: Marquis and Duke) in our time.

As a little exercise I thought I would check the Boletin Oficial del
Estato for noble creations by the King of Spain since 1995 (I hope the
last 10 years is sufficiently recent given your objection to 11 years).
I could find no grant of the title of Duque, Conde, Vizconde or Barón
(3 rehabilitations of the latter don't quite count as new creations),
only of Grande de España (3) and of Marqués (6). This seems a strange
imbalance in grades, I may have missed some [for the Belgian barons,
etc. I have a long list]. Any comments, anyone?

However, if the following is substantially complete, 5 Belgian titles
of Comte, given the population (and the Belgian data covered only from
1997), does not compare badly with 6 Spanish titles of Marqués (I
don't count for this purpose the dignity of Grande as a separate
title). If there is even one Vatican comital title or higher in the
period then statistically Spain is not "a source of a majority of
comital titles", though they are a major source of them. I shall make
allowance for your English :-)

Concessions -
dignidad de Grande de España para unir al título de Conde de Casa
Dávalos (Real Decreto 447/2005)
Marqués de Garrigues (Real Decreto 1/2004)
Marqués de la Ribera del Sella (Real Decreto 818/2003)
Marqués del Valle de Tena, con Grandeza de España (Real Decreto
817/2003
Marqués de Oró (Real Decreto 819/2003)
dignidad de Grande de España para unir al título de Vizconde del
Castillo de Almansa (Real Decreto 592/2002)
Marqués de la Ría de Ribadeo, con Grandeza de España (Real Decreto
591/2002)
Marqués de Iria Flavia (Real Decreto 1137/1996)

Rehabilitations -
Barón de Valdeolivos (Real Decreto 1234/2002)
Barón de Mascalbo (Real Decreto 920/1995)
Barón de Rocafort de Queralt (Real Decreto 921/1995)

Does anyone have a similar list for the Vatican creations?

Derek Howard

Andrew

2006-01-31 20:16:44 UTC

Post by Derek Howard
Concessions -
dignidad de Grande de España para unir al título de Conde de Casa
Dávalos (Real Decreto 447/2005)
Marqués de Garrigues (Real Decreto 1/2004)
Marqués de la Ribera del Sella (Real Decreto 818/2003)
Marqués del Valle de Tena, con Grandeza de España (Real Decreto
817/2003
Marqués de Oró (Real Decreto 819/2003)
dignidad de Grande de España para unir al título de Vizconde del
Castillo de Almansa (Real Decreto 592/2002)
Marqués de la Ría de Ribadeo, con Grandeza de España (Real Decreto
591/2002)
Marqués de Iria Flavia (Real Decreto 1137/1996)
Rehabilitations -
Barón de Valdeolivos (Real Decreto 1234/2002)
Barón de Mascalbo (Real Decreto 920/1995)
Barón de Rocafort de Queralt (Real Decreto 921/1995)
Does anyone have a similar list for the Vatican creations?

I afraid that nobody have similar list from the Holy See. It is a
custom of the Holy See to create titles of nobility without pulication
procedure. I sure that Sr Guy Sainty knows the procedure of such a
creations ( If I not in mistake, since 1958 all creations of titles of
nobility usually confirmed by the State Secretariat of the Holy See in
the registered letter to the grantee). I was aware by one important
person from the Vatican ( I trust him), that during the Pontificate of
HH John Paul II was created 14 titles, 12 of Count and 2 of Marquess (
it is not included any confirmation of any former Papal grant or any
recognition of any grant from other sources)...Last princely title
granted by the Holy See was granted to an French, Gerard de La Salle in
1951...

Kyrill

2006-01-31 02:18:56 UTC

My Dear Andrew,

Since we have never met, I wonder how it is that you purport to know
and proclaim that "no one of the 'titles' has been granted ... by any
legitimate authority" and that "his mail 'titles' (are) from the mail
'church' ".

I also wonder with what authority the gentlemen in this group, who for
the most part, I believe, are not of the Eastern Orthodox Church claim
what Church is worthy, licit or canonical. The "sin" of my Church and
jurisdiction of that Church, the Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of
Western Europe and the Americas (Synod of Milan), is that we ascribe to
the unchanged Julian Calendar rather than having accepted the
innovation of Constantinople and the Church of Greece. The fact that
when they have done so, clergy from our Church have been received and
accepted as clergy into other "so-called" canonical Orthodox Churches
without re-ordination should point out that our orders and Apostolic
Succession are not called to question, but rather our resistance to
suzerainy of the Bishop of Istanbul.

It was a mistake for me to submit the, obviously offensive to most
here, Arms that I did to the Burke's Registry. I sent that one since it
was the most professional and well done design I had. I do not claim to
be an expert of heraldry and so must allow myself to be guided by
gemtlemen such as yourselves in these matters. I was advised that the
green hat was a proper heraldic usage to convey my ecclesiastical rank.
If truth be told, I did not apply to the Registry as anything other
than a bishop. I would not have presented any claim to noble title with
Burke's Peerage Registry of Arms, since I do not have sufficient
documentation to please such as this august company. Mr. Goldstraw has
kindly altered the Arms I presented so as to not offend anyone here any
longer. I cannot, and would not, change my name and lawful title as a
bishop of my Church, but I will provide Burke's with proper
documentation of the same if asked. I am sorry that there will still be
some who cannot agree that my Church exists and is part of the Orthodox
Church.

+Kyrill Esposito

d***@fbl.racomedia.net

2006-01-31 03:52:30 UTC

I am sorry for everything I have said on this group over the past three
years. Although many have said it's ruined my reputation, it hasn't
since nobody I know reads this group.

Although I said I'll never post again, it has to be said that I come
here mainly to laugh at all of these Yanks that have set up internet
religions and kingdoms and things like that.

The reason why there are so many funny fellas selling and pretending
all of these titles, especially in America, seems to be because they
are fed up with their republican system of government, which does not
provide for titular honours; the product of the 'plain mr syndrome'
that is a product of the egalitarian societies they live in.

These men who spend their time creating all these titles have little
else to do. When you're bored, start a new fake church, and hopefully
others with nothing much else will follow you.

Keep on laughing :-)

George Lucki

2006-01-31 05:46:34 UTC

Post by Kyrill
My Dear Andrew,
Since we have never met, I wonder how it is that you purport to know
and proclaim that "no one of the 'titles' has been granted ... by any
legitimate authority" and that "his mail 'titles' (are) from the mail
'church' ".

I'm pleased you've taken the time to respond to this thread. I had raised
some questions regarding your arms and the appropriateness of the heraldic
symbols you use that denote various ranks.
I had felt the use of the green episcopal galero was more appropriately a
Roman Catholic heraldic insignia, and confused about the mixture of Western
and Orthodox insignial elements, among others. But most of all I was struck
by the presence of a comital coronet on the shield and a baronial coronet on
the helm. Perhaps you can provide some information relative to these
questions.

Can you advise as to the following titles and post-nominals (taken from the
web-page of the Order of St.Isidore)?
H.E. the Rt. Rev. +Kyrill (Kristie-Esposito), Conte di Gerasa, Bishop of
Montgomery,
KCCStI, GCHS, GOMZ, CGKR, KCTJ, KCTS, KJ, KSA, DD
In particular I am interested in the title Conte di Gerasa - who granted it
and when (was it to yourself or to an ancestor?). Where is Gerusa? I would
assume eight of the postnominals are various knighthoods. Eight knighthoods
seems like a very large number. Can you let us know what knighthoods these
might be? There was also a knighthood or similar award I believe you
received from a HSH Prince Michael Thornley KST, Prince of the Cross and
Crozier. I am not aware of any such Prince. Which kingdom or principality
does he rule (did his family rule)?

Could you also tell me a bit about your diocese. How many parishes, priests,
monks, nuns and in particular how many faithful are there in your diocese
(or is it an archdiocese)?
I couldn't find any figures on-line. The Orthodox Archdiocese of America in
Communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch for example apparently consists of
the archbishop, 8 bishops, 500 parishes, 800 priests, and perhaps as many as
1 million faithful. Now I appreciate your congregation is likely
considerably smaller but would welcome more information. The websites I
found devote quite a lot of space to photos and listings of the hierarchs
but there is little information about the faithful.

Thanks.

George Lucki

Post by Kyrill
I also wonder with what authority the gentlemen in this group, who for
the most part, I believe, are not of the Eastern Orthodox Church claim
what Church is worthy, licit or canonical. The "sin" of my Church and
jurisdiction of that Church, the Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of
Western Europe and the Americas (Synod of Milan), is that we ascribe to
the unchanged Julian Calendar rather than having accepted the
innovation of Constantinople and the Church of Greece. The fact that
when they have done so, clergy from our Church have been received and
accepted as clergy into other "so-called" canonical Orthodox Churches
without re-ordination should point out that our orders and Apostolic
Succession are not called to question, but rather our resistance to
suzerainy of the Bishop of Istanbul.
It was a mistake for me to submit the, obviously offensive to most
here, Arms that I did to the Burke's Registry. I sent that one since it
was the most professional and well done design I had. I do not claim to
be an expert of heraldry and so must allow myself to be guided by
gemtlemen such as yourselves in these matters. I was advised that the
green hat was a proper heraldic usage to convey my ecclesiastical rank.
If truth be told, I did not apply to the Registry as anything other
than a bishop. I would not have presented any claim to noble title with
Burke's Peerage Registry of Arms, since I do not have sufficient
documentation to please such as this august company. Mr. Goldstraw has
kindly altered the Arms I presented so as to not offend anyone here any
longer. I cannot, and would not, change my name and lawful title as a
bishop of my Church, but I will provide Burke's with proper
documentation of the same if asked. I am sorry that there will still be
some who cannot agree that my Church exists and is part of the Orthodox
Church.

LarrySlight

2006-01-31 13:43:43 UTC

Try this link:

http://www.orthodoxwest.net/directory.html

Larry Slight

Andrew

2006-01-31 14:52:55 UTC

Post by LarrySlight
http://www.orthodoxwest.net/directory.html
Larry Slight

Very interesting. "Established under the Tomos of Autonomy of His
Holiness, Patriarch Volodymir and the Holy Synod of Kiev)"
Who is this "His Holiness, Patriarch Volodymir and the Holy Synod of
Kiev". There is no any Patriarch in Kiev, except one person with self-
assumed title of " Patricrch" - he is Filaret (Denisenko). He is a head
of self-proclamed (and unrecognised by genuine Orthodox churches)
community, styled "Orthodox Church of Ukraine". Of course, there is in
Kiev the Metropolit Vladimir of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
(recognised one) but the Patriarch of this Church is in Moscow ( Alexiy
II).

As an general position: It is well known, that any self-proclamed and
imaginary "Church" is a good finansical business for person ( persons)
who has established it. There are thousand of such a scams in the
world. The validity of any Orthodox Church is depend from the
recognition by the Ecumenical Patriarch. No recognition - no Church (
just a position of self-proclamed religious community may be considered
in such a event).

LarrySlight

2006-01-31 17:29:18 UTC

Andrew:<

If your comments ended with your first paragraph, they would have been
reasonable. Everyone can look up some of the information you presented
and may agree with your positions. However, carrying on with the
second paragraph you have made assumptions that are not completely
correct and show a general leap of poor reasoning. Because an Orthodox
Church is not recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarch doesn't lead to
the conclusion that you present. As I understand, the following is a
list of the Orthodox Churches in communion with the Ecumenical
Patriarch. If this list is complete, and I believe it is, then it is
obvious that there are true Orthodox Churches not on the list and whose
existence proves your position concerning recognition to be incorrect.
1. The Church of Albania
2. The Church of Alexandria
3. The American Orthodox Catholic Church
4. The Church of Antioch
5. The Church of Bulgaria
6. The Church of Constantinople
7. The Church of Cyprus
8. The Church of the Czech and Slovak Republics
9. The Church of Georgia
10. The Church of Greece
11. The Church of Jerusalem
12. The Church of Poland
13. The Church of Romania
14. The Church of Russia
15. The Church of Serbia
16. The Church of Finland
17. The Church of Japan
18. Orthodox Church in America
19. The Church of Sinai
20. The Church of Ukraine
This, of course, does not mean that there are not people who have
formed their own "churches" for whatever benefit they are trying to
obtain.

Larry Slight

Kyrill

2006-01-31 18:00:40 UTC

Mr Dear Andrew,

By your definition..."No recognition (of the Ecumenical Patriarch) - no
Church"; what then is the status of the Russian Orthodox Church in
Exile, The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Church in America (
which has never received "official" recognition) or the Coptic Church
under Pope Shenouda?

your servant,

+Kyrill

Andrew

2006-01-31 18:25:03 UTC

Post by Kyrill
Mr Dear Andrew,
By your definition..."No recognition (of the Ecumenical Patriarch) - no
Church"; what then is the status of the Russian Orthodox Church in
Exile, The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Church in America (
which has never received "official" recognition) or the Coptic Church
under Pope Shenouda?
your servant,
+Kyrill

The ansver: Coptic Church under Pope Shenouda is a Church as such (
Coptic ancient christian Church) officially recognised by the Holy See
( by the Pope as the Universal Patriarch, if you like, as The
Patriarch of the West) that is more then enough. Any religious
community claimed to be autonomus 'Orthodox' Church in canonical
meaning of the term, non-recognised by the Ecumenical Patriarch is not
a Church as such ( it is a self-proclamed religious community ( or,
in majority of events, a financical pyramid hidden under the face of
psevdo-religious community).

Larry Slight

2006-01-31 20:12:43 UTC

Unfortunately, you only answered one part of a four part question. Do you
propose that the
Orthodox Ethiopian Church is a self-proclaimed religious community. Even
after a history of
approximately 1,500 years of existance? I guess they proclaimed themselves
in anticipation
of your deffinition.

Larry Slight

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan

2006-02-01 11:37:07 UTC

Andrew, I think you're on very thin ice here.

A very longstanding and dear friend of mine is a priest of the Russian
Orthodox Church in Exile. He is a person of the highest probity - to
suggest that he is a priest in a "non-Church" or part of some form of
financial scam is ridiculous in the extreme!

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan FCA HonFHS
Director - Heraldic Media Limited
http://www.heraldicmedia.com
Publishers of "Cracroft's Peerage"
The complete guide to the British Peerage
http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk

Andrew

2006-02-01 11:54:53 UTC

Post by Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Andrew, I think you're on very thin ice here.
A very longstanding and dear friend of mine is a priest of the Russian
Orthodox Church in Exile. He is a person of the highest probity - to
suggest that he is a priest in a "non-Church" or part of some form of
financial scam is ridiculous in the extreme!

I would not suggest anything personal about your friend. Just a genearl
position on the ecclesiastical subjects and officially established
position of the Holy See and the Ecumenical Orthodox Patriarchate:
no any self-proclamed religious community may be considered as the real
Church until such a community will obtain a proper canonocal
recognition.

It is a fact, that almost all self-proclamed religious communities
claiming to be Churches Sui Juris. Thay are not. They are simple
self-proclamed religious communities.

It is a fact that all self-styled "Orders of Chivalry" claming to be
genuine knightly bodies. Thay are not. They are all just self-styled
"Orders" and, as general position, fraudlent bodies of pyramidal
charachter (Pyramides of Vanity).

Kyrill

2006-01-31 17:54:10 UTC

Dear in Christ Mr. Lucki,

I cannot even begin to believe that your request is not a baited trap,
which I will not fall into.Since I am not seeking your approval I will
not respond to any of your questions concerning my chivalric
memberships. In previous messages here you had already disclosed the
names of those Orders to which I belong, so your question is redundant.
I have already stated that I do not have the sufficient proofs of a
noble title to satisfy this group, since the title has been familial
for a good number of generations and any paper trail has been lost
through poverty and immigration and simply held in tradition. I would
like to respond, however, to the assertions on this forum that the
Synod of Milan is a false church, or as Andrew has asserted a
money-making scam. You have basically asked for proofs that the Synod
of Milan is not a post-office-box, or an internet church. I will
provide several urls to whcih you may refer to see the locations and
photos of some of the churches, parishes, clergy and monastic
habitations of the Synod of Milan. I am only a Diocesan Bishop and not
an Archbishop, as some has alluded, and so I do not have a census of
our membership at my fingertips. Please refer to the following:
http://xoomer.virgilio.it/elia1960/tutto.htm

http://www.odox.net/

http://www.onr.com/user/milan/

I cannot hope to convince those with closed opinions about this matter,
but can only say that if the Synod of Milan was not a viable Orthodox
Church then why have some of our former clergy who sought incardination
in so called canonical churches like the Orthodox Church in America
(OCA) been received without re-ordination, or consecration? That act in
itself is the acceptance of valid ordination and apostolic succession.

I do not see any use in trying to convince anyone here concerning the
chivalric associations I may have, but could not pass on the
misunderstanding concerning my Church.

your servant,

+Kyrill

George Lucki

2006-01-31 18:53:06 UTC

Post by Kyrill
Dear in Christ Mr. Lucki,
I cannot even begin to believe that your request is not a baited trap,
which I will not fall into.Since I am not seeking your approval I will
not respond to any of your questions concerning my chivalric
memberships.

OK. You are right to see my response as sceptical - a scepticism that can
though be dispelled with some good information.

In previous messages here you had already disclosed the

Post by Kyrill
names of those Orders to which I belong, so your question is redundant.
I have already stated that I do not have the sufficient proofs of a
noble title to satisfy this group, since the title has been familial
for a good number of generations and any paper trail has been lost
through poverty and immigration and simply held in tradition.

I will leave the issue of self-styled orders and titles with your
explanation. The explanation does though raise a question with regard to the
'grants' made by several groups. If I understand correctly the 'proof' you
provided was satisfactory for one or more of the American College of
Heraldry, Collegium Heraldicum Russiae and the Ethiopian Heraldic College.

I would

Post by Kyrill
like to respond, however, to the assertions on this forum that the
Synod of Milan is a false church, or as Andrew has asserted a
money-making scam. You have basically asked for proofs that the Synod
of Milan is not a post-office-box, or an internet church. I will
provide several urls to whcih you may refer to see the locations and
photos of some of the churches, parishes, clergy and monastic
habitations of the Synod of Milan. I am only a Diocesan Bishop and not
an Archbishop, as some has alluded, and so I do not have a census of
our membership at my fingertips.

In fairness the web-sites you referred me to look don't provide much in the
way of information about your flock, A general guestimate of membership in
your diocese would be interesting. It does not have to be exact. Does your
diocese have <100, >100, >500, >1000, >5000, >10000 members?
From: http://www.orthodoxwest.net/directory.html provided by Larry Slight it
appears that your flock consists of three states with the listings for
Illinois mentioning one Rt. Rev. Bishop and one priest; Indiana - one
Priest; Wisconsin - one Rt. Rev. Archmandrite and one priest. Certainly
there must be more otherwise there would be fewer priests in his territory
than symbols of ecclesiastic and noble rank in your armorial achievement
(galero, processional cross, crozier, staff, comital coronet, baronial
coronet, base = 7 > 5 ). How many ordained priests are there in your
diocese? My remarks here are laced with a goodly dose of scepticism, which
admittedly flows from the concerns about the armorial achievement, titles
and awards you had claimed. I appreciate from someone else's response that
your Church is registered with the US Taxation services, but I do need more
information to understand the size and scope of your group.

George Lucki

Post by Kyrill
http://xoomer.virgilio.it/elia1960/tutto.htm
http://www.odox.net/
http://www.onr.com/user/milan/
I cannot hope to convince those with closed opinions about this matter,
but can only say that if the Synod of Milan was not a viable Orthodox
Church then why have some of our former clergy who sought incardination
in so called canonical churches like the Orthodox Church in America
(OCA) been received without re-ordination, or consecration? That act in
itself is the acceptance of valid ordination and apostolic succession.

So to be clear - Orthodox Churches in communion with the Ecumenical
Patriarch would accept you as a validly consecrated bishop and welcome you
in that rank should you choose to switch jurisdictions.

George Lucki

Kyrill

2006-01-31 20:42:57 UTC

Dear in Christ Mr. Lucki,

The present population of the Diocese of Illinois, which does include
the mentioned States is approximately 120 souls. Does that satisfy your
curiosity about our present state?

In response to the final comment, I suppose it would depend upon which
jurisdiction I might make application to. Two bishops who where
consecrated by our Metropolitan were received into the OCA in the past
two or three years in that manner. I also know that several priests had
previously been received into the Russian Church in the same manner. I
have no intention of doing this so I have never asked the question of
anyone. I am quite sure that your "sketicism" is liberally laced with
sarcasm, although I cannot see the expression on your face when you
write. It seems evident to me that you are playing me, before you
decide to swat me away as a nuisance. Please be kind enough to do so
and get it over with. It really is beneath a gentleman to play this way
with anyone.

I fail to see what the state of my Diocese or of the Synod of Milan has
to do with my personal Arms. One does not depend upon the other, except
that I had adopted by personal Arms with addenda as that of the
Diocese. Am I missing some esoteric truth about Arms that perhaps you
might know?

your servant,

+Kyrill

George Lucki

2006-01-31 22:02:26 UTC

Yes it does. It helps me understand that your Church is in fact not a
virtual Church. At the same time it is a very very very small Church that
has gone its own way outside of the mainstream of Orthodox Churches. This is
relevant in terms of the heraldry. You apparently actually have a flock
albeit small. This completes the information that would help me suggest that
in terms of your assumed arms - less is more. I would advise shedding the
galero and the crozier and processional cross as from the photos I see you
were Eastern rite liturgical garb. If you wish to be generally consistent
with Orthodox tradition (as it appears that your own Church does not have
its own heraldic traditions) - first of all arms are not necessary for a
bishop but may be used. The most typical form is an oval as these were
non-combattants (and also reflective of the styles used at the time when
heraldry went East). I would also drop the secular helmet and crest and the
comital coronet. What would be an appropriate indication of episcopal rank -
likely a mitre - with the Eastern mitre crown preferred (although the
western mitre is used for example I believe in Armernia). I would suggest
that the choice of colours and symbols be unique and should not replicate
those used in the Orthodox Churches but something that emphasizes that you
and your followers are conciously choosing to be outside that communion (for
calendarist reasons I gather) but wish to emphasize continuity. In choosing
these external elements I would keep it very simple. The trick with heraldry
imho is less is more. What caught my attention about your arms was that
there was too much there - too many insignial elements that did not seem
consistent. I have no issue with self-assumed arms but do think a measured
approach is wise (and consistent generally with heraldic rules and
sensibilities). While heraldry is about identification (whether of
individuality or kinship) the insignial elements of heraldry are all about
rank and status. New armigers are often unfortunately encouraged to add all
sorts of embellishments but you will note that the oldest arms are often the
simplest and some of the arms bearing families of greatest antiquity
continue to display their arms in their simplest form.

Post by Kyrill
In response to the final comment, I suppose it would depend upon which
jurisdiction I might make application to. Two bishops who where
consecrated by our Metropolitan were received into the OCA in the past
two or three years in that manner. I also know that several priests had
previously been received into the Russian Church in the same manner. I
have no intention of doing this so I have never asked the question of
anyone. I am quite sure that your "sketicism" is liberally laced with
sarcasm, although I cannot see the expression on your face when you
write. It seems evident to me that you are playing me, before you
decide to swat me away as a nuisance. Please be kind enough to do so
and get it over with. It really is beneath a gentleman to play this way
with anyone.

I come to this issue with a specific perspective of heraldry developed over
time. Arms speak of the armiger in a variety of ways and if they appear to
make unsupported claims then that tends to cast doubt on the armiger's other
claims. A fuller explanation allows an appropriate context. People often
assume arms to express pride in their heritage or a commitment to certain
values, etc. I will grant that it is unpleasant when someone calls this into
question - and if you read the thread you will see another participant
called me out as bearing arms that were in his mind inconsistent with the
position I was espousing. But the answer to the question of whether your
consecration would be accepted as valid in Orthodox Churches is critical -
it gives direction as to whether there would be a basis in using Orthodox
like symbols of ecclesial rank.

Post by Kyrill
I fail to see what the state of my Diocese or of the Synod of Milan has
to do with my personal Arms. One does not depend upon the other, except
that I had adopted by personal Arms with addenda as that of the
Diocese. Am I missing some esoteric truth about Arms that perhaps you
might know?

Often times (but not always) dioceses have arms distinct from those of their
bishops. In this case the ecclesial trappings used on your arms have
everything to do with the status (and heraldic traditions) of your Church.
That guides you in the appropriate choice of symbols. I am not averse to
creating new heraldic practices but am not keen on armigers usurping the
insignial elements of other groups. I would equally be critical of a Mormon
bishop using an episcopal galero (not appropriate to their tradition) and
the role and status is different though the name is the same.

George Lucki

Kyrill

2006-01-31 23:18:47 UTC

Dear in Christ Mr. Lucki and Andrew,

Thank you for your constructive criticisms in these latter posts.

As a matter of fact the original design and registration of my Arms
with the American College of Arms where done by Dr. David Pittman
Johnson, himself an Orthodox layman. We worked on the layout of the
balzon , colors and design. It does actually appear quite similar to
the examples that Andrew has suggested. I did not choose to send that
one for the Burke's Registry simply because being the first rendering
it was a bit cartoon-like. Subsequent renderings, by the Russian
College and the Imperial Ethiopian College were more refined and crisp,
and yes more busy. The one I did choose to submit was the last one I
had done and I was convinced by the Herald that the galero was
appropriate since I was living in a Western society and culture where
that insignia was more apt to be recognized than a Byzantine mitra. If
there were some place on this forum to post images I would do so with
the original for you to see.

I had suggested to Mr. Goldstraw that I substitute the original but he
feels, and rightly so, that the simple Arms which are presently on
display should remain.

I certainly do not wish to be garishly over the top, but I felt the
Arms were rather well done and something more worthy of Burke's. I
apologize for my ignorance in these matters and for any offense I may
have caused anyone in so doing.

your servant,

+Kyrill

Andrew

2006-02-01 09:30:49 UTC

Post by Kyrill
The one I did choose to submit was the last one I
had done and I was convinced by the Herald that the galero was
appropriate since I was living in a Western society and culture where
that insignia was more apt to be recognized than a Byzantine mitra. If
there were some place on this forum to post images I would do so with
the original for you to see.
+Kyrill

The "herald" you mentioned here mislead you. No, Galero is an insignia
appropriate for the catholic clergy only. It is not an secular coronet.

Of course, for example, an Baron ( Freiherr) may have different forms
of coronet: of 5 vis. pearls or 7 vis. pearls proper for Germany, or a
rim of 3 vis. thread of pearls proper for Italy or France, or a rim
with 3 vis. thread of pearls with 4 vis. big pearls proper for Spain,
or even a cap of dignity (chapeau, ducal cap) gules furred ermine (
affronte, or tare), in preferable heraldic style, and everything
mentioned might be considered as correct, or normal, at least. But
this position may not be applied to ecclesiastical ranks.

Andrew

2006-01-31 22:08:02 UTC

Post by Kyrill
Dear in Christ Mr. Lucki,
The present population of the Diocese of Illinois, which does include
the mentioned States is approximately 120 souls. Does that satisfy your
curiosity about our present state?
In response to the final comment, I suppose it would depend upon which
jurisdiction I might make application to. Two bishops who where
consecrated by our Metropolitan were received into the OCA in the past
two or three years in that manner. I also know that several priests had
previously been received into the Russian Church in the same manner. I
have no intention of doing this so I have never asked the question of
anyone. I am quite sure that your "sketicism" is liberally laced with
sarcasm, although I cannot see the expression on your face when you
write. It seems evident to me that you are playing me, before you
decide to swat me away as a nuisance. Please be kind enough to do so
and get it over with. It really is beneath a gentleman to play this way
with anyone.
I fail to see what the state of my Diocese or of the Synod of Milan has
to do with my personal Arms. One does not depend upon the other, except
that I had adopted by personal Arms with addenda as that of the
Diocese. Am I missing some esoteric truth about Arms that perhaps you
might know?
your servant,

Dear Bishop Kyrill,
I do not like to continue the dispute about your rightful (or dubious)
position as a Bishop.
But, as an suggestion. The dispute was born because all the secular
titles you claimed are invalid (I do not like to state it is 'bogus').
Since you and population of the 'Diocese of Illinois' considered you is
a rightful Orthodox Bishop, your claims to catholic Galero is
incorrect.
I think you may assume heraldic symbols much more pertaining to
Orthodox Bishop, including the proper form of the Mitra and the proper
form of the Robe. And, you may find a good artist who will make it for
you in nice style you prefer.

Example of forms (the artistic style, however ,is more then poor):

Loading Image...

Loading Image...

(Self-proclaimed Churches, each claiming to be a Church Sui Juris). 2
with incorrect forms of the robe (wrongly included ermines, which are
improper for spiritual domini, just for secular titleholders. In former
time it was normal for Bishops with secular power).

or this, more convenient for an Orthodox Bishop:

Loading Image...

Of course, a cord and tassels may be worn, as in any heraldic
composition with any form of robe or mantle.

k***@politik.dk

2006-01-31 23:58:17 UTC

Dear George,

I suspect that Burke's Armorial Register will try hard to avoid such
examples again. But less us dig a little more into the case of the

Post by George Lucki
But most of all I was struck
by the presence of a comital coronet on the shield and a baronial coronet on
the helm. Perhaps you can provide some information relative to these
questions.
Can you advise as to the following titles and post-nominals (taken from the
web-page of the Order of St.Isidore)?
H.E. the Rt. Rev. +Kyrill (Kristie-Esposito), Conte di Gerasa, Bishop of
Montgomery,
KCCStI, GCHS, GOMZ, CGKR, KCTJ, KCTS, KJ, KSA, DD
In particular I am interested in the title Conte di Gerasa - who granted it
and when (was it to yourself or to an ancestor?). Where is Gerusa? I would
assume eight of the postnominals are various knighthoods. Eight knighthoods
seems like a very large number. Can you let us know what knighthoods these
might be?

Since the good Count seems unwilling to reply to your questions, let us
see what we can do:

-- KCCStI: "Knight Commander ? (with Collar?) of St. Isidore"? (Never
heard of it, but I presume this is it: , since it features the same
coat-of-arms: Loading Image...

;
and here is an even more pretentious version:
http://www.st-isidore.org/newsletter/vol1-2.pdf) This all seems pretty
harmless, but ... why?
-- GCHS: Surely "Grand Cross of the Holy Sepulchre"--but is it the real
one or one of the bogus ones? I know where I will place my money--it
could indeed be the one which is associated with our old loony-toony
"friend", the ever so colourful Lloyd Worley of Maxalla
(http://www.okhs.org/).
-- GOMZ: "Grand Officer of the Ethiopian Order of St. Mary of Zion"?
That seems to be what is mentioned by Subritzky-Kusza--another familiar
name here, at:
http://www.angelfire.com/realm/StStanislas/NZNewsletter.html. Also see
at this website, apparently run by someone else with connections to the
Sokolnicki "Order of St. Stanislas": http://ordersaintmary.com
-- CGKR: "Chaplain General of the Honourable Order of Christian Knights
of the Rose".
-- KCTJ: Ahh, this we recognize: Surely "Grand Cross of the Temple of
Jerusalem", one of the many bogus Templar "orders".
-- KJ: Hmmm, could be "Knight of Saint John", since this is one of the
abbreviations occasionally used by some of the bogus Maltese/Johanniter
orders. In fact, I think it is used by some of those claiming their
origin in King Peter II of Yugoslavia, but which one?.
-- KSA: Could be "Knight of Order of St. Andrew". But which one ...?
-- DD: Not an order: Try "Doctor of Divinity".

So what have we got? Seven claimed "orders", none of which you would
find in any government's list of approved decorations or in any
authoritative work on orders of chivalry (at least not in their present
incarnations)--and a couple of which should not be taken seriously at
all.

However, what also seems interesting is that several of these
decorations have also been seen in connection with the very Valery
Yegorov, who apparently helped Mr. Esposito with his coat-of-arms. Mr.
Yegorov--also known as "H. E. Commander Baron Valery Yegorov, OSJ,
GCMS, GCSt.S" and "Grand Prior" of the "Principality of St. Michel
Clermont"
(http://www.themarketplacedirect.com/peerageconferred/coatsofarms.html)--also
claims--although I have never seen any actual evidence thereof--that
his "Collegium Heraldicum Russiae" is recognized by the Imperial
Russian House. Yegorov's heraldic services apparently are utilized by
several members of the "Order of St. Isidore" (cf. above), while he
himself is decorated with its Order of Merit I Class of the same, as
well as the "Order of the Swan" (of Lloyd Worley of Maxalla, cf. above
and here: http://www.geocities.com/swanorder/photoalbum.html), the
Grand Cross of the "Order of St. Andrew" and Knight Grand Cross of the
Sokolnicki "Order of St. Stanislas" (http://saintstanislas.com/chr.html
; http://www.angelfire.com/realm/StStanislas/RusHeraldry2.html). If
anyone wants to consider the good judgment of Mr. Yegorov and his
associates, I might mention that he has previously been an "Ambassador"
of "Prince Michael of Albany" and that the title of baron he claimed
was granted by "His Imperial Highness Prince August, Head of the Holy
Roman Imperial House". Enough said.

Best wishes,

Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard

Larry Slight

2006-02-01 01:11:51 UTC

<SNIP........>

Post by k***@politik.dk
-- GOMZ: "Grand Officer of the Ethiopian Order of St. Mary of Zion"?
That seems to be what is mentioned by Subritzky-Kusza--another familiar
http://www.angelfire.com/realm/StStanislas/NZNewsletter.html. Also see
at this website, apparently run by someone else with connections to the
Sokolnicki "Order of St. Stanislas": http://ordersaintmary.com

<SNIP.......>

Why thank you, Peter. I appreciate the somewhat dubious plug for our Order.
Although you missed the proper name, I am sure that the folks who visit the
site
(www.ordersaintmary.com) will be interested in the work we are trying to do
for
the children of Ethiopia. I must tell you that, unlike some other Orders,
we are not
worried about connections our members have in other organization through out
the world. Our purpose is to provide assistance, education and hope to
young
children who are in critical need. With the support of the Imperial Family
of
the House of Selassie, we are truly beginning to expand and to raise the
funds
necessary to accomplish our mission. If, as we are able to fund the help
the children
of Ethiopia desperately need, the Imperial House wishes to provide honors as
a
measure of thanks for these efforts, then who has the right to criticize
them?

Larry Slight

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan

2006-02-01 11:48:13 UTC

Post by k***@politik.dk
Dear George,
I suspect that Burke's Armorial Register will try hard to avoid such
examples again. But less us dig a little more into the case of the

Since the good Count seems unwilling to reply to your questions, let us
-- KCCStI: "Knight Commander ? (with Collar?) of St. Isidore"? (Never
heard of it, but I presume this is it: , since it features the same
coat-of-arms: http://uk.geocities.com/richardt_j/stisidore/Kyrill.jpg ;
http://www.st-isidore.org/newsletter/vol1-2.pdf) This all seems pretty
harmless, but ... why?
-- GCHS: Surely "Grand Cross of the Holy Sepulchre"--but is it the real
one or one of the bogus ones? I know where I will place my money--it
could indeed be the one which is associated with our old loony-toony
"friend", the ever so colourful Lloyd Worley of Maxalla
(http://www.okhs.org/).
-- GOMZ: "Grand Officer of the Ethiopian Order of St. Mary of Zion"?
That seems to be what is mentioned by Subritzky-Kusza--another familiar
http://www.angelfire.com/realm/StStanislas/NZNewsletter.html. Also see
at this website, apparently run by someone else with connections to the
Sokolnicki "Order of St. Stanislas": http://ordersaintmary.com
-- CGKR: "Chaplain General of the Honourable Order of Christian Knights
of the Rose".
-- KCTJ: Ahh, this we recognize: Surely "Grand Cross of the Temple of
Jerusalem", one of the many bogus Templar "orders".
-- KJ: Hmmm, could be "Knight of Saint John", since this is one of the
abbreviations occasionally used by some of the bogus Maltese/Johanniter
orders. In fact, I think it is used by some of those claiming their
origin in King Peter II of Yugoslavia, but which one?.
-- KSA: Could be "Knight of Order of St. Andrew". But which one ...?
-- DD: Not an order: Try "Doctor of Divinity".
So what have we got? Seven claimed "orders", none of which you would
find in any government's list of approved decorations or in any
authoritative work on orders of chivalry (at least not in their present
incarnations)--and a couple of which should not be taken seriously at
all.
However, what also seems interesting is that several of these
decorations have also been seen in connection with the very Valery
Yegorov, who apparently helped Mr. Esposito with his coat-of-arms. Mr.
Yegorov--also known as "H. E. Commander Baron Valery Yegorov, OSJ,
GCMS, GCSt.S" and "Grand Prior" of the "Principality of St. Michel
Clermont"
(http://www.themarketplacedirect.com/peerageconferred/coatsofarms.html)--also
claims--although I have never seen any actual evidence thereof--that
his "Collegium Heraldicum Russiae" is recognized by the Imperial
Russian House. Yegorov's heraldic services apparently are utilized by
several members of the "Order of St. Isidore" (cf. above), while he
himself is decorated with its Order of Merit I Class of the same, as
well as the "Order of the Swan" (of Lloyd Worley of Maxalla, cf. above
and here: http://www.geocities.com/swanorder/photoalbum.html), the
Grand Cross of the "Order of St. Andrew" and Knight Grand Cross of the
Sokolnicki "Order of St. Stanislas" (http://saintstanislas.com/chr.html
; http://www.angelfire.com/realm/StStanislas/RusHeraldry2.html). If
anyone wants to consider the good judgment of Mr. Yegorov and his
associates, I might mention that he has previously been an "Ambassador"
of "Prince Michael of Albany" and that the title of baron he claimed
was granted by "His Imperial Highness Prince August, Head of the Holy
Roman Imperial House". Enough said.
Best wishes,
Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard

I think this is what is generally called a "hatchet job" - not much
that one can usefully add!!

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan FCA HonFHS
Director - Heraldic Media Limited
http://www.heraldicmedia.com
Publishers of "Cracroft's Peerage"
The complete guide to the British Peerage
http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk

George Lucki

2006-02-01 19:06:51 UTC

Post by k***@politik.dk
Dear George,
I suspect that Burke's Armorial Register will try hard to avoid such
examples again.

I expect that you are right about this.

Post by k***@politik.dk
However, what also seems interesting is that several of these
decorations have also been seen in connection with the very Valery
Yegorov, who apparently helped Mr. Esposito with his coat-of-arms. Mr.
Yegorov--also known as "H. E. Commander Baron Valery Yegorov, OSJ,
GCMS, GCSt.S" and "Grand Prior" of the "Principality of St. Michel
Clermont"
(http://www.themarketplacedirect.com/peerageconferred/coatsofarms.html)--also
claims--although I have never seen any actual evidence thereof--that
his "Collegium Heraldicum Russiae" is recognized by the Imperial
Russian House. Yegorov's heraldic services apparently are utilized by
several members of the "Order of St. Isidore" (cf. above), while he
himself is decorated with its Order of Merit I Class of the same, as
well as the "Order of the Swan" (of Lloyd Worley of Maxalla, cf. above
and here: http://www.geocities.com/swanorder/photoalbum.html), the
Grand Cross of the "Order of St. Andrew" and Knight Grand Cross of the
Sokolnicki "Order of St. Stanislas" (http://saintstanislas.com/chr.html
; http://www.angelfire.com/realm/StStanislas/RusHeraldry2.html). If
anyone wants to consider the good judgment of Mr. Yegorov and his
associates, I might mention that he has previously been an "Ambassador"
of "Prince Michael of Albany" and that the title of baron he claimed
was granted by "His Imperial Highness Prince August, Head of the Holy
Roman Imperial House". Enough said.

Peter,
The concern you raise about the CHR and its Chief Herald is an important ne.
Although the artwork in some of their renditions is stunning - the
willingness of the group to acept all sorts of odd claims from completely
spurious groups leads me to question the appropriatnesss of including arms
from this group in a register of arms. The same would hold true for arms
granted by Colleges of Heraldry associated with various unrecognized
pretenders to various byzantine and crusader thrones, etc., etc. Some of
these are not heraldic societies or registers in the more normal sense but
are another trapping of the claims of one odd group or another. Some like
St. Isidore (a virtual order?) seem harmless enough but others ususrp the
name and history of legitimate pretenders and their orders and confuse the
unaware. (As an aside, one order on the list you provided the Knights of the
Rose appears to be based nearby in Edmonton, Alberta. Its Grandmaster is a
prison guard at the local provincial jail.)

Kind regards, George Lucki

George Lucki

2006-01-29 02:41:57 UTC

Post by Martin Goldstraw
George said: "(If I read your policy, without a matriculation US
residents are still entitled to
register assumed arms that are identical to someone else's arms of the same
name.) Sheesh. "
Come on Guys lets get back down to earth here - Nowhere on our
acceptance criteria does it say that we would knowingly allow Fred
Bloggs from Pitsburg to register his assumed arms which were identical
to the arms of the Chief of Clan McBubba. Some arms are easy to check,
others less so, but should any incidence of usurpation come to our
attention we would act accordingly. One of our most basic requirements
is that armigers resident in a country without official authority
should have his arms registered with that country's heraldry society
prior to registering with us.

Thanks for that welcome clarification. I had formulated my assumption based
on the absence of US heraldic legislation. There is of course no requirement
in the US that arms of Fred Bloggs cannot be the same as those of a Scottish
armiger McBubba. I guess from your answer that you will try to ensure that
US assumed arms are not identicsal to British arms. But I do have a
question - who do you want Boggs to register his arms with - the American
College of Heraldry (a commercial enterprise), the American Heraldry Society
(doesn't register arms), the American Heraldry Society (doesn't register
arms), the Confederate Heraldry Society, someone else or does it matter?
Kind regards, George Lucki

g***@sainty.org

2006-01-29 17:37:02 UTC

The US government recognizes a Church within specific definitions of
the law on not-for-profit corporations; it does not accord any special
status to Churches as such. States do allow the ministers of certain
churches to conduct marriages, on behalf of the state, but that does
not mean that the US recognizes them as Churches, since this is almost
certainly beyond any state or federal powers under the US
Constitution.. I think that most Christians, or indeed the adherents of
any particular faith, would be quite surprised to consider that a
determination by the states (which incorporate such bodies) or the IRS,
which may accord them not-for-profit status, could actually provide a
guide to whether a Church is legitimate *as such*.

But does this mean that your register should recognize the heraldic
traditions peculiar to particular historic Churches as being applicable
to any Church? If someone proclaimed himself Pope of his own Church,
would you accord him the Papal tiara?

If you do, I think you may risk offending a lot of people who take
their religion a little more seriously and do not consider the
legitimacy of a Church on the basis of its treatment under the US tax
code. You will find that in this case, as with a number of other
self-proclaimed Orthodox Churches, that the communion of Orthodox
Churches which look to the Ecumenical Patriarach as the first among
equals will consider quite offensive your determination that all
Orthodox Churches are equal.

It is not that you cannot apply any criteria that suits you; of course
you can - there are no laws your are breaking. But if by so doing, you
put off a lot of serious would-be registrants and attract negative
criticisms for according such Episcopal titles to those whose arms you
register or coronets of high rank, then your registry is unlikely to be
the success that most of us would like it to be,

Joseph McMillan

2006-02-02 21:29:09 UTC

Post by Martin Goldstraw
George I have to say that the register has no wish to discriminate on
religious grounds against any Church - we are not in the business of
deciding whether a church is recognised by any other - in the case in
point it is recognised by the Government of the United States and who
are we to argue with that?

Martin,

I'm curious as to exactly how this organization has been recognized as
a church by the U.S. government. The only form of such recognition
that I'm aware of is registration as a tax-exempt church or religious
organization under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. A
search of the IRS database of registered organizations does not turn up
any under this name "Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of Western Europe
and the Americas (Synod of Milan)" or any similar name. That does not
mean the organization is bogus, or that it doesn't enjoy tax-exempt
status, as all churches are prima facie tax exempt whether they
register or not. It does mean (unless the registration is under some
other name) that the church enjoys no formal U.S. government
recognition.

It is possible that the church could be considered as "recognized" by a
U.S. state if it has been incorporated under state law, but virtually
any group of people--or even a single person--can easily meet that
hurdle. It hardly constitutes official recognition of ecclesiastical
status in any meaningful sense.

Leaving aside the validity of Mr. Esposito's (or is it Bishop
Kyrill's?) use of ecclesiastical additaments), my concern about all
this business of Americans assuming to themselves assorted heraldic
paraphernalia implying elevated nobiliary, chivalric, or ecclesiastical
status is that it makes a mockery of heraldic custom and tradition, and
lowers the credibility of American heraldry with the American public as
well as with the serious international heraldic community. As far as I
know, there's no legal barrier to keep Germans, Frenchmen, or many
others in Europe from arrogating to themselves similar doodads and
geegaws--will Burke's also accept all their self-awarded additaments on
the grounds that there's no law against it?

Joseph McMillan

Martin Goldstraw

2006-02-02 23:10:23 UTC

"Subject to the discretion of the editor all 'assumed' arms will be
required to have first been accepted and registered with some form of
registration organisation or heraldry society within the relevant host
nation. Burke's intend the publication to be a register of already
existing arms that fully conform to International Heraldic traditions.
Where there are no such traditions, such as the United States of
America, the register will only record a basic achievement consisting
of shield, helm, wreath and crest. If such armorial bearings contain a
coronet it must be one that has no pretensions to nobility. Assumed
arms with supporters will not normally be accepted.

Where the applicant uses a title or titles or their armorial bearings
feature additaments such as awards and medals, ecclesiastical hats or
supporters and coronets of rank the applicant will be expected to
assure the editor that they are genuinely entitled to them and that the
awards and titles themselves stem from genuine authorities. The Editors
decision will be final."

http://armorial-register.com/acceptance-policy.html

Regards,
Martin

George Lucki

2006-02-03 00:09:39 UTC

Post by Martin Goldstraw
"Subject to the discretion of the editor all 'assumed' arms will be
required to have first been accepted and registered with some form of
registration organisation or heraldry society within the relevant host
nation. Burke's intend the publication to be a register of already
existing arms that fully conform to International Heraldic traditions.
Where there are no such traditions, such as the United States of
America, the register will only record a basic achievement consisting
of shield, helm, wreath and crest. If such armorial bearings contain a
coronet it must be one that has no pretensions to nobility. Assumed
arms with supporters will not normally be accepted.
Where the applicant uses a title or titles or their armorial bearings
feature additaments such as awards and medals, ecclesiastical hats or
supporters and coronets of rank the applicant will be expected to
assure the editor that they are genuinely entitled to them and that the
awards and titles themselves stem from genuine authorities. The Editors
decision will be final."
http://armorial-register.com/acceptance-policy.html
Regards,
Martin

Martin,
A good step in the right direction. I have some suggestions I hope you will
find constructive. Some of the language such as "arms that fully conform to
International Heraldic traditions. Where there are no such traditions, such
as the United States of America,..." might be reconsidered - for example you
may mean national heraldic traditions rather than international.

Other statements such as, "Assumed arms with supporters will not normally be
accepted." lead to the question - under what circumstances will they be?

Finally the statements "Where the applicant uses a title or titles or their
armorial bearings feature additaments such as awards and medals,
ecclesiastical hats or supporters and coronets of rank the applicant will be
expected to assure the editor that they are genuinely entitled to them and
that the awards and titles themselves stem from genuine authorities." may
continue to lead to controversy such as we've seen here as to which titles
and awards stem from genuine authorities. For example which of the following
would qualify as a genuine authority: HIH Crown Prince Zere Yakobe (I'm
starting with him because he came up in another posting today), HIH Prince
Eremias - President of the Crown Council, Dom Rosario Duke of Braganza, Dom
Duarte Duke of Braganza, HSH Prince Grandmaster Fra' Bertie, HSH Prince
Grandmaster Julius Sokolnicki, Patriarch Alexei II Rydyger of Moscow, HIH
Granduchess Maria Vladimirovna, HRH. Prince Charles Philippe d'Orléans, HRH
Don Francisco de Borbon y Escasany- Duke of Seville, HRH Don Carlos - Duke
of Calabria, HRH Don Ferdinand, Duke of Castro, ...
Unless you adopt a particular standard or have at your disposal a committee
of experts then you will run into some potential difficulty. Many folks will
wish to assure the editor that that they are genuinely entitled to awards
and and thet they received them from a genuine authority - Burkes job will
be to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

Finally I was surprised to see that Burkes Peerage and Gentry intends to
ignore its own database of arms of the British peerage and gentry. If you
simply take the supermarket sales approach - you will find you have an
international register not of all arms but merely of those not included in
various already published sources - the arms of somewhat more obscure
contemporary armigers with an extra 50 quid to spare.

George Lucki

Andrew

2006-02-03 00:25:51 UTC

George,
Good position. But, about the legitimacy I think we will be together in
the opinion:
-HSH Prince Grandmaster Fra' Bertie, - no any doubt
-Dom Duarte Duke of Braganza - no any doubt about family orders (but I
have no idea about his newly created Knightly Body)
-HRH Don Carlos - Duke of Calabria, HRH Don Ferdinand, Duke of Castro,
... both real, one recognized by the Spain and the Holy See, second by
the Holy See, perhaps, all grants of family orders are valid.

Rest named persons are: illegal claimants, unrecognized claimants,
non-sovereign head of the Church, and 2 lunatics.

George Lucki

2006-02-03 03:16:15 UTC

Post by Andrew
George,
Good position. But, about the legitimacy I think we will be together in
-HSH Prince Grandmaster Fra' Bertie, - no any doubt
-Dom Duarte Duke of Braganza - no any doubt about family orders (but I
have no idea about his newly created Knightly Body)
-HRH Don Carlos - Duke of Calabria, HRH Don Ferdinand, Duke of Castro,
... both real, one recognized by the Spain and the Holy See, second by
the Holy See, perhaps, all grants of family orders are valid.
Rest named persons are: illegal claimants, unrecognized claimants,
non-sovereign head of the Church, and 2 lunatics.

Andrew, I was actually hoping to hear from Martin in terms of Burke's
position. Each pairing raises its own problems. I understand how you are
drawing the line but I don't know how Burkes will. Basically we have two
Ethiopian groups both apparently agreeing that they both have the authority
to award stuff. We have legitimate pretender to the Portuguese throne and a
self-styled pretender who inherited the business from a woman whose grants
of titles were apparently recognized by the Chief Herald of Ireland. We have
SMOM and St. Stanislas - the first clearly legitimate and the second
completely self-styled except that in England both orders have only the
status of societies. With Imperial Russia there are two claimants and
depending on how much of legalist you are ther may be none. The Orthodox
Patriarch and Russian President have in common with them that they are all
the fount of honour for the same order. There are still two claimants to the
grand magistry of St. Lazarus and notwithstnding the legitimacy of the order
the Duc d'Anjou makes an interesting choice given the connection between the
historical order and the crown of France. Finally for good measure I
included the two claimants to the Two Sicilies Constantinian Order both of
which do not recognize the other's claims. I could have included some Orders
of St. John (both Alliance and self-styled), the order established by Abp.
Makarios while he was both President and eccesiastic leader, etc., etc. I am
curious where Martin would draw the line.

George Lucki

Joseph McMillan

2006-02-03 01:05:50 UTC

Dear Martin,

Thanks--that's essentially the approach being taken by the American
Heraldry Society and long followed by the New England Historic
Genealogical Society.

I would second George's comments on the point of tradition. There
clearly is a tradition of heraldic usage in the United States--arms
have been in use here for well over 300 years, generally in accordance
with the common customs of European heraldry. If I might suggest the
following for your consideration: "Burke's intend the publication to
be a register of already existing arms that conform to the laws,
customs, and traditions of the country where the arms originate. Where
laws and customs governing external additaments are undefined, the
register will record only a basic achievement..."

Regards,
Joseph McMillan

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan

2006-01-29 13:10:18 UTC

On 28 Jan 2006 12:02:52 -0800, "Martin Goldstraw"

Post by Martin Goldstraw
I have been watching this thread with some interest - some of the
attitudes displayed herein are enlightening to say the least.
The brief of The International Register of Arms is to record armorial
bearings already in use. There is a very strict and strong acceptance
i) That the arms be lawfully borne by the applicant within their
country of domicile.
ii) That the applicant has a lawful right to the achievement and that
the arms are used by the applicant.
iii) That any style, title or award claimed is genuine and awarded by a
"real" sovereign authority.
We have not deviated from our policy, nor will we.
In regard to the criteria set out above there has been some specific
comment about one of the achievements in the register. This achievement
does not fall foul of any laws within the United States of America (the
armiger's domicile) where it is perfectly lawful to assume any form
of armorial bearings. Concern has been expressed about the meaning
behind the use of various coronets within the achievement in question
but these comments are based upon the false impression that said
coronets are accepted by the register as indicative of rank or title
- they are not. The register has not accorded any name, style or
title to anyone who has failed to satisfy it that they are entitled to
them. If the register had been satisfied that the armiger was the
holder of a title of nobility the fact would have been record.
The simple fact is that in many countries it is perfectly legal to
adopt any or all of the bells and whistles and, like it or not, a great
many citizens of those countries have done so. The register does not
advise anyone on matters of good taste nor should it since it is simply
there to record arms already in use. Just like a fashion magazine we
intend to report what actually is out there on the streets and not what
the censors who participate in this forum think the rest of the world
ought to believe is out on the streets; we will not hide the truth.
We will not publish any armorial bearings which are unlawful and we
will not promote bogus titles and awards - in fact we would be
pleased to be notified of any such situation.
Regards,
Martin Goldstraw of Whitecairns
For and on behalf of Burke's International Armorial Register
http://armorial-register.com

This is very reassuring.

Despite in one sense being a rival to Burke's (or perhaps because as I
am involved in a lot of similar work to Burke's I understand what they
have to go through), I have great respect for the Burke's team and for
the professionalism with which they carry out their work.

I would still ask Burke's to look at alternative weays of funding the
armorial register so that "ability-to-pay" is not one of the criteria
for entry in the register.

In any event, I wish them well in what could be a most interesting
venture.

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan FCA HonFHS
Director - Heraldic Media Limited
http://www.heraldicmedia.com
Publishers of "Cracroft's Peerage"
The complete guide to the British Peerage
http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk

g***@sainty.org

2006-01-29 17:21:03 UTC

I think that if this is ultimately the course taken by Burke's that it
will attract only the fantasists with their pseudo episcopates and
invented titles rather than the thousands of genuine armigers who would
be satisfied with the attributes of ordinary rank.

Merely because the US does not differentiate between, say, the Roman
Catholic Church and the Church someone sets up in their garage does not
mean that the heraldic traditions of the former should be designated by
a responsible armorial to the self-appointed Archbishops of the latter.
If you allow one of your registrants to assume the Bishop's hat or a
countly coronet, then you immediately imply recognition of the right to
these. It is pure sophistry to claim that even though you include them
you do not recognize the title.

In any case, in the text below this armorial bearing you do confer a
title - that of Excellency - on the herald of a purely private heraldic
body whose authority in the matter is not recognized by the Russian
Federation, and is scorned by reputable Russian nobiliary bodies.

Furthermore you describe this registrant as the "Rt. Rev. Kyrill is the
Diocesan Bishop for Aurora and Illinois, for the Autonomous Orthodox
Metropolia of Western Europe and the Americas (Synod of Milan)",
despite the fact that this Church is not in communion with the
Ecumenical patriarch and is not recognized as a Church by any of the
mainstream Orthodox Churches.

Of course you can include anything you want; it is a purely private
registry. But do you really believe that the inclusion of such
attributes and titles is going to encourage any priest or prelate of a
main-stream Church to register? Or anyone who is concerned at the
activities of these Churches which assume high-sounding names and
titles and confer such exalted episcopal ranks? Do you believe that a
genuine count is going to seek inclusion, whether or not you include
his title, when you include the self-assumed?

I am sure that most contributors here wish your project well; I
certainly do. But I believe experience demonstrates that once you allow
the assumption of attributes which of themselves imply a particular
title or rank, irrespectively of whether you accord thsoe titles and
rank in the entry (and in this case you do include the Episcopal rank
of this gentleman), the project will be perceived as vehicle for the
suspect rather than one for those who are genuinely interested in
including their arms for heraldic regerence purposes only.

Guy Stair Sainty

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan

2006-01-29 13:05:41 UTC

Post by Andrew
.............StephenP wrote:........

Are you involved in this venture? It is good idea to rise a good money
( 50 GBP per entry), but it is better to keep the dignity and honour
and to reject any "heraldic" rubbish, even if a self-styled "armiger"
will suggest 1.000.000 GBP. The good name is much more important.
Includes the various rubbish ( it does not matter how much Pounds was
suggested for such a entry) into the Register (hidden under the Burke's
name ) is a genuine heraldic snobbery and dishonesty. If such a present
unnormal practice will not be stopped immediately it will destroy the
Burke's good name and reputation for nothing.
Yes, any or many links with advertising of dishonest information and of
a fraudulent bodies must be vetted down to each and every page. It is
the only way to keep the good name and high standards reputation.
If the Register does not set high quality control standards
and includes the various dodgy gongs, mail order nobillary titles, etc.
then
this will simply lower the reputation of the register and by
association
Burkes.

The problem with this proposal by Burke's is that if a lot of the
"wrong" people, i.e. wealthy people with assumed arms who just want to
be in Burke's because of a perceived cachet, pay for an entry, then
that does put pressure on poor but truly armigerous people to pay for
an entry too.

Even though I am coming from a commercial background and understand
more than most that these things have to be paid for in one way or
another, I instinctively feel that requiring people to pay for an
entry in what could become an authoratitive database as then you are
using "ability to pay" as a criteria for inclusion.

I appreciate that this might seem odd to our American readers, but in
the UK social status and wealth are not as intimately connected as in
the USA. In the UK you can come of a very good and ancient family but
be as poor as a church mouse, or you can be as rich as Croesus but
still be very nouveux riches and what my late mother used to refer to
"NQOC, dear". Of course, these are not absolutes - I just don't want
people to run away with the notion that any armigerous person would
automatrically be able to afford to pay for inclusion is such a
database.

Going back to the cost of creating this database, there are
alternatives to funding it apart from charging people for entries.
For example, there are any number of trusts and grant giving bodies,
both in the UK and the USA, who could be approached to fund this type
of work.

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan FCA HonFHS
Director - Heraldic Media Limited
http://www.heraldicmedia.com
Publishers of "Cracroft's Peerage"
The complete guide to the British Peerage
http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk

M***@virgin.net

2006-01-29 13:52:25 UTC

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 13:05:41 +0000 (UTC), Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<***@heraldicmedia.com> wrote:

snip-------------

Post by Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
The problem with this proposal by Burke's is that if a lot of the
"wrong" people, i.e. wealthy people with assumed arms who just want to
be in Burke's because of a perceived cachet, pay for an entry, then
that does put pressure on poor but truly armigerous people to pay for
an entry too.
Even though I am coming from a commercial background and understand
more than most that these things have to be paid for in one way or
another, I instinctively feel that requiring people to pay for an
entry in what could become an authoratitive database as then you are
using "ability to pay" as a criteria for inclusion.
I appreciate that this might seem odd to our American readers, but in
the UK social status and wealth are not as intimately connected as in
the USA. In the UK you can come of a very good and ancient family but
be as poor as a church mouse, or you can be as rich as Croesus but
still be very nouveux riches and what my late mother used to refer to
"NQOC, dear". Of course, these are not absolutes - I just don't want
people to run away with the notion that any armigerous person would
automatrically be able to afford to pay for inclusion is such a
database.
Going back to the cost of creating this database, there are
alternatives to funding it apart from charging people for entries.
For example, there are any number of trusts and grant giving bodies,
both in the UK and the USA, who could be approached to fund this type
of work.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan FCA HonFHS
Director - Heraldic Media Limited
http://www.heraldicmedia.com
Publishers of "Cracroft's Peerage"
The complete guide to the British Peerage
http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk

I possibly speak for others also when I say that the contributions to
this debate by George, Martin and Patrick have been interesting and
informative.
This is a very ambitious project, and the original plan will no doubt
get some 'fine tuning' in the short term. The contributions we have
read are probably useful to that end.
I share Patrick's view. Funding by armigers is a weakness in the
grand plan. I know of several armigers who could well afford to pay
but would never do so purely on principle. This is in addition to
Patrick's 'ability to pay' criteria. The fact that many persons will
not be included therefore diminishes the potential and success of the
project.
In my opinion it would not be unreasonable to require a modest
administrative fee for individual inclusion, perhaps not more than
£5GB to cover the website editing, but some source of sponsorship or
revenue should be sought.

McGoo

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan

2006-01-29 15:59:32 UTC

Post by M***@virgin.net
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 13:05:41 +0000 (UTC), Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
snip-------------

I know several armigers who are currently on social security benefit
(yes, it can happen and there is no shame in it!) who could not afford
to pay.

Post by M***@virgin.net
In my opinion it would not be unreasonable to require a modest
administrative fee for individual inclusion, perhaps not more than
£5GB to cover the website editing, but some source of sponsorship or
revenue should be sought.

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan FCA HonFHS
Director - Heraldic Media Limited
http://www.heraldicmedia.com
Publishers of "Cracroft's Peerage"
The complete guide to the British Peerage
http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk

g***@sainty.org

2006-01-29 17:05:29 UTC

I think you will find if you look carefully that so far this has not
been published by Burke's, but is published by the person who is
apparently organizing this project. However, I think you will find,
before imploding with fury at this, that the final register
when it is eventually published will not include such self-assumed
attributes.

m***@btinternet.com

2006-01-27 20:13:40 UTC

Post by George Lucki
I think this link illustrates some of the problems inherent with a prokect
like this.
See: http://armorial-register.com/arms-us/esposito-dk-arms.html for the arms
of Denis Esposito.
Mr. Esposito's recently assumed American arms include the coronet of a count
placed on the shield, an Italian baronail coronet placed on the helm, the
processional cross of a Roman Catholic Archbishop and the galero of a Roman
bishop (he claims the dignity of an Orthodox bishop of some obscure
"Orthodox" Church). Among other quirks the stars of eight points are
blazoned of six.
Not a great start.
George Lucki

It's very modest of His Lordship not yet to have awarded himself the
Garter.

Andrew

2006-01-27 21:50:18 UTC

.........I have no word except one - shame.

http://armorial-register.com/useful-links.html
http://heraldry.com.ua/index.php3?lang=E&context=info&id=1863

You may see the link above. It is advertising of an shameless
web-resource of so-called "Ukrainian heraldry". You may see an
advertising of sequential one "Order of Mickey Mouse Rampant" and its
members: bogus Earls, fake Princes, self-styled Patriarchs, clowns,
lunatics, cracpots and their buffonish emblems.
Noncens, Nonsens, Noncens, etc...
Not good start for Burke's new invention.....Does anybody stops
such a advertising of parasite resources and imaginary heraldry in the
Burke's???
If the Burke's will continue such a politic of entery into the
Register of any assumed heraldic devises (except Catholic clergy and
Polish noble arms) this invention will come to nothing. It will be a
buffoonery. How it possible to put on the same line:
- an coat of arms granted by the Lord Lyon
- with an heraldic composition invented and self-assumed by Mamba-Bamba
from Nigeria and registered in sequential Register of Nothing of
sequential Society of Heraldic Barbarians (invented by an sequential
ise-cream trader from USA to rise money).....

But it was omitted any mention about real heraldic authority, as
Spanish Chronista, as Marques de la Floresta is...

It is a time to save the Burke's honour from the shame...

George Lucki

2006-01-27 22:17:22 UTC

Post by Andrew
.........I have no word except one - shame.
http://armorial-register.com/useful-links.html
http://heraldry.com.ua/index.php3?lang=E&context=info&id=1863
You may see the link above. It is advertising of an shameless
web-resource of so-called "Ukrainian heraldry". You may see an
advertising of sequential one "Order of Mickey Mouse Rampant" and its
members: bogus Earls, fake Princes, self-styled Patriarchs, clowns,
lunatics, cracpots and their buffonish emblems.
Noncens, Nonsens, Noncens, etc...

Thanks for alerting me to the odd site. You are right it is a mixture of
some real heraldry (particualrly the state, oblast and civic heraldry
alongside with the most bizarre family arms and the grandiose arms of
self-styled grand dukes and notables of various sorts. The group has its own
self-styled Order of St. Michael with even the arms of a "Canadian
Department". Sheesh. It is a shame because there are few internet resources
on Ukrainian heraldry.

George Lucki

George Lucki

2006-01-27 22:31:20 UTC

Post by George Lucki

Thanks for alerting me to the odd site. You are right it is a mixture of
some real heraldry (particualrly the state, oblast and civic heraldry
alongside with the most bizarre family arms and the grandiose arms of
self-styled grand dukes and notables of various sorts. The group has its
own self-styled Order of St. Michael with even the arms of a "Canadian
Department". Sheesh. It is a shame because there are few internet
resources on Ukrainian heraldry.
George Lucki

For Ukrainian family arms - it appears that
http://www.torush.com/trs/rodyny/index.html is off to a good start trying to
catalogue the various historical arms and variants of different (extant and
extinct) princely families. This is not without some errors but avoids the
silly fantasy side of the other site. It looks like the future ambitions
include the indigenous and foreign nobility and the arms of cossack families
(which mainly should not include the external forms of noble arms).
George Lucki

Andrew

2006-01-27 22:36:44 UTC

George,
I think it is a time for Burke's to reconsider its politic of entry
into the Register and advertising of the web-resources, if owners would
like to save the Burke's good name from the shame and dishonesty.
I hope that such expert as Guy Sainty will pay his attention on such a
problem and will suggest to the Register moderators to change a rules
of entry. If no - such invention as this "International Register....."
will become a new one stillborn idea and an equivalent to an funny
Comics magazine.

Post by George Lucki

StephenP

2006-01-28 09:24:47 UTC

I assume the links were added in good faith. As George Lucki points
out there is some good heraldry in the site.

Not only are you wishing to restrict who can register their Arms but
you now require all links to be vetted down to each and every page?!

George Lucki

2006-02-03 03:22:29 UTC

Andrew

2006-02-03 07:00:17 UTC