IDTG

Joseph McMillan, the noted American heraldic scholar (whose arms are displayed above), proposed that as an extension of the recent conversations regarding the Marques de La Floresta, it may be of interest to read the decision by the Spanish Council of State from 1995 (Número de expediente: 2437/1995 [JUSTICIA E INTERIOR]) regarding the Marques’ authority to certify personal arms. The original text can be found here: http://www.boe.es/aeboe/consultas/bases_datos_ce/doc.php?coleccion=ce&id=1995-2437

Back in 2006, Mr. McMillan had posted a thorough summary of the decision on the Usenet group rec.heraldry in English in a thread discussing the topic. Here is the text in his own words (posted here with his permission and with minimal edits for context & formatting – any emphasis is mine):

This very interesting report clarifies the Marques de la Floresta’s authority (or rather lack thereof) to issue certifications of personal arms.

The document at the site is an opinion of the Spanish Council of State, issued on 30 November 1995, in response to a request from the Ministry of Justice.

On 19 January 1995, La Floresta submitted a brief to the Ministry of Justice asking for the confirmation of his credentials as Cronista of Castile and Leon and for the convocation of a tribunal to examine his qualifications for the title, so that he could receive the certificate from the Ministry of Justice required by the decrees of 1915 and 1951 governing the appointment of Cronistas.

On 26 June, nearly six months having passed without a response, he resubmitted his request, stating that despite exercising the duties of Cronista of Castile and Leon since 1991, it had been made known to him that obtaining the certificate from the Ministry of Justice was necessary for him to continue in this role. He argued that the Ministry had the obligation either to convoke the examining tribunal or to confirm his appointment by use of the transitory provisions of the 1951 decree, as it would otherwise be preventing him, contrary to law, from exercising his profession, and would also cause him to suffer significant damages in terms of both income and reputation.

As part of his submission, the Marques included copies of the decree of the C&L government naming him to the post and of his commission as Cronista of C&L, which stated that La Floresta would posess all the powers and competencies of the ancient Chronicler-Kings of Arms of Castile and Leon, including the power to issue certifications of genealogy, nobility, and the right to use coats of arms.

The view of the Ministry of Justice, as submitted to the Council of State, was that Don Vicente de Cadenas was at that time the only person entitled to exercise the duties contemplated by the 1915 and 1951 decrees. The Ministry went on to say that “the matter of the Cronistas de Armas has been examined on more than one occasion from diverse perspectives, always arriving at the conclusion that the present moment does not appear ideal to raise this matter because of the social repercussions it would obviously have.”

What the Council of State ruled was that the 1982 royal decree that gave the autonomous communities jurisdiction over “the awarding to local corporations of styles, honors, and distinctions, as well as the granting to municipalities and provinces of municipal coats of arms” effectively created a second kind of Cronista, which it called a “chronicler of municipal arms.” The 1915 and 1951 decrees did not apply to chroniclers of municipal arms, since chroniclers of municipal arms do not issue certifications or grants on their own authority; they only make recommendations to the community junta (government), which makes the final decision on the grant of the arms. Moreover, they have no need for qualifications in genealogy and nobiliary law, since their duties do not require expertise in these subjects.

On the other hand, an appointment by an autonomous community as a chronicler of municipal arms does not entitle a person to carry out the duties of a chronicler of family arms, which is the term the Council applies to Cronistas appointed in accordance with the 1915/1951 decrees. The autonomous communities do not have authority over family heraldry or rights to noble titles; that authority continues to reside exclusively in the Ministry of Justice. The Junta of Castile and Leon therefore exceeded its authority when it purported to grant the Marques de la Floresta the powers to issue certifications of personal arms, genealogy, and nobility, and the Marques could not lawfully exercise such powers.

So the Marques’s contention that the refusal of the Ministry to validate his credentials was interfering with his ability to carry out his duties was rejected. He did not need the approval of the Ministry of Justice to carry out his legitimate functions of advising the Community government on matters of provincial and municipal heraldry and vexillology. It went on to say, in very firm terms, that an autonomous community government’s having unlawfully exceeded the bounds of its authority could not logically constrain the Ministry’s free discretion in exercising its own prerogatives under the 1915/1951 decrees.

The Council also stated that:

1. The Ministry had the exclusive right to decide when and whether to hold examinations in which all aspiring Cronistas could take part. No individual person had legal standing to demand the convoking of the examining tribunal.
2. The transitory provisions in the 1951 which the Marques had suggested could be used to validate his appointment applied only to persons holding the position of Cronista at the time the decree was issued–the Marques de la Floresta had not yet been born at that time. Moreover, they were required to submit their credentials for validation within 30 days of the publication of the decree. The Marques de la Floresta had not met that deadline.
3. “It is possible to differentiate clearly between the two competencies [of chronicler of family arms and chronicler of municipal arms] without losing sight of the fact that the circumstances that in large measure were responsible for the issuance of the Decree of 1951, namely the reestablishment of the nobiliary laws in 1948, are replicated today with the [1988] changes to the 1922 decree on nobiliary succession] and with the new stricter norms for the proof of relationships.” [Comment: This could be construed as suggesting that it may be an opportune time for the Ministry to reconsider its position on raising the issue of new Cronistas of family arms.]

The above is an excellent write-up that sheds some light on the topic for those who are interested in the topic.

I received word only a few minutes ago that TRH Prince Davit Bagration-Mukhrani and Princes Ana Bagration-Gruzinsky, both heirs in their own right to the throne of Georgia via the Mukhrani and the Gruzinsky lines respectively of the Royal House of Bagration, married now for a few years, are now the proud parents a healthy baby boy!

With the birth of HRH Prince Georgi Bagration Bagrationi yesterday September 27th 2011, all the claims of the various branches of the Royal House of Bagration of Georgia are merged into a single person.

As a Knight of the Order of the Eagle of Georgia and the Seamless Tunic of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as the Rector Coordinator for the United States, I congratulate TRH and wish the best to newborn Prince!

I have written extensively in the past about the blog I consider to be the best on the topic of heraldry: the Blog the Heraldica maintained by the Spanish Air Force Major José Juan Carrión Rangel. His blog has evolved from being a simple hobby blog (like this one) to becoming the equivalent of the New York (or London if you prefer) Times of the heraldic world! A top notch blog in its own right and the absolute best on heraldry.

One of the characteristics of a popular communication medium is that everyone wants to publish there so that it reaches a large audience. This means that, like the traditional media, not only do articles that the blogger wrote & believes in get published but also “letters to the editor” as well as “op-eds” from other persons.

The good Major’s blog is no stranger to controversy having published articles/letters written by others that contain ideas or opinions that are not very popular. Many times, these very opinions caused a maelstrom in our small but vociferous global heraldic community, so much so that many Spanish-language heraldic bloggers decided to form an alliance to improve the community.

Unfortunately, as the most recent events on the blog demonstrate, this was but a pipe dream….

On September 18, the noted heraldist José Luis Sampedro Escolar (distinguished member of the Royal Heraldic & Genealogical Academy of Madrid – Real y Matritense Academia de Heráldica y Genealogía) and frequent contributor to the blog wrote a scathing article about the Viscount of Ayala & Marquis of La Floresta, Dr. Alfonso de Ceballos Escalera critiquing his armorial achievement and arguing the legal validity of his certification of personal arms. I won’t go into the details as the article is available to be read in the original Spanish on the blog.

The article was very strongly worded and made no secret that its author had no love lost for the Viscount & Marquis.

When I read it, I expected a similarly strongly worded retort by the equally (if not more so) noted heraldist Dr. Ceballos Escalera, with perhaps this back and forth dragging for a couple more days and then subside. Occasionally, third parties would give their 2 cents too picking a side or arguing with all. This has usually been the pattern.

However, this time there was a different turn of events.

It’s true that the retort came through and the third parties appeared but, what was surprising and a first was the attack on the Major himself.

The blogger clearly marked the article as being authored by another and has repeatedly posted in the past that he takes no ownership of the contents of any articles posted that have been submitted by third parties. He only provides the medium for the article to be published. This is no different than an op-ed in a major newspaper.

I was surprised to see that persons whom I hold in high regard would question the motives of a person that, through his blog, has contributed immensly to the proliferation of heraldic knowledge in the Spanish speaking world and beyond.

That is not to say that the original post by Mr. Sampedro Escolar was not incendiary, because it was.

If the article had remained an analysis of the legal authority of the Viscount & Marquis as the Chronicler of Arms for personal heraldry & genealogy, it would have been just fine. Honestly, this truly is something that should be (and has been) debated and I have my own personal opinions on the matter (that I might share sometime but, meanwhile you can read what the expert on heraldic law Mr. Cerda Acevedo had to say).

Where I think Mr. Sampedro Escolar crossed the line was in his questioning of the rights of Dr. Ceballos Escalera to use the external ornaments of his achievement. This is a personal affront considering the status of the latter and his vast heraldic knowledge. These sorts of allegations cannot and must not be made without concrete evidence, otherwise it is (in my opinion) tantamount to calling him a fraud or ignorant. Particularly when, as in this case, the person in question is rightfully using all the external ornaments.

For a good example of how to handle these situations where one is questioning the legality of a person’s arms or title one can refer to the case of the false Baron of Gavin which case was thoroughly researched and an irrefutable case made, relying solely on the facts and removing any emotion.

Regardless of the content of the posting by Mr. Sampedro Escolar and whether one agrees with it or not, the blog and its owner are not at fault. Any personal attacks are, at best, ill thought.

After some of the attacks, the good Major has rightfully moved to the counter-attack and I cannot blame him. I would have done the same and fully support him in this.

By now, several others have commented on these events and one can say that I’m kind of late to the game. Honestly, I don’t care  I have a day job that takes priority over any heraldic (and non) ramblings since it pays the bills.

Below are links to commentary by two other bloggers that I respect and recommend to be read:

• From the blog Derecho Heráldico by Carlos Cerda Acevedo
• From the blog Heráldica Catalana by Javier Cruïles

What is the saddest part of this story is that some of the biggest names in Spanish heraldry, people whose work I truly respect and admire, have ended up in a spitball war.

In a personal email to Maj. Carrion Rangel, I likened this whole thing to a Mexican telenovela and I stand by that analogy. The only thing missing is a love interest (I guess heraldry can assume that role).

The reason for this article is to address some of the gross inaccuracies I’ve seen online, not the least of which are the dozens of claimants to the Byzantine throne that are running around parading the Palaiologos name.

Let’s get it clear: there are no proven, documented male line descendants of of the Palaiologos House alive today. Therefore, anybody claiming to be that is at best a fantasist and at worst a fraud. If one has the documentation, it would be a boon to historians and genealogists worldwide to examine it. Heck, they would probably become very wealthy by publishing a book (with documentation) on their family history from the Fall to the present.

As it is well known, the last Emperor of the Roman Empire of the East, better known as the Byzantine Empire, was Constantine XI Dragases (Κωνσταντίνος ΙΑ’ Δραγάσης) of the Imperial House of the Palaiologos (Παλαιολόγος). Emperor Constantine died valiantly with his troops defending his capital from the hordes of the Turk that were headed by Mehmet II. After the conquest of of Constantinople, Mehmet II was known as “The Conqueror”.

The fateful day that seat of Christianity in East found itself enslaved by the Muslim Turk was May 29, 1453 and the day the Emperor died.

After his death, the only Palaiologos left were:

• His younger brother Demetrius, Despot of Morea, who died a monk in Constantinople
  • Demetrius had a single child, a daughter, named Helena who was taken along with her mother into the Sultan’s harem
• His other younger brother Thomas who was the last ruler of Morea and as the last remaining male Palaiologos, the claimant to the Imperial throne. It is Thomas’ line that is of interest to us.

After Mehmet conquered the Despotate of Morea, Thomas fled to Rome for safety along with his children in 1461. Along with him, he brought the head of St. Andrew, the First Called, as a gift to the Bishop of Rome, Pope Pius II. However, he died in 1465 and his children (2 boys and a girl) were brought up by Cardinal Bessarion (a Greek Orthodox bishop who was a unionist and was made a Cardinal by the Pope after being persecuted by the anti-union forces of the Eastern Church).

The eldest of them was Andrew and was the legitimate heir to the Christian throne of the East. He styled himself in the European Courts as “Imperator Constantinopolitanus” and squandered both his inherited treasures as well as the salary he was paid by the Pope. He went so far as to sell his claims to the Byzantine throne to Their Most Catholic Majesties King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain! There are rumors that he sold the claims several times over, including to King Charles VIII of France. He did not have any children from his wife and died penniless in 1502.

The younger son, Manuel, who became the titular Emperor on the death of his older brother (and if we discount the sale of the titles), moved to Constantinople and sold his own claims to the throne to the same person who caused the destruction of his Imperial House, Sultan Mehmed II! In return, Manuel received a comfortable pension and a life of luxury. While in the City, he married and had two children: John and Andrew of whom no offspring are found in the historical record. It is also said that Manuel and his children converted to Islam, even serving in the Sultan’s navy. A slap in the face to the legacy of their Imperial House!

Thomas’ youngest child was a girl named Zoe. She married the Grand Prince Ivan III of Muscovy (Moscow) in 1472 and brought as part of her dowry the double-headed eagle. This is the basis for the claim of Moscow to be the “Third Rome”. As a side note, Zoe was the grandmother of Ivan the Terrible.

This is the end of the Imperial House of the Palaiologos. However, there is a cadet branch of the Palaiologos House created by Theodore, the first Marquess of Montferrrat. Theodore was born Theodore Komnenos Doukas Angelos Palaiologos in 1270, a son of Emperor Andronikos II. The last of this line was John George and died in 1533.

There were other Palaiologos, younger children from prior generations that presumably survived the conquest but, after a while, the record goes silent and many of the “bin Palaiologos” that can be found in the various Ottoman tax records are not necessarily related to the dynasty.

Another of the major inaccuracies I’ve seen online and also swept under the rug in Greece is related to the religious dogma of the late Emperor. Growing up in Greece, Emperor Constantine is hailed as the consummate Greek hero (and that part is 100% true) and also the “Defender of the Orthodox Faith” (this part is 100% untrue).

What apparently nobody wants to have known is that the Emperor died in communion with the Pope, as did his Patriarch, since they both had accepted the Councils of Ferrara and Florence. If it had not been for the Turkish conquest, the Eastern Orthodox Church would be in communion with the West today.

According to the historical record and what the noted Byzantine scholar John Julius Norwich, after the death of the Emperor, the Sultan wanted to control the Christians of his new empire by selecting a Patriarch that would not cause problems for him. Naturally, he would not choose someone who supported the union with the West and therefore selected the fiercely anti-unionist Gennadius.

Over the centuries, the almost apocryphal story of  the anti-unionists of the Eastern Empire being so anti-Papal that they supported the Turks. This is patently false!

The most “popular” quote is the one attributed to the Grand Duke Lucas Notaras (Λουκάς Νοταράς), a famous anti-unionist, where he allegedly said

κρειττότερον έστιν ειδέναι εν μέσῃ τη Πόλει φακιόλιον βασιλεύον Τούρκων ή καλύπτραν Λατινικήν

or, in English

better to see in the midst of the City the Turkish turban to reign than the Latin mitre

The Grand Duke remained true to his beliefs in that the Eastern Church could not re-unite with the West as per the two Councils but, he was 100% loyal to his Emperor and a hero to his Empire. He tried to protect the Empire to the utmost of his abilities and was an ardent supporter of the Emperor to solicit help from the Western Powers. He took on the defense of the City and, though the Turk was victorious, his organizational skills and rallying of the troops was exemplary.

Let’s not forget that it was the Grand Duke, his son and his son-in-law that were the three first “neo-martyrs” or martyrs under the Ottoman yoke. The were all beheaded for confronting the Sultan.

Not exactly the actions of a turcophile, is it?

Typically, republics and kingdoms aren’t compatible and don’t coexist homewever, there are some notable examples around the world that are the exceptions proving the rule.

Some of the better known kingdoms that are part of a republic are those that are within the Republic of Uganda. The kingdoms of Buganda, Bunyoro-Kitara, Busoga and Toro are ancient traditional kingdoms of Africa that long enjoyed local and international recognition, even by the British colonial powers.

Unfortunately, with the political upheavel that Uganda experienced in the late 1960′s the new government of Milton Obote forcefully disbanded all the traditional kingdoms. The constitution introduced in 1967 went a step further and fully outlawed them.

The famously violent regime of Idi Amin of the 1970′s was no better and it wasn’t until the democratically elected government of 1993 re-established them. Then in 1995, the new constitution fully recognized these ancient kingdoms in law and the powers of their leaders or Kings. The 2005 amendment to the constitution re-affirmed the position of these Kings, further confirming their status in Ugandan society.

Though these Kingdoms are fully recognized in law, they are not fully sovereign politically. However, they do have considerable political influence and regularly meet with government leaders.

As mentioned above, the only four kingdoms recognized in Ugandan law are the following:

Buganda is the largest of the subnational kingdoms of Uganda and the namesake of the country and covers about 17% of the population of the country. The traditional title of the King of Buganda is “Kabaka” and the current Kabaka is Muwenda Mutebi II.

Bunyoro-Kitara is the second largest of the Ugandan kingdoms and the only one that was once an empire controlling a large swath of the land that is Uganda today. The traditional title of the King of Bunyoro-Kitara is “Omukama” and the current Omukama is Solomon Iguru I.

Busoga is another ancient Ugandan kingdom that is smaller than those above. The traditional title of the King “Kyabazinga” and the last one to hold the title was Henry Wako Muloki. Unfortunately, there has been strife among the leaders of the Kingdom and a successor has not yet been chosen.

Toro was once part of the Bunyoro Empire and was created in 1830 when the eldest son of the Omukama rebelled and founded his own kingdom. The Kingdom of Toro also names its King “Omukama” and the current holder of the title is Rukidi IV.

Links of interest:

• Official site of the Kingdom of Buganda
• Official site of the Kingdom of Bunyoro-Kitara
• Wikipedia article on the Kingdom of Busoga
• Official site of the Kingdom of Toro

Note: Images from Wikipedia