Rwandan Honors confused with European Nobiliary Titles

[International Commission for Orders of Chivalry]

I did not want to intervene before in an argument which is not of my
interest.

But George Lucky indirectly - knowing part of this history because my
wife talked with him in Scotland at St Andrew 2006 - refers to me
quoting an Italian...
Because of honesty I think it is fit I explain everything I know about
the argument.

When in 1999 I took on the presidency of ICOC (International
Commission for Orders of Chivalry) I promised to my conscience and to
all those who wanted I assumed this charge that I should have avoided
to be influenced by anybody, following always a way of seriousness,
honesty and a "supra partes" behaviour.
I promised also that I should have listened and helped all the persons
who asked advice to me showing a willing of seriousness in a so
difficult field as genealogy, heraldry and chivalry is.

Today ICOC has given advice to about 20 States, I am not a freemason
but I helped a Masonic regular obedience to create its own awarding
systems according to scientific criteria, and finding solutions to
list also this kind of this awards in a serious honest manner.
I persuaded an historical fake Templar Order (founded in 1867), to
declare that it is a fake order, and to transform itself in a serious
Institute for the study of the history of the past Order of the
Temple.
Indeed these appear successes to me.

As scholar I am a pragmatic and personally I dont give value to kind
of grant or recognition (nobiliary titles or chivalric orders or
recognition by nobiliary associations or bodies) which does not come
from a State where the nobiliary/chivalric matter is still today
legally recognized.
And I am much more strict for my own Country, Italy, where not all of
the nobiliary recognitions made during the Kingdom of Italy were made
in honest manner, but sometimes only because of opportunity (I believe
it is necessary to examine again all the past recognitions of nobility
to control the veracity according the modern scientific criteria). I
dont issue comments about other States because my knowledge is not so
deep to judge.
Less and less I consider valid every private grant, as those coming
from kings/chiefs of former Imperial/Royal Houses ect out of the
throne.
I have nothing to do with these grants or orders of King Kigeli and I
dont work for him but gave him my sincere advice which at that time
was well considered and applied by the King.
I mean my invention as it is said on the diploma of grant agreed with
me by the King Kigeli: "title of honours, correspondent to the
hereditary nobiliary of ... in the European usage" and "... We engage
ourselves to make lawful, valid and executive... at the moment of Our
return on the throne..."
But now I must explain the reason of this advice (that has a
scientific bases and historical precedents) by me issued to the
King,

Everybody knows here Carl Lindgren (I never met him in person), who
made greatest progresses in these matters; all of you will remember
when he was not able to understand the difference between a true
order and a fake one. Many times he publicly admitted his errors as
nobody made on this newsgroup. He could be also considered odd, or
sick of honors, and I know that he considers himself a "wannabee", but
I must say that for me he is an honest person, who does not gain on
chivalry and this is the reason why I gave him my suggestion to help
King Kigeli.
Also because I am aware of which kind of life lived King Kigeli, with
his undisputable love and help in favour of his People.

Carl Lindgren told me that some nobiliary titles (at the European
manner) were granted by King Kigeli who was approached - as it happens
in every dinasty - by persons with the purpose to make him grant
nobiliary titles.
Because this thing appeared strange to Lindgren he turned himself to
me as expert on the matter to help the King who is a person who
deserves.
Because some grants were still made, it was necessary to correct and
to justify these grants.
To avoid damage to the King Kigeli.
And I advised about which right solution was possible in a still
existing situation (this is the reason of this solution because it was
conditioned by the existing reality.
If this reality was not existing clearly my advice should have been
different and I had suggested to not create such kind of honours).
I think that who follows this newsgroup should bring only
clarification to the explanation of the facts, demonstrating a deep
competence on the argument and avoiding to show an attitude near to
racism, prejudice, not willing to know or see what is out of Europe,
and what can happen out of European history.
Everybody knows that King Kigeli (as all the kings or chiefs of former
Royal/Imperial Houses) is not an expert about nobility or chivalric
matter.
It is necessary to consider - as I made because so it was told me -
that through these grants the King Kigeli was helping his people,
without obtaining a personal benefit.
But I want to remember that by my point of view I dont give value to
these as other nobiliary titles or "chivalric" orders that today live
only in the dreams of the persons who receive them.
When a thing is private or of courtesy can remain only so!
And clearly this is the case (as it is the case of all in Europe when
the Sovereign is not on the throne).

I met the King Kigeli in Casale Monferrato on March 2006 because he
participated in the Ballo dei Cento e non più Cento, that was an
occasion to talk with me about the argument.
According to the discussion with me and following my suggestion the
King decided to grant only honors that are not nobiliary titles as in
the European meaning.
I find odd that in this newsgroup it is continued to talk about
nobiliary titles in XXI Century, thinking in the same manner than in
the past without finding new solutions.
In this case if the honours granted by the King Kigeli can become
valid in Africa in XXI Century, however they cannot be comparable to
the ancient European nobiliary titles.
To make an example about the change of the meaning of a word, "Gotha"
in the past was only the book "Almanach de Gotha", today it indicates
the top in different kind of categories that have nothing to do with
the ancient book.
But still today there are many persons (and many on this newsgroup)
who love the word "count", "marquis", "duke"... a term today void of
its past meaning.
In few words according to my advice the King of Rwanda decided to
grant honours that can be comparable to the ancient European nobiliary
titles... but in the sense it is given them after Napoleon I, that is
only honours, although named nobiliary titles.
The titles given after Napoleon - although they are nobiliary titles -
have nothing to do with the concept of the past nobiliary titles (at
least in great part of the Europe).

It is really a bit ridiculous that the King of Rwanda in exile grants
honors which bring the name of ancient European nobiliary titles but
as Macchiavelli affirmed "Il fine giustifica i mezzi" (the end
justifies the means)
In fact the King to help His people will do what He considers fit, and
to grant these honors is useful to help His people.
What is wrong in this? The honesty of the King stays in the promise
that - if He returns to the throne - He will make valid these honors.
And as I am a bank manager I should call these grants "cambiali in
bianco" (blank drafts), this is an unusual thing but which is made.

About these grants similar to blank drafts in a point of discussion
with Lindgren (New secretary general for King Kigeli) Lucky recalls to
this modern example: "outside of marriage being termed 'marriage
equivalent'?

I should reply so: yes, today in many Countries it is so, and the
Monarchies teach on this argument: Spain, Holland, Sweden etc.

I was particularly touched by the fact that this newsgroup is followed
by many Americans.
To them I should remember this: dont you know that there are in USA
honors which have a name recalling antique European nobiliary titles?
But surely nobody thinks they are nobiliary titles!
I mean ie Count of Pulaski, Duque of Albuquerque, Duke of Hazard, Duke
of Paduc...
They are only honors coming from an effective Authority, who decided
to grant these honors, without being a monarch and in a Country where
does not exist a nobiliary tradition, or the tradition to grant
nobiliary titles. And these honours have a name of nobiliary European
titles!!!
Do you think there is something wrong or illegal in this?

As I said before the problem is that a lot of people (as some of you
too) love the word "count" "marquis" "duke" ecc... that all think they
are "nobiliary tiles" while an expert begins to ask himself: "are
always they nobiliary titles"?
As you have seen with my example today the words "count" - "marquis" -
"duke" are not always nobiliary titles and the USA Authorities do not
consider them nobiliary titles, but only honors.

I repeat, I am pragmatic and for me every title coming from a former
Sovereign (or his descendants) has no legal public official value (I
include not only Africa, but particularly old Europe).
No official State Authority recognizes such titles (courtesy nobiliary
titles), although there are today former European Royal Houses who
continue to grant nobiliary titles (this is a recent fact of which I
do not want to talk for the moment).
The Rwanda Honors are honors that now have a moral value inside the
Dynasty and among those who are supporters of King Kigeli.
If Kigeli returns to the throne the honors will have effective value
in a form that can be accepted by Kingdom of Rwanda.
But I repeat these honours are a manner to help the cause of the King
because the possibility He returns to the throne is far.
There are historical examples of the same case: in Italy King Umberto
II granted nobiliary titles to help the Monarchist Party, and the King
Umberto II (Costitutional King) did not have the power (according to
the law) to grant them.
But a lot of people consider them valid... although today less and
less, including SMOM.
But also if they are only sheets of paper, they have a sure moral
value.
Before Umberto II there was King Francesco II who promised that the
nobiliary titles granted by him should have become valid at his return
on the throne.

The honor (not the nobiliary title which did not exist in Rwanda) is
immediately valid in private (as every honour or nobiliary title or
chivalric order given by a private authority, a former Royal/Imperial
House). But it is not possible to continue to think about the
classical concept of nobility as in the past, in a world in continue
evolution.
Also the King of Spain has now changed the law about succession to
nobiliary titles, causing an injustice because he violated the
traditional law of succession of the nobiliary titles established by
the diplomas of concession. But new times justify new solutions...
And if you think about this new fact, now there will be in the most
part of the cases 2 persons who scholarly have the right to be
considered titular of the same nobiliary title:
1) the person who obtained the succession by the King;
2) the person who has the historical right according to the diploma of
concession.
For a scholar both of them is right! Is it not so?
So the King of Rwanda has found new solutions. Nothing wrong.

It was also said by Lucky "Leaving aside the allegations of Bokassa's
cannibalism and other excesses - we are still left with the tragic
caricature of Bokassa's Central African Empire - the incredible
poverty of the country and the brutish ostentation of the Emperor's
enthronement and brief reign. I am very surprised that anyone would
advise the King to do anything to emulate any aspect of the Central
African Empire".

I believe that Lindgren did not affirm that the King was advised to
emulate the bad history of Central African Empire. This example was
quoted only as historical precedent and nothing more.
About "ritual" cannibalism I must add it was not proved and Bokassa
was not condemned by this, and recently the historian Ariel Toaff of
Jerusalem has written a book recalling himself to the age of ritual
murderers of little Christian children as proved fact in the history
of Ebraism.
There are bad moments in the history of every people.

Do you need another example about new nobiliary titles invented by
Kings who did not have the tradition of granting European nobiliary
titles?
Here it is: Haiti Kingdom, where princes, dukes, marquises, counts,
barons, knights were created ex-novo.

To talk about the last King of Montenegro I remember that he granted
nobiliary titles (European tradition) while he did not have the power
because the laws of his Country did not contemplate this, and the
European titles did not exist in Montenegro.
The same thing for the last king of Yugoslavia.
But the persons who obtained this kind of inexistent "nobiliary
titles" were proud of them because of the moral great value others
attributed to them as it happens for all the courtesy grants coming
from former Royal/Imperial Houses.
Clearly I remember in scientific ambient all those grants do not have
the value the beneficiaries give them.

This as I explained was the situation of these grants until Carl
Lindgren maintained his charge near the King.
But now - because I did not receive further confirmations about the
policy followed by his successor (I wrote to receive explanations
without result) I dont know what the King (or better who for him) will
decide to do.

Clearly out of a similar interpretation given to these grants
(honours) by a scholar it is very difficult to discover a true
scientific seriousness.

I received some e.mails asking my personal opinion about the "Orders
of Rwanda".
I considers them as awards (political orders) created ex-novo in the
exile of the King (because although I asked documents, I did not see
nothing so their previous existence cannot scientifically be proved at
least for me).
Surely the King Kigeli - as other former Sovereigns or Chiefs of House
made - is right in creating new awards (orders), that have value
(private) only among his supporters and among those who want to give
them value, and are different from those created in Europe.

I was exaustive and I dont have nothing to add.

Pier Felice degli Uberti

[Joseph McMillan]

On Feb 17, 10:30 am, "International Commission for Orders of Chivalry"

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
In fact the King to help His people will do what He considers fit, and
to grant these honors is useful to help His people.
What is wrong in this? The honesty of the King stays in the promise
that - if He returns to the throne - He will make valid these honors.
And as I am a bank manager I should call these grants "cambiali in
bianco" (blank drafts), this is an unusual thing but which is made.

So these honors are correctly understood as the royal equivalent of
checks written on insufficient funds?

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
To them I should remember this: dont you know that there are in USA
honors which have a name recalling antique European nobiliary titles?
But surely nobody thinks they are nobiliary titles!
I mean ie Count of Pulaski, Duque of Albuquerque, Duke of Hazard, Duke
of Paduc...

Or should we rather understand them as comparable to such facetious
titles as the "Dukes of Paducah" conferred by a small city in
Kentucky? Somehow I seriously doubt that anyone named a "Duke of
Paducah" has ever used that as a basis to style himself "His Grace" or
to start using a coat of arms with mantle and coronet. But if its all
right with His Erstwhile Majesty for his honors to be considered as
equivalent to minor municipal awards, it's certainly all right with
me.

(The Albuquerque Dukes, not to be confused with the Spanish Duques de
Alburquerque, are a minor league baseball team. The "Dukes of
Hazzard" was a television comedy about a family by the name of Duke
living in a fictional Georgia county called Hazzard. Neither, as far
as I've ever heard, is an honor of any kind conferred by anyone.)

What's next? Is someone going to try and justify Kigeli's granting of
"honors" as being the equivalent to the nicknames of jazz musicians
like Duke Ellington and Count Basie?

Joseph McMillan

[professor]

Post by Joseph McMillan
So these honors are correctly understood as the royal equivalent of
checks written on insufficient funds?

I would have not thought of such things but then again I do not write
bad checks (smile). You have let people see who you really are?

Post by Joseph McMillan
(The Albuquerque Dukes, not to be confused with the Spanish Duques de
Alburquerque, are a minor league baseball team. The "Dukes of
Hazzard" was a television comedy about a family by the name of Duke
living in a fictional Georgia county called Hazzard. Neither, as far
as I've ever heard, is an honor of any kind conferred by anyone.)

It is sad that in chivalry and heraldry you have learned nothing. But
then again you work for the government at CIA as janitor? Or is it
agent?

Post by Joseph McMillan
What's next? Is someone going to try and justify Kigeli's granting of
"honors" as being the equivalent to the nicknames of jazz musicians
like Duke Ellington and Count Basie?

I see you use only black references? I see this often on
rec.heraldry?

I am also really shocked you did not say something about me. I am
wantabee, handicapped, Swed, former Republican, teach at small
accredited university and have Russian Academy associations.

There is little room on rec.heraldry for ignorance, I can do that
enough in real life. Perhaps you too should start being only
questionable (behaviour) in real life (smile). I say my comments in
real life or in e-mails! To me, because of some foolish people and
their crude jokes there is little room for serious discussion on
rec.heraldry. This is the reason there are so few members and
intelligent people remain silent. Here as in cyberspace it is only the
remarks of silly people (smile). Perhaps indeed it is time to create
discussion group with intelligent behaviour. Of course the people who
wish only Bob Hope and other comic folks can stay here.

Carl

Post by Joseph McMillan
Joseph McMillan

[Franz]

Post by Joseph McMillan
On Feb 17, 10:30 am, "International Commission for Orders of Chivalry"

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
In fact the King to help His people will do what He considers fit, and
to grant these honors is useful to help His people.
What is wrong in this? The honesty of the King stays in the promise
that - if He returns to the throne - He will make valid these honors.
And as I am a bank manager I should call these grants "cambiali in
bianco" (blank drafts), this is an unusual thing but which is made.

So these honors are correctly understood as the royal equivalent of
checks written on insufficient funds?

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
To them I should remember this: dont you know that there are in USA
honors which have a name recalling antique European nobiliary titles?
But surely nobody thinks they are nobiliary titles!
I mean ie Count of Pulaski, Duque of Albuquerque, Duke of Hazard, Duke
of Paduc...

Or should we rather understand them as comparable to such facetious
titles as the "Dukes of Paducah" conferred by a small city in
Kentucky? Somehow I seriously doubt that anyone named a "Duke of
Paducah" has ever used that as a basis to style himself "His Grace" or
to start using a coat of arms with mantle and coronet. But if its all
right with His Erstwhile Majesty for his honors to be considered as
equivalent to minor municipal awards, it's certainly all right with
me.
(The Albuquerque Dukes, not to be confused with the Spanish Duques de
Alburquerque, are a minor league baseball team. The "Dukes of
Hazzard" was a television comedy about a family by the name of Duke
living in a fictional Georgia county called Hazzard. Neither, as far
as I've ever heard, is an honor of any kind conferred by anyone.)
What's next? Is someone going to try and justify Kigeli's granting of
"honors" as being the equivalent to the nicknames of jazz musicians
like Duke Ellington and Count Basie?
Joseph McMillan

I believe the town of Hazard does, now really confer the title "Duke
of Hazard" (spelt differently than the TV show).

[professor]

Post by Franz

Post by Joseph McMillan
On Feb 17, 10:30 am, "International Commission for Orders of Chivalry"

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
In fact the King to help His people will do what He considers fit, and
to grant these honors is useful to help His people.
What is wrong in this? The honesty of the King stays in the promise
that - if He returns to the throne - He will make valid these honors.
And as I am a bank manager I should call these grants "cambiali in
bianco" (blank drafts), this is an unusual thing but which is made.

So these honors are correctly understood as the royal equivalent of
checks written on insufficient funds?

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
To them I should remember this: dont you know that there are in USA
honors which have a name recalling antique European nobiliary titles?
But surely nobody thinks they are nobiliary titles!
I mean ie Count of Pulaski, Duque of Albuquerque, Duke of Hazard, Duke
of Paduc...

Or should we rather understand them as comparable to such facetious
titles as the "Dukes of Paducah" conferred by a small city in
Kentucky? Somehow I seriously doubt that anyone named a "Duke of
Paducah" has ever used that as a basis to style himself "His Grace" or
to start using a coat of arms with mantle and coronet. But if its all
right with His Erstwhile Majesty for his honors to be considered as
equivalent to minor municipal awards, it's certainly all right with
me.
(The Albuquerque Dukes, not to be confused with the Spanish Duques de
Alburquerque, are a minor league baseball team. The "Dukes of
Hazzard" was a television comedy about a family by the name of Duke
living in a fictional Georgia county called Hazzard. Neither, as far
as I've ever heard, is an honor of any kind conferred by anyone.)
What's next? Is someone going to try and justify Kigeli's granting of
"honors" as being the equivalent to the nicknames of jazz musicians
like Duke Ellington and Count Basie?
Joseph McMillan

I believe the town of Hazard does, now really confer the title "Duke
of Hazard" (spelt differently than the TV show).- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

They do seem to have more fun than we do?

Carl--

[Joseph McMillan]

Post by Franz

Post by Joseph McMillan
On Feb 17, 10:30 am, "International Commission for Orders of Chivalry"

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
In fact the King to help His people will do what He considers fit, and
to grant these honors is useful to help His people.
What is wrong in this? The honesty of the King stays in the promise
that - if He returns to the throne - He will make valid these honors.
And as I am a bank manager I should call these grants "cambiali in
bianco" (blank drafts), this is an unusual thing but which is made.

So these honors are correctly understood as the royal equivalent of
checks written on insufficient funds?

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
To them I should remember this: dont you know that there are in USA
honors which have a name recalling antique European nobiliary titles?
But surely nobody thinks they are nobiliary titles!
I mean ie Count of Pulaski, Duque of Albuquerque, Duke of Hazard, Duke
of Paduc...

Or should we rather understand them as comparable to such facetious
titles as the "Dukes of Paducah" conferred by a small city in
Kentucky? Somehow I seriously doubt that anyone named a "Duke of
Paducah" has ever used that as a basis to style himself "His Grace" or
to start using a coat of arms with mantle and coronet. But if its all
right with His Erstwhile Majesty for his honors to be considered as
equivalent to minor municipal awards, it's certainly all right with
me.
(The Albuquerque Dukes, not to be confused with the Spanish Duques de
Alburquerque, are a minor league baseball team. The "Dukes of
Hazzard" was a television comedy about a family by the name of Duke
living in a fictional Georgia county called Hazzard. Neither, as far
as I've ever heard, is an honor of any kind conferred by anyone.)
What's next? Is someone going to try and justify Kigeli's granting of
"honors" as being the equivalent to the nicknames of jazz musicians
like Duke Ellington and Count Basie?
Joseph McMillan

I believe the town of Hazard does, now really confer the title "Duke
of Hazard" (spelt differently than the TV show).

If so, I'd be interested in the evidence. The only reference to "Duke
of Hazard" that I could find other than the TV show was the title of a
collection of quotations from Prince Philip.

In any case, at best this once again puts Rwandan honors-in-waiting on
a plain with joking awards of the rural and small-town American
South. As I know the typical Southern sense of humor pretty well, I
would wager that none of the counties or towns that grant such awards
takes them one percent as seriously as Kigeli's hangers-on take his.

Joseph McMillan

[professor]

After your remarks, I fear I may be leaving the South as I find myself
in agreement. However, many still consider the Kentucky Col. to be
equal to or superior to the Order of Cincinnati and a 33 degree Mason
is far superior to some silly Golden Fleece or Garter.

Carl--

Post by Joseph McMillan

Post by Franz
I believe the town of Hazard does, now really confer the title "Duke
of Hazard" (spelt differently than the TV show).

If so, I'd be interested in the evidence. The only reference to "Duke
of Hazard" that I could find other than the TV show was the title of a
collection of quotations from Prince Philip.
In any case, at best this once again puts Rwandan honors-in-waiting on
a plain with joking awards of the rural and small-town American
South. As I know the typical Southern sense of humor pretty well, I
would wager that none of the counties or towns that grant such awards
takes them one percent as seriously as Kigeli's hangers-on take his.
Joseph McMillan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[professor]

I have been informed that "Joseph McMillan is a senior research fellow
at the Institute for National Strategic Studies, the Defense
Department's think tank - he's not a "CIA janitor" but in fact for a
number of years headed up the Near East, Iraq and South Asia desks at
the Defense Department (as a deputy assistant secretary of defense) -
quite lofty executive service."
-
This is indeed a great honour. I am sorry for the comment I made. I
did not know that my tax dollars was paying for your job.

Sincerely,

Carl (tax payer and USA citizen)

Post by Joseph McMillan
On Feb 17, 10:30 am, "International Commission for Orders of Chivalry"

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
In fact the King to help His people will do what He considers fit, and
to grant these honors is useful to help His people.
What is wrong in this? The honesty of the King stays in the promise
that - if He returns to the throne - He will make valid these honors.
And as I am a bank manager I should call these grants "cambiali in
bianco" (blank drafts), this is an unusual thing but which is made.

So these honors are correctly understood as the royal equivalent of
checks written on insufficient funds?

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
To them I should remember this: dont you know that there are in USA
honors which have a name recalling antique European nobiliary titles?
But surely nobody thinks they are nobiliary titles!
I mean ie Count of Pulaski, Duque of Albuquerque, Duke of Hazard, Duke
of Paduc...

Or should we rather understand them as comparable to such facetious
titles as the "Dukes of Paducah" conferred by a small city in
Kentucky? Somehow I seriously doubt that anyone named a "Duke of
Paducah" has ever used that as a basis to style himself "His Grace" or
to start using a coat of arms with mantle and coronet. But if its all
right with His Erstwhile Majesty for his honors to be considered as
equivalent to minor municipal awards, it's certainly all right with
me.
(The Albuquerque Dukes, not to be confused with the Spanish Duques de
Alburquerque, are a minor league baseball team. The "Dukes of
Hazzard" was a television comedy about a family by the name of Duke
living in a fictional Georgia county called Hazzard. Neither, as far
as I've ever heard, is an honor of any kind conferred by anyone.)
What's next? Is someone going to try and justify Kigeli's granting of
"honors" as being the equivalent to the nicknames of jazz musicians
like Duke Ellington and Count Basie?
Joseph McMillan

[Joseph McMillan]

Post by professor
I have been informed that "Joseph McMillan is a senior research fellow
at the Institute for National Strategic Studies, the Defense
Department's think tank - he's not a "CIA janitor" but in fact for a
number of years headed up the Near East, Iraq and South Asia desks at
the Defense Department (as a deputy assistant secretary of defense) -
quite lofty executive service."
-
This is indeed a great honour. I am sorry for the comment I made. I
did not know that my tax dollars was paying for your job.

You have once again confused credentials with quality of
argumentation. What I do for a living is neither here nor there with
regard to this particular subject. Nor does the discussion have
anything to do with whether you are "I am wantabee, handicapped, Swed,
former Republican, teach at small
accredited university and have Russian Academy associations."

Pier Felice degli Uberti is the one who seemed to have compared
Kigeli's honors with bank overdrafts. And he's also the one who
seemed to say that Kigeli's use of noble titles in his honors was no
more objectionable than the list of trivial, facetious uses of titles
like duke and count that he provided. I simply found it incredible
that someone claiming to be the de jure king of a sovereign state
would want his actions to be understood the way that you and Signor
degli Uberti explained them.

As for "black references," would you have been happier if I had
observed that Degli Uberti's comparison of Rwandan "marquessates" with
the civic honors conferred by small towns and counties in the American
South made me wonder if Kigeli saw himself as a king in the same sense
that Elvis Presley was "the King?" Or would that have taken us off on
excursions into Elvis's possible Melungeon ancestry and the legitimacy
of Tom Parker's Kentucky colonelcy?

Joseph McMillan

[I.A.G.I.]

Post by Joseph McMillan

Post by professor
I have been informed that "Joseph McMillan is a senior research fellow
at the Institute for National Strategic Studies, the Defense
Department's think tank - he's not a "CIA janitor" but in fact for a
number of years headed up the Near East, Iraq and South Asia desks at
the Defense Department (as a deputy assistant secretary of defense) -
quite lofty executive service."
-
This is indeed a great honour. I am sorry for the comment I made. I
did not know that my tax dollars was paying for your job.

You have once again confused credentials with quality of
argumentation. What I do for a living is neither here nor there with
regard to this particular subject. Nor does the discussion have
anything to do with whether you are "I am wantabee, handicapped, Swed,
former Republican, teach at small
accredited university and have Russian Academy associations."
Pier Felice degli Uberti is the one who seemed to have compared
Kigeli's honors with bank overdrafts.

I was not willing to intervene but you here quote my name showing you did
not understand what I said.
What you mean with the term "bank overdraft" is offensive and does not
correspond to what I wrote.
Precedently you wrote this: "So these honors are correctly understood as the
royal equivalent of
checks written on insufficient funds?"

NO, I wrote "cambiali in bianco" that my dictionary translates as "blank
drafts", that is a promise of payment that in Italian language we call
"cambiale".
"in bianco" means that the date is not written, and It will be paid at the
right moment.
A "cambiale" is made when a person knows that, although in that moment he
does not have funds, he will have (or he hopes he will have in future).
On the contrary "check" is a promise of immediate payment that needs the
presence immediate of funds.

And he's also the one who

Post by Joseph McMillan
seemed to say that Kigeli's use of noble titles in his honors was no
more objectionable than the list of trivial, facetious uses of titles
like duke and count that he provided.

I never said this. I respect as I wrote the former King of Rwanda, I only
wanted to explain that there are honours (that you personally consider
modest) bringing name of nobiliary titles but that are only "honours" and
not nobiliary titles.

I simply found it incredible

Post by Joseph McMillan
that someone claiming to be the de jure king of a sovereign state
would want his actions to be understood the way that you and Signor
degli Uberti explained them.

I understand you did not understant my affirmations, please read them
again - without prejudices or racism - because it should be useless I repeat
again things I explained with greatest simplicity, to let understand also
persons who are not experts about awarding systems.
Because here you are only demonstrating to be far from the correct
interpretation of the whole argument.

You have not to condemn the King Kigeli for his grants but the wrong use the
persons want to do of these grants, showing what they are not.
And I here repeat, the same happens for different things like the
certifications of coat of arms or the manorial titles.
All the world is the same...

Post by Joseph McMillan
As for "black references," would you have been happier if I had
observed that Degli Uberti's comparison of Rwandan "marquessates" with
the civic honors conferred by small towns and counties in the American
South made me wonder if Kigeli saw himself as a king in the same sense
that Elvis Presley was "the King?" Or would that have taken us off on
excursions into Elvis's possible Melungeon ancestry and the legitimacy
of Tom Parker's Kentucky colonelcy?

Also here as I said above you misunderstood my affirmations throwing
something ridiculous on the King Kigeli while it is ridiculous only a wrong
megalomanic use made by other persons who dont want to consider these
private honors for what they are (although full of moral value and usefull
to benefit the people of Rwanda).

Why do you hate King Kigeli?

Best regards

Pier Felice degli Uberti

Post by Joseph McMillan
Joseph McMillan

[Joseph McMillan]

Post by I.A.G.I.

Post by Joseph McMillan
Pier Felice degli Uberti is the one who seemed to have compared
Kigeli's honors with bank overdrafts.

I was not willing to intervene but you here quote my name showing you did
not understand what I said.
What you mean with the term "bank overdraft" is offensive and does not
correspond to what I wrote.
Precedently you wrote this: "So these honors are correctly understood as the
royal equivalent of
checks written on insufficient funds?"
NO, I wrote "cambiali in bianco" that my dictionary translates as "blank
drafts", that is a promise of payment that in Italian language we call
"cambiale".
"in bianco" means that the date is not written, and It will be paid at the
right moment.
A "cambiale" is made when a person knows that, although in that moment he
does not have funds, he will have (or he hopes he will have in future).
On the contrary "check" is a promise of immediate payment that needs the
presence immediate of funds.

Then you are correct; I did not understand the Italian banking
expression that you used. Is it perhaps the equivalent of a
promissory note? In English, writing a check (or draft) without a
date on it would seem to incur a high risk that the recipient would
write in the date and attempt to cash it before the funds are on
deposit, which is why I interpreted it as I did. I am trying to
understand the concept by which you are justifying the Rwandan honors
that seem to be titles as not really being titles. I'm not the only
person who has expressed confusion about this matter.

Post by I.A.G.I.
I simply found it incredible> that someone claiming to be the de jure king of a sovereign state

Post by Joseph McMillan
would want his actions to be understood the way that you and Signor
degli Uberti explained them.

I understand you did not understant my affirmations, please read them
again - without prejudices or racism - because it should be useless I repeat
again things I explained with greatest simplicity, to let understand also
persons who are not experts about awarding systems.
Because here you are only demonstrating to be far from the correct
interpretation of the whole argument.

I resent the implication that there was any racism or prejudice
involved in my inabilty to understand your "simple" explanation.

Post by I.A.G.I.
You have not to condemn the King Kigeli for his grants but the wrong use the
persons want to do of these grants, showing what they are not.
And I here repeat, the same happens for different things like the
certifications of coat of arms or the manorial titles.
All the world is the same...

Well, no, all the world is not the same. And I didn't condemn King
Kigeli for his grants. I merely had the temerity to question the
convoluted justification you offered for why the grants are actually
legitimate despite other people's concerns about them.

Post by I.A.G.I.
Also here as I said above you misunderstood my affirmations throwing
something ridiculous on the King Kigeli while it is ridiculous only a wrong
megalomanic use made by other persons who dont want to consider these
private honors for what they are (although full of moral value and usefull
to benefit the people of Rwanda).

Let's cut through the obfuscation: what benefit do these have for the
people of Rwanda? The moral gratification of knowing that their
former king is well respected? Or is there some tangible benefit that
the proceeds of these grants generate for the Rwandan people? This is
a straightforward question that should be capable of a straightforward
answer.

Post by I.A.G.I.
Why do you hate King Kigeli?

Why would you suppose I hate King Kigeli? I never met the man. I'm
not the one who suggested he embarrass himself by granting titles that
his supporters and advisors now seem to admit he shouldn't have been
granting, nor am I the one who came up with such a convoluted theory
to explain that the titles really aren't titles but merely the
equivalent of undated checks to be paid when and if the king ever has
the funds to cover them.

Joseph McMillan

[I.A.G.I.]

Post by Joseph McMillan

Post by I.A.G.I.

Post by Joseph McMillan
Pier Felice degli Uberti is the one who seemed to have compared
Kigeli's honors with bank overdrafts.

I was not willing to intervene but you here quote my name showing you did
not understand what I said.
What you mean with the term "bank overdraft" is offensive and does not
correspond to what I wrote.
Precedently you wrote this: "So these honors are correctly understood as the
royal equivalent of
checks written on insufficient funds?"
NO, I wrote "cambiali in bianco" that my dictionary translates as "blank
drafts", that is a promise of payment that in Italian language we call
"cambiale".
"in bianco" means that the date is not written, and It will be paid at the
right moment.
A "cambiale" is made when a person knows that, although in that moment he
does not have funds, he will have (or he hopes he will have in future).
On the contrary "check" is a promise of immediate payment that needs the
presence immediate of funds.

Then you are correct; I did not understand the Italian banking
expression that you used. Is it perhaps the equivalent of a
promissory note?

Yes it is a "promissory note" so, I beg pardon for my English

In English, writing a check (or draft) without a

Post by Joseph McMillan
date on it would seem to incur a high risk that the recipient would
write in the date and attempt to cash it before the funds are on
deposit, which is why I interpreted it as I did. I am trying to
understand the concept by which you are justifying the Rwandan honors
that seem to be titles as not really being titles. I'm not the only
person who has expressed confusion about this matter.

Yes, you are right because there were persons who without good faith,
misunderstood the reality of those "honours".
The fault is not of you.

Post by Joseph McMillan

Post by I.A.G.I.
I simply found it incredible> that someone claiming to be the de jure
king of a sovereign state

Post by Joseph McMillan
would want his actions to be understood the way that you and Signor
degli Uberti explained them.

I understand you did not understant my affirmations, please read them
again - without prejudices or racism - because it should be useless I repeat
again things I explained with greatest simplicity, to let understand also
persons who are not experts about awarding systems.
Because here you are only demonstrating to be far from the correct
interpretation of the whole argument.

I resent the implication that there was any racism or prejudice
involved in my inabilty to understand your "simple" explanation.

I beg pardon if I misunderstood your tone, but my English is poor

Post by Joseph McMillan

Post by I.A.G.I.
You have not to condemn the King Kigeli for his grants but the wrong use the
persons want to do of these grants, showing what they are not.
And I here repeat, the same happens for different things like the
certifications of coat of arms or the manorial titles.
All the world is the same...

Well, no, all the world is not the same.

Indeed I have found similar behaviours in all the world were the illness of
nobiliary titles exists.

And I didn't condemn King

Post by Joseph McMillan
Kigeli for his grants. I merely had the temerity to question the
convoluted justification you offered for why the grants are actually
legitimate despite other people's concerns about them.

I discuss only on what I know with documents (and I well know the suggestion
given by me to the King when he was in Casale Monferrato).
I have numerous publications about the study of nobiliary right.
I also studied at University (State University) nobiliary right and I mean
also that nobiliary right that does not belong to the history of my own
Country, Italy.
My suggestion to the King was based on historical precedents and on my
personal experience of about 30 years dedicated to this matter.
And I repeat my intervention began on a pre-existing situation.
Clearly - I repeat - without these backgrounds, my suggestion should have
been different.
On the contrary you make comments without supporting them with documents or
historical examples.

Post by Joseph McMillan

Post by I.A.G.I.
Also here as I said above you misunderstood my affirmations throwing
something ridiculous on the King Kigeli while it is ridiculous only a wrong
megalomanic use made by other persons who dont want to consider these
private honors for what they are (although full of moral value and usefull
to benefit the people of Rwanda).

Let's cut through the obfuscation: what benefit do these have for the
people of Rwanda? The moral gratification of knowing that their
former king is well respected? Or is there some tangible benefit that
the proceeds of these grants generate for the Rwandan people? This is
a straightforward question that should be capable of a straightforward
answer.

According to what the entourage of the King told me these grants and these
Rwandan Orders are only a manner to help economically the People of Rwanda.
Surely if I did not have received this assurance I did not have issued no
kind of suggestion.
My mental structure about these matters cannot accept any kind of personal
business connected to the sale of orders or honours.
Who works in the organizations I manage - which are many (you can see:
www.iagi.info and www.iagiforum.info )works always free, beginning from me.
To gain money there are many other manners than these.

Post by Joseph McMillan

Post by I.A.G.I.
Why do you hate King Kigeli?

Why would you suppose I hate King Kigeli? I never met the man. I'm
not the one who suggested he embarrass himself by granting titles that
his supporters and advisors now seem to admit he shouldn't have been
granting, nor am I the one who came up with such a convoluted theory
to explain that the titles really aren't titles but merely the
equivalent of undated checks to be paid when and if the king ever has
the funds to cover them.

As I wrote I am not a person who worked or works for the King, but only a
scholar who issued his advice in a pre-existing situation.
I see you have not understand completely my first explanation where you can
find all that is enough if one honestly wants to understand the reality of
the argument "Rwandan Honors".
What here you quote is not my complete explanation, but only an example I
made to let persons, particularly not expert, understand in simple manner an
explication (on historical and scientifc bases) that should need a long
article in a review for specialists of the argument.

Now that I have exchanged some ideas with you and you know better who I am,
may I know better which is your field of study (articles, books, conference)
to let me understand your general thought about these matters?

Best regards
Pier Felice degli Uberti

Post by Joseph McMillan
Joseph McMillan

[Joseph McMillan]

Post by I.A.G.I.
I discuss only on what I know with documents (and I well know the suggestion
given by me to the King when he was in Casale Monferrato).
I have numerous publications about the study of nobiliary right.
I also studied at University (State University) nobiliary right and I mean
also that nobiliary right that does not belong to the history of my own
Country, Italy.

I do not doubt Dr. Degli Uberti's credentials. But I'm sure he would
agree that even the most eminent scholar's opinions, judgments, and
conclusions are subject to scrutiny and counter-argument. That, it
seems to me, is the essence of scholarship.

Post by I.A.G.I.
On the contrary you make comments without supporting them with documents or
historical examples.

I wasn't trying to prove that Kigeli's actions or Dr. Degli Uberti's
explanations of them were ahistorical; I was questioning the validity
of the modern analogies being used to explain the nature of Kigeli's
actions. How would citing an irrelevant historical precedent have
helped to shed light on this aspect of the issue?

Post by I.A.G.I.
According to what the entourage of the King told me these grants and these
Rwandan Orders are only a manner to help economically the People of Rwanda.
Surely if I did not have received this assurance I did not have issued no
kind of suggestion.
My mental structure about these matters cannot accept any kind of personal
business connected to the sale of orders or honours.

I certainly did not mean to imply that Dr. Degli Uberti profited in
any way from the issuance of Rwandan honors. I do not doubt his
motives in the least, nor do I doubt that he was told by the former
king's entourage that the grants are intended to benefit the people of
Rwanda economically. It's also fine with me if the former king of
Rwanda can take advantage of the vanity of certain rich people to
raise money for the benefit of poor people. If that's the
justification, however, it seems reasonable to wonder what share of
the proceeds is actually going to the cause for which the money is
supposedly being raised. That's not intended as a question for Dr.
Degli Uberti, of course.

Post by I.A.G.I.
What here you quote is not my complete explanation, but only an example I
made to let persons, particularly not expert, understand in simple manner an
explication (on historical and scientifc bases) that should need a long
article in a review for specialists of the argument.

Actually, I have a higher estimate of the general level of intellect
of the participants in this group. I'm sure the concepts involved in
this matter are not so complex that we are unable to understand them,
even if some technical concepts are required, provided that those
concepts are set forth clearly and logically.

Post by I.A.G.I.
Now that I have exchanged some ideas with you and you know better who I am,
may I know better which is your field of study (articles, books, conference)
to let me understand your general thought about these matters?

As I said earlier in another reponse in this thread, I do not accept
that any participant's academic or professional specialty is relevant
to discussions in this newsgroup, unless he chooses to cite his
credentials as giving his views particular cogency or authority. I
have no real objection to providing a list of publications and
presentations--they're easy enough to find with a Google search
anyway--but since they deal primarily with terrorism, Middle Eastern
affairs, and national security strategy, I fail to see how doing so
would either add to or detract from any credibility I may have on the
matters with which this group is concerned.

Joseph McMillan

[I.A.G.I.]

At this step of the discussion as I said I will avoid to intervene again on
the argument but I wish only make an invitation.
Because I dont like discussions for few persons when do not bring nothing
useful to a better knowledge of an argument, because they avoid to quote
historical precedents of support to the affirmation - that in this case
remain personal opinion supported by nothing and useless also in future for
persons who want deepen this argument - I offer this possibility to those
who have something to say against the idea of the King Kigeli to grant
"honours" using name of "European nobiliary titles" (but I repeat they are
not nobiliary titles but only honours):
to prepare a true study - not only words in the wind - supported by the due
documentation, historical precedents, footnotes which quote precedent
studies on the matter, to be published in one of my reviews (Nobiltà
http://www.iagi.info/rivistaNobilta/ or Il Mondo del Cavaliere
http://www.icocregister.org/aioc/programma.htm ), or better to participate
in the next III International Colloquium of Genealogy organized by Institut
International d'Etudes Généalogiques et d'Histoire des Families in San
Marino from 28 September to 1° October 2007.
If the person cannot participate for the distance I will publish the
intervention among the proceedings of the Colloquium, so it will be
conserved in many of the Libraries and Archives in the world which receive
also my reviews.
But it must be a true study not only personal opinions without scientific
support.
By my side I will prepare a study on the argument supported by historical
precedents of dynasties who granted nobiliary tiles from the exile in
Countries where the concept of nobility (as we mean in Europe) did not
exist, that should be an a-historical precedent of common usage between
historical dynasties. I will begin from the Oriental Empire, so I will
utilize this study also for the next International Colloquium of Genealogy
in Romania on May 2007.
What a strange thing for me (who consider valid and undisputable from a
legal point of view only a grant of honours or nobiliary titles coming from
a Sovereing on the throne or a State sovereign) to take on the justification
of a former King who used for his honours also the name of European
nobiliary titles!
Best regards
Pier Felice degli Uberti

Post by Joseph McMillan

Post by I.A.G.I.
I discuss only on what I know with documents (and I well know the suggestion
given by me to the King when he was in Casale Monferrato).
I have numerous publications about the study of nobiliary right.
I also studied at University (State University) nobiliary right and I mean
also that nobiliary right that does not belong to the history of my own
Country, Italy.

I do not doubt Dr. Degli Uberti's credentials. But I'm sure he would
agree that even the most eminent scholar's opinions, judgments, and
conclusions are subject to scrutiny and counter-argument. That, it
seems to me, is the essence of scholarship.

Post by I.A.G.I.
On the contrary you make comments without supporting them with documents or
historical examples.

I wasn't trying to prove that Kigeli's actions or Dr. Degli Uberti's
explanations of them were ahistorical; I was questioning the validity
of the modern analogies being used to explain the nature of Kigeli's
actions. How would citing an irrelevant historical precedent have
helped to shed light on this aspect of the issue?

Post by I.A.G.I.
According to what the entourage of the King told me these grants and these
Rwandan Orders are only a manner to help economically the People of Rwanda.
Surely if I did not have received this assurance I did not have issued no
kind of suggestion.
My mental structure about these matters cannot accept any kind of personal
business connected to the sale of orders or honours.

I certainly did not mean to imply that Dr. Degli Uberti profited in
any way from the issuance of Rwandan honors. I do not doubt his
motives in the least, nor do I doubt that he was told by the former
king's entourage that the grants are intended to benefit the people of
Rwanda economically. It's also fine with me if the former king of
Rwanda can take advantage of the vanity of certain rich people to
raise money for the benefit of poor people. If that's the
justification, however, it seems reasonable to wonder what share of
the proceeds is actually going to the cause for which the money is
supposedly being raised. That's not intended as a question for Dr.
Degli Uberti, of course.

Post by I.A.G.I.
What here you quote is not my complete explanation, but only an example I
made to let persons, particularly not expert, understand in simple manner an
explication (on historical and scientifc bases) that should need a long
article in a review for specialists of the argument.

Actually, I have a higher estimate of the general level of intellect
of the participants in this group. I'm sure the concepts involved in
this matter are not so complex that we are unable to understand them,
even if some technical concepts are required, provided that those
concepts are set forth clearly and logically.

Post by I.A.G.I.
Now that I have exchanged some ideas with you and you know better who I am,
may I know better which is your field of study (articles, books, conference)
to let me understand your general thought about these matters?

As I said earlier in another reponse in this thread, I do not accept
that any participant's academic or professional specialty is relevant
to discussions in this newsgroup, unless he chooses to cite his
credentials as giving his views particular cogency or authority. I
have no real objection to providing a list of publications and
presentations--they're easy enough to find with a Google search
anyway--but since they deal primarily with terrorism, Middle Eastern
affairs, and national security strategy, I fail to see how doing so
would either add to or detract from any credibility I may have on the
matters with which this group is concerned.
Joseph McMillan

[George Lucki]

Post by I.A.G.I.
NO, I wrote "cambiali in bianco" that my dictionary translates as "blank
drafts", that is a promise of payment that in Italian language we call
"cambiale".
"in bianco" means that the date is not written, and It will be paid at the
right moment.
A "cambiale" is made when a person knows that, although in that moment he
does not have funds, he will have (or he hopes he will have in future).
On the contrary "check" is a promise of immediate payment that needs the
presence immediate of funds.

Unfortunately this still means that King Kigeli does "not actually have the
funds" and issues something basically in "anticpation of having the funds".

George Lucki

[barrassie]

Post by George Lucki

Post by I.A.G.I.
NO, I wrote "cambiali in bianco" that my dictionary translates as "blank
drafts", that is a promise of payment that in Italian language we call
"cambiale".
"in bianco" means that the date is not written, and It will be paid at the
right moment.
A "cambiale" is made when a person knows that, although in that moment he
does not have funds, he will have (or he hopes he will have in future).
On the contrary "check" is a promise of immediate payment that needs the
presence immediate of funds.

Unfortunately this still means that King Kigeli does "not actually have the
funds" and issues something basically in "anticpation of having the funds".
George Lucki

Perhaps some expert would answer the following; Would Jacobite titles
granted by the exciled Stuart Kings, which were recognised as titles
of nobility by France or any other power de facto and de jure beome
technically French or that on another recognising power? I notice also
Lord Lyo recognised Mackintosh of Daviot-Kinrara in an Interloculor as
neice of the 10th Titular Baron Mackintosh, see BLG VOL 2 18 ED and
Ruvigny's Jacobite Peerage, (which as a Scottish peerage should I
believe have been more correctly styled Lord not Baron) Chief of Clan
Chatan,
Charles MKH

[Guy Stair Sainty]

In article <***@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, barrassie
says...

Post by barrassie

Post by George Lucki

Post by I.A.G.I.
NO, I wrote "cambiali in bianco" that my dictionary translates as "blank
drafts", that is a promise of payment that in Italian language we call
"cambiale".
"in bianco" means that the date is not written, and It will be paid at the
right moment.
A "cambiale" is made when a person knows that, although in that moment he
does not have funds, he will have (or he hopes he will have in future).
On the contrary "check" is a promise of immediate payment that needs the
presence immediate of funds.

Unfortunately this still means that King Kigeli does "not actually have the
funds" and issues something basically in "anticpation of having the funds".
George Lucki

Perhaps some expert would answer the following; Would Jacobite titles
granted by the exciled Stuart Kings, which were recognised as titles
of nobility by France or any other power de facto and de jure beome
technically French or that on another recognising power? I notice also
Lord Lyo recognised Mackintosh of Daviot-Kinrara in an Interloculor as
neice of the 10th Titular Baron Mackintosh, see BLG VOL 2 18 ED and
Ruvigny's Jacobite Peerage, (which as a Scottish peerage should I
believe have been more correctly styled Lord not Baron) Chief of Clan
Chatan,

They were only recognized in France in a kind of casual, courtesy way, because
in france what counted was the ancienty of nobility, not the rank of the title,
except Dukes who has a special status. The Duc de Melfort (duke of Melfort) was
givne the brevet of a duke, but as this was never followed by LP nor
registration, it did not become hereditary.

I recently tried to persuade Lyon to matriculate the arms of an Italian friend
who is heir to a Jacobite Scottish Earldom (Dundee), but my request as refuserd
as they said they would only matriculate Scottish arms.

[Martin Goldstraw]

Post by Guy Stair Sainty
I recently tried to persuade Lyon to matriculate the arms of an Italian friend
who is heir to a Jacobite Scottish Earldom (Dundee), but my request as refuserd
as they said they would only matriculate Scottish arms.
--
Guy Stair Saintywww.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm- Hide quoted text -

This is a clear indication that the UK Crown does not recognise
Jacobite titles (as if we didn't already realise this). If the Crown
had recognised the earldom of Dundee, Lyon would have granted armorial
bearings to the holder in the same way that he does (did?) with those
who have obtained feudal baronies i.e. regardless of their nationality
they can receive arms because they hold a Scottish title. Without
recognition of a valid Scottish title the heir to Giovanni Battista
Gualterio would only be able to obtain Scottish arms if he could prove
descent from a Scot; perhaps this was not possible.

The point I wish to make is that Jacobite peerages are often quoted as
some form of precedent by those who seek to justify/defend the
granting of titles by ex monarchs etc and this clearly illustrates
that grants of such titles might well be of little worth to anyone
other than the recipient.

Regards,
Martin

[Martin Goldstraw]

Post by Martin Goldstraw

Post by Guy Stair Sainty
I recently tried to persuade Lyon to matriculate the arms of an Italian friend
who is heir to a Jacobite Scottish Earldom (Dundee), but my request as refuserd
as they said they would only matriculate Scottish arms.
--
Guy Stair Saintywww.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm-Hide quoted text -

This is a clear indication that the UK Crown does not recognise
Jacobite titles (as if we didn't already realise this). If the Crown
had recognised the earldom of Dundee, Lyon would have granted armorial
bearings to the holder in the same way that he does (did?) with those
who have obtained feudal baronies i.e. regardless of their nationality
they can receive arms because they hold a Scottish title. Without
recognition of a valid Scottish title the heir to Giovanni Battista
Gualterio would only be able to obtain Scottish arms if he could prove
descent from a Scot; perhaps this was not possible.
The point I wish to make is that Jacobite peerages are often quoted as
some form of precedent by those who seek to justify/defend the
granting of titles by ex monarchs etc and this clearly illustrates
that grants of such titles might well be of little worth to anyone
other than the recipient.
Regards,
Martin

My argument may be flawed in that I believe I have incorrectly stated
the reason Lyon has, in the past at least, granted arms to feudal
barons. Upon reflection, it is highly likely that he granted arms to
them not because they held a Scottish title but because, prior to the
abolition of feudal tenure, they were the owners of land in Scotland
and therefore had a link with that Country. Whether he will grant arms
to those who are not Scottish and reside outwith Scotland but have
purchase a barony title has yet to be tested. However it remains that
in the case of the heir to Giovanni Battista Gualterio Lyon did not
consider a Jacobite title to be a sufficient reason to grant armorial
bearings to a non Scot with no apparent Scottish ancestors.

Regards,
Martin

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

Post by Martin Goldstraw

Post by Martin Goldstraw

Post by Guy Stair Sainty
I recently tried to persuade Lyon to matriculate the arms of an Italian friend
who is heir to a Jacobite Scottish Earldom (Dundee), but my request as refuserd
as they said they would only matriculate Scottish arms.
--
Guy Stair Saintywww.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm-Hidequoted text -

This is a clear indication that the UK Crown does not recognise
Jacobite titles (as if we didn't already realise this). If the Crown
had recognised the earldom of Dundee, Lyon would have granted armorial
bearings to the holder in the same way that he does (did?) with those
who have obtained feudal baronies i.e. regardless of their nationality
they can receive arms because they hold a Scottish title. Without
recognition of a valid Scottish title the heir to Giovanni Battista
Gualterio would only be able to obtain Scottish arms if he could prove
descent from a Scot; perhaps this was not possible.
The point I wish to make is that Jacobite peerages are often quoted as
some form of precedent by those who seek to justify/defend the
granting of titles by ex monarchs etc and this clearly illustrates
that grants of such titles might well be of little worth to anyone
other than the recipient.
Regards,
Martin

My argument may be flawed in that I believe I have incorrectly stated
the reason Lyon has, in the past at least, granted arms to feudal
barons. Upon reflection, it is highly likely that he granted arms to
them not because they held a Scottish title but because, prior to the
abolition of feudal tenure, they were the owners of land in Scotland
and therefore had a link with that Country. Whether he will grant arms
to those who are not Scottish and reside outwith Scotland but have
purchase a barony title has yet to be tested. However it remains that
in the case of the heir to Giovanni Battista Gualterio Lyon did not
consider a Jacobite title to be a sufficient reason to grant armorial
bearings to a non Scot with no apparent Scottish ancestors.
Regards,
Martin- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Sir Crispin Angnew of Lochnaw wrote in 1988 ('The Conflict in Heraldic
Law') and re-printed in 'The Double Tressure' (the official journal of
the Heraldry Society of Scotland) in 2005, 'In addition Nisbet tells
us that the Sovereign can enoble and grant arms "not only to their
Subjects but to Strangers" and this means that the Lord Lyon can grant
arms to aliens as well as citizens of Commonwealth countries.' So Lyon
can grant arms to people with no Scottish connections at all.

[Martin Goldstraw]

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

Post by Martin Goldstraw

Post by Martin Goldstraw

Post by Guy Stair Sainty
I recently tried to persuade Lyon to matriculate the arms of an Italian friend
who is heir to a Jacobite Scottish Earldom (Dundee), but my request as refuserd
as they said they would only matriculate Scottish arms.
--
Guy Stair Saintywww.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm-Hidequotedtext -

This is a clear indication that the UK Crown does not recognise
Jacobite titles (as if we didn't already realise this). If the Crown
had recognised the earldom of Dundee, Lyon would have granted armorial
bearings to the holder in the same way that he does (did?) with those
who have obtained feudal baronies i.e. regardless of their nationality
they can receive arms because they hold a Scottish title. Without
recognition of a valid Scottish title the heir to Giovanni Battista
Gualterio would only be able to obtain Scottish arms if he could prove
descent from a Scot; perhaps this was not possible.
The point I wish to make is that Jacobite peerages are often quoted as
some form of precedent by those who seek to justify/defend the
granting of titles by ex monarchs etc and this clearly illustrates
that grants of such titles might well be of little worth to anyone
other than the recipient.
Regards,
Martin

My argument may be flawed in that I believe I have incorrectly stated
the reason Lyon has, in the past at least, granted arms to feudal
barons. Upon reflection, it is highly likely that he granted arms to
them not because they held a Scottish title but because, prior to the
abolition of feudal tenure, they were the owners of land in Scotland
and therefore had a link with that Country. Whether he will grant arms
to those who are not Scottish and reside outwith Scotland but have
purchase a barony title has yet to be tested. However it remains that
in the case of the heir to Giovanni Battista Gualterio Lyon did not
consider a Jacobite title to be a sufficient reason to grant armorial
bearings to a non Scot with no apparent Scottish ancestors.
Regards,
Martin- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Sir Crispin Angnew of Lochnaw wrote in 1988 ('The Conflict in Heraldic
Law') and re-printed in 'The Double Tressure' (the official journal of
the Heraldry Society of Scotland) in 2005, 'In addition Nisbet tells
us that the Sovereign can enoble and grant arms "not only to their
Subjects but to Strangers" and this means that the Lord Lyon can grant
arms to aliens as well as citizens of Commonwealth countries.' So Lyon
can grant arms to people with no Scottish connections at all.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Lyon can of course grant arms to strangers but in practice he rarely
does. One recent example of such a grant is that given to the man who
designed and crafted Lyon's chain of office. This demonstrates that he
does so (or has done so) as a reward for services to the Crown (Lyon
being Scotland's great officer of state). The fact that Lyon did not
grant arms to the heir to a Jacobite peerage reinforces my earlier
point. I believe that in considering the request/enquiry no weight was
given to the holding of a Jacobite peerage; Lyon chose not to grant
arms to this individual despite him being heir to such a peerage.

Regards,
Martin

[Charles Drake]

Post by Martin Goldstraw
My argument may be flawed in that I believe I have incorrectly stated
the reason Lyon has, in the past at least, granted arms to feudal
barons. Upon reflection, it is highly likely that he granted arms to
them not because they held a Scottish title but because, prior to the
abolition of feudal tenure, they were the owners of land in Scotland
and therefore had a link with that Country. > >

But Lyon granted arms to me as a baron's baillie, and I don't own any
land
in Scotland, so surely the Scottish title would be sufficient.

Kind regards,
Charles E. Drake

[a***@yahoo.com]

Post by Charles Drake

Post by Martin Goldstraw
My argument may be flawed in that I believe I have incorrectly stated
the reason Lyon has, in the past at least, granted arms to feudal
barons. Upon reflection, it is highly likely that he granted arms to
them not because they held a Scottish title but because, prior to the
abolition of feudal tenure, they were the owners of land in Scotland
and therefore had a link with that Country. > >

But Lyon granted arms to me as a baron's baillie, and I don't own any
land
in Scotland, so surely the Scottish title would be sufficient.
Kind regards,
Charles E. Drake

The title is not the main matter in this event. No doubt you have held
this position before the AD, and therefore (theoretically and
formally) you been a Judge of an minor Scottish Court (Baronial
Court). Amazingly, but by Scots Law in this event nationality and
subjectship were not a matter. But the law is law.

[Charles Drake]

The title is not the main matter in this event. No doubt you have held this position before the AD, and therefore (theoretically and formally) you been a Judge of an minor Scottish Court (Baronial Court).> > -

I think you miss my point. If the baillie, as an officer of the
court, gets a grant of arms, then surely the chief official of that
court (i.e. the baron) would get one also.

Kind regards,
Charles E. Drake

[Martin Goldstraw]

Post by Charles Drake

The title is not the main matter in this event. No doubt you have held this position before the AD, and therefore (theoretically and formally) you been a Judge of an minor Scottish Court (Baronial Court).> > -

I think you miss my point. If the baillie, as an officer of the
court, gets a grant of arms, then surely the chief official of that
court (i.e. the baron) would get one also.
Kind regards,
Charles E. Drake

Hello Charles,
I don't think anyone has stated that the baron ( foreign or not) would
not receive arms upon petition pre AFT. As far as I am aware, all
those who petitioned and were deemed to be of suitable character,
regardless of their nationality, received grants in right of them
being the owner of a feudal barony (at least prior to AFT).

The discussion has been about Lyon granting arms to those he considers
have a link with Scotland and it seems to have been established that
he did not consider the heir to a Jacobite peerage as having an
acceptable link. Clearly in your own case, most likely because you
were the holder of a (quaint) judicial office linking you with
Scotland, he was content to grant you arms. I know of a number of
other baron baillies who have no other link with Scotland who, like
you, have also received grants of arms from Lyon.

Post abolition of feudal tenure is of course a different matter.
Things have changed and baronies themselves have evaporated taking the
barons court with them. No court means no officers of the court.
Whilst Lyon continues to recognise newly made barons ( see petition to
Lyon Court - Mrs Hamilton) it does not seem likely that there will be
anymore newly created baron baillies who could petition for arms (I
can see no justifiable reason for the creation of new baron baillies
since they have no court in which to preside).

Kind regards,
Martin

[a***@yahoo.com]

Post by Martin Goldstraw

Post by Charles Drake

The title is not the main matter in this event. No doubt you have held this position before the AD, and therefore (theoretically and formally) you been a Judge of an minor Scottish Court (Baronial Court).> > -

I think you miss my point. If the baillie, as an officer of the
court, gets a grant of arms, then surely the chief official of that
court (i.e. the baron) would get one also.
Kind regards,
Charles E. Drake

Hello Charles,
I don't think anyone has stated that the baron ( foreign or not) would
not receive arms upon petition pre AFT. As far as I am aware, all
those who petitioned and were deemed to be of suitable character,
regardless of their nationality, received grants in right of them
being the owner of a feudal barony (at least prior to AFT).
The discussion has been about Lyon granting arms to those he considers
have a link with Scotland and it seems to have been established that
he did not consider the heir to a Jacobite peerage as having an
acceptable link. Clearly in your own case, most likely because you
were the holder of a (quaint) judicial office linking you with
Scotland, he was content to grant you arms. I know of a number of
other baron baillies who have no other link with Scotland who, like
you, have also received grants of arms from Lyon.
Post abolition of feudal tenure is of course a different matter.
Things have changed and baronies themselves have evaporated taking the
barons court with them. No court means no officers of the court.
Whilst Lyon continues to recognise newly made barons ( see petition to
Lyon Court - Mrs Hamilton) it does not seem likely that there will be
anymore newly created baron baillies who could petition for arms (I
can see no justifiable reason for the creation of new baron baillies
since they have no court in which to preside).
Kind regards,
Martin

Really the Lyon will not ( he has no any willing) recognise any post-
AD acquirer of a baronies as barons, and the situation with Mrs
Hamilton was unique one, and the Lyon made a detail explanation in
this matter. Even this decision ( Mrs Hamilton cause) is a subject of
appeal, because the baronial additaments were not granted. The
baronial additaments (as chapeau and robe of estate) is a most
important thing in their capacity as visible elements indicating a
rank of nobility of a holder of a barony, because the nobility of a
baron derived from holding of baronial jurisdiction prior to the AD
(in the time of Feudal Tenure System). But, of course the granting of
additaments is a ministerial capacity of the Lyon and therefore it may
not be observed and solved in any Court of Law.

So, really, an interesting situation might be born if the Court of
Session will convince the Lyon to recognise post-AD acquirers of a
barony as barons (even without additaments). By the Scots Law any
Scottish armiger is noble, and if such a armiger will obtain a
possibility to call yourself Baron, he will be considered as noble
with the rank of baron, but his nobility will derived not from his
barony (since the AD of AFT) but purely from holding of coat of arms
of Scottish origin.
Therefore 2 different forms of barons would be in existence:

- first one: with nobility derived by the feudal tradition and by
feudal law (with grant of arms by the Lyon or not, really does not
matter), by inclusion in the Register of Sasines and therefore
confirmed by the Crown by the Charter of Confirmation in Progress, and
therefore is a grant by the Sovereign;

- and second one : with nobility based just on possession of Scottish
arms (which one a lot of people considering as an equivalent of
gentility)...

[a***@yahoo.com]

Post by Martin Goldstraw

Post by Charles Drake

The title is not the main matter in this event. No doubt you have held this position before the AD, and therefore (theoretically and formally) you been a Judge of an minor Scottish Court (Baronial Court).> > -

I think you miss my point. If the baillie, as an officer of the
court, gets a grant of arms, then surely the chief official of that
court (i.e. the baron) would get one also.
Kind regards,
Charles E. Drake

Hello Charles,
I don't think anyone has stated that the baron ( foreign or not) would
not receive arms upon petition pre AFT. As far as I am aware, all
those who petitioned and were deemed to be of suitable character,
regardless of their nationality, received grants in right of them
being the owner of a feudal barony (at least prior to AFT).
The discussion has been about Lyon granting arms to those he considers
have a link with Scotland and it seems to have been established that
he did not consider the heir to a Jacobite peerage as having an
acceptable link. Clearly in your own case, most likely because you
were the holder of a (quaint) judicial office linking you with
Scotland, he was content to grant you arms. I know of a number of
other baron baillies who have no other link with Scotland who, like
you, have also received grants of arms from Lyon.
Post abolition of feudal tenure is of course a different matter.
Things have changed and baronies themselves have evaporated taking the
barons court with them. No court means no officers of the court.
Whilst Lyon continues to recognise newly made barons ( see petition to
Lyon Court - Mrs Hamilton) it does not seem likely that there will be
anymore newly created baron baillies who could petition for arms (I
can see no justifiable reason for the creation of new baron baillies
since they have no court in which to preside).
Kind regards,
Martin

Really the Lyon will not ( he has no any willing) recognise any post-
AD acquirer of a baronies as barons, and the situation with Mrs
Hamilton was unique one, and the Lyon made a detail explanation in
this matter. Even this decision ( Mrs Hamilton cause) is a subject of
appeal, because the baronial additaments were not granted. The
baronial additaments (as chapeau and robe of estate) is a most
important thing in their capacity as visible elements indicating a
rank of nobility of a holder of a barony, because the nobility of a
baron derived from holding of baronial jurisdiction prior to the AD
(in the time of Feudal Tenure System).

Really the Lyon will not ( he has no any willing) recognise any post-
AD acquirer of a baronies as barons, and the situation with Mrs
Hamilton was unique one, and the Lyon made a detail explanation in
this matter. Even this decision ( Mrs Hamilton cause) is a subject of
appeal, because the baronial additaments were not granted. The
baronial additaments (as chapeau and robe of estate) is a most
important thing in their capacity as visible elements indicating a
rank of nobility of a holder of a barony, because the nobility of a
baron derived from holding of baronial jurisdiction prior to the AD
(in the time of Feudal Tenure System). But, of course the granting of
additaments is a ministerial capacity of the Lyon and therefore it may
not be observed and solved in any Court of Law.

So, really, an interesting situation might be born if the Court of
Session will convince the Lyon to recognise post-AD acquirers of a
barony as barons (even without additaments). By the Scots Law any
Scottish armiger is noble, and if such a armiger will obtain a
possibility to call itself 'Baron', he will be considered as noble
with the rank of baron, but his nobility will derived not from his
barony (since the AD of AFT) but purely from holding of coat of arms
of Scottish origin.
Therefore 2 different forms of barons would be in existence:

- first one - with nobility derived by the feudal tradition and by
feudal law (with grant of arms by the Lyon or not, really no matter),
by inclusion in the Register of Sasines and therefore confirmed by the
Crown by the Charter of Confirmation in Progress, and therefore must
be considered as a re-grant by the Sovereign;

- and second one form - with nobility based just on possession of
Scottish arms (which one a lot of people considering as an equivalent
of gentility)...

[Charles Drake]

Martin,

Certainly, I have no disagreement with what you have just written.
Regardless of what I was trying to clarify, this point has clearly
spent its force.

Kind regards,
Charles E. Drake

[Don Aitken]

On 21 Feb 2007 02:13:38 -0800, "Martin Goldstraw"

Post by Martin Goldstraw

Post by Guy Stair Sainty
I recently tried to persuade Lyon to matriculate the arms of an Italian friend
who is heir to a Jacobite Scottish Earldom (Dundee), but my request as refuserd
as they said they would only matriculate Scottish arms.
--
Guy Stair Saintywww.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm- Hide quoted text -

This is a clear indication that the UK Crown does not recognise
Jacobite titles (as if we didn't already realise this). If the Crown
had recognised the earldom of Dundee, Lyon would have granted armorial
bearings to the holder in the same way that he does (did?) with those
who have obtained feudal baronies i.e. regardless of their nationality
they can receive arms because they hold a Scottish title. Without
recognition of a valid Scottish title the heir to Giovanni Battista
Gualterio would only be able to obtain Scottish arms if he could prove
descent from a Scot; perhaps this was not possible.
The point I wish to make is that Jacobite peerages are often quoted as
some form of precedent by those who seek to justify/defend the
granting of titles by ex monarchs etc and this clearly illustrates
that grants of such titles might well be of little worth to anyone
other than the recipient.

Not only ex-monarchs. Recognition is refused, not only to English and
Scottish Jacobite peerages, but also to Irish ones, in spite of the
fact that James II and VII was de facto sovereign in Ireland when they
were created - indeed he summoned an Irish Parliament in which a
number of those peers actually sat.

[Guy Stair Sainty]

In article <***@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Martin
Goldstraw says...

Post by Martin Goldstraw

Post by Guy Stair Sainty
I recently tried to persuade Lyon to matriculate the arms of an Italian friend
who is heir to a Jacobite Scottish Earldom (Dundee), but my request as refuserd
as they said they would only matriculate Scottish arms.
--
Guy Stair Saintywww.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm- Hide quoted text -

This is a clear indication that the UK Crown does not recognise
Jacobite titles (as if we didn't already realise this). If the Crown
had recognised the earldom of Dundee, Lyon would have granted armorial
bearings to the holder in the same way that he does (did?) with those
who have obtained feudal baronies i.e. regardless of their nationality
they can receive arms because they hold a Scottish title. Without
recognition of a valid Scottish title the heir to Giovanni Battista
Gualterio would only be able to obtain Scottish arms if he could prove
descent from a Scot; perhaps this was not possible.
The point I wish to make is that Jacobite peerages are often quoted as
some form of precedent by those who seek to justify/defend the
granting of titles by ex monarchs etc and this clearly illustrates
that grants of such titles might well be of little worth to anyone
other than the recipient.

I think one is better considering the titles granted by monarchs subsequently
restored. i would not myself cite the Jacobite titles as prime evidence, but on
the other hand I would cite the titles created by Charles II before 1660 and
included on the roll from the date of creation, the titles and honours conferred
by louis XVIII, the titles in the Neapolitan nobility granted by Ferdinand IV
while in exile in Sicily from 1806-15, and the honours conferred by the
Netherlands and Luxembourg sovereigns between 1940 and 1945. All of these were
of course restored subsequently and able to decide to validate their creations
or awards as of the date of conferral (Louis XVIII gave a great deal of crosses
of Saint Louis, for example).

But better evidence is provided by the titles conferred by the Carlist Kings
between 1833 and 1936, who were never restored but whose titles were recognised
by Spain in 1936.

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

Post by Guy Stair Sainty
says...

Post by barrassie

Post by George Lucki

Post by I.A.G.I.
NO, I wrote "cambiali in bianco" that my dictionary translates as "blank
drafts", that is a promise of payment that in Italian language we call
"cambiale".
"in bianco" means that the date is not written, and It will be paid at the
right moment.
A "cambiale" is made when a person knows that, although in that moment he
does not have funds, he will have (or he hopes he will have in future).
On the contrary "check" is a promise of immediate payment that needs the
presence immediate of funds.

Unfortunately this still means that King Kigeli does "not actually have the
funds" and issues something basically in "anticpation of having the funds".
George Lucki

Perhaps some expert would answer the following; Would Jacobite titles
granted by the exciled Stuart Kings, which were recognised as titles
of nobility by France or any other power de facto and de jure beome
technically French or that on another recognising power? I notice also
Lord Lyo recognised Mackintosh of Daviot-Kinrara in an Interloculor as
neice of the 10th Titular Baron Mackintosh, see BLG VOL 2 18 ED and
Ruvigny's Jacobite Peerage, (which as a Scottish peerage should I
believe have been more correctly styled Lord not Baron) Chief of Clan
Chatan,

They were only recognized in France in a kind of casual, courtesy way, because
in france what counted was the ancienty of nobility, not the rank of the title,
except Dukes who has a special status. The Duc de Melfort (duke of Melfort) was
givne the brevet of a duke, but as this was never followed by LP nor
registration, it did not become hereditary.
I recently tried to persuade Lyon to matriculate the arms of an Italian friend
who is heir to a Jacobite Scottish Earldom (Dundee), but my request as refuserd
as they said they would only matriculate Scottish arms.
--
Guy Stair Saintywww.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Odd. The Lord Lyon seems to have matriculated foreign arms at:

http://www.burkes-peerage-books.com/mezzanine/record.aspx?rec=28

Am I overlooking something?

Graham

[Martin Goldstraw]

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
http://www.burkes-peerage-books.com/mezzanine/record.aspx?rec=28
Am I overlooking something?
Graham-

"Foreign" ?
If Lyon is content to grant arms to a resident of Bermuda on the
grounds that it was a former British territory and therefore falls
under his jurisdiction I can't see anything odd about granting arms to
a resident of Gibraltar. Perhaps you are missing the fact that the
heir to Giovanni Battista Gualterio could not provide grounds to
satisfy Lyon that he came in any way within his jurisdiction and, to
return to the topic in hand, the Jacobite title did not tempt Lyon
either.

It is interesting to note that, in the example you give, Lyon has
recognised Mr. Lombard de Sainte Cécile as "apparent representer" of
the Lombard Seigneurs of Ste Cécile. One wonders whether Lyon's
definition of apparent was that of appearing as such but not
necessarily so? I do hope that we will not see apparent chiefs
creeping into the register. I confess that the use of this term is new
to me in relation to birth brieves, surely one either is or is not and
if there is any doubt then there should be no recognition or claim to
being so?

Regards,
Martin

[François R. Velde]

Post by Martin Goldstraw

Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
http://www.burkes-peerage-books.com/mezzanine/record.aspx?rec=28
Am I overlooking something?

"Foreign" ?
If Lyon is content to grant arms to a resident of Bermuda on the
grounds that it was a former British territory and therefore falls
under his jurisdiction I can't see anything odd about granting arms to
a resident of Gibraltar.

Isn't there supposed to be some kind of connection to Scotland, though? I see
none here.

Post by Martin Goldstraw
It is interesting to note that, in the example you give, Lyon has
recognised Mr. Lombard de Sainte Cécile as "apparent representer" of
the Lombard Seigneurs of Ste Cécile. One wonders whether Lyon's
definition of apparent was that of appearing as such but not
necessarily so?

The Burke entry says "The senior line is extinct but a documented descent is
recorded from a probable grandson". I wonder how thoroughly the genealogy was
checked before it was registered.

And what in the world is a "Feudal Seigneurial House"? Is this kind of language
in the matriculation by Lord Lyon?
--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/

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

Post by Guy Stair Sainty
says...

Post by barrassie

Post by George Lucki

Post by I.A.G.I.
NO, I wrote "cambiali in bianco" that my dictionary translates as "blank
drafts", that is a promise of payment that in Italian language we call
"cambiale".
"in bianco" means that the date is not written, and It will be paid at the
right moment.
A "cambiale" is made when a person knows that, although in that moment he
does not have funds, he will have (or he hopes he will have in future).
On the contrary "check" is a promise of immediate payment that needs the
presence immediate of funds.

Unfortunately this still means that King Kigeli does "not actually have the
funds" and issues something basically in "anticpation of having the funds".
George Lucki

Perhaps some expert would answer the following; Would Jacobite titles
granted by the exciled Stuart Kings, which were recognised as titles
of nobility by France or any other power de facto and de jure beome
technically French or that on another recognising power? I notice also
Lord Lyo recognised Mackintosh of Daviot-Kinrara in an Interloculor as
neice of the 10th Titular Baron Mackintosh, see BLG VOL 2 18 ED and
Ruvigny's Jacobite Peerage, (which as a Scottish peerage should I
believe have been more correctly styled Lord not Baron) Chief of Clan
Chatan,

They were only recognized in France in a kind of casual, courtesy way, because
in france what counted was the ancienty of nobility, not the rank of the title,
except Dukes who has a special status. The Duc de Melfort (duke of Melfort) was
givne the brevet of a duke, but as this was never followed by LP nor
registration, it did not become hereditary.
I recently tried to persuade Lyon to matriculate the arms of an Italian friend
who is heir to a Jacobite Scottish Earldom (Dundee), but my request as refuserd
as they said they would only matriculate Scottish arms.
--
Guy Stair Saintywww.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Perhaps your friend should rent a flat in Gibraltar for a week!

[barrassie]

Post by Guy Stair Sainty
says...

Post by George Lucki

Post by I.A.G.I.
NO, I wrote "cambiali in bianco" that my dictionary translates as "blank
drafts", that is a promise of payment that in Italian language we call
"cambiale".
"in bianco" means that the date is not written, and It will be paid at the
right moment.
A "cambiale" is made when a person knows that, although in that moment he
does not have funds, he will have (or he hopes he will have in future).
On the contrary "check" is a promise of immediate payment that needs the
presence immediate of funds.

Unfortunately this still means that King Kigeli does "not actually have the
funds" and issues something basically in "anticpation of having the funds".
George Lucki

Perhaps some expert would answer the following; WouldJacobitetitles
granted by the exciled Stuart Kings, which were recognised astitles
of nobility by France or any other power de facto and de jure beome
technically French or that on another recognising power? I notice also
Lord Lyo recognised Mackintosh of Daviot-Kinrara in an Interloculor as
neice of the 10th Titular Baron Mackintosh, see BLG VOL 2 18 ED and
Ruvigny'sJacobitePeerage, (which as a Scottish peerage should I
believe have been more correctly styled Lord not Baron) Chief of Clan
Chatan,

They were only recognized in France in a kind of casual, courtesy way, because
in france what counted was the ancienty of nobility, not the rank of the title,
except Dukes who has a special status. The Duc de Melfort (duke of Melfort) was
givne the brevet of a duke, but as this was never followed by LP nor
registration, it did not become hereditary.
I recently tried to persuade Lyon to matriculate the arms of an Italian friend
who is heir to aJacobiteScottish Earldom (Dundee), but my request as refuserd
as they said they would only matriculate Scottish arms.
--
Guy Stair Saintywww.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

You stated that you asked for a matriculation of foreign Arms, did you
ask for a grant for the titular Earl of Dundee?
Some years ago the Lord Lyon told me he would not be inclined to grant
Arms to a friend of mine a Maltese living in Malta, he was foreign. I
did not push the matter since my friend had really wished a
matriculation rather than a grant, I did not quite understand that I
had previously aided a friend from Texas USA to receive a grant in
memory of his ancestor, and yet my friend in Malta was born under the
Crown and received an Order from the crown!
I though that in the main Jacobite titles were recognised because King
James VIII and III was recognised as King by France and I believe the
Papacy, although am not aware of the standing of recognition or
otherwise of titles granted by Charles III who I believe was not
granted recognition as King. I may be wrong but understood the GIV as
King or Regent paid for the memorial to the last of the Stuarts where
they are refered to as Charles III and his brother Henry IX, the
Cardinal York.
Charles MKH

[François R. Velde]

Post by barrassie
I though that in the main Jacobite titles were recognised because King
James VIII and III was recognised as King by France

Only until 1713 and the peace of Utrecht, after which he was expelled from
France (his mother was allowed to stay, and afforded royal rank, of course). As
Guy said, Jacobite titles at most received courtesy recognition, and
occasionally a "brevet" or warrant of precedence was granted, as with the duke
of Melfort; something that is but shouldn't be misunderstood as "recognition of
the title".

Post by barrassie
and I believe the
Papacy, although am not aware of the standing of recognition or
otherwise of titles granted by Charles III who I believe was not
granted recognition as King. I may be wrong but understood the GIV as
King or Regent paid for the memorial to the last of the Stuarts where
they are refered to as Charles III and his brother Henry IX, the
Cardinal York.

They are referred to as "Charles Edward" and "Henry", no numerals. See
Loading Image...
or
http://www.jacobite.ca/gazetteer/Vatican/Stuart_monument.htm

--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/

[j***@fastmail.fm]

Private honours can only be private if they don't purport to be
granted under Letters Patent.
Letters Patent are open to anyone to read.

Post by I.A.G.I.
Also here as I said above you misunderstood my affirmations throwing
something ridiculous on the King Kigeli while it is ridiculous only a wrong
megalomanic use made by other persons who dont want to consider these
private honors for what they are (although full of moral value and usefull
to benefit the people of Rwanda).

[professor]

Post by Joseph McMillan

Post by professor
at the Institute for National Strategic Studies, the Defense
Department's think tank - he's not a "CIA janitor" but in fact for a
number of years headed up the Near East, Iraq and South Asia desks at
the Defense Department (as a deputy assistant secretary of defense) -
quite lofty executive service."
-
This is indeed a great honour. I am sorry for the comment I made. I
did not know that my tax dollars was paying for your job.

You have once again confused credentials with quality of
argumentation. What I do for a living is neither here nor there with
regard to this particular subject. Nor does the discussion have
anything to do with whether you are "I am wantabee, handicapped, Swed,
former Republican, teach at small
accredited university and have Russian Academy associations."
Pier Felice degli Uberti is the one who seemed to have compared
Kigeli's honors with bank overdrafts. And he's also the one who
seemed to say that Kigeli's use of noble titles in his honors was no
more objectionable than the list of trivial, facetious uses of titles
like duke and count that he provided. I simply found it incredible
that someone claiming to be the de jure king of a sovereign state
would want his actions to be understood the way that you and Signor
degli Uberti explained them.
As for "black references," would you have been happier if I had
observed that Degli Uberti's comparison of Rwandan "marquessates" with
the civic honors conferred by small towns and counties in the American
South made me wonder if Kigeli saw himself as a king in the same sense
that Elvis Presley was "the King?" Or would that have taken us off on
excursions into Elvis's possible Melungeon ancestry and the legitimacy
of Tom Parker's Kentucky colonelcy?
Joseph McMillan

I asume that Elvis will continue to be the King for many years. Then
again living only 50 miles from the King's home, I have not had the
great honour to see it. I assume I never will. However Mud Island and
Beale Street are hot. I assume I agree in part with your argument but
alas not with your presentation. However, does any of it really
matter? Making a living seems to be my main objective, not getting
more medals.

Again, good insight.

Carl--

[Joseph McMillan]

Post by professor
I have been informed that "Joseph McMillan is a senior research fellow
at the Institute for National Strategic Studies, the Defense
Department's think tank - he's not a "CIA janitor" but in fact for a
number of years headed up the Near East, Iraq and South Asia desks at
the Defense Department (as a deputy assistant secretary of defense) -
quite lofty executive service."
-

Lest I be accused of allowing a misstatement about my CV to go
uncorrected, I was not a deputy assistant secretary of defense for "a
number of years." I was the principal director of the Russia,
Ukraine, and Eurasia office in the Office of the Secretary of Defense
for one year, and served as *acting* DASD of that office for about
three months during that period. I was then appointed principal
director of the Near East-South Asia office and held that job for
three years, serving as the *acting* DASD for a total of about 15
months while in that assignment.

I am a career member of the U.S. Senior Executive Service, but would
not characterize that as "quite lofty," and my present job is not an
SES position.

I am indeed a senior research fellow at the Institute for National
Strategic Studies. This requires no special sources of information to
discover but can be found easily by Googling my name. (Although,
again, in the interest of full disclosure, I am not the same Joseph
McMillan who works or worked for the FBI and the Defense Criminal
Investigative Service, nor the one who is professor emeritus of
education at the University of Louisville.)

Joseph McMillan

[professor]

Well I do have the honour of reading the Newsletter from National
Strategic Studies which appears monthly in my e-mails from AMU. Also
regardless of your clarification, iyours is a great achievement.

Congrads.

Carl--

Post by Joseph McMillan
Lest I be accused of allowing a misstatement about my CV to go
uncorrected, I was not a deputy assistant secretary of defense for "a
number of years." I was the principal director of the Russia,
Ukraine, and Eurasia office in the Office of the Secretary of Defense
for one year, and served as *acting* DASD of that office for about
three months during that period. I was then appointed principal
director of the Near East-South Asia office and held that job for
three years, serving as the *acting* DASD for a total of about 15
months while in that assignment.
I am a career member of the U.S. Senior Executive Service, but would
not characterize that as "quite lofty," and my present job is not an
SES position.
I am indeed a senior research fellow at the Institute for National
Strategic Studies. This requires no special sources of information to
discover but can be found easily by Googling my name. (Although,
again, in the interest of full disclosure, I am not the same Joseph
McMillan who works or worked for the FBI and the Defense Criminal
Investigative Service, nor the one who is professor emeritus of
education at the University of Louisville.)
Joseph McMillan

[George Lucki]

"International Commission for Orders of Chivalry" <***@iol.it> wrote in
message news:***@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
I did not want to intervene before in an argument which is not of my
interest.
But George Lucky indirectly - knowing part of this history because my
wife talked with him in Scotland at St Andrew 2006 - refers to me
quoting an Italian...
Because of honesty I think it is fit I explain everything I know about
the argument.

GL> It was a pleasure to speak with your spouse Maria Pinotti in St. Andrews
and it is unfortunate that you werre unable to attend. It would have been
good to be able to meet in person and continue some of the e-mail
discussions we have had on this and other subjects. Perhaps Quebec in 2008?
Thank you for joining into the discussion. I thought I had recognized the
line of argument presented in one of Carl Lindgren's emails as not his but
very similar to one from an earlier discussion we had.

PFDU> When in 1999 I took on the presidency of ICOC (International
Commission for Orders of Chivalry) I promised to my conscience and to
all those who wanted I assumed this charge that I should have avoided
to be influenced by anybody, following always a way of seriousness,
honesty and a "supra partes" behaviour.
I promised also that I should have listened and helped all the persons
who asked advice to me showing a willing of seriousness in a so
difficult field as genealogy, heraldry and chivalry is.
Today ICOC has given advice to about 20 States, I am not a freemason
but I helped a Masonic regular obedience to create its own awarding
systems according to scientific criteria, and finding solutions to
list also this kind of this awards in a serious honest manner.
I persuaded an historical fake Templar Order (founded in 1867), to
declare that it is a fake order, and to transform itself in a serious
Institute for the study of the history of the past Order of the
Temple.
Indeed these appear successes to me.
As scholar I am a pragmatic and personally I dont give value to kind
of grant or recognition (nobiliary titles or chivalric orders or
recognition by nobiliary associations or bodies) which does not come
from a State where the nobiliary/chivalric matter is still today
legally recognized.

GL> I would be interested in your further views on this as in this case your
perspectives certainly appear to be more conservative than even my own. Are
you saying that in your view that chivalric awards for example that do not
1) emanate from a state and b) where chivalric rank is still recognized
legally are of no value? Would you include successor states where the
original state no longer exists, such as the Italian or German states? By
these criteria some of the chivalric awards listed in the register would be
of no value and the nobillary awards of non-reigning monarchs whether the
pretender to the Russian Imperial Throne, the late Umberto of Italy, etc.
would be of no value as these states or their successors no longer recognize
nobillary rank in law (whatever courtesy is given to surviving titles from
the ancien regime aside). for my own part I might take a broader view that
the state of affairs when the monarchy is deposed continues 'in exile' for
the supporters of the monarchy or other lawful government. Of course we are
in agreement that any awards of a non-reigning dynasty are simply awards
that have meaning within the circle of supporters of that dynasty or the
supporters of legitimacy or monarchy in general. Outside these relatively
narrow circles of course the newer order of these states is the de facto
reality.

PFDU> And I am much more strict for my own Country, Italy, where not all of
the nobiliary recognitions made during the Kingdom of Italy were made
in honest manner, but sometimes only because of opportunity (I believe
it is necessary to examine again all the past recognitions of nobility
to control the veracity according the modern scientific criteria). I
dont issue comments about other States because my knowledge is not so
deep to judge.
Less and less I consider valid every private grant, as those coming
from kings/chiefs of former Imperial/Royal Houses ect out of the
throne.

GL> Certainly I agree with you about the problem of the validity of private
grants of 'nobility' by non-reigning houses. I often share concerns when
such grants are made outside of the royal house itself, that they are
usually ill-advised regardless of the laws and traditions of the previous
monarchy as such titles make sense really only within the social order of
the reigning monarchy. Nonetheless where such ranks are traditional and
customary in conjunction with an office at court, a rank within a dynastic
order, etc. I resepct the view of the non-reigning dynasty that their
actions are in accord with the traditons of their house and the pretense
they make to continued legitimacy. For the most part such awards or ranks of
course are completely ignored outside the circle of supporters of the cause
of the monarchy and it would seem that these new awards are not equivalent
to the awards of the historical monarchy when reigning where the historical
families were a real part of the fabric of state. With respect to other
awards made by non-reigning monarchs that are ahistorical, not rooted in the
laws and traditions of the foreign monarchy I would think that the creation
of such things is ill-advised and I would find it difficult to rationalize
the creation of such awards other than as a vanity offered to those who
might mistake the award for something it cannot be.

PFDU> I have nothing to do with these grants or orders of King Kigeli and I
dont work for him but gave him my sincere advice which at that time
was well considered and applied by the King.
I mean my invention as it is said on the diploma of grant agreed with
me by the King Kigeli: "title of honours, correspondent to the
hereditary nobiliary of ... in the European usage" and "... We engage
ourselves to make lawful, valid and executive... at the moment of Our
return on the throne..."
But now I must explain the reason of this advice (that has a
scientific bases and historical precedents) by me issued to the
King,

GL> Pier Felice, you are modest when you say that you have nothing to do
with the Rwandan awards as I understand from what you say that you consulted
on the form of the grant or promise and adbised King Kigeli in this matter.
You are also from the list provied at
http://www.royal-rwandan-association.org/rolls_of_the_royal_court.htm the
only non-royal Grand Cross of the Royal Rwandan Order of the Drum, which I
understand from the description of the order is offered only to members of
royal houses and heads of states and is the premier order of the Rwandan
monarchy in exile. You are on this list in very distinguished company. The
Order of the Lion which has been discussed here is on the other hand the
most junior of the Royal Rwandan orders. So that there is no
misunderstanding I am not critical of the supporters of a deposed King
accepting such awards of merit established by him and I have considerable
sympathy for King Kigeli who was deposed in a questionable referendum after
a very short reign. I draw attention to the award which was made I presume
either in friendship with the chair of the ICOC or in recognition of the
services or advice you offered King Kigeli.

PFDU> Everybody knows here Carl Lindgren (I never met him in person), who
made greatest progresses in these matters; all of you will remember
when he was not able to understand the difference between a true
order and a fake one. Many times he publicly admitted his errors as
nobody made on this newsgroup. He could be also considered odd, or
sick of honors, and I know that he considers himself a "wannabee", but
I must say that for me he is an honest person, who does not gain on
chivalry and this is the reason why I gave him my suggestion to help
King Kigeli.
Also because I am aware of which kind of life lived King Kigeli, with
his undisputable love and help in favour of his People.

PFDU> Carl Lindgren told me that some nobiliary titles (at the European
manner) were granted by King Kigeli who was approached - as it happens
in every dinasty - by persons with the purpose to make him grant
nobiliary titles.
Because this thing appeared strange to Lindgren he turned himself to
me as expert on the matter to help the King who is a person who
deserves.
Because some grants were still made, it was necessary to correct and
to justify these grants.
To avoid damage to the King Kigeli.

GL> Thank you for this information. I was not aware that explicit grants had
been made prior to the ones we have been discussing. I must admit that I had
my suspicions that King Kigeli had been poorly advised to give in to the
pressure from the sort of people who might wanted him to grant them an
aristocratic title (people who would have cared little to learn enough about
the Rwandan monarchy to discover that such titles had never existed in
Rwanda). Of course we seem to agree that such grants of a title of
hereditary nobility would have made little sense in the Rwandan context and
this is what in fact we had been discussing in this thread.

PFDU> And I advised about which right solution was possible in a still
existing situation (this is the reason of this solution because it was
conditioned by the existing reality.
If this reality was not existing clearly my advice should have been
different and I had suggested to not create such kind of honours).
I think that who follows this newsgroup should bring only
clarification to the explanation of the facts, demonstrating a deep
competence on the argument and avoiding to show an attitude near to
racism, prejudice, not willing to know or see what is out of Europe,
and what can happen out of European history.

GL> We are in agreement that a sound position might have been to recommend
that such titles of Marquess or Count not be created in the forst place but
I am not clear why the correct approach might not have been to advise that
the grants (made to a close circle of supporters I gather) simply be
withdrawn and returned to King Kigeli. Unfortunately the course of action
that was less clear and led to the creation of promises of titles-honours in
a European-equivalent form (whatever that means in terms of Rwandan
historical practice - what Rwandan title is the equivalent of a Marquess or
of a Count? I understand that there were high social ranks of a different
form but with the different social structure which were the Rwandan
equivalents of the European equivalents?) What has in fact happened is that
some folks even quite involved in the activities of that royal house have
been using the title of Marquess, etc. as it had been originally granted as
opposed to how it was corrected and justified on the basis of your advice.
For my part I would suggest that the logical course of action would be to
simply that King Kigeli through his various officials simply acknowledge
that he has been ill-advised and to request that those who recieved such
titles simply stop using them and return their grants. In recompense he
could offer his friendship or esteem and teh token of another Rwandan order.
I would even have no logical difficulty (although politically I would not
understand it) with the King expressing his sentiment that his American and
European supporters were deserving of a further reward and his intention to
create a hereditary foreign nobility in Rwanda if he were returned to the
throne. The difference would be that this would be straightforward -
something might happen in the future. What we have is something that appears
to be created now by a non-reigning monarch, but structured so that on close
reading it says this is not the case - something akin to the 'genuine
authentic man-made diamond indistinguisable from a naturally occurring
diamond'. Is it a diamond?

PFDU> Everybody knows that King Kigeli (as all the kings or chiefs of former
Royal/Imperial Houses) is not an expert about nobility or chivalric
matter.
It is necessary to consider - as I made because so it was told me -
that through these grants the King Kigeli was helping his people,
without obtaining a personal benefit.
But I want to remember that by my point of view I dont give value to
these as other nobiliary titles or "chivalric" orders that today live
only in the dreams of the persons who receive them.
When a thing is private or of courtesy can remain only so!
And clearly this is the case (as it is the case of all in Europe when
the Sovereign is not on the throne).

GL> I would not expect that Kings or heads of royal dynasties all take an
interest in heraldry or chivalry or nobility and I am not surprised that
they rely on their various advisors who know or say they know about such
matters. I believe that in many cases they receive poor advice and that is
the source of the gaffes and embarrassments that sometimes are discussed
here. Leaving that aside I am a bit confused about your perspective that you
don't 'give value to these as other nobiliary titles or "chivalric" orders
that today live only in the dreams of the persons who receive them.' I
presume you are referring to the false orders and the ahistorical nobility
as you have devoted yourself to the study nobility and chivalric orders and
have accepted numerous awards which I presume you would accept only if you
valued them. The same argument is of course made by those who would not see
value in dynastic awards or even by those who would see no value in the
symbolic state awards of such things (changing only the personal meaning of
'live only in the dreams of persons who receive them'. I would be interested
given your involvement with ICOC and such things in your present view of the
awards of non-reigning dynasties where these awards are not recognized by
modern states.

PFDU> I met the King Kigeli in Casale Monferrato on March 2006 because he
participated in the Ballo dei Cento e non più Cento, that was an
occasion to talk with me about the argument.
According to the discussion with me and following my suggestion the
King decided to grant only honors that are not nobiliary titles as in
the European meaning.
I find odd that in this newsgroup it is continued to talk about
nobiliary titles in XXI Century, thinking in the same manner than in
the past without finding new solutions.
In this case if the honours granted by the King Kigeli can become
valid in Africa in XXI Century, however they cannot be comparable to
the ancient European nobiliary titles.

GL> I am confused. If the awards of King Kigeli cannot, in your view, be
compared to the ancient European nobiliary titles (which is the point I have
tried to make in this thread) then why style them Marquess or Count and why
make a point of calling them 'European-equivalent'.

PFDU> To make an example about the change of the meaning of a word, "Gotha"
in the past was only the book "Almanach de Gotha", today it indicates
the top in different kind of categories that have nothing to do with
the ancient book.
But still today there are many persons (and many on this newsgroup)
who love the word "count", "marquis", "duke"... a term today void of
its past meaning.

GL> In other words the titles sound impressive.

PFDU> In few words according to my advice the King of Rwanda decided to
grant honours that can be comparable to the ancient European nobiliary
titles... but in the sense it is given them after Napoleon I, that is
only honours, although named nobiliary titles.
The titles given after Napoleon - although they are nobiliary titles -
have nothing to do with the concept of the past nobiliary titles (at
least in great part of the Europe).
It is really a bit ridiculous that the King of Rwanda in exile grants
honors which bring the name of ancient European nobiliary titles but
as Macchiavelli affirmed "Il fine giustifica i mezzi" (the end
justifies the means)
In fact the King to help His people will do what He considers fit, and
to grant these honors is useful to help His people.
What is wrong in this? The honesty of the King stays in the promise
that - if He returns to the throne - He will make valid these honors.
And as I am a bank manager I should call these grants "cambiali in
bianco" (blank drafts), this is an unusual thing but which is made.

GL> Pier Felice - the idea that these titles are 'Napoleonic' is an
interesting one - does it suggest that King Kigeli is seeking to implement
in Rwanda a restructuring of the traditional social order and the creation
of new elites? In Napoleonic France the core of the new men were the
military companions of the Emperor who became marshals and Princes of the
Empire. Are you suggesting that the 'new men' of Royal Rwanda are the
American and European supporters of King Kigeli who have received these
hereditary promises-titles? I have my doubts that it is the true intention
of King Kigeli to place these folks at the apex of Rwandan society if he
were to be restored and I have my doubts that such a thing would go over
with anyone in Rwanda. The means justifies the ends seems more plausible -
that folks persuaded the King that such a course of action (creating these
titles) satisfies the vanities of contributors to the cause and costs
nothing. Unfortunately it potentially costs embarrassment to the cause and I
would have thought this could have been avoided by following the actual
traditions of the monarchy more closely.

PFDU> Countries it is so, and the
Monarchies teach on this argument: Spain, Holland, Sweden etc.
I was particularly touched by the fact that this newsgroup is followed
by many Americans.
To them I should remember this: dont you know that there are in USA
honors which have a name recalling antique European nobiliary titles?
But surely nobody thinks they are nobiliary titles!
I mean ie Count of Pulaski, Duque of Albuquerque, Duke of Hazard, Duke
of Paduc...
They are only honors coming from an effective Authority, who decided
to grant these honors, without being a monarch and in a Country where
does not exist a nobiliary tradition, or the tradition to grant
nobiliary titles. And these honours have a name of nobiliary European
titles!!!
Do you think there is something wrong or illegal in this?

GL> Then are you suggesting that the awards made by King Kigeli are of this
sort and that a Marquess of Rwanda is much like a TV Duke of Hazzard or a
colourful municipal honour which does not pretend to be a nobillary award of
any sort? From what I understand from the way in which the royal Rwandan
title of Marquess, etc. has been used it was presumed to be an aristocratic
title.

PFDU> As I said before the problem is that a lot of people (as some of you
too) love the word "count" "marquis" "duke" ecc... that all think they
are "nobiliary tiles" while an expert begins to ask himself: "are
always they nobiliary titles"?
As you have seen with my example today the words "count" - "marquis" -
"duke" are not always nobiliary titles and the USA Authorities do not
consider them nobiliary titles, but only honors.

GL> Are you suggetsing that this the case for Rwandan Marquess - that it is
not a yet to be implelneted nobillary title at all equivalent to a European
Marquess?

PFDU> I repeat, I am pragmatic and for me every title coming from a former
Sovereign (or his descendants) has no legal public official value (I
include not only Africa, but particularly old Europe).
No official State Authority recognizes such titles (courtesy nobiliary
titles), although there are today former European Royal Houses who
continue to grant nobiliary titles (this is a recent fact of which I
do not want to talk for the moment).
The Rwanda Honors are honors that now have a moral value inside the
Dynasty and among those who are supporters of King Kigeli.
If Kigeli returns to the throne the honors will have effective value
in a form that can be accepted by Kingdom of Rwanda.
But I repeat these honours are a manner to help the cause of the King
because the possibility He returns to the throne is far.
There are historical examples of the same case: in Italy King Umberto
II granted nobiliary titles to help the Monarchist Party, and the King
Umberto II (Costitutional King) did not have the power (according to
the law) to grant them.
But a lot of people consider them valid... although today less and
less, including SMOM.
But also if they are only sheets of paper, they have a sure moral
value.
Before Umberto II there was King Francesco II who promised that the
nobiliary titles granted by him should have become valid at his return
on the throne.

GL> I certainly don't begrudge folks their awards and within the circle of
the supporters of any cause you might find a variety of awards. These are
different than the awards of a reigning monarchy or the historical standing
of the European aristocracies. one of the fundamental problems here is
likely that some of the holders of such 'private' Rwandan awards saw them as
the public awards of a monarch (once reigning) and as the equivalent
standing as they believe the historical titles of old Europe - hence the use
of the title and the emphasis on European-equivalent. I'm surprised that no
one saw the difficulty of creating something that would be used bith ways.

PFDU> The honor (not the nobiliary title which did not exist in Rwanda) is
immediately valid in private (as every honour or nobiliary title or
chivalric order given by a private authority, a former Royal/Imperial
House). But it is not possible to continue to think about the
classical concept of nobility as in the past, in a world in continue
evolution.

GL> So it is not a nobillary title but is immediately effectibve as such
within the circle of supprters of the Rwandan King? This makes the movement
look more like a virtual reality than a real-world political cause. I would
think that the supporters of King Kigeli would consider him the still
reigning and lawful King of Rwanda and would not equate his awards ith those
given by private authority. When I consider awards conferred by private
authority (as opposed to sovereign authority or de jure sovereign authority)
would include St. Lazarus, various pseudo-orders or self-styled chivalric
orders - are you suggesting that there is no difference between the awards
of de jure reigning monarchs and those awarded meerely by private authority.

PFDU> Also the King of Spain has now changed the law about succession to
nobiliary titles, causing an injustice because he violated the
traditional law of succession of the nobiliary titles established by
the diplomas of concession. But new times justify new solutions...
And if you think about this new fact, now there will be in the most
part of the cases 2 persons who scholarly have the right to be
considered titular of the same nobiliary title:
1) the person who obtained the succession by the King;
2) the person who has the historical right according to the diploma of
concession.
For a scholar both of them is right! Is it not so?
So the King of Rwanda has found new solutions. Nothing wrong.

GL> In the Spanish case the soveriegn authority for the holders of Spanish
titles is the King of Spain. His actions have changed the rules of
succession to noble titles and there is only one valid succession from here
on. I'm surprised you might argue that the former practice should trump the
change the reigning King of Spain has made. I'm not sure such changes are
advisable but they are lawful. As far as the Rwandan King - I have stayed
aside from the question of royal perogative and focused my attention on the
advisability of this course of action. Whether lawful or innovative it has
not been well-advised.

PFDU> It was also said by Lucky "Leaving aside the allegations of Bokassa's
cannibalism and other excesses - we are still left with the tragic
caricature of Bokassa's Central African Empire - the incredible
poverty of the country and the brutish ostentation of the Emperor's
enthronement and brief reign. I am very surprised that anyone would
advise the King to do anything to emulate any aspect of the Central
African Empire".
I believe that Lindgren did not affirm that the King was advised to
emulate the bad history of Central African Empire. This example was
quoted only as historical precedent and nothing more.
About "ritual" cannibalism I must add it was not proved and Bokassa
was not condemned by this, and recently the historian Ariel Toaff of
Jerusalem has written a book recalling himself to the age of ritual
murderers of little Christian children as proved fact in the history
of Ebraism.
There are bad moments in the history of every people.

GL> (A small quibble - my surname is Lucki not Lucky). The use of the
Central African Empire as historical precedent of anything African is on
thin ice. The Central African Empire is merely a creature of twisted fancies
of the brutish Bokassa (whetehr he was a cannibal or not) and does not
inform us about African practice in general nor about the practices proper
to the historical Rwandan monarchy - unless you wish to make the point - if
Bokassa did thus so can Kigeli or another African monarch.

PFDU> Do you need another example about new nobiliary titles invented by
Kings who did not have the tradition of granting European nobiliary
titles?
Here it is: Haiti Kingdom, where princes, dukes, marquises, counts,
barons, knights were created ex-novo.

GL> Excellent example. The monarch was actually reigning and those granted
titles were a part of the ruling group within that state.

PFDU> To talk about the last King of Montenegro I remember that he granted
nobiliary titles (European tradition) while he did not have the power
because the laws of his Country did not contemplate this, and the
European titles did not exist in Montenegro.
The same thing for the last king of Yugoslavia.
But the persons who obtained this kind of inexistent "nobiliary
titles" were proud of them because of the moral great value others
attributed to them as it happens for all the courtesy grants coming
from former Royal/Imperial Houses.
Clearly I remember in scientific ambient all those grants do not have
the value the beneficiaries give them.
This as I explained was the situation of these grants until Carl
Lindgren maintained his charge near the King.
But now - because I did not receive further confirmations about the
policy followed by his successor (I wrote to receive explanations
without result) I dont know what the King (or better who for him) will
decide to do.

GL> In fairness I have never seen Carl Lindgren using a Rwandan title and it
appears from your account that he has tried to correct what he believed was
bad practices of granting titles. That is also consiistent with the concerns
he has raised on this forum about current officials of the Rwandan royal
house and the titles they use.

PFDU> Clearly out of a similar interpretation given to these grants
(honours) by a scholar it is very difficult to discover a true
scientific seriousness.
I received some e.mails asking my personal opinion about the "Orders
of Rwanda".
I considers them as awards (political orders) created ex-novo in the
exile of the King (because although I asked documents, I did not see
nothing so their previous existence cannot scientifically be proved at
least for me).
Surely the King Kigeli - as other former Sovereigns or Chiefs of House
made - is right in creating new awards (orders), that have value
(private) only among his supporters and among those who want to give
them value, and are different from those created in Europe.

GL> Like yourself I have seen the awards of the King of Rwanda as the wawrds
created by the last reigning King of Rwanda and similar to other such
dynastic awards )of which there are many). I understand that the King's
account is taht the awards were created prior to his exile but first
implemented after his exile. These orders are of course not like the
historical European confraternal orders but quite like the modern merit
orders created since the nineteenth century in many places including a great
number of non-European and non-monarchical states. They are what they are.


PFDU> I was exaustive and I dont have nothing to add.

GL> Thank you for what has been the most comprehensive response to the
questions of this thread. We will likely continue to disagree and I am of a
view that the whole issue is a cautionary tale to any advisors of
non-reigning monarchical houses or thsie who aspire to nice sounding
nobillary titles whatever their source. Don't go there. It is only a source
of embarrassment. The better course of action is likely in most cases for
the supporters of such causes to stay true to the real traditions of
whatever monarchy they might support and avoid coveting newly minted
nobillary titles and the like.

Kind regards,
George Lucki

[I.A.G.I.]

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
I did not want to intervene before in an argument which is not of my
interest.
But George Lucky indirectly - knowing part of this history because my
wife talked with him in Scotland at St Andrew 2006 - refers to me
quoting an Italian...
Because of honesty I think it is fit I explain everything I know about
the argument.
GL> It was a pleasure to speak with your spouse Maria Pinotti in St.
Andrews and it is unfortunate that you werre unable to attend. It would
have been good to be able to meet in person and continue some of the
e-mail discussions we have had on this and other subjects. Perhaps Quebec
in 2008?

Yes I agree, I should have liked very much to meet you dear Jerzy after our
discussions by e mails, but unfortunately I did not attend the Congress
because I had to be in Rome for the trasmissions of Rai International.

I hope to be present in Quebec on 2008.

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
Thank you for joining into the discussion. I thought I had recognized the
line of argument presented in one of Carl Lindgren's emails as not his but
very similar to one from an earlier discussion we had.

Ok Indeed I should not have nothing to add after my explication, but I
cannot avoid to reply to you for our friendship.

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
PFDU> When in 1999 I took on the presidency of ICOC (International
Commission for Orders of Chivalry) I promised to my conscience and to
all those who wanted I assumed this charge that I should have avoided
to be influenced by anybody, following always a way of seriousness,
honesty and a "supra partes" behaviour.
I promised also that I should have listened and helped all the persons
who asked advice to me showing a willing of seriousness in a so
difficult field as genealogy, heraldry and chivalry is.
Today ICOC has given advice to about 20 States, I am not a freemason
but I helped a Masonic regular obedience to create its own awarding
systems according to scientific criteria, and finding solutions to
list also this kind of this awards in a serious honest manner.
I persuaded an historical fake Templar Order (founded in 1867), to
declare that it is a fake order, and to transform itself in a serious
Institute for the study of the history of the past Order of the
Temple.
Indeed these appear successes to me.
As scholar I am a pragmatic and personally I dont give value to kind
of grant or recognition (nobiliary titles or chivalric orders or
recognition by nobiliary associations or bodies) which does not come
from a State where the nobiliary/chivalric matter is still today
legally recognized.
GL> I would be interested in your further views on this as in this case
your perspectives certainly appear to be more conservative than even my
own. Are you saying that in your view that chivalric awards for example
that do not 1) emanate from a state and b) where chivalric rank is still
recognized legally are of no value?

For me chivalric (disputable term) awards are legally valid only if they
come from a State or a body internationally recognized as sovereign.

In different case it has only a private value. This is the law in all the
world and this means to be pragmatic

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
Would you include successor states where the original state no longer
exists, such as the Italian or German states? By these criteria some of
the chivalric awards listed in the register would be of no value

I have talked only of legal value, that is different from the moral or
historical value.

Anyway in Italy today some orders coming from past Italian dynasties are
authorized (not recognized!) by the Republic to be publicly used.

What is listed on the ICOC Register if does not come from a State has only
private value.

One of the reasons for which ICOC exists, is to offer to all the persons
interested in the matter a list that has an historical basis and is useful
to understand which realities still survive coming from the past and
continue still now to live although in a private form.

ICOC is useful to alert people from what does not have historical bases
and - as Sainty says - is "self-styled".

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
and the nobillary awards of non-reigning monarchs whether the pretender to
the Russian Imperial Throne, the late Umberto of Italy, etc. would be of
no value as these states or their successors no longer recognize nobillary
rank in law (whatever courtesy is given to surviving titles from the
ancien regime aside). for my own part I might take a broader view that the
state of affairs when the monarchy is deposed continues 'in exile' for the
supporters of the monarchy or other lawful government. Of course we are in
agreement that any awards of a non-reigning dynasty are simply awards that
have meaning within the circle of supporters of that dynasty or the
supporters of legitimacy or monarchy in general. Outside these relatively
narrow circles of course the newer order of these states is the de facto
reality.

Yes this is my thought and is the thought of all those who are very
down-to-earth!

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
PFDU> And I am much more strict for my own Country, Italy, where not all of
the nobiliary recognitions made during the Kingdom of Italy were made
in honest manner, but sometimes only because of opportunity (I believe
it is necessary to examine again all the past recognitions of nobility
to control the veracity according the modern scientific criteria). I
dont issue comments about other States because my knowledge is not so
deep to judge.
Less and less I consider valid every private grant, as those coming
from kings/chiefs of former Imperial/Royal Houses ect out of the
throne.
GL> Certainly I agree with you about the problem of the validity of
private grants of 'nobility' by non-reigning houses. I often share
concerns when such grants are made outside of the royal house itself, that
they are usually ill-advised regardless of the laws and traditions of the
previous monarchy as such titles make sense really only within the social
order of the reigning monarchy. Nonetheless where such ranks are
traditional and customary in conjunction with an office at court, a rank
within a dynastic order, etc. I resepct the view of the non-reigning
dynasty that their actions are in accord with the traditons of their house
and the pretense they make to continued legitimacy. For the most part such
awards or ranks of course are completely ignored outside the circle of
supporters of the cause of the monarchy and it would seem that these new
awards are not equivalent to the awards of the historical monarchy when
reigning where the historical families were a real part of the fabric of
state. With respect to other awards made by non-reigning monarchs that are
ahistorical, not rooted in the laws and traditions of the foreign monarchy
I would think that the creation of such things is ill-advised and I would
find it difficult to rationalize the creation of such awards other than as
a vanity offered to those who might mistake the award for something it
cannot be.

I agree with you, but as I said in this case there was no other possible
solution.

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
PFDU> I have nothing to do with these grants or orders of King Kigeli and I
dont work for him but gave him my sincere advice which at that time
was well considered and applied by the King.
I mean my invention as it is said on the diploma of grant agreed with
me by the King Kigeli: "title of honours, correspondent to the
hereditary nobiliary of ... in the European usage" and "... We engage
ourselves to make lawful, valid and executive... at the moment of Our
return on the throne..."
But now I must explain the reason of this advice (that has a
scientific bases and historical precedents) by me issued to the
King,
GL> Pier Felice, you are modest when you say that you have nothing to do
with the Rwandan awards as I understand from what you say that you
consulted on the form of the grant or promise and adbised King Kigeli in
this matter. You are also from the list provied at
http://www.royal-rwandan-association.org/rolls_of_the_royal_court.htm the
only non-royal Grand Cross of the Royal Rwandan Order of the Drum, which I
understand from the description of the order is offered only to members of
royal houses and heads of states and is the premier order of the Rwandan
monarchy in exile. You are on this list in very distinguished company. The
Order of the Lion which has been discussed here is on the other hand the
most junior of the Royal Rwandan orders. So that there is no
misunderstanding I am not critical of the supporters of a deposed King
accepting such awards of merit established by him and I have considerable
sympathy for King Kigeli who was deposed in a questionable referendum
after a very short reign. I draw attention to the award which was made I
presume either in friendship with the chair of the ICOC or in recognition
of the services or advice you offered King Kigeli.

Yes you are right but remember I has received a lot of awards during my life
from all the world (the most part coming from States or Statual bodies), but
I never advertised them and now that I am president/chairman of ICOC when I
issue an advice, it is very difficult that I accept an award, but in the
case of King Kigeli I accepted it as a witness of esteem toward the work of
ICOC and because I was aware of the history of the life of the King, and I
talked a lot with him who appeared to me a marvelous person, only interested
in the well of his people, and not in the creation of "chivalric orders" or
"nobiliary titles" ...

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
PFDU> Everybody knows here Carl Lindgren (I never met him in person), who
made greatest progresses in these matters; all of you will remember
when he was not able to understand the difference between a true
order and a fake one. Many times he publicly admitted his errors as
nobody made on this newsgroup. He could be also considered odd, or
sick of honors, and I know that he considers himself a "wannabee", but
I must say that for me he is an honest person, who does not gain on
chivalry and this is the reason why I gave him my suggestion to help
King Kigeli.
Also because I am aware of which kind of life lived King Kigeli, with
his undisputable love and help in favour of his People.
PFDU> Carl Lindgren told me that some nobiliary titles (at the European
manner) were granted by King Kigeli who was approached - as it happens
in every dinasty - by persons with the purpose to make him grant
nobiliary titles.
Because this thing appeared strange to Lindgren he turned himself to
me as expert on the matter to help the King who is a person who
deserves.
Because some grants were still made, it was necessary to correct and
to justify these grants.
To avoid damage to the King Kigeli.
GL> Thank you for this information. I was not aware that explicit grants
had been made prior to the ones we have been discussing. I must admit that
I had my suspicions that King Kigeli had been poorly advised to give in to
the pressure from the sort of people who might wanted him to grant them an
aristocratic title (people who would have cared little to learn enough
about the Rwandan monarchy to discover that such titles had never existed
in Rwanda). Of course we seem to agree that such grants of a title of
hereditary nobility would have made little sense in the Rwandan context
and this is what in fact we had been discussing in this thread.

I agree

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
PFDU> And I advised about which right solution was possible in a still
existing situation (this is the reason of this solution because it was
conditioned by the existing reality.
If this reality was not existing clearly my advice should have been
different and I had suggested to not create such kind of honours).
I think that who follows this newsgroup should bring only
clarification to the explanation of the facts, demonstrating a deep
competence on the argument and avoiding to show an attitude near to
racism, prejudice, not willing to know or see what is out of Europe,
and what can happen out of European history.
GL> We are in agreement that a sound position might have been to recommend
that such titles of Marquess or Count not be created in the forst place
but I am not clear why the correct approach might not have been to advise
that the grants (made to a close circle of supporters I gather) simply be
withdrawn and returned to King Kigeli. Unfortunately the course of action
that was less clear and led to the creation of promises of titles-honours
in a European-equivalent form (whatever that means in terms of Rwandan
historical practice - what Rwandan title is the equivalent of a Marquess
or of a Count? I understand that there were high social ranks of a
different form but with the different social structure which were the
Rwandan equivalents of the European equivalents?) What has in fact
happened is that some folks even quite involved in the activities of that
royal house have been using the title of Marquess, etc. as it had been
originally granted as opposed to how it was corrected and justified on the
basis of your advice. For my part I would suggest that the logical course
of action would be to simply that King Kigeli through his various
officials simply acknowledge that he has been ill-advised and to request
that those who recieved such titles simply stop using them and return
their grants. In recompense he could offer his friendship or esteem and
teh token of another Rwandan order. I would even have no logical
difficulty (although politically I would not understand it) with the King
expressing his sentiment that his American and European supporters were
deserving of a further reward and his intention to create a hereditary
foreign nobility in Rwanda if he were returned to the throne. The
difference would be that this would be straightforward - something might
happen in the future. What we have is something that appears to be created
now by a non-reigning monarch, but structured so that on close reading it
says this is not the case - something akin to the 'genuine authentic
man-made diamond indistinguisable from a naturally occurring diamond'. Is
it a diamond?

You are a very dear dreamer and I like what you say but you should know that
the persons who go to find "nobiliary titles" when they think their
objective is reached dont abandon it...

As it happened for the "nobiliary titles" of Montenegro and Yugoslavia....
and I add the example of a "nobiliary title" granted by an old Chief of
Tuscany House at the end of XX Century... never abandoned. History teaches
the same when during XVI-XVII Century people went to search nobiliary titles
coming from Orient Empire (although it is demonstrated the Chiefs of those
Imperial Houses were fake)!!!

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
PFDU> Everybody knows that King Kigeli (as all the kings or chiefs of former
Royal/Imperial Houses) is not an expert about nobility or chivalric
matter.
It is necessary to consider - as I made because so it was told me -
that through these grants the King Kigeli was helping his people,
without obtaining a personal benefit.
But I want to remember that by my point of view I dont give value to
these as other nobiliary titles or "chivalric" orders that today live
only in the dreams of the persons who receive them.
When a thing is private or of courtesy can remain only so!
And clearly this is the case (as it is the case of all in Europe when
the Sovereign is not on the throne).
GL> I would not expect that Kings or heads of royal dynasties all take an
interest in heraldry or chivalry or nobility and I am not surprised that
they rely on their various advisors who know or say they know about such
matters. I believe that in many cases they receive poor advice and that is
the source of the gaffes and embarrassments that sometimes are discussed
here. Leaving that aside I am a bit confused about your perspective that
you don't 'give value to these as other nobiliary titles or "chivalric"
orders that today live only in the dreams of the persons who receive
them.' I presume you are referring to the false orders and the ahistorical
nobility as you have devoted yourself to the study nobility and chivalric
orders and have accepted numerous awards which I presume you would accept
only if you valued them. The same argument is of course made by those who
would not see value in dynastic awards or even by those who would see no
value in the symbolic state awards of such things (changing only the
personal meaning of 'live only in the dreams of persons who receive them'.
I would be interested given your involvement with ICOC and such things in
your present view of the awards of non-reigning dynasties where these
awards are not recognized by modern states.

I suppose I was not clear because you did not understand what I mean.

I said there are public awards and private awards (in the term awards in
this case I include all).

ICOC studies particularly private awards and gives an historical value to
those private awards that deserve.

Excluding most rare cases in ICOC Register until now only private awards are
listed.

I study particularly what I consider private awards, some of greatest
importance as the order of Golden Fleece granted by Karl of Austria, but
from a pragmatic point of view today they remain private awards.

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
PFDU> I met the King Kigeli in Casale Monferrato on March 2006 because he
participated in the Ballo dei Cento e non più Cento, that was an
occasion to talk with me about the argument.
According to the discussion with me and following my suggestion the
King decided to grant only honors that are not nobiliary titles as in
the European meaning.
I find odd that in this newsgroup it is continued to talk about
nobiliary titles in XXI Century, thinking in the same manner than in
the past without finding new solutions.
In this case if the honours granted by the King Kigeli can become
valid in Africa in XXI Century, however they cannot be comparable to
the ancient European nobiliary titles.
GL> I am confused. If the awards of King Kigeli cannot, in your view, be
compared to the ancient European nobiliary titles (which is the point I
have tried to make in this thread) then why style them Marquess or Count
and why make a point of calling them 'European-equivalent'.

At first I explained that this style was used in the first grants, because
probably it is the most loved by those who love this kind of "honours", I
repeat the same thing was made also from the last King of Montenegro and
Yugoslavia... I only justified and corrected a previous situation that
cannot revoked making it acceptable.

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
PFDU> To make an example about the change of the meaning of a word, "Gotha"
in the past was only the book "Almanach de Gotha", today it indicates
the top in different kind of categories that have nothing to do with
the ancient book.
But still today there are many persons (and many on this newsgroup)
who love the word "count", "marquis", "duke"... a term today void of
its past meaning.
GL> In other words the titles sound impressive.

Yes

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
PFDU> In few words according to my advice the King of Rwanda decided to
grant honours that can be comparable to the ancient European nobiliary
titles... but in the sense it is given them after Napoleon I, that is
only honours, although named nobiliary titles.
The titles given after Napoleon - although they are nobiliary titles -
have nothing to do with the concept of the past nobiliary titles (at
least in great part of the Europe).
It is really a bit ridiculous that the King of Rwanda in exile grants
honors which bring the name of ancient European nobiliary titles but
as Macchiavelli affirmed "Il fine giustifica i mezzi" (the end
justifies the means)
In fact the King to help His people will do what He considers fit, and
to grant these honors is useful to help His people.
What is wrong in this? The honesty of the King stays in the promise
that - if He returns to the throne - He will make valid these honors.
And as I am a bank manager I should call these grants "cambiali in
bianco" (blank drafts), this is an unusual thing but which is made.
GL> Pier Felice - the idea that these titles are 'Napoleonic' is an
interesting one - does it suggest that King Kigeli is seeking to implement
in Rwanda a restructuring of the traditional social order and the creation
of new elites?

I did not say this I only quoted an example from the past to clarify the new
meaning of nobility after Napolen, and nothing more.

In Napoleonic France the core of the new men were the

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
military companions of the Emperor who became marshals and Princes of the
Empire. Are you suggesting that the 'new men' of Royal Rwanda are the
American and European supporters of King Kigeli who have received these
hereditary promises-titles? I have my doubts that it is the true intention
of King Kigeli to place these folks at the apex of Rwandan society if he
were to be restored and I have my doubts that such a thing would go over
with anyone in Rwanda. The means justifies the ends seems more plausible -
that folks persuaded the King that such a course of action (creating these
titles) satisfies the vanities of contributors to the cause and costs
nothing. Unfortunately it potentially costs embarrassment to the cause and
I would have thought this could have been avoided by following the actual
traditions of the monarchy more closely.

You are talking about things I have not said or thought, I only made an
example to explain that today to talk of nobility must be completely
different from the past and the meaning of the word is changed

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
PFDU> Countries it is so, and the
Monarchies teach on this argument: Spain, Holland, Sweden etc.
I was particularly touched by the fact that this newsgroup is followed
by many Americans.
To them I should remember this: dont you know that there are in USA
honors which have a name recalling antique European nobiliary titles?
But surely nobody thinks they are nobiliary titles!
I mean ie Count of Pulaski, Duque of Albuquerque, Duke of Hazard, Duke
of Paduc...
They are only honors coming from an effective Authority, who decided
to grant these honors, without being a monarch and in a Country where
does not exist a nobiliary tradition, or the tradition to grant
nobiliary titles. And these honours have a name of nobiliary European
titles!!!
Do you think there is something wrong or illegal in this?
GL> Then are you suggesting that the awards made by King Kigeli are of
this sort and that a Marquess of Rwanda is much like a TV Duke of Hazzard
or a colourful municipal honour which does not pretend to be a nobillary
award of any sort? From what I understand from the way in which the royal
Rwandan title of Marquess, etc. has been used it was presumed to be an
aristocratic title.

I have only demonstrated that there are grants which use a nobiliary style
but are not nobiliary titles, as those of Rwanda that are only honors, if
the persons use simple honors as they are aristocratic titles this is wrong
but it is not fault of the King of Rwanda.

In Italy and Spain there are persons who consider the simple "certification
of coat of arms" as a recognition of nobility!

This is fully wrong but it is not fault of the Kings of Spain or of the
Cronistas de Armas.

In England there are the manorial titles, and there are persons in the world
that use them as nobiliary titles in the ancient meaning. All of us well
know they are not, nobiliary titles but ancient feudal rights and the fault
of this bad use is not of HM the Queen of Great Britain.

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
PFDU> As I said before the problem is that a lot of people (as some of you
too) love the word "count" "marquis" "duke" ecc... that all think they
are "nobiliary tiles" while an expert begins to ask himself: "are
always they nobiliary titles"?
As you have seen with my example today the words "count" - "marquis" -
"duke" are not always nobiliary titles and the USA Authorities do not
consider them nobiliary titles, but only honors.
GL> Are you suggetsing that this the case for Rwandan Marquess - that it
is not a yet to be implelneted nobillary title at all equivalent to a
European Marquess?

Please, dont build what I did not say or think

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
PFDU> I repeat, I am pragmatic and for me every title coming from a former
Sovereign (or his descendants) has no legal public official value (I
include not only Africa, but particularly old Europe).
No official State Authority recognizes such titles (courtesy nobiliary
titles), although there are today former European Royal Houses who
continue to grant nobiliary titles (this is a recent fact of which I
do not want to talk for the moment).
The Rwanda Honors are honors that now have a moral value inside the
Dynasty and among those who are supporters of King Kigeli.
If Kigeli returns to the throne the honors will have effective value
in a form that can be accepted by Kingdom of Rwanda.
But I repeat these honours are a manner to help the cause of the King
because the possibility He returns to the throne is far.
There are historical examples of the same case: in Italy King Umberto
II granted nobiliary titles to help the Monarchist Party, and the King
Umberto II (Costitutional King) did not have the power (according to
the law) to grant them.
But a lot of people consider them valid... although today less and
less, including SMOM.
But also if they are only sheets of paper, they have a sure moral
value.
Before Umberto II there was King Francesco II who promised that the
nobiliary titles granted by him should have become valid at his return
on the throne.
GL> I certainly don't begrudge folks their awards and within the circle of
the supporters of any cause you might find a variety of awards. These are
different than the awards of a reigning monarchy or the historical
standing of the European aristocracies. one of the fundamental problems
here is likely that some of the holders of such 'private' Rwandan awards
saw them as the public awards of a monarch (once reigning) and as the
equivalent standing as they believe the historical titles of old Europe -
hence the use of the title and the emphasis on European-equivalent. I'm
surprised that no one saw the difficulty of creating something that would
be used bith ways.
PFDU> The honor (not the nobiliary title which did not exist in Rwanda) is
immediately valid in private (as every honour or nobiliary title or
chivalric order given by a private authority, a former Royal/Imperial
House). But it is not possible to continue to think about the
classical concept of nobility as in the past, in a world in continue
evolution.
GL> So it is not a nobillary title but is immediately effectibve as such
within the circle of supprters of the Rwandan King? This makes the
movement look more like a virtual reality than a real-world political
cause. I would think that the supporters of King Kigeli would consider him
the still reigning and lawful King of Rwanda and would not equate his
awards ith those given by private authority. When I consider awards
conferred by private authority (as opposed to sovereign authority or de
jure sovereign authority) would include St. Lazarus, various pseudo-orders
or self-styled chivalric orders - are you suggesting that there is no
difference between the awards of de jure reigning monarchs and those
awarded meerely by private authority.

You are imagining things I did not say.

Please remain at the limits of my affirmations, I said all that must be
known to understand the reality of these grants.

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
PFDU> Also the King of Spain has now changed the law about succession to
nobiliary titles, causing an injustice because he violated the
traditional law of succession of the nobiliary titles established by
the diplomas of concession. But new times justify new solutions...
And if you think about this new fact, now there will be in the most
part of the cases 2 persons who scholarly have the right to be
1) the person who obtained the succession by the King;
2) the person who has the historical right according to the diploma of
concession.
For a scholar both of them is right! Is it not so?
So the King of Rwanda has found new solutions. Nothing wrong.
GL> In the Spanish case the soveriegn authority for the holders of Spanish
titles is the King of Spain. His actions have changed the rules of
succession to noble titles and there is only one valid succession from
here on. I'm surprised you might argue that the former practice should
trump the change the reigning King of Spain has made. I'm not sure such
changes are advisable but they are lawful. As far as the Rwandan King - I
have stayed aside from the question of royal perogative and focused my
attention on the advisability of this course of action. Whether lawful or
innovative it has not been well-advised.

The King of Spain is right to use his law of succession on nobiliary titles,
but he cannot change the history, and the original diplomas of grant.

Anyway It is not the first time in Spain the law of succession changes.

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
PFDU> It was also said by Lucky "Leaving aside the allegations of Bokassa's
cannibalism and other excesses - we are still left with the tragic
caricature of Bokassa's Central African Empire - the incredible
poverty of the country and the brutish ostentation of the Emperor's
enthronement and brief reign. I am very surprised that anyone would
advise the King to do anything to emulate any aspect of the Central
African Empire".
I believe that Lindgren did not affirm that the King was advised to
emulate the bad history of Central African Empire. This example was
quoted only as historical precedent and nothing more.
About "ritual" cannibalism I must add it was not proved and Bokassa
was not condemned by this, and recently the historian Ariel Toaff of
Jerusalem has written a book recalling himself to the age of ritual
murderers of little Christian children as proved fact in the history
of Ebraism.
There are bad moments in the history of every people.
GL> (A small quibble - my surname is Lucki not Lucky).

I beg pardon for my mistake, It was not my purpose to modify your surname!

Many times my surname "degli Uberti" is overturned, and about this the exact
Christian name of my wife is Maria Loredana that is the Virgin of Loreto
(she sends you her best regards).

The use of the

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
Central African Empire as historical precedent of anything African is on
thin ice. The Central African Empire is merely a creature of twisted
fancies of the brutish Bokassa (whetehr he was a cannibal or not) and does
not inform us about African practice in general nor about the practices
proper to the historical Rwandan monarchy - unless you wish to make the
point - if Bokassa did thus so can Kigeli or another African monarch.
PFDU> Do you need another example about new nobiliary titles invented by
Kings who did not have the tradition of granting European nobiliary
titles?
Here it is: Haiti Kingdom, where princes, dukes, marquises, counts,
barons, knights were created ex-novo.
GL> Excellent example. The monarch was actually reigning and those granted
titles were a part of the ruling group within that state.
PFDU> To talk about the last King of Montenegro I remember that he granted
nobiliary titles (European tradition) while he did not have the power
because the laws of his Country did not contemplate this, and the
European titles did not exist in Montenegro.
The same thing for the last king of Yugoslavia.
But the persons who obtained this kind of inexistent "nobiliary
titles" were proud of them because of the moral great value others
attributed to them as it happens for all the courtesy grants coming
from former Royal/Imperial Houses.
Clearly I remember in scientific ambient all those grants do not have
the value the beneficiaries give them.
This as I explained was the situation of these grants until Carl
Lindgren maintained his charge near the King.
But now - because I did not receive further confirmations about the
policy followed by his successor (I wrote to receive explanations
without result) I dont know what the King (or better who for him) will
decide to do.
GL> In fairness I have never seen Carl Lindgren using a Rwandan title and
it appears from your account that he has tried to correct what he believed
was bad practices of granting titles. That is also consiistent with the
concerns he has raised on this forum about current officials of the
Rwandan royal house and the titles they use.
PFDU> Clearly out of a similar interpretation given to these grants
(honours) by a scholar it is very difficult to discover a true
scientific seriousness.
I received some e.mails asking my personal opinion about the "Orders
of Rwanda".
I considers them as awards (political orders) created ex-novo in the
exile of the King (because although I asked documents, I did not see
nothing so their previous existence cannot scientifically be proved at
least for me).
Surely the King Kigeli - as other former Sovereigns or Chiefs of House
made - is right in creating new awards (orders), that have value
(private) only among his supporters and among those who want to give
them value, and are different from those created in Europe.
GL> Like yourself I have seen the awards of the King of Rwanda as the
wawrds created by the last reigning King of Rwanda and similar to other
such dynastic awards )of which there are many). I understand that the
King's account is taht the awards were created prior to his exile but
first implemented after his exile. These orders are of course not like the
historical European confraternal orders but quite like the modern merit
orders created since the nineteenth century in many places including a
great number of non-European and non-monarchical states. They are what
they are.
PFDU> I was exaustive and I dont have nothing to add.
GL> Thank you for what has been the most comprehensive response to the
questions of this thread. We will likely continue to disagree and I am of
a view that the whole issue is a cautionary tale to any advisors of
non-reigning monarchical houses or thsie who aspire to nice sounding
nobillary titles whatever their source. Don't go there. It is only a
source of embarrassment. The better course of action is likely in most
cases for the supporters of such causes to stay true to the real
traditions of whatever monarchy they might support and avoid coveting
newly minted nobillary titles and the like.

Why to disagree? I repeat I am a pragmatic person who lives in the reality.

In the organizations I take care of, nobiliary titles are not used also when
the persons have an indisputable historical right, very difficultly we also
use the academic titles, it is so nice to use only our own Christian name
and surname....

You can image how it is ridiculous for us when the tradition does not exist.

Best regards

Pier Felice degli Uberti

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
Kind regards,
George Lucki

[j***@fastmail.fm]

Very interesting but certainly not scientific.
At best a pragmatic reply to a rather sordid situation.

By the way, which governments established the International Commission
for Orders of Chivalry?

And is anyone going to give me anything, if I promise to create
various titles (or "honours") if I ever come into the control of some
country, province or piece of land? I have my eye on an area of
desert close to a place called Hutt River.

[professor]

I thought you were going to play nice? If you do I will award you a
medal (smile).

Carl--

Post by j***@fastmail.fm
Very interesting but certainly not scientific.
At best a pragmatic reply to a rather sordid situation.
By the way, which governments established the International Commission
for Orders of Chivalry?
And is anyone going to give me anything, if I promise to create
various titles (or "honours") if I ever come into the control of some
country, province or piece of land? I have my eye on an area of
desert close to a place called Hutt River.

[j***@fastmail.fm]

Thank you..
Can I have the Order of the Rwandan something?
Or one the Grand Crosses that I note you are going to abandon.

Post by professor
I thought you were going to play nice? If you do I will award you a
medal (smile).
Carl--

[Guy Stair Sainty]

Post by I.A.G.I.
For me chivalric (disputable term) awards are legally valid only if they
come from a State or a body internationally recognized as sovereign.

But the Constantinian Order Grand Magistery has never been attached to a state,
neither is it internationally recognized as Sovereign (and you are a member of
this Order). It has always been an Order suo generis attached by hereditary
succession to a particular family which, from time to time, held various
sovereignties completely coincidental to the possession of the Grand Magistery.

Neither is the dignity of Herrenmeister of the German Johanniter Order attached
to a state (the post of protector, once held by the King of Prussia, no longer
exists). Yet the Johanniter Order is recognized as a valid Order by the German
Federal republic and also, quite significantly, by the French republic. The
Order of the Golden Fleece (Austria) is recognized by the Austrian republic and
one award thereof was authorised by the French republic, in the 1950s, even
though under the French Monarchy this Order was *never* recognised.

I think the black and white view you express is mistaken.

Post by I.A.G.I.
In different case it has only a private value. This is the law in all the
world and this means to be pragmatic

It isn't the law in all of the world. As you know several states have recognized
as completely valid awards the distinctions of certain Orders given by persons
who are today heads of former reigning dynasties, within the context of their
own law. Italy, your own country, is one such, as is Spain and also Mexico.

Post by I.A.G.I.
I have talked only of legal value, that is different from the moral or
historical value.
Anyway in Italy today some orders coming from past Italian dynasties are
authorized (not recognized!) by the Republic to be publicly used.

What is the difference? The parere of the Italian council of state that allows
for authorisation of non-national Orders does so on the basis that the Order in
question is "recognised" as having survived as a dynastic award. The act of
allowing authorisation is of itself recognition. Now, of course, that
recognition may be withdrawn, but each time an Italian citizen is authorised to
wear a particular Order it is in fact recognised (at least as much, say, as the
Johanniter Order is recognised in Germany or France).

Post by I.A.G.I.

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
and the nobillary awards of non-reigning monarchs whether the pretender to
the Russian Imperial Throne, the late Umberto of Italy, etc. would be of
no value as these states or their successors no longer recognize nobillary
rank in law (whatever courtesy is given to surviving titles from the
ancien regime aside).

Again what do you mean by this? No country's legal jurisdictions set up a system
of law by which a former dynastic Order may be explicitly recognized. But law
1678 of March 1951 of the Italian Republic does set up a procedure for the
recognition of "non-national Orders". In France the authority to recognise is
delegated to the Grand Chancellor of the Legino of Honour, who acts by right of
his delegated authority but not under some explicit law defining what he should
or should not recognise. This does not make his authorisation of these awards
any less valid.

[I.A.G.I.]

Post by Guy Stair Sainty

Post by I.A.G.I.
For me chivalric (disputable term) awards are legally valid only if they
come from a State or a body internationally recognized as sovereign.

But the Constantinian Order Grand Magistery has never been attached to a state,
neither is it internationally recognized as Sovereign (and you are a member of
this Order). It has always been an Order suo generis attached by hereditary
succession to a particular family which, from time to time, held various
sovereignties completely coincidental to the possession of the Grand Magistery.

What I wrote must be understood: "from a legal point of view"
The Costantinian case - as you well know - is complex.
There was the period where the King of Two Sicilies was considered the
Great Master (you also wrote about the nobility of Two Sicilies coming from
the Costantinian Order) and after the fall of the Kingdom (at the last years
of Caserta) the theory it was a Farnesian fidecommissio was taken again.
As you well know I am honoured to be member of the Order (from 1980), but
not to be recognized by a State (or body internationally recognized as
sovereign) does not diminish the historical importance and the moral value
of the Costantinian Order.
By my side I am not aware that until now the Costantinian Order was
recognized by a State (I repeat: recognized does not mean authorized).

Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Neither is the dignity of Herrenmeister of the German Johanniter Order attached
to a state (the post of protector, once held by the King of Prussia, no longer
exists). Yet the Johanniter Order is recognized as a valid Order by the German
Federal republic and also, quite significantly, by the French republic.

Recognized or Authorized (the concept is different)?

The

Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Order of the Golden Fleece (Austria) is recognized by the Austrian
republic

Recognized or Authorized?

and

Post by Guy Stair Sainty
one award thereof was authorised by the French republic, in the 1950s, even
though under the French Monarchy this Order was *never* recognised.

Do you think it should be today authorized?

Post by Guy Stair Sainty
I think the black and white view you express is mistaken.

I repeat I talk from a legal point of view.

Post by Guy Stair Sainty

Post by I.A.G.I.
In different case it has only a private value. This is the law in all the
world and this means to be pragmatic

It isn't the law in all of the world. As you know several states have recognized
as completely valid awards the distinctions of certain Orders given by persons
who are today heads of former reigning dynasties, within the context of their
own law. Italy, your own country, is one such, as is Spain and also Mexico.

Post by I.A.G.I.
I have talked only of legal value, that is different from the moral or
historical value.
Anyway in Italy today some orders coming from past Italian dynasties are
authorized (not recognized!) by the Republic to be publicly used.

What is the difference? The parere of the Italian council of state that allows
for authorisation of non-national Orders does so on the basis that the Order in
question is "recognised" as having survived as a dynastic award. The act of
allowing authorisation is of itself recognition. Now, of course, that
recognition may be withdrawn, but each time an Italian citizen is authorised to
wear a particular Order it is in fact recognised (at least as much, say, as the
Johanniter Order is recognised in Germany or France).

Guy, there is a mistake of basis in what you say: in Italy the Orders coming
from former reigning dynasties are only authorized not recognized, legally
talking this is very different.
How could the Italian Government (I well know the Italian case) recognize an
order that under some aspects is patrimony of the State?
Remember that in Italy there is also the theory that the pre-unitary orders
are converged in the patrimony of the Kingdom of Italy, and then in the
patrimony of the Italian Republic (obviously I personally disagree but this
theory does exist).

Post by Guy Stair Sainty

Post by I.A.G.I.

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
and the nobillary awards of non-reigning monarchs whether the pretender to
the Russian Imperial Throne, the late Umberto of Italy, etc. would be of
no value as these states or their successors no longer recognize nobillary
rank in law (whatever courtesy is given to surviving titles from the
ancien regime aside).

Again what do you mean by this? No country's legal jurisdictions set up a system
of law by which a former dynastic Order may be explicitly recognized. But law
1678 of March 1951 of the Italian Republic does set up a procedure for the
recognition of "non-national Orders".

I repeat as above not the recognition but only the authorization

In France the authority to recognise is

Post by Guy Stair Sainty
delegated to the Grand Chancellor of the Legino of Honour, who acts by right of
his delegated authority but not under some explicit law defining what he should
or should not recognise.

Yes I agree.
But which former order did he "recognize"?
But are you sure that in 2007 he should issue recognitions? Which is the
last recognition he made?

This does not make his authorisation of these awards

Post by Guy Stair Sainty
any less valid.

I alway affirmed this, the States in the most part of the cases are not
competent and ICOC is useful particularly for this, to assign and protect a
scientific value to all those important historical relics of the past.

Pier Felice degli Uberti

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

[George Lucki]

Post by Guy Stair Sainty

Post by I.A.G.I.
For me chivalric (disputable term) awards are legally valid only if they
come from a State or a body internationally recognized as sovereign.

But the Constantinian Order Grand Magistery has never been attached to a state,
neither is it internationally recognized as Sovereign (and you are a member of
this Order). It has always been an Order suo generis attached by hereditary
succession to a particular family which, from time to time, held various
sovereignties completely coincidental to the possession of the Grand Magistery.
Neither is the dignity of Herrenmeister of the German Johanniter Order attached
to a state (the post of protector, once held by the King of Prussia, no longer
exists). Yet the Johanniter Order is recognized as a valid Order by the German
Federal republic and also, quite significantly, by the French republic. The
Order of the Golden Fleece (Austria) is recognized by the Austrian republic and
one award thereof was authorised by the French republic, in the 1950s, even
though under the French Monarchy this Order was *never* recognised.
I think the black and white view you express is mistaken.

Post by I.A.G.I.
In different case it has only a private value. This is the law in all the
world and this means to be pragmatic

It isn't the law in all of the world. As you know several states have recognized
as completely valid awards the distinctions of certain Orders given by persons
who are today heads of former reigning dynasties, within the context of their
own law. Italy, your own country, is one such, as is Spain and also Mexico.

Post by I.A.G.I.
I have talked only of legal value, that is different from the moral or
historical value.
Anyway in Italy today some orders coming from past Italian dynasties are
authorized (not recognized!) by the Republic to be publicly used.

What is the difference? The parere of the Italian council of state that allows
for authorisation of non-national Orders does so on the basis that the Order in
question is "recognised" as having survived as a dynastic award. The act of
allowing authorisation is of itself recognition. Now, of course, that
recognition may be withdrawn, but each time an Italian citizen is authorised to
wear a particular Order it is in fact recognised (at least as much, say, as the
Johanniter Order is recognised in Germany or France).

Post by I.A.G.I.

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
and the nobillary awards of non-reigning monarchs whether the pretender to
the Russian Imperial Throne, the late Umberto of Italy, etc. would be of
no value as these states or their successors no longer recognize nobillary
rank in law (whatever courtesy is given to surviving titles from the
ancien regime aside).

Again what do you mean by this? No country's legal jurisdictions set up a system
of law by which a former dynastic Order may be explicitly recognized. But law
1678 of March 1951 of the Italian Republic does set up a procedure for the
recognition of "non-national Orders". In France the authority to recognise is
delegated to the Grand Chancellor of the Legino of Honour, who acts by right of
his delegated authority but not under some explicit law defining what he should
or should not recognise. This does not make his authorisation of these awards
any less valid.

Guy,
The first of the quotes you have responded to comes from Pier Felice and the
second one is mine. This statement is my attempt to draw a logical
conclusion (but a view which I dispute) from Pier Felice's argument but it
is not something he actually said. I agree that he has framed the matter
rather in black and white terms and this does not fit well with history. So
in fairness Pier Felice's statement preceded the one you quoted.
For myself I am in agreement with the points you make here.

George Lucki

[George Lucki]

Post by I.A.G.I.

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
As scholar I am a pragmatic and personally I dont give value to kind
of grant or recognition (nobiliary titles or chivalric orders or
recognition by nobiliary associations or bodies) which does not come
from a State where the nobiliary/chivalric matter is still today
legally recognized.
GL> I would be interested in your further views on this as in this case
your perspectives certainly appear to be more conservative than even my
own. Are you saying that in your view that chivalric awards for example
that do not 1) emanate from a state and b) where chivalric rank is still
recognized legally are of no value?

For me chivalric (disputable term) awards are legally valid only if they
come from a State or a body internationally recognized as sovereign.
In different case it has only a private value. This is the law in all the
world and this means to be pragmatic

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
Would you include successor states where the original state no longer
exists, such as the Italian or German states? By these criteria some of
the chivalric awards listed in the register would be of no value

I have talked only of legal value, that is different from the moral or
historical value.
Anyway in Italy today some orders coming from past Italian dynasties are
authorized (not recognized!) by the Republic to be publicly used.
What is listed on the ICOC Register if does not come from a State has only
private value.
One of the reasons for which ICOC exists, is to offer to all the persons
interested in the matter a list that has an historical basis and is useful
to understand which realities still survive coming from the past and
continue still now to live although in a private form.
ICOC is useful to alert people from what does not have historical bases
and - as Sainty says - is "self-styled".

Pier Felice,
I find myself in agreement with what you write - I would probably also have
emphasized some of the 'public' or historical qualities of the hereditary
titles and ranks of the old order of European monarchies. They are part of
the living patrimony or heritage of most European states. I would suggest
that this is more than a private matter. But leaving that aside, in essence
we are both supporting the importance of distinguishing the authentic
historical titles, ranks or orders from the self-styled, ahistorical ones.
As you say, "ICOC is useful to alert people from what does not have
historical bases and - as Sainty says - is "self-styled"." The point that I
would make is that this is precisely my concern with the Rwandan 'titles' -
they do not have a historical basis. In my mind the correct approach would
have been for King Kigeli not to take the step of granting such titles. As
you can see the 'pragmatic' approach is not helping the Rwandan cause - it
merely highlights that questionable practices had occured - the granting of
titles that were ahistorical; may be continuing - the use of titles where
only the 'promise of an honour' was made; and a complex rationale was
established to justify a practice that in the end seems to be built on aa
series of presumed loopholes. I know that this is not the general way in
which the ICOC approaches the problem of orders or similar awards that are
ahistorical. In general the posiiton is 'non-pragmatic' - the ICOC simply
does not extend a seal of approval to foundations that are are not rooted in
historical dynastic practice. I would have thought the best advice to King
Kigeli would be, "Keep it simple - act in the ways that are consistent with
the traditions of your dynasty and fire advisors who encourage you to do
otherwise. They place their own aspirations and vanities ahead of Rwandan
tradition."

Post by I.A.G.I.

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
PFDU> And I am much more strict for my own Country, Italy, where not all of
the nobiliary recognitions made during the Kingdom of Italy were made
in honest manner, but sometimes only because of opportunity (I believe
it is necessary to examine again all the past recognitions of nobility
to control the veracity according the modern scientific criteria). I
dont issue comments about other States because my knowledge is not so
deep to judge.
Less and less I consider valid every private grant, as those coming
from kings/chiefs of former Imperial/Royal Houses ect out of the
throne.
GL> Certainly I agree with you about the problem of the validity of
private grants of 'nobility' by non-reigning houses. I often share
concerns when such grants are made outside of the royal house itself,
that they are usually ill-advised regardless of the laws and traditions
of the previous monarchy as such titles make sense really only within the
social order of the reigning monarchy. Nonetheless where such ranks are
traditional and customary in conjunction with an office at court, a rank
within a dynastic order, etc. I resepct the view of the non-reigning
dynasty that their actions are in accord with the traditons of their
house and the pretense they make to continued legitimacy. For the most
part such awards or ranks of course are completely ignored outside the
circle of supporters of the cause of the monarchy and it would seem that
these new awards are not equivalent to the awards of the historical
monarchy when reigning where the historical families were a real part of
the fabric of state. With respect to other awards made by non-reigning
monarchs that are ahistorical, not rooted in the laws and traditions of
the foreign monarchy I would think that the creation of such things is
ill-advised and I would find it difficult to rationalize the creation of
such awards other than as a vanity offered to those who might mistake the
award for something it cannot be.

I agree with you, but as I said in this case there was no other possible
solution.

I appreciate the allure of the pragmatic response - 'it was necessary'.
There is of course the alternative to not create the titles, or acknowledge
the misstep and undo it. The worst possible result is that some supporters
are offended because they really wanted a title and had not been born with
one and had not been granted one by their own state. I am sure that some
other token of esteem could easily help them feel properly valued again. The
pragmatic necessity appears to relate to the sensibilities of folks who got
'titles' in exchange for whatever support they offered - was the concern
that their support for the cause of the Rwandan monarchy dry up if they
didn't get impressive sounding titles. If that is the case then of course
the support is not real but more a question of what is in it for me and the
dignity or traditions of a monarchy are being sold off for nothing more than
quantities of financial and other support.

Post by I.A.G.I.
Yes you are right but remember I has received a lot of awards during my life
from all the world (the most part coming from States or Statual bodies), but
I never advertised them and now that I am president/chairman of ICOC when I
issue an advice, it is very difficult that I accept an award, but in the
case of King Kigeli I accepted it as a witness of esteem toward the work of
ICOC and because I was aware of the history of the life of the King, and I
talked a lot with him who appeared to me a marvelous person, only interested
in the well of his people, and not in the creation of "chivalric orders" or
"nobiliary titles" ...

For the sake of some transparency it might be desirable to institute a new
practice whereby the members of the ICOC simply list the various awards they
had accepted. In the past for example it appeared that a previous ICOC Chair
was in a conflict of interest because of his high posiiton in the Order of
St. Lazarus and his efforts to have ICOC recognize St. Lazarus. You have
tried to place ICOC on a more impartial footing. Such a listing of awards
would eliminate any speculation about motivations or agendas.

Post by I.A.G.I.

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
PFDU> And I advised about which right solution was possible in a still
existing situation (this is the reason of this solution because it was
conditioned by the existing reality.
If this reality was not existing clearly my advice should have been
different and I had suggested to not create such kind of honours).
I think that who follows this newsgroup should bring only
clarification to the explanation of the facts, demonstrating a deep
competence on the argument and avoiding to show an attitude near to
racism, prejudice, not willing to know or see what is out of Europe,
and what can happen out of European history.
GL> We are in agreement that a sound position might have been to
recommend that such titles of Marquess or Count not be created in the
forst place but I am not clear why the correct approach might not have
been to advise that the grants (made to a close circle of supporters I
gather) simply be withdrawn and returned to King Kigeli. Unfortunately
the course of action that was less clear and led to the creation of
promises of titles-honours in a European-equivalent form (whatever that
means in terms of Rwandan historical practice - what Rwandan title is the
equivalent of a Marquess or of a Count? I understand that there were high
social ranks of a different form but with the different social structure
which were the Rwandan equivalents of the European equivalents?) What has
in fact happened is that some folks even quite involved in the activities
of that royal house have been using the title of Marquess, etc. as it had
been originally granted as opposed to how it was corrected and justified
on the basis of your advice. For my part I would suggest that the logical
course of action would be to simply that King Kigeli through his various
officials simply acknowledge that he has been ill-advised and to request
that those who recieved such titles simply stop using them and return
their grants. In recompense he could offer his friendship or esteem and
teh token of another Rwandan order. I would even have no logical
difficulty (although politically I would not understand it) with the King
expressing his sentiment that his American and European supporters were
deserving of a further reward and his intention to create a hereditary
foreign nobility in Rwanda if he were returned to the throne. The
difference would be that this would be straightforward - something might
happen in the future. What we have is something that appears to be
created now by a non-reigning monarch, but structured so that on close
reading it says this is not the case - something akin to the 'genuine
authentic man-made diamond indistinguisable from a naturally occurring
diamond'. Is it a diamond?

You are a very dear dreamer and I like what you say but you should know that
the persons who go to find "nobiliary titles" when they think their
objective is reached dont abandon it...
As it happened for the "nobiliary titles" of Montenegro and Yugoslavia....
and I add the example of a "nobiliary title" granted by an old Chief of
Tuscany House at the end of XX Century... never abandoned. History teaches
the same when during XVI-XVII Century people went to search nobiliary titles
coming from Orient Empire (although it is demonstrated the Chiefs of those
Imperial Houses were fake)!!!

Again, that people seek out soi-disant or actual monarchs to obtain
soi-disant or ahistorical titles provides little basis for supporting the
practice. It would seem like a sensible thing to discourage. This may in
fact make me a 'dreamer', but if you eliminate the historical and 'moral' or
traditonal basis for such awards they are little more than purchased
vanities. Accepting that such a practice 'ennobles' in any historical sense
seems to say - people are vain and if they believe the notion that such
'nobiliry titles' set them higher then we should accept this because they
won't give up the pretense. My expectation is that folks who sought Rwandan
nobiliary titles will unfortunately find they have little cachet and in fact
raise eyebrows - not because they are African but because of the inevitable
and difficult questions, such as - when did Rwanda get a hereditary
European style aristicracy - and what extraordinary thing did the title
holder do to deserve such a high honour. To the extent that such questions
are difficult to answer the cachet of the title is diminished.

Post by I.A.G.I.
I suppose I was not clear because you did not understand what I mean.
I said there are public awards and private awards (in the term awards in
this case I include all).
ICOC studies particularly private awards and gives an historical value to
those private awards that deserve.
Excluding most rare cases in ICOC Register until now only private awards are
listed.
I study particularly what I consider private awards, some of greatest
importance as the order of Golden Fleece granted by Karl of Austria, but
from a pragmatic point of view today they remain private awards.

I understand your point. For greater clarity I suggest the following
distinctions -
1. sovereign or state awarded
2. legitimate (emanating from de jure sovereignty) or historical
3. private (emanating from merely private initiative) or self-styled

Most of the awards on the ICOC register would then fall within the second
group and private initiatives or self-styled orders would fall in the third.
Rolling everything that is not state or sovereign into the categpry of
private obscures some imprtant distinctions and seems inconsistent with the
criteria used by the ICOC.

Post by I.A.G.I.

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
PFDU> I met the King Kigeli in Casale Monferrato on March 2006 because he
participated in the Ballo dei Cento e non più Cento, that was an
occasion to talk with me about the argument.
According to the discussion with me and following my suggestion the
King decided to grant only honors that are not nobiliary titles as in
the European meaning.
I find odd that in this newsgroup it is continued to talk about
nobiliary titles in XXI Century, thinking in the same manner than in
the past without finding new solutions.
In this case if the honours granted by the King Kigeli can become
valid in Africa in XXI Century, however they cannot be comparable to
the ancient European nobiliary titles.
GL> I am confused. If the awards of King Kigeli cannot, in your view, be
compared to the ancient European nobiliary titles (which is the point I
have tried to make in this thread) then why style them Marquess or Count
and why make a point of calling them 'European-equivalent'.

At first I explained that this style was used in the first grants, because
probably it is the most loved by those who love this kind of "honours", I
repeat the same thing was made also from the last King of Montenegro and
Yugoslavia... I only justified and corrected a previous situation that
cannot revoked making it acceptable.

I don't understand that 'it can't be revoked'. The worst case scenario is
that somne folks who love this kind of honour are offended. On the other
hand I don't see how it can really be made acceptable by playing around with
the language when the intent is to find a way around rescinding titles you
also believe should not have been granted in the first place. It remains
ahistorical.

Post by I.A.G.I.

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
GL> Pier Felice - the idea that these titles are 'Napoleonic' is an
interesting one - does it suggest that King Kigeli is seeking to
implement in Rwanda a restructuring of the traditional social order and
the creation of new elites?

I did not say this I only quoted an example from the past to clarify the new
meaning of nobility after Napolen, and nothing more.

Then the question still is the what is the actual new meaning of Rwandan
nobility that the King is wishing to create. This should be spelled out and
would give a context to things - not spellin thinggs out will lead to
reading a variety of possible meanings into the thing.

Post by I.A.G.I.

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
GL> Then are you suggesting that the awards made by King Kigeli are of
this sort and that a Marquess of Rwanda is much like a TV Duke of Hazzard
or a colourful municipal honour which does not pretend to be a nobillary
award of any sort? From what I understand from the way in which the royal
Rwandan title of Marquess, etc. has been used it was presumed to be an
aristocratic title.

I have only demonstrated that there are grants which use a nobiliary style
but are not nobiliary titles, as those of Rwanda that are only honors, if
the persons use simple honors as they are aristocratic titles this is wrong
but it is not fault of the King of Rwanda.
In Italy and Spain there are persons who consider the simple
"certification
of coat of arms" as a recognition of nobility!
This is fully wrong but it is not fault of the Kings of Spain or of the
Cronistas de Armas.
In England there are the manorial titles, and there are persons in the world
that use them as nobiliary titles in the ancient meaning. All of us well
know they are not, nobiliary titles but ancient feudal rights and the fault
of this bad use is not of HM the Queen of Great Britain.

In this case part of the confusion is undoubtedly that the letters patent
several times refer to 'hereditary nobiliary title of Marquis' which would
make it understandable that people jump to the conclusion that they are in
fact the recipients of hereditary titles of nobility. I appreciate that you
point out that there is a caveat in the letters patent that somehow gets
around this - but it seems the reason that people presume to use the
aristocratic title is that that the letter patent several times refer to it
in precisely this way. To quote from the letters patent - "This hereditary
nobiliary title of Marquis shall descend by way of male primogeniture..." or
"We do grant a title of honour, correspondent to the hereditary nobiliary
title of Marquis in the European tradition..." Notwithstanding the intended
subleties of other language in the letters patent it is clear that folks
will believe that they are Marquesses or something equivalent in the circle
of the Rwandan monarchy.

Post by I.A.G.I.
Many times my surname "degli Uberti" is overturned, and about this the exact
Christian name of my wife is Maria Loredana that is the Virgin of Loreto
(she sends you her best regards).

Thank you.

Post by I.A.G.I.

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
GL> Thank you for what has been the most comprehensive response to the
questions of this thread. We will likely continue to disagree and I am of
a view that the whole issue is a cautionary tale to any advisors of
non-reigning monarchical houses or thsie who aspire to nice sounding
nobillary titles whatever their source. Don't go there. It is only a
source of embarrassment. The better course of action is likely in most
cases for the supporters of such causes to stay true to the real
traditions of whatever monarchy they might support and avoid coveting
newly minted nobillary titles and the like.

Why to disagree? I repeat I am a pragmatic person who lives in the reality.

In some ways none of this we are discussing is about pragmatism (pragmatism
about noble titles and dynastic chivalric orders? - these are probably among
the less pragmatic topics even on a heraldic discussion forum) but about
more about respect for tradition and discerning and remaining true to
history and perhaps legitimist principles. Without those where does one draw
the line? Noble titles clearly have their snob appeal in some circles even
in modern republics and yet authentic titles are simply inherited as a
legacy of families' historical roles and are but an accident of birth.
Vanity of course drives some folks to obtain titles that they were not born
with and were not the gift of their sovereign (if they owe allegiance to a
state that maintains such traditions). Unfortunately such titles reflect
neither historical merits nor any tradition of family service, etc. They are
simply commodities of vanity.
I do appreciate the pragmatic problem. Generous supporters of King Kigeli
having received new 'noble titles' or awards would be dismayed to learn
these are ahistorical and dismayed if asked to return them. The pragmatic
solution is to keep them happy while altering the form of the grant to avoid
criticism that ahistorical titles are being granted and defining them as the
promises of awards of honour styled as though they were noble titles. With
four dynastic orders and in some five grades there would seem ample room to
reward loyal supporters without recourse to ahistorical titles we both seem
to agree are unfortunate.



George Lucki

[I.A.G.I.]

Post by George Lucki

Post by I.A.G.I.

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
As scholar I am a pragmatic and personally I dont give value to kind
of grant or recognition (nobiliary titles or chivalric orders or
recognition by nobiliary associations or bodies) which does not come
from a State where the nobiliary/chivalric matter is still today
legally recognized.
GL> I would be interested in your further views on this as in this case
your perspectives certainly appear to be more conservative than even my
own. Are you saying that in your view that chivalric awards for example
that do not 1) emanate from a state and b) where chivalric rank is still
recognized legally are of no value?

For me chivalric (disputable term) awards are legally valid only if they
come from a State or a body internationally recognized as sovereign.
In different case it has only a private value. This is the law in all the
world and this means to be pragmatic

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
Would you include successor states where the original state no longer
exists, such as the Italian or German states? By these criteria some of
the chivalric awards listed in the register would be of no value

I have talked only of legal value, that is different from the moral or
historical value.
Anyway in Italy today some orders coming from past Italian dynasties are
authorized (not recognized!) by the Republic to be publicly used.
What is listed on the ICOC Register if does not come from a State has only
private value.
One of the reasons for which ICOC exists, is to offer to all the persons
interested in the matter a list that has an historical basis and is useful
to understand which realities still survive coming from the past and
continue still now to live although in a private form.
ICOC is useful to alert people from what does not have historical bases
and - as Sainty says - is "self-styled".

Pier Felice,
I find myself in agreement with what you write - I would probably also
have emphasized some of the 'public' or historical qualities of the
hereditary titles and ranks of the old order of European monarchies. They
are part of the living patrimony or heritage of most European states. I
would suggest that this is more than a private matter. But leaving that
aside, in essence we are both supporting the importance of distinguishing
the authentic historical titles, ranks or orders from the self-styled,
ahistorical ones. As you say, "ICOC is useful to alert people from what
does not have historical bases and - as Sainty says - is "self-styled"."
The point that I would make is that this is precisely my concern with the
Rwandan 'titles' - they do not have a historical basis. In my mind the
correct approach would have been for King Kigeli not to take the step of
granting such titles. As you can see the 'pragmatic' approach is not
helping the Rwandan cause - it merely highlights that questionable
practices had occured - the granting of titles that were ahistorical; may
be continuing - the use of titles where only the 'promise of an honour'
was made; and a complex rationale was established to justify a practice
that in the end seems to be built on aa series of presumed loopholes. I
know that this is not the general way in which the ICOC approaches the
problem of orders or similar awards that are ahistorical. In general the
posiiton is 'non-pragmatic' - the ICOC simply does not extend a seal of
approval to foundations that are are not rooted in historical dynastic
practice. I would have thought the best advice to King Kigeli would be,
"Keep it simple - act in the ways that are consistent with the traditions
of your dynasty and fire advisors who encourage you to do otherwise. They
place their own aspirations and vanities ahead of Rwandan tradition."

You are confusing ICOC with my personal advice to the King.
ICOC never dealt with nobiliary titles and this is not its duty, please read
at www.icocregister.org or better:
http://www.icocregister.org/authority.htm
http://www.icocregister.org/principles.htm
ICOC studies only chivalric orders, self-styled chivalric orders, award
systems, noble corporations, other nobiliary bodies or ecclesiastical
decorations inside Europe or the European tradition (ie Brazil).
At the moment what is out of the European tradition is not argument of study
of ICOC.
We are going very slow to avoid errors.
ICOC before taking a position about extra-European items must be sure that
its Commissioners have made serious and deep studies on the argument, and at
this step we are not in this condition.
If I also can agree with you my first duty is to save a situation existing
avoiding more grave errors.
But in everycase I dont see a so great difference between the errors made by
former European dynasties who made or are doing errors because of their
courtisans (Montenegro, Yugoslavia, Italy, Tuscany, Parma ect) and the
errors made by Extra-European dynasties which are so contested on this
newsgroup.
I.e. nobody was shocked when a Chief of former Royal House has invented a
new "order" during 1980 years, but there are so many other examples I dont
have the time to quote here.

Post by George Lucki

Post by I.A.G.I.

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
PFDU> And I am much more strict for my own Country, Italy, where not all of
the nobiliary recognitions made during the Kingdom of Italy were made
in honest manner, but sometimes only because of opportunity (I believe
it is necessary to examine again all the past recognitions of nobility
to control the veracity according the modern scientific criteria). I
dont issue comments about other States because my knowledge is not so
deep to judge.
Less and less I consider valid every private grant, as those coming
from kings/chiefs of former Imperial/Royal Houses ect out of the
throne.
GL> Certainly I agree with you about the problem of the validity of
private grants of 'nobility' by non-reigning houses. I often share
concerns when such grants are made outside of the royal house itself,
that they are usually ill-advised regardless of the laws and traditions
of the previous monarchy as such titles make sense really only within
the social order of the reigning monarchy. Nonetheless where such ranks
are traditional and customary in conjunction with an office at court, a
rank within a dynastic order, etc. I resepct the view of the
non-reigning dynasty that their actions are in accord with the traditons
of their house and the pretense they make to continued legitimacy. For
the most part such awards or ranks of course are completely ignored
outside the circle of supporters of the cause of the monarchy and it
would seem that these new awards are not equivalent to the awards of the
historical monarchy when reigning where the historical families were a
real part of the fabric of state. With respect to other awards made by
non-reigning monarchs that are ahistorical, not rooted in the laws and
traditions of the foreign monarchy I would think that the creation of
such things is ill-advised and I would find it difficult to rationalize
the creation of such awards other than as a vanity offered to those who
might mistake the award for something it cannot be.

I agree with you, but as I said in this case there was no other possible
solution.

I appreciate the allure of the pragmatic response - 'it was necessary'.
There is of course the alternative to not create the titles, or
acknowledge the misstep and undo it. The worst possible result is that
some supporters are offended because they really wanted a title and had
not been born with one and had not been granted one by their own state. I
am sure that some other token of esteem could easily help them feel
properly valued again. The pragmatic necessity appears to relate to the
sensibilities of folks who got 'titles' in exchange for whatever support
they offered - was the concern that their support for the cause of the
Rwandan monarchy dry up if they didn't get impressive sounding titles. If
that is the case then of course the support is not real but more a
question of what is in it for me and the dignity or traditions of a
monarchy are being sold off for nothing more than quantities of financial
and other support.

Post by I.A.G.I.
Yes you are right but remember I has received a lot of awards during my life
from all the world (the most part coming from States or Statual bodies), but
I never advertised them and now that I am president/chairman of ICOC when I
issue an advice, it is very difficult that I accept an award, but in the
case of King Kigeli I accepted it as a witness of esteem toward the work of
ICOC and because I was aware of the history of the life of the King, and I
talked a lot with him who appeared to me a marvelous person, only interested
in the well of his people, and not in the creation of "chivalric orders" or
"nobiliary titles" ...

For the sake of some transparency it might be desirable to institute a new
practice whereby the members of the ICOC simply list the various awards
they had accepted. In the past for example it appeared that a previous
ICOC Chair was in a conflict of interest because of his high posiiton in
the Order of St. Lazarus and his efforts to have ICOC recognize St.
Lazarus. You have tried to place ICOC on a more impartial footing. Such a
listing of awards would eliminate any speculation about motivations or
agendas.

I see you have not read the statutes of ICOC.
The Executive Committee knows the list of the orders or awards belonging to
the Commissioners, who are completely free to accept what they consider
valid but at "Article VII - it is written: ...
All Commission Members will be forbidden to be part of or to participate in
meetings organised by self-styled chivalric orders, award systems, noble
corporations, other nobiliary bodies or hold ecclesiastical decorations etc.
not listed in the ICOC Register. All those who are the legal
representatives, or the highest officers or the officers with the most
important decisional responsibilities in bodies which could be studied and
in future listed by the Commission in the ICOC Register, cannot be part of
ICOC, with the purpose of dismissing even the smallest suspicion that in the
ICOC there could be persons whose presence could indirectly influence the
free decisions of the ICOC".

This is serioussness as few persons are able to do!!!

But I wanted this to avoid any criticism, and I want to stress that
everybody is free to criticize ICOC, and every criticism if founded on
serious bases will be considered by ICOC.

You surely will now ask me why I accepted a Rwandan Award so to avoid to
reply again, as you by yourself can see the Rwandan matter is not argument
of study of ICOC, at least at the moment, so for ICOC Rwandan Awards do not
exist. As the Awarding Systems of Rotary do not exist (for the moment) and
so I can freely use my Paul Harris Fellow without violating the Statute of
ICOC.

Post by George Lucki

Post by I.A.G.I.

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
PFDU> And I advised about which right solution was possible in a still
existing situation (this is the reason of this solution because it was
conditioned by the existing reality.
If this reality was not existing clearly my advice should have been
different and I had suggested to not create such kind of honours).
I think that who follows this newsgroup should bring only
clarification to the explanation of the facts, demonstrating a deep
competence on the argument and avoiding to show an attitude near to
racism, prejudice, not willing to know or see what is out of Europe,
and what can happen out of European history.
GL> We are in agreement that a sound position might have been to
recommend that such titles of Marquess or Count not be created in the
forst place but I am not clear why the correct approach might not have
been to advise that the grants (made to a close circle of supporters I
gather) simply be withdrawn and returned to King Kigeli. Unfortunately
the course of action that was less clear and led to the creation of
promises of titles-honours in a European-equivalent form (whatever that
means in terms of Rwandan historical practice - what Rwandan title is
the equivalent of a Marquess or of a Count? I understand that there were
high social ranks of a different form but with the different social
structure which were the Rwandan equivalents of the European
equivalents?) What has in fact happened is that some folks even quite
involved in the activities of that royal house have been using the title
of Marquess, etc. as it had been originally granted as opposed to how it
was corrected and justified on the basis of your advice. For my part I
would suggest that the logical course of action would be to simply that
King Kigeli through his various officials simply acknowledge that he has
been ill-advised and to request that those who recieved such titles
simply stop using them and return their grants. In recompense he could
offer his friendship or esteem and teh token of another Rwandan order. I
would even have no logical difficulty (although politically I would not
understand it) with the King expressing his sentiment that his American
and European supporters were deserving of a further reward and his
intention to create a hereditary foreign nobility in Rwanda if he were
returned to the throne. The difference would be that this would be
straightforward - something might happen in the future. What we have is
something that appears to be created now by a non-reigning monarch, but
structured so that on close reading it says this is not the case -
something akin to the 'genuine authentic man-made diamond
indistinguisable from a naturally occurring diamond'. Is it a diamond?

You are a very dear dreamer and I like what you say but you should know that
the persons who go to find "nobiliary titles" when they think their
objective is reached dont abandon it...
As it happened for the "nobiliary titles" of Montenegro and
Yugoslavia....
and I add the example of a "nobiliary title" granted by an old Chief of
Tuscany House at the end of XX Century... never abandoned. History teaches
the same when during XVI-XVII Century people went to search nobiliary titles
coming from Orient Empire (although it is demonstrated the Chiefs of those
Imperial Houses were fake)!!!

Again, that people seek out soi-disant or actual monarchs to obtain
soi-disant or ahistorical titles provides little basis for supporting the
practice. It would seem like a sensible thing to discourage. This may in
fact make me a 'dreamer', but if you eliminate the historical and 'moral'
or traditonal basis for such awards they are little more than purchased
vanities. Accepting that such a practice 'ennobles' in any historical
sense seems to say - people are vain and if they believe the notion that
such 'nobiliry titles' set them higher then we should accept this because
they won't give up the pretense. My expectation is that folks who sought
Rwandan nobiliary titles will unfortunately find they have little cachet
and in fact raise eyebrows - not because they are African but because of
the inevitable and difficult questions, such as - when did Rwanda get a
hereditary European style aristicracy - and what extraordinary thing did
the title holder do to deserve such a high honour. To the extent that such
questions are difficult to answer the cachet of the title is diminished.

Post by I.A.G.I.
I suppose I was not clear because you did not understand what I mean.
I said there are public awards and private awards (in the term awards in
this case I include all).
ICOC studies particularly private awards and gives an historical value to
those private awards that deserve.
Excluding most rare cases in ICOC Register until now only private awards are
listed.
I study particularly what I consider private awards, some of greatest
importance as the order of Golden Fleece granted by Karl of Austria, but
from a pragmatic point of view today they remain private awards.

I understand your point. For greater clarity I suggest the following
distinctions -
1. sovereign or state awarded
2. legitimate (emanating from de jure sovereignty) or historical
3. private (emanating from merely private initiative) or self-styled
Most of the awards on the ICOC register would then fall within the second
group and private initiatives or self-styled orders would fall in the
third. Rolling everything that is not state or sovereign into the categpry
of private obscures some imprtant distinctions and seems inconsistent with
the criteria used by the ICOC.

At first as I told you Rwandan Awards matter is not argument for ICOC.
Please I find interesting what you write so would you like to send me by e
mail your wider comments on the argument above, so I can understand better
what you say.

Post by George Lucki

Post by I.A.G.I.

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
PFDU> I met the King Kigeli in Casale Monferrato on March 2006 because he
participated in the Ballo dei Cento e non più Cento, that was an
occasion to talk with me about the argument.
According to the discussion with me and following my suggestion the
King decided to grant only honors that are not nobiliary titles as in
the European meaning.
I find odd that in this newsgroup it is continued to talk about
nobiliary titles in XXI Century, thinking in the same manner than in
the past without finding new solutions.
In this case if the honours granted by the King Kigeli can become
valid in Africa in XXI Century, however they cannot be comparable to
the ancient European nobiliary titles.
GL> I am confused. If the awards of King Kigeli cannot, in your view, be
compared to the ancient European nobiliary titles (which is the point I
have tried to make in this thread) then why style them Marquess or Count
and why make a point of calling them 'European-equivalent'.

At first I explained that this style was used in the first grants, because
probably it is the most loved by those who love this kind of "honours", I
repeat the same thing was made also from the last King of Montenegro and
Yugoslavia... I only justified and corrected a previous situation that
cannot revoked making it acceptable.

I don't understand that 'it can't be revoked'. The worst case scenario is
that somne folks who love this kind of honour are offended. On the other
hand I don't see how it can really be made acceptable by playing around
with the language when the intent is to find a way around rescinding
titles you also believe should not have been granted in the first place.
It remains ahistorical.

This is only your opinion, and you are not of a King (or former King) smile.
Remember that when the Monarchies really existed if a sovereign granted a
nobiliary title the ancient nobility always disagree because did not want
new entries in the nobility (closed class). Unfortunately today Monarchies
are very few and less and less those who grant titles, this is the reason
why today - for those persons very few who still consider these things - it
is necessary to find new solutions.

Post by George Lucki

Post by I.A.G.I.

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
GL> Pier Felice - the idea that these titles are 'Napoleonic' is an
interesting one - does it suggest that King Kigeli is seeking to
implement in Rwanda a restructuring of the traditional social order and
the creation of new elites?

I did not say this I only quoted an example from the past to clarify the new
meaning of nobility after Napolen, and nothing more.

Then the question still is the what is the actual new meaning of Rwandan
nobility that the King is wishing to create. This should be spelled out
and would give a context to things - not spellin thinggs out will lead to
reading a variety of possible meanings into the thing.

I think I have lost my time. Abandon the idea of a nobility in Rwanda, I
never talked of this.
In Rwanda nobility does not exist!!!

Post by George Lucki

Post by I.A.G.I.

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
GL> Then are you suggesting that the awards made by King Kigeli are of
this sort and that a Marquess of Rwanda is much like a TV Duke of
Hazzard or a colourful municipal honour which does not pretend to be a
nobillary award of any sort? From what I understand from the way in
which the royal Rwandan title of Marquess, etc. has been used it was
presumed to be an aristocratic title.

I have only demonstrated that there are grants which use a nobiliary style
but are not nobiliary titles, as those of Rwanda that are only honors, if
the persons use simple honors as they are aristocratic titles this is wrong
but it is not fault of the King of Rwanda.
In Italy and Spain there are persons who consider the simple
"certification
of coat of arms" as a recognition of nobility!
This is fully wrong but it is not fault of the Kings of Spain or of the
Cronistas de Armas.
In England there are the manorial titles, and there are persons in the world
that use them as nobiliary titles in the ancient meaning. All of us well
know they are not, nobiliary titles but ancient feudal rights and the fault
of this bad use is not of HM the Queen of Great Britain.

In this case part of the confusion is undoubtedly that the letters patent
several times refer to 'hereditary nobiliary title of Marquis' which would
make it understandable that people jump to the conclusion that they are in
fact the recipients of hereditary titles of nobility. I appreciate that
you point out that there is a caveat in the letters patent that somehow
gets around this - but it seems the reason that people presume to use the
aristocratic title is that that the letter patent several times refer to
it in precisely this way. To quote from the letters patent - "This
hereditary nobiliary title of Marquis shall descend by way of male
primogeniture..." or "We do grant a title of honour, correspondent to the
hereditary nobiliary title of Marquis in the European tradition..."
Notwithstanding the intended subleties of other language in the letters
patent it is clear that folks will believe that they are Marquesses or
something equivalent in the circle of the Rwandan monarchy.

You must value the importance of the word "correspondent": to correspond
does not mean to be.
I repeat in Rwanda counts, marquises, dukes, princes according to the
European meaning do not exist .

Post by George Lucki

Post by I.A.G.I.
Many times my surname "degli Uberti" is overturned, and about this the exact
Christian name of my wife is Maria Loredana that is the Virgin of Loreto
(she sends you her best regards).

Thank you.

Post by I.A.G.I.

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
GL> Thank you for what has been the most comprehensive response to the
questions of this thread. We will likely continue to disagree and I am
of a view that the whole issue is a cautionary tale to any advisors of
non-reigning monarchical houses or thsie who aspire to nice sounding
nobillary titles whatever their source. Don't go there. It is only a
source of embarrassment. The better course of action is likely in most
cases for the supporters of such causes to stay true to the real
traditions of whatever monarchy they might support and avoid coveting
newly minted nobillary titles and the like.

Why to disagree? I repeat I am a pragmatic person who lives in the reality.

In some ways none of this we are discussing is about pragmatism
(pragmatism about noble titles and dynastic chivalric orders? - these are
probably among the less pragmatic topics even on a heraldic discussion
forum) but about more about respect for tradition and discerning and
remaining true to history and perhaps legitimist principles. Without those
where does one draw the line? Noble titles clearly have their snob appeal
in some circles even in modern republics and yet authentic titles are
simply inherited as a legacy of families' historical roles and are but an
accident of birth. Vanity of course drives some folks to obtain titles
that they were not born with and were not the gift of their sovereign (if
they owe allegiance to a state that maintains such traditions).
Unfortunately such titles reflect neither historical merits nor any
tradition of family service, etc. They are simply commodities of vanity.

It was always so. I.e. in Italy there are families who did not obtain to be
noble or to have nobiliary titles and decided to go abroad to buy a
nobiliary title, which had nothing to do with their history.

Post by George Lucki
I do appreciate the pragmatic problem. Generous supporters of King Kigeli
having received new 'noble titles' or awards

I repeat they obtained "honours" not nobiliary titles.

would be dismayed to learn

Post by George Lucki
these are ahistorical and dismayed if asked to return them. The pragmatic
solution is to keep them happy while altering the form of the grant to
avoid criticism that ahistorical titles are being granted and defining
them as the promises of awards of honour styled as though they were noble
titles. With four dynastic orders and in some five grades there would seem
ample room to reward loyal supporters without recourse to ahistorical
titles we both seem to agree are unfortunate.

I agree, but for my position ICOC I cannot affirm now that Rwadan Awards
that you call "four dynastic orders" are "dynastic order" as you define
them.

Dear Jerzy I end here this discussion about "Rwandan Honors confused with
European Nobiliary Titles" because it is not an argument of my specific
interest, the readers are very few (my Italian forum www.iagiforum.info has
much more readers than rec.heraldry although it is in Italian) and I think I
was completely exaustive.
If you have further comments please write to me by e mail and I will reply
in Italian.

Best regards
Pier Felice degli Uberti

Post by George Lucki
George Lucki

[George Lucki]

This discussion is winding down.

Post by I.A.G.I.
You are confusing ICOC with my personal advice to the King.
ICOC never dealt with nobiliary titles and this is not its duty, please
http://www.icocregister.org/authority.htm
http://www.icocregister.org/principles.htm
ICOC studies only chivalric orders, self-styled chivalric orders, award
systems, noble corporations, other nobiliary bodies or ecclesiastical
decorations inside Europe or the European tradition (ie Brazil).
At the moment what is out of the European tradition is not argument of
study of ICOC.
We are going very slow to avoid errors.
ICOC before taking a position about extra-European items must be sure that
its Commissioners have made serious and deep studies on the argument, and
at this step we are not in this condition.
If I also can agree with you my first duty is to save a situation existing
avoiding more grave errors.
But in everycase I dont see a so great difference between the errors made
by former European dynasties who made or are doing errors because of their
courtisans (Montenegro, Yugoslavia, Italy, Tuscany, Parma ect) and the
errors made by Extra-European dynasties which are so contested on this
newsgroup.
I.e. nobody was shocked when a Chief of former Royal House has invented a
new "order" during 1980 years, but there are so many other examples I dont
have the time to quote here.

I understand. The Rwandan Letters Patent were your private advice to King
Kigeli. You were not acting on behalf of ICOC and ICOC has no present
interest in Rwanda.
Nonetheless the logic of the advice you gave and the contradiction between
that advice and the principles you apply in ICOC leads to natural questions.
The private advice given to King Kigeli is inconsistent with the historical
and legitimist perspective advanced by ICOC.

Post by I.A.G.I.
You surely will now ask me why I accepted a Rwandan Award so to avoid to
reply again, as you by yourself can see the Rwandan matter is not argument
of study of ICOC, at least at the moment, so for ICOC Rwandan Awards do
not exist. As the Awarding Systems of Rotary do not exist (for the moment)
and so I can freely use my Paul Harris Fellow without violating the
Statute of ICOC.

I am not suggesting any violation of the stautes of the ICOC - I am
wondering about the consistency of the Rwandan advice with the principles by
which the ICOC works. I really have no criticism of your accepting a
decoration from King Kigeli. I am really quite accepting of such awards -
almost every non-reigning dynasty has tried to continue such awards or in a
number of cases created new ones. They are what they are - symbolic tokens
of appreciation to the supporters of a particular cause. Where they have
been continued from the dynasty's reign theya are also a part of the
patrimony of that dynasty.

Post by I.A.G.I.

Post by George Lucki
I understand your point. For greater clarity I suggest the following
distinctions -
1. sovereign or state awarded
2. legitimate (emanating from de jure sovereignty) or historical
3. private (emanating from merely private initiative) or self-styled
Most of the awards on the ICOC register would then fall within the second
group and private initiatives or self-styled orders would fall in the
third. Rolling everything that is not state or sovereign into the
categpry of private obscures some imprtant distinctions and seems
inconsistent with the criteria used by the ICOC.

At first as I told you Rwandan Awards matter is not argument for ICOC.
Please I find interesting what you write so would you like to send me by e
mail your wider comments on the argument above, so I can understand better
what you say.

I'll expand on this in an e-mail if you wish. Some additional
sub-classification is usefula se well/ You are right I am proposing a
classification for orders in general and this is not related to Rwanda in
general.

Post by I.A.G.I.

Post by George Lucki
I don't understand that 'it can't be revoked'. The worst case scenario is
that somne folks who love this kind of honour are offended. On the other
hand I don't see how it can really be made acceptable by playing around
with the language when the intent is to find a way around rescinding
titles you also believe should not have been granted in the first place.
It remains ahistorical.

This is only your opinion, and you are not of a King (or former King) smile.
Remember that when the Monarchies really existed if a sovereign granted a
nobiliary title the ancient nobility always disagree because did not want
new entries in the nobility (closed class). Unfortunately today Monarchies
are very few and less and less those who grant titles, this is the reason
why today - for those persons very few who still consider these things -
it is necessary to find new solutions.

Why is it necessary to find this solution? I'm not sure I understand the
necessity for any non-reigning sovereign to grant new titles when they had
not done so while reigning.

Post by I.A.G.I.
I think I have lost my time. Abandon the idea of a nobility in Rwanda, I
never talked of this.
In Rwanda nobility does not exist!!!

When I see terms such as "This hereditary nobiliary title of Marquis shall
descend by way of male primogeniture" I cannot help but see the intention to
create a hereditary nobility in Rwanda made up of the recipients of these
grants - nobiliary title=noble title; the holder of a noble title is a noble
isn't he? Or am I misunderstanding something here. The secretary general to
King Kigeli calls himself Marquis and believes King Kigeli created him a
marquess. Is he wrong?

Post by I.A.G.I.
You must value the importance of the word "correspondent": to correspond
does not mean to be.
I repeat in Rwanda counts, marquises, dukes, princes according to the
European meaning do not exist .

Again I'm missing something - the Letters Patent say "a title of honour,
correspondent to the hereditary nobiliary title of X". Correspondent to
means equivalent to or similar to - it would seem that something similar to
a hereditary noble title of Marquis that is referred to in the text as "this
hereditary nobiliary title of Marquis" would be a hereditary nobiliary title
like that of Marquis. Am I missing something?

George Lucki

[a***@yahoo.com]

Post by George Lucki
This discussion is winding down.

Post by I.A.G.I.
You are confusing ICOC with my personal advice to the King.
ICOC never dealt with nobiliary titles and this is not its duty, please
http://www.icocregister.org/authority.htm
http://www.icocregister.org/principles.htm
ICOC studies only chivalric orders, self-styled chivalric orders, award
systems, noble corporations, other nobiliary bodies or ecclesiastical
decorations inside Europe or the European tradition (ie Brazil).
At the moment what is out of the European tradition is not argument of
study of ICOC.
We are going very slow to avoid errors.
ICOC before taking a position about extra-European items must be sure that
its Commissioners have made serious and deep studies on the argument, and
at this step we are not in this condition.
If I also can agree with you my first duty is to save a situation existing
avoiding more grave errors.
But in everycase I dont see a so great difference between the errors made
by former European dynasties who made or are doing errors because of their
courtisans (Montenegro, Yugoslavia, Italy, Tuscany, Parma ect) and the
errors made by Extra-European dynasties which are so contested on this
newsgroup.
I.e. nobody was shocked when a Chief of former Royal House has invented a
new "order" during 1980 years, but there are so many other examples I dont
have the time to quote here.

I understand. The Rwandan Letters Patent were your private advice to King
Kigeli. You were not acting on behalf of ICOC and ICOC has no present
interest in Rwanda.
Nonetheless the logic of the advice you gave and the contradiction between
that advice and the principles you apply in ICOC leads to natural questions.
The private advice given to King Kigeli is inconsistent with the historical
and legitimist perspective advanced by ICOC.

Post by I.A.G.I.
You surely will now ask me why I accepted a Rwandan Award so to avoid to
reply again, as you by yourself can see the Rwandan matter is not argument
of study of ICOC, at least at the moment, so for ICOC Rwandan Awards do
not exist. As the Awarding Systems of Rotary do not exist (for the moment)
and so I can freely use my Paul Harris Fellow without violating the
Statute of ICOC.

I am not suggesting any violation of the stautes of the ICOC - I am
wondering about the consistency of the Rwandan advice with the principles by
which the ICOC works. I really have no criticism of your accepting a
decoration from King Kigeli. I am really quite accepting of such awards -
almost every non-reigning dynasty has tried to continue such awards or in a
number of cases created new ones. They are what they are - symbolic tokens
of appreciation to the supporters of a particular cause. Where they have
been continued from the dynasty's reign theya are also a part of the
patrimony of that dynasty.

Post by I.A.G.I.

Post by George Lucki
I understand your point. For greater clarity I suggest the following
distinctions -
1. sovereign or state awarded
2. legitimate (emanating from de jure sovereignty) or historical
3. private (emanating from merely private initiative) or self-styled
Most of the awards on the ICOC register would then fall within the second
group and private initiatives or self-styled orders would fall in the
third. Rolling everything that is not state or sovereign into the
categpry of private obscures some imprtant distinctions and seems
inconsistent with the criteria used by the ICOC.

At first as I told you Rwandan Awards matter is not argument for ICOC.
Please I find interesting what you write so would you like to send me by e
mail your wider comments on the argument above, so I can understand better
what you say.

I'll expand on this in an e-mail if you wish. Some additional
sub-classification is usefula se well/ You are right I am proposing a
classification for orders in general and this is not related to Rwanda in
general.

Post by I.A.G.I.

Post by George Lucki
I don't understand that 'it can't be revoked'. The worst case scenario is
that somne folks who love this kind of honour are offended. On the other
hand I don't see how it can really be made acceptable by playing around
with the language when the intent is to find a way around rescinding
titles you also believe should not have been granted in the first place.
It remains ahistorical.

This is only your opinion, and you are not of a King (or former King) smile.
Remember that when the Monarchies really existed if a sovereign granted a
nobiliary title the ancient nobility always disagree because did not want
new entries in the nobility (closed class). Unfortunately today Monarchies
are very few and less and less those who grant titles, this is the reason
why today - for those persons very few who still consider these things -
it is necessary to find new solutions.

Why is it necessary to find this solution? I'm not sure I understand the
necessity for any non-reigning sovereign to grant new titles when they had
not done so while reigning.

Post by I.A.G.I.
I think I have lost my time. Abandon the idea of a nobility in Rwanda, I
never talked of this.
In Rwanda nobility does not exist!!!

When I see terms such as "This hereditary nobiliary title of Marquis shall
descend by way of male primogeniture" I cannot help but see the intention to
create a hereditary nobility in Rwanda made up of the recipients of these
grants - nobiliary title=noble title; the holder of a noble title is a noble
isn't he? Or am I misunderstanding something here. The secretary general to
King Kigeli calls himself Marquis and believes King Kigeli created him a
marquess. Is he wrong?

Post by I.A.G.I.
You must value the importance of the word "correspondent": to correspond
does not mean to be.
I repeat in Rwanda counts, marquises, dukes, princes according to the
European meaning do not exist .

Again I'm missing something - the Letters Patent say "a title of honour,
correspondent to the hereditary nobiliary title of X". Correspondent to
means equivalent to or similar to - it would seem that something similar to
a hereditary noble title of Marquis that is referred to in the text as "this
hereditary nobiliary title of Marquis" would be a hereditary nobiliary title
like that of Marquis. Am I missing something?
George Lucki- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Even in Europe there is very small number of former sovereign Houses
with real tradition of granting titles of nobility to non-relatives
(meant, in period out of Throne). It is a Royal House of Portugal,
Grand Ducal House of Tuscany, and Ducal House of Parma (remarkable
that Heads of the last one granted a lot titles of nobility (even with
Grandeeship) pertaining to Spain, as Carlist Pretenders, it was a
political intervention). The Royal House of Italy known by Umberto II
intervention with 222 nobiliary instruments (incl titles of nobility
from Baron to Prince incl) granted out of the sovereignity.This one is
a not good example, because the King of Italy was never an autocrator,
and he was restricted by several constitutional laws in his power
regarding a matter of granting of nobility.
So, if an hereditary Head of the House (meant if ruling monarchs from
this House was absolute sovereigns) continued of granting titles of
nobility as a sign of courtesy to its adherents - it is nothing
incorrect, it a very good thing, because it is a continuation and
preserving of a Tradition. If an hereditary Head of the former-ruling
House without such a tradition starts to "confer" "titles of nobility"
- is look like a ridicule.

[professor]

Clarification:

Remember folks, this is a reference to Alex Montague, the Polish
Count, not Carl Edwin Lindgren (smile). I do not use Count, Marquis or
bottle washer


Carl

Post by George Lucki
When I see terms such as "This hereditary nobiliary title of Marquis shall
descend by way of male primogeniture" I cannot help but see the intention to
create a hereditary nobility in Rwanda made up of the recipients of these
grants - nobiliary title=noble title; the holder of a noble title is a noble
isn't he? Or am I misunderstanding something here. The secretary general to
King Kigeli calls himself Marquis and believes King Kigeli created him a
marquess. Is he wrong?

.

[Greg]

Post by professor
Remember folks, this is a reference to Alex Montague, the Polish
Count, not Carl Edwin Lindgren (smile). I do not use Count, Marquis or
bottle washer
Carl

Post by George Lucki
When I see terms such as "This hereditary nobiliary title of Marquis shall
descend by way of male primogeniture" I cannot help but see the intention to
create a hereditary nobility in Rwanda made up of the recipients of these
grants - nobiliary title=noble title; the holder of a noble title is a noble
isn't he? Or am I misunderstanding something here. The secretary general to
King Kigeli calls himself Marquis and believes King Kigeli created him a
marquess. Is he wrong?

.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

There has been a great deal of knowledge and information exchanged,
along with the usual misunderstandings, with regard to a titular
Rwandan king and "understandings" of titles that have been granted
through same. From what I can read, these "titles" and the people who
hold them are coming in contact with legitimate nobility and this has
caused some concern with regard to supporters of this King, and these
titles are now tilting on the edge illegitimate nobility.

I don't know why apparently intelligent people, persist chasing this
rainbow of the wannabe nobleman (from whatever country) who still has
not learned that if the honor, award, or title does not come the hand
of a sitting sovereign, then the title risks the unwanted spotlight
and all who are involved become a risk as well. If only fools play in
the world of "perceived nobility" then only fools will know and no
one else will be the wiser.

[j***@uniworld.com.au]

"If only fools play in the world of "perceived nobility" then only
fools will know and no one else will be the wiser"

Exactly so.
(Gilbert and Sullivan, Patience)

[I.A.G.I.]

At this step of the discussion as I said I will avoid to intervene again on
the argument but I wish only make an invitation.
Because I dont like discussions for few persons when do not bring nothing
useful to a better knowledge of an argument, because they avoid to quote
historical precedents of support to the affirmation - that in this case
remain personal opinion supported by nothing and useless also in future for
persons who want deepen this argument - I offer this possibility to those
who have something to say against the idea of the King Kigeli to grant
"honours" using name of "European nobiliary titles" (but I repeat they are
not nobiliary titles but only honours):
to prepare a true study - not only words in the wind - supported by the due
documentation, historical precedents, footnotes which quote precedent
studies on the matter, to be published in one of my reviews (Nobiltà
http://www.iagi.info/rivistaNobilta/ or Il Mondo del Cavaliere
http://www.icocregister.org/aioc/programma.htm ), or better to participate
in the next III International Colloquium of Genealogy organized by Institut
International d'Etudes Généalogiques et d'Histoire des Families in San
Marino from 28 September to 1° October 2007.
If the person cannot participate for the distance I will publish the
intervention among the proceedings of the Colloquium, so it will be
conserved in many of the Libraries and Archives in the world which receive
also my reviews.
But it must be a true study not only personal opinions without scientific
support.
By my side I will prepare a study on the argument supported by historical
precedents of dynasties who granted nobiliary tiles from the exile in
Countries where the concept of nobility (as we mean in Europe) did not
exist, that should be an a-historical precedent of common usage between
historical dynasties. I will begin from the Oriental Empire, so I will
utilize this study also for the next International Colloquium of Genealogy
in Romania on May 2007.
What a strange thing for me (who consider valid and undisputable from a
legal point of view only a grant of honours or nobiliary titles coming from
a Sovereing on the throne or a State sovereign) to take on the justification
of a former King who used for his honours also the name of European
nobiliary titles!
Best regards
Pier Felice degli Uberti

Post by George Lucki
This discussion is winding down.

Post by I.A.G.I.
You are confusing ICOC with my personal advice to the King.
ICOC never dealt with nobiliary titles and this is not its duty, please
http://www.icocregister.org/authority.htm
http://www.icocregister.org/principles.htm
ICOC studies only chivalric orders, self-styled chivalric orders, award
systems, noble corporations, other nobiliary bodies or ecclesiastical
decorations inside Europe or the European tradition (ie Brazil).
At the moment what is out of the European tradition is not argument of
study of ICOC.
We are going very slow to avoid errors.
ICOC before taking a position about extra-European items must be sure
that its Commissioners have made serious and deep studies on the
argument, and at this step we are not in this condition.
If I also can agree with you my first duty is to save a situation
existing avoiding more grave errors.
But in everycase I dont see a so great difference between the errors made
by former European dynasties who made or are doing errors because of
their courtisans (Montenegro, Yugoslavia, Italy, Tuscany, Parma ect) and
the errors made by Extra-European dynasties which are so contested on
this newsgroup.
I.e. nobody was shocked when a Chief of former Royal House has invented a
new "order" during 1980 years, but there are so many other examples I
dont have the time to quote here.

I understand. The Rwandan Letters Patent were your private advice to King
Kigeli. You were not acting on behalf of ICOC and ICOC has no present
interest in Rwanda.
Nonetheless the logic of the advice you gave and the contradiction between
that advice and the principles you apply in ICOC leads to natural questions.
The private advice given to King Kigeli is inconsistent with the
historical and legitimist perspective advanced by ICOC.

Post by I.A.G.I.
You surely will now ask me why I accepted a Rwandan Award so to avoid to
reply again, as you by yourself can see the Rwandan matter is not
argument of study of ICOC, at least at the moment, so for ICOC Rwandan
Awards do not exist. As the Awarding Systems of Rotary do not exist (for
the moment) and so I can freely use my Paul Harris Fellow without
violating the Statute of ICOC.

I am not suggesting any violation of the stautes of the ICOC - I am
wondering about the consistency of the Rwandan advice with the principles
by which the ICOC works. I really have no criticism of your accepting a
decoration from King Kigeli. I am really quite accepting of such awards -
almost every non-reigning dynasty has tried to continue such awards or in
a number of cases created new ones. They are what they are - symbolic
tokens of appreciation to the supporters of a particular cause. Where they
have been continued from the dynasty's reign theya are also a part of the
patrimony of that dynasty.

Post by I.A.G.I.

Post by George Lucki
I understand your point. For greater clarity I suggest the following
distinctions -
1. sovereign or state awarded
2. legitimate (emanating from de jure sovereignty) or historical
3. private (emanating from merely private initiative) or self-styled
Most of the awards on the ICOC register would then fall within the
second group and private initiatives or self-styled orders would fall in
the third. Rolling everything that is not state or sovereign into the
categpry of private obscures some imprtant distinctions and seems
inconsistent with the criteria used by the ICOC.

At first as I told you Rwandan Awards matter is not argument for ICOC.
Please I find interesting what you write so would you like to send me by
e mail your wider comments on the argument above, so I can understand
better what you say.

I'll expand on this in an e-mail if you wish. Some additional
sub-classification is usefula se well/ You are right I am proposing a
classification for orders in general and this is not related to Rwanda in
general.

Post by I.A.G.I.

Post by George Lucki
I don't understand that 'it can't be revoked'. The worst case scenario
is that somne folks who love this kind of honour are offended. On the
other hand I don't see how it can really be made acceptable by playing
around with the language when the intent is to find a way around
rescinding titles you also believe should not have been granted in the
first place. It remains ahistorical.

This is only your opinion, and you are not of a King (or former King) smile.
Remember that when the Monarchies really existed if a sovereign granted a
nobiliary title the ancient nobility always disagree because did not want
new entries in the nobility (closed class). Unfortunately today
Monarchies are very few and less and less those who grant titles, this is
the reason why today - for those persons very few who still consider
these things - it is necessary to find new solutions.

Why is it necessary to find this solution? I'm not sure I understand the
necessity for any non-reigning sovereign to grant new titles when they had
not done so while reigning.

Post by I.A.G.I.
I think I have lost my time. Abandon the idea of a nobility in Rwanda, I
never talked of this.
In Rwanda nobility does not exist!!!

When I see terms such as "This hereditary nobiliary title of Marquis shall
descend by way of male primogeniture" I cannot help but see the intention
to create a hereditary nobility in Rwanda made up of the recipients of
these grants - nobiliary title=noble title; the holder of a noble title is
a noble isn't he? Or am I misunderstanding something here. The secretary
general to King Kigeli calls himself Marquis and believes King Kigeli
created him a marquess. Is he wrong?

Post by I.A.G.I.
You must value the importance of the word "correspondent": to correspond
does not mean to be.
I repeat in Rwanda counts, marquises, dukes, princes according to the
European meaning do not exist .

Again I'm missing something - the Letters Patent say "a title of honour,
correspondent to the hereditary nobiliary title of X". Correspondent to
means equivalent to or similar to - it would seem that something similar
to a hereditary noble title of Marquis that is referred to in the text as
"this hereditary nobiliary title of Marquis" would be a hereditary
nobiliary title like that of Marquis. Am I missing something?
George Lucki

[Guy Stair Sainty]

Post by I.A.G.I.
But in everycase I dont see a so great difference between the errors made by
former European dynasties who made or are doing errors because of their
courtisans (Montenegro, Yugoslavia, Italy, Tuscany, Parma ect) and the
errors made by Extra-European dynasties which are so contested on this
newsgroup.

I agree that it was ridiculous for the claimants to Montenegro and Yugoslavia to
give titles, particularly since there was no tradition and in the latter case
such grants were forbidden by the constitution. But Tuscany did have an
hereditary nobility at least, so the Cucentrentoli title (I suppose this is the
one to which you are referring) given by Archduke Gottfried had some historical
basis. I do not know of any Parmesan titles being granted.

I would put Rwanda in the same category as the former two - no nobiliary
tradition and no historical connection to the country.

[I.A.G.I.]

Post by Guy Stair Sainty

Post by I.A.G.I.
But in everycase I dont see a so great difference between the errors made by
former European dynasties who made or are doing errors because of their
courtisans (Montenegro, Yugoslavia, Italy, Tuscany, Parma ect) and the
errors made by Extra-European dynasties which are so contested on this
newsgroup.

I agree that it was ridiculous for the claimants to Montenegro and Yugoslavia to
give titles, particularly since there was no tradition and in the latter case
such grants were forbidden by the constitution.

Yes I agree

But Tuscany did have an

Post by Guy Stair Sainty
hereditary nobility at least, so the Cucentrentoli title (I suppose this is the
one to which you are referring) given by Archduke Gottfried

had some historical

Post by Guy Stair Sainty
basis

Yes I mean this and the precedents (see my book on Storia del Diritto
Nobiliare Italiano pages 487-488. )
As you know I disagree with the grants of nobiliary titles given from exile
in every case, less and less if the grants come from descendants.
In this case the title of count is founded on feudal predicate "di
Monteloro" that makes this more strange.
Considering also there was the renounce in 1916.

. I do not know of any Parmesan titles being granted.

It was told me by my friend Juan Balansò who discovered copies of grants in
the segret Archive of Bourbon Parma.
According to what he said there were some grants also made by Sixto.

Post by Guy Stair Sainty
I would put Rwanda in the same category as the former two - no nobiliary
tradition and no historical connection to the country.

I agree.

I want to precise that although I disagree from a legal point of view with
the grants of nobiliary titles made from exile or by descentdants, that
effectively do not have any value, I consider them a good idea particularly
valid as moral value which in some manner in private ambient maintain a
tradition of our culture which deserves not to die.

Pier Felice degli Uberti

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

[j***@uniworld.com.au]

I am happy to accept the invitation.
Could I clarify the parameters? Is this the invitation?

The question is
"What is the position on the idea of King Kigeli of Rwamda being able
to grant honours, including using accepted names of European nobiliary
titles".

[Nenad M. Jovanovich]

I beg to differ since this is not entirely true.

Namely, both Grand Duke, Supreme Leader and Commander of Serbs Djordje
Petrovich-Karageorge (1762-+1817) and Prince Milosh Teodorovich-
Obrenovich I The Great (1780-'1860) were authorized and indeed have
conferred Nobility during their reigns - 1804-1838.

Karageorge (1804-1813) has been granting Titles of Vojvoda (Duke),
Knez (Prince) and Serdar (the latter in at last one occasion), and
those Titles were usually held inside the same family. So, they were –
hereditary. Number of Dukes alone, ennobled by Karageorge can’t be
established precisely. Documentation of the Governing Assembly,
Diplomas etc. was lost during the course of war and time. Never the
less, some sources speak of 90 and some not less than 50 Vojvodas (in
two categories – Dukes and “Small” Dukes) ennobled by Karageorge.

Prince Milosh The Great has proceeded with such practice (based on
tradition and approved by the Governing Assembly) but wasn’t as
generous while granting Titles of Nobility. But as opposed to
Karageorge - he was even entitled to ennoble by the very word of the
Constitution from 1835. Chapter V, article 20 of that Constitution
says: “The Prince has the right to confer decorations and Nobility”.

The next Constitution (that from 1838) has no mention of any such
thing, but it doesn’t abolish such practice either. Indeed, by the
article 59 of this Constitution – feudalism is abolished (Turkish
feudal properties have been officialy abolished), but there’s no
mention of Titles of Nobility. It’s the same according to the
Constitution of 1869.

However, the Constitution of 1888, has officialy abolished Titles of
Nobility in Serbia. Chapter II, article 8 of the said Constitution is
rather clear: “To citizens of Serbia, Titles of Nobility can neither
be granted or recognized”.

Again, the Constitution of 1901 completely ignores this matter, while
the Constitution of 1903 repeates the same as the Constitution of 1888
(same Chapter, same article).

This state of nobiliary affairs was kept until the very end of
Monarchy in 1945.

Montenegro, had a different Dynasty all together until 1918, but
conferring Nobility wasn’t unknown to the Family of Petrovich-Njegosh
either.

Same as in Serbia. Titles of Vojvoda, Knez and Serdar (in Venetian
sources transliterated differently - Serdar, Sardar, Zardar or
Sardaro) were traditionally in use and were hereditary.

We know of examples of Prince Nikola I Petrovich-Njegosh /1841-+1921/
(King from 1910) depriving those in disobedience to him of those
Titles inherited from their ancestors. Such is, for instance the
example of Marko Miljanov Popovich-Drekalovich, who was deprived of
his Title of Vojvoda of the Clan of Kuchi by Prince Nikola. So those
Titles were in his jurisdiction during his reign (1860-1918).

King Nikola Petrovich-Njegosh wasn’t the first and only in his Dynasty
to deal with nobiliary matters!

For example, it is well known that Metropolitan and Prince Petar II
(Petrovich-Njegosh) /1813-+1851/ has issued his Charter recognizing a
Title of Duke to the younger son of Karageorge, Prince Aleksandar
Karageorgevich /1806-+1885/ (later Ruling Prince of Serbia –
Aleksandar I).

It is similar with his Certificate of Nobility for Prince Nikola
Mihailov Vasojevich of Holmia /1797-+1844/. This Document was issued
in Tzetinje and signed by the Metropolitan as: “Petar Petrovich Prince
Njegosh, Orthodox Ruler and Lord of Montenegro and Brda”. It is
interesting that this Document (composed according to research of
ancient Charters from the Archives of the Metropolitanate) establishes
Noble genealogy of Prince Nikola Vasojevich who is said to be a direct
descendant of Prince Radonja oh Holmia, who was raised to that Noble
rank by the Serbian Emperor Stefan Urosh IV Dushan Nemanjich - The
Mighty /c.1308 –+1355/ in 1346. Another interesting thing is that
this Document provides a blazon of the arms of the Princes of Holmia,
as well as the heirs to the Title of Princes of Holmia. So, it was
considered as hereditary too...




Guy Stair Sainty је написао

Post by Guy Stair Sainty

Post by I.A.G.I.
But in everycase I dont see a so great difference between the errors made by
former European dynasties who made or are doing errors because of their
courtisans (Montenegro, Yugoslavia, Italy, Tuscany, Parma ect) and the
errors made by Extra-European dynasties which are so contested on this
newsgroup.

I agree that it was ridiculous for the claimants to Montenegro and Yugoslavia to
give titles, particularly since there was no tradition and in the latter case
such grants were forbidden by the constitution. But Tuscany did have an
hereditary nobility at least, so the Cucentrentoli title (I suppose this is the
one to which you are referring) given by Archduke Gottfried had some historical
basis. I do not know of any Parmesan titles being granted.
I would put Rwanda in the same category as the former two - no nobiliary
tradition and no historical connection to the country.
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm

[a***@yahoo.com]

Post by Guy Stair Sainty

Post by I.A.G.I.
But in everycase I dont see a so great difference between the errors made by
former European dynasties who made or are doing errors because of their
courtisans (Montenegro, Yugoslavia, Italy, Tuscany, Parma ect) and the
errors made by Extra-European dynasties which are so contested on this
newsgroup.

I agree that it was ridiculous for the claimants to Montenegro and Yugoslavia to
give titles, particularly since there was no tradition and in the latter case
such grants were forbidden by the constitution. But Tuscany did have an
hereditary nobility at least, so the Cucentrentoli title (I suppose this is the
one to which you are referring) given by Archduke Gottfried had some historical
basis. I do not know of any Parmesan titles being granted.
I would put Rwanda in the same category as the former two - no nobiliary
tradition and no historical connection to the country.
--
Guy Stair Saintywww.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm

About creations by G.D. of Tuscany in exile: - not just a title of
Count di Monteloro, granted in 1972. It was also meant a most known
grant in 1918 by Archduke Pietro Ferdinando to Stefanelly von
Pretefhoff ( 3 titles altogether: Duke di Giglio, Count di Palacco
Veccio, and Marquis ( last one is palatine title, as I suspect). And,
as I was aware, there are many hereditary titles of nobility were
granted since 1860 to 1918, but I have not any detail information
about this.
Very recently I have a conversation with HIRH Sigismondo of
Austria, Grand Duke of Tuscany, and he told that he never has in mind
to abolish ennobling character of the Order of St. Giuseppe, and he
never issued any decrees abolishing the ennobling character of the
Order of St. Giuseppe, he still maintained the original Statutes of
1817, to which he has made some modifications in 1994 and nothing in
mentioned modifications affects a rule of ennoblement by granting the
Order. The Art.12 of his Decree of 9 June 1994 preserved all
regulations of 1817 Statutes those not in contradiction with mentioned
Decree, and Art. 11 and Art.12 of original 1817 Statute was not a
subject of any modification. Previous modification was made in June
1994; last one was made recently, abandoned any new grant of 2
recently created classes of O. of St. Giuseppe, because they are not
included in original 1817 Statutes and has not ennobling character).
So, the Order of St. Giuseppe still confers untitled nobility and it
is a traditional norm and a traditional practice.

About Parma: - I have no any information about creations of titles of
nobility by exiled Dukes of Parma, meant, nobility pertaining to
Parmesan Ducal House. But a lot of titles of nobility were granted by
exiled Dukes of Parma in their capacity as Carlist Pretenders, meant
titles of nobility claming to be Spanish. The Order of St. Ludovico
still have ennobling character, sometime it was dormant, but from not
so long ago Duke Charles Hugo granting it again. So, the Dukes of
Parma may grant untitled nobility by the granting of St. Ludovico
Order, and this is a normal traditional practice.

[Sergei Oudman]

Post by Guy Stair Sainty
I agree that it was ridiculous for the claimants to Montenegro and Yugoslavia to
give titles, particularly since there was no tradition and in the latter case
such grants were forbidden by the constitution. But Tuscany did have an
hereditary nobility at least, so the Cucentrentoli title (I suppose this is the
one to which you are referring) given by Archduke Gottfried had some historical
basis. I do not know of any Parmesan titles being granted.

Yes, Serbia was a semi-independent principality as of 1815, expelling
the Ottomans in 1867, de facto securing its sovereignty. Formal
independence was internationally recognised at the Congress of Berlin
in 1878. So that should be used as the set day/year.

Post by Guy Stair Sainty
I would put Rwanda in the same category as the former two - no nobiliary
tradition and no historical connection to the country.

There I find myself wondering about something Pier Felice said about
his study, something that would be interesting to include into the
discussion of dynasties who granted nobiliary tiles from the exile in
Countries where the concept of nobility (as we mean in Europe) did not
exist. Will the transfer and concept of the concept of Statehood be
included in this? The Medieval Serbian state(s) were using nobility,
but those States cannot be seen as successors. So before another
discussion breaks loose in which different forms of jargon will be
used it would be nice to see some parameters set for it. Otherwise it
will be like a can of worms, e.g. the title of Knez ==>Comez is also
used by Serbian clan leaders and has nothing to do with nobility and
as Pier Felice said I agree that although legally it is something else
it is something that keeps our culture alive.

Sergei Oudman

[Guy Stair Sainty]

Post by George Lucki
PFDU> And I am much more strict for my own Country, Italy, where not all of
the nobiliary recognitions made during the Kingdom of Italy were made
in honest manner, but sometimes only because of opportunity (I believe
it is necessary to examine again all the past recognitions of nobility
to control the veracity according the modern scientific criteria). I
dont issue comments about other States because my knowledge is not so
deep to judge.
Less and less I consider valid every private grant, as those coming
from kings/chiefs of former Imperial/Royal Houses ect out of the
throne.

I think that is going too far. Italy is not the only country where dubious
proofs have led to the effective creation of a new title under the guise of a
confirmation, or of a diversion following dubious proofs.

In the English peerage the practice of calling dormant peerages created by write
out of abeyance was certainly abused - indeed the example of the Barony of
Strabolgi, distinguished as having one of the oldest dates on the peerage roll
as well as being an hereditrary peerage held by a member of the Labour party, is
an excellent one. This peerage was in reality entirely invented as a result of
the proceedings calling this non-existent peerage (along with two genuine ones
that went to the petitioner's cousins) out of abeyance.

One might also consider the bogus ennoblements by recognition of supposedly
ancient nobility made by the Herauts d'Armes in France under the ancient regime,
or the spurious nobility of the Bonapartist then Bourbon Minister the Marquis de
Pastoret in France. Or the spurious recognition of the title of count of
Habbsurg for the Earl of Denbigh, etc etc etc.

[Guy Stair Sainty]

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
The titles given after Napoleon - although they are nobiliary titles -
have nothing to do with the concept of the past nobiliary titles (at
least in great part of the Europe).
GL> Pier Felice - the idea that these titles are 'Napoleonic' is an
interesting one - does it suggest that King Kigeli is seeking to implement
in Rwanda a restructuring of the traditional social order and the creation
of new elites? In Napoleonic France the core of the new men were the
military companions of the Emperor who became marshals and Princes of the
Empire.

Actually there was a big difference between the titles of duke and prince
attached to a name of a fief outside France, and which brought with them a
considerable income charged on territories acquired by France in its European
wars, and the titles of Comte & Baron de l'Empire on the name of the recipient.

The Napoleonic nobility is a little more complicated than the impression given
above.

[George Lucki]

Post by Guy Stair Sainty

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
The titles given after Napoleon - although they are nobiliary titles -
have nothing to do with the concept of the past nobiliary titles (at
least in great part of the Europe).
GL> Pier Felice - the idea that these titles are 'Napoleonic' is an
interesting one - does it suggest that King Kigeli is seeking to implement
in Rwanda a restructuring of the traditional social order and the creation
of new elites? In Napoleonic France the core of the new men were the
military companions of the Emperor who became marshals and Princes of the
Empire.

Actually there was a big difference between the titles of duke and prince
attached to a name of a fief outside France, and which brought with them a
considerable income charged on territories acquired by France in its European
wars, and the titles of Comte & Baron de l'Empire on the name of the recipient.
The Napoleonic nobility is a little more complicated than the impression given
above.

Absolutely true. My comments were not intended to be an expose on Napoleonic
nobility but on the issue of Rwandan nobility. Pier Felice had made the
point that the Rwandan King wished to create a new nobility that was
different than the traditional Rwandan elites and used the examples of
Napoleon and Bokassa as examples of the creation of new nobilities - the
follow up is a pointed request to define the nature of the nobility as it
seems odd to create a new hereditary aristocracy made up of foreigners where
one had not existed. What is the intent behind placing such folks at some
pinnacle of honour in a future Rwandan society? What is the realtionship
between this new nobility and their sovereign? Actually I rather suspect
that there has been little thought to some of these questions. Titles have
been created without much of a vision of a future Rwandan society - that is
why it has been so easy to reach for such an ahistorical scheme. But that is
just my speculation not knowing much of what was behjind the scenes.

George Lucki

[I.A.G.I.]

Post by George Lucki

Post by Guy Stair Sainty

Post by International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
The titles given after Napoleon - although they are nobiliary titles -
have nothing to do with the concept of the past nobiliary titles (at
least in great part of the Europe).
GL> Pier Felice - the idea that these titles are 'Napoleonic' is an
interesting one - does it suggest that King Kigeli is seeking to implement
in Rwanda a restructuring of the traditional social order and the creation
of new elites? In Napoleonic France the core of the new men were the
military companions of the Emperor who became marshals and Princes of the
Empire.

Actually there was a big difference between the titles of duke and prince
attached to a name of a fief outside France, and which brought with them a
considerable income charged on territories acquired by France in its European
wars, and the titles of Comte & Baron de l'Empire on the name of the recipient.
The Napoleonic nobility is a little more complicated than the impression given
above.

Absolutely true. My comments were not intended to be an expose on
Napoleonic nobility but on the issue of Rwandan nobility. Pier Felice had
made the point that the Rwandan King wished to create a new nobility that
was different than the traditional Rwandan elites

I never affirmed that the former King of Rwanda created a new nobility, he
only created new honours that is not nobility.
It is so difficult to be understood?

and used the examples of

Post by George Lucki
Napoleon and Bokassa as examples of the creation of new nobilities - the
follow up is a pointed request to define the nature of the nobility as it
seems odd to create a new hereditary aristocracy made up of foreigners
where one had not existed.

As I said no aristocracy or nobility was created by the King of Rwanda,
forget this wrong idea.
Honors are not nobility.

What is the intent behind placing such folks at some

Post by George Lucki
pinnacle of honour in a future Rwandan society? What is the realtionship
between this new nobility and their sovereign? Actually I rather suspect
that there has been little thought to some of these questions. Titles have
been created without much of a vision of a future Rwandan society - that
is why it has been so easy to reach for such an ahistorical scheme. But
that is just my speculation not knowing much of what was behjind the
scenes.

You are out of theme, talking of somenting that does not exist.
I repeat for the last time: honors are not nobiliary titles.
Also if these honors bring name of ancient nobiliary titles.

A Sovereign if wants to return to his throne does not deal with similar
useless problems SMILE

Please think about as last comment by me:
Which is the difference between a descendant by a former King or former
Granduche who today grants a nobiliary title according to the tradition of
the dynasty (finished with the last king) , and the former King Kigeli who
invented new honors bringing names of nobiliary titles (but I repeat they
are not nobiliary titles)?
Indeed no difference, because both of them are ahistorical and none of them
has a full justification.

Pier Felice degli Uberti

Post by George Lucki
George Lucki

[j***@uniworld.com.au]

Repeat after me

"I don't really know what I am talking about and I wish I had never
got involved.
It seemed a good idea at the time"

Post by I.A.G.I.
Which is the difference between a descendant by a former King or former
Granduche who today grants a nobiliary title according to the tradition of
the dynasty (finished with the last king) , and the former King Kigeli who
invented new honors bringing names of nobiliary titles (but I repeat they
are not nobiliary titles)?
Indeed no difference, because both of them are ahistorical and none of them
has a full justification.

[j***@uniworld.com.au]

IOCC Website.
The Commission is a private body, the worth and seriousness of which
wholly depends upon the worth and seriousness of its component
Members. In the past, there have been errors in scientific evaluation
and interpretation, or times when the Commission exceeded its
institutional role. Therefore, the new Statutes require a specific
academic grounding of those who seek to become Members and these
persons must demonstrate their experience in the field of the study of
chivalric orders, decorations and awards systems through publications
and other specific work.

Noted - a private body.
Does it have a concise definition of "chivalric orders" to enable it
to make scientific observations?

[professor]

Post by j***@uniworld.com.au
Repeat after me
"I don't really know what I am talking about and I wish I had never
got involved.
It seemed a good idea at the time"

Me too. I was merely trying to make things simple (groan).

Carl--

[George Lucki]

Post by I.A.G.I.
I never affirmed that the former King of Rwanda created a new nobility, he
only created new honours that is not nobility.
It is so difficult to be understood?

Actually yes it is difficult to understand - the problem is that the award
specifically refers to the honour as "This hereditary nobiliary title of
Marquis". It would seen that the new honour is a noble title. This is also
how some folks are using it publicly.

Post by I.A.G.I.
As I said no aristocracy or nobility was created by the King of Rwanda,
forget this wrong idea.
Honors are not nobility.

Are hereditary nobiliary titles not nobility?

Post by I.A.G.I.
A Sovereign if wants to return to his throne does not deal with similar
useless problems SMILE

Hmmm. I guess this is a fair appraisal.

Post by I.A.G.I.
Which is the difference between a descendant by a former King or former
Granduche who today grants a nobiliary title according to the tradition of
the dynasty (finished with the last king) , and the former King Kigeli who
invented new honors bringing names of nobiliary titles (but I repeat they
are not nobiliary titles)?
Indeed no difference, because both of them are ahistorical and none of
them has a full justification.

New honours with the names of nobilliary titles that are not nobiliary
titles !? This seems as sophistry. If the intention is create new
non-nobiliary honours why use call tehm nobiliary titles in the Letters
PAtent and why use the names? But I do hear you clearly. Your position is
that King Kigeli is not creating new noble titles merely granting
sound-alike honours.

With respect to your question - when the head of a non-reigning dynasty
follows the specific traditions of his dynasty he is acting in a manner
consistent with his heritage. Should a non-reigning monarch grant new titles
even when it is within his tradition. My view is he should not in most
cases. The difference for King Kigeli is that these honours are not within
his tradition. Similarly the head of Yugoslavian dynasty should not start
granting new honours.

George Lucki

[Nenad M. Jovanovich]

I must say that there's no indication that the Serbian Crown-Prince
has any intention of doing any such thing.

Ofcourse, he still awards his Dynastic Orders (just four days ago he
has decorated His Holyness the Patriarch with GdCross Star of
Karageorge), but I'm absolutely certain that conferring Nobility is
out of the question.

But, let me say - not because of lack of tradition in the Serbian
Monarchy in that regard.

To the contrary!

The constitutional and traitional right of the Serbian Monarch to
ennoble has been abandoned as late as 1838, and it was finally
abolished in 1888.

It was simmilar in the other Serbian State – Montenegro, since there
are well known examples of Montenegrene Rulers (same as ruling
Monarchs of Serbia) granting Noble Titles in the past.

But, after all this time, the discontinuity is so wast that it is
highly improblable that this ancient practice of the Serbian Monarchy
is ever going to be revived.


George Lucki је написао

Post by George Lucki

Post by I.A.G.I.
I never affirmed that the former King of Rwanda created a new nobility, he
only created new honours that is not nobility.
It is so difficult to be understood?

Actually yes it is difficult to understand - the problem is that the award
specifically refers to the honour as "This hereditary nobiliary title of
Marquis". It would seen that the new honour is a noble title. This is also
how some folks are using it publicly.

Post by I.A.G.I.
As I said no aristocracy or nobility was created by the King of Rwanda,
forget this wrong idea.
Honors are not nobility.

Are hereditary nobiliary titles not nobility?

Post by I.A.G.I.
A Sovereign if wants to return to his throne does not deal with similar
useless problems SMILE

Hmmm. I guess this is a fair appraisal.

Post by I.A.G.I.
Which is the difference between a descendant by a former King or former
Granduche who today grants a nobiliary title according to the tradition of
the dynasty (finished with the last king) , and the former King Kigeli who
invented new honors bringing names of nobiliary titles (but I repeat they
are not nobiliary titles)?
Indeed no difference, because both of them are ahistorical and none of
them has a full justification.

New honours with the names of nobilliary titles that are not nobiliary
titles !? This seems as sophistry. If the intention is create new
non-nobiliary honours why use call tehm nobiliary titles in the Letters
PAtent and why use the names? But I do hear you clearly. Your position is
that King Kigeli is not creating new noble titles merely granting
sound-alike honours.
With respect to your question - when the head of a non-reigning dynasty
follows the specific traditions of his dynasty he is acting in a manner
consistent with his heritage. Should a non-reigning monarch grant new titles
even when it is within his tradition. My view is he should not in most
cases. The difference for King Kigeli is that these honours are not within
his tradition. Similarly the head of Yugoslavian dynasty should not start
granting new honours.
George Lucki