From:	snelson at slis.sjsu.edu
Subject:	Foreign Arms in England (was Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction)
Date:	5 Jan 2005 17:53:11 -0800

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

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

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

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

http://heraldry.freeservers.com/Grant.jpg

-Sebastian Nelson

Jonathan Makepeace wrote:

> I recently wrote to the College of Arms about registering my South
> African arms with them and found their answer very interesting.
>
> They characterized my South African badge and coat of arms as
"foreign"
> (not Commonwealth) arms and informed me that such arms are only
> registered if there is a need for them to be borne in Britain,
> presumeably excluding Scotland. This strongly implies that the
College
> of Arms claims no jurisdiction outside of Britain, not even in New
> Zealand, a country which has explicitly recognized their
jurisdiction.
> It also raises the question of whether the College of Arms would
> register truly foreign arms from, say, Spain. What about arms from
the
> Republic of Ireland?

From:	pritchard_da at hotmail.com
Subject:	Re: Spanish laws of arms (was Foreign Arms in England)
Date:	14 Jan 2005 11:01:35 -0800

Dear Derek,

The devoloution of heraldic privilages in Spain to autonomous
communities was established under the following legislation: Codi de
Regim Local Real Decreto 2569/1986, de 28 de noviembre, Titulo VI,
Capitulo 1, Seccin=F3 5a de los honores y distinciones, Articulo 186 y
Articulo 187. It appears somewhere on the Internet as I have a copy of
it. I do remembered that I searched for a very long time to locate this
law.

Best wishes,

David Pritchard

From:	jonathanNOSPAMmakepeace at yahoo.ca
Subject:	Re: Foreign Arms in England (was Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction)
Date:	10 Jan 2005 05:46:13 -0800

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

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

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

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

From:	Tim Powys-Lybbe
Subject:	Re: Foreign Arms in England (was Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction)
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:58:58 GMT

In message of 21 Jan, pritchard_da@hotmail.com wrote:

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

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

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

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

From:	Tim Powys-Lybbe
Subject:	Re: Foreign Arms in England (was Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction)
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:19:25 GMT

In message of 21 Jan, Guy Stair Sainty wrote:

> In article <41f0791d$1@news.comindico.com.au>, GJKS says...
> >
> > I feel forced to make some comment on the foregoing remarks:
> >
> > Elizabeth I was not a bastard and to call her such, besides being
> > ungentlemanly and unchivalrous, is incorrect because Henry VIII's
> > marriage to his first wife was annulled. If you disagree with
> > this statement, I think that you need to again read about the
> > establishment of the Church of England and Henry VIII's assumption
> > of the title of 'Defender of the Faith'.
> >
> > A heretic? She would only be classed as such by members of the
> > Roman Catholic faith, of which, she was not.
>
> It is a strange annulment; done by a church which did not of itself
> recognize the power to annul marriages in the circumstances alleged
> to be the reason for the annulment of Henry's marriage to Catherine.
> Henry was given the title of Defender of the Faith by the Pope, no
> less, for his defence of Catholic teaching against Luther. He proved
> a singularly poor defender thereof; a revolting and immoral dictator
> whose thirst for a son led to the deveastation of a major part of
> England's astonishing ecclesiastical artistic legacy, the murder of
> thousands of devout Catholics and the brutal suppression of the
> Church of which the vast majority of the population were devout
> followers. Only a tiny majority of reformist clergy and ambitious
> politicians embraced protestantism - it was luck for Henry but bad
> for most of the rest of the population that he was able to find in
> their revolt against the teachings of the Catholic Church a good
> excuse to discharge his faithful and loyal wife for an ambitious
> trollop. This oligarchy of fanatics then forcibly imposed their own
> beliefs by brutality and financial penalties imposed on the rest.

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

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

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

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

From:	Guy Stair Sainty
Subject:	Re: Foreign Arms in England (was Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction)
Date:	21 Jan 2005 13:59:04 -0800

In article , Tim Powys-Lybbe says...
>
>In message of 21 Jan, Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
>
>> In article <41f0791d$1@news.comindico.com.au>, GJKS says...
>> >
>Prior to this I believe there is evidence that
>the popes had been sensible about such matters for other sovereigns of
>other countries and allowed a wife to be put away who did not bear sons.
>Accordingly I believe the pope was just stupid in denying this to H
>VIII - and with disastrous consequences for the popes.
>
It was not stupidity; perhaps Henry and his father should have thought more
carefully before asking for a Papal dispensation to marry Catherine in the
beginning - it is difficult to see how a later Pope could so handily dispense
with the dispensation by claiming the marriage was null on the very grounds
for which the dispensation had been sought!!! Henry and his father were
simply greedy; they wanted to hang on to Catherine's dowry and the English
people paid the price.

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

From:	Cillian Roberto Fani Ó Broin
Subject:	Re: Foreign Arms in England (was Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction)
Date:	Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:23:30 GMT

ha scritto nel messaggio
news:1105364773.452592.64250@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Very interesting. What is the nature of the Spanish chroniclers' of
> arms appointments if they can't certify arms?
(snip)
> The anglosphere seems very caught up on the idea of arms being granted
> by officialdom (snip)

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

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

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

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

Cillian Roberto Fani Ó Broin

From:	mcmillanj at earthlink.net
Subject:	Re: Foreign Arms in England (was Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction)
Date:	19 Jan 2005 08:30:38 -0800

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

Joseph McMillan

From:	snelson at slis.sjsu.edu
Subject:	Re: Foreign Arms in England (was Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction)
Date:	10 Jan 2005 17:14:15 -0800

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

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

JUNTA DE CASTILLA Y LEON

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

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

..=2E.

EL CRONISTA DE ARMAS

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

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

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

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

..=2E.

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

Valladolid, 9 de mayo de 1991.

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

(in A. de Ceballos-Escalera y Gila, Heraldos y Reyes de Armas en la
Corte de Espa=F1a, Madrid, 1993. pp 380-385)
Cheers,

Sebastian Nelson

snelson@slis.sjsu.edu

From:	pritchard_da at hotmail.com
Subject:	Re: Foreign Arms in England (was Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction)
Date:	15 Jan 2005 20:06:38 -0800

Dear Don,

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

DAP

Don Aitken wrote:
> On 15 Jan 2005 14:31:38 -0800, pritchard_da@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >Dear Jonathan,
> >
> >I think the issues with the College of Arms recognising Spanish arms
> >are:
> >
> >1. Protecting their turf. Technically England and Ireland were
Spanish
> >territory during the marriage of Queen Mary and Phillip II; then
after
> >Mary's death because Elizabeth I was illegitimate. A cheaper source
for
> >arms would hurt the College of Arms' income.
> >
> Nonsense.
>
> "provided, enacted and established by the authority of this present
> parliament, that your Majesty as our only queen, shall and may solely
> and as a sole queen, use, have and enjoy the crown and sovereignty of
> and over your realms, dominions and subjects, with all the
> preeminences, prerogatives, dignities, authorities, jurisdictions ...
> in such sole and only estate and in as large and ample manner and
form
> in all degrees, acts, exercises and conditions, from and after the
> solemnization of the said marriage, and at all times during the same,
> which God grant long to continue and endure, as your Highness now
> hath, useth, exerciseth and enjoyeth the same ... without any right,
> title, estate, claim or demand to be given, come or grow unto the
said
> most noble prince as tenant by the courtesy of this realm, or in or
by
> any other means by force of the said marriage, of in and to your said
> imperial crown, sovereignty, realms ... by any laws, usage or custom
> whatsoever; the said marriage or any statute, custom, prescription or
> other thing to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding."
>
> Also "in case that no children being left, the said most noble queen
> do die before him, the said lord prince shall not challenge any right
> at all in the said kingdom, but without any impediment shall permit
> the succession thereof to come unto them to whom it shall belong and
> appertain by the right and laws of the said realm".
>
> From the marriage treaty. For the whole thing, see
> http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/ast/mary.html#164
>
> --
> Don Aitken
>
> Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
> read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".

From:	pritchard_da at hotmail.com
Subject:	Re: Foreign Arms in England (was Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction)
Date:	15 Jan 2005 14:31:38 -0800

Dear Jonathan,

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

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

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

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

David Pritchard

From:	Don Aitken
Subject:	Re: Foreign Arms in England (was Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction)
Date:	Sun, 16 Jan 2005 02:51:49 +0000

On 15 Jan 2005 14:31:38 -0800, pritchard_da@hotmail.com wrote:

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

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

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

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

--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".

From:	Tim Powys-Lybbe
Subject:	Re: Foreign Arms in England (was Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction)
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:29:59 GMT

In message of 17 Jan, Guy Stair Sainty wrote:

> In article <8e7a492e4d.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk>, Tim Powys-Lybbe says...
> >
> >In message of 16 Jan, Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
> >
> >> In article <1105828298.353155.278320@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> >> pritchard_da@hotmail.com says...
> >> >
> >> > I think the issues with the College of Arms recognising Spanish arms
> >> > are:
> >> >
> >> > 2. By denigrating Spanish arms the College of Arms is creating the
> >> > impression that their grants are superior.
> >>
> >> They claim they are superior because Spanish confirmations are not of
> >> themselves evidence of gentility, whereas the British heraldic
> >> jursidction is based on this now completely artificial premise (how
> >> many petitions have been rejected in the last 30 years because the
> >> petitioner did not meet the social test?).
> >
> > I agree that there is evidence that in the times of the visitations
> > that people were rejected as armigers on the grounds that they were not
> > gentlemen. However nowhere have I seen any definition of Gentleman,
> > save perhaps that of "armiger" which little other than tautologous.
> > Accordingly I wonder how the "British heraldic tradition can be based on
> > this now completely artificial premise"?
>
> I can cite some examples that I gave in appendix 1 of my book, The
> Orders of Saint John, on Noble Proofs; I quoted Chris Given-Wilson,
> The English Nobility in the Late Middle Ages (1978), and M. J. Sayer,
> English nobility, the Gentry, Heralds and the Continental Context
> (1979) as well as conversations with the then York Herald, later
> Garter King (Sir Conrad Swan). Being a gentleman, and therefore
> entitled to record coat armour, was perceived as being a specific
> rank - a grant of Richard II of a pension to one of his servants "to
> enable him to support the estate of a gentleman to which the king has
> advanced him". The county gentry in the 16-17th century being those
> landed families with an annual income in excess of twenty pounds
> sterling; the parish gentry having incomes of 5 - 20 pounds annually.
> A merchant who had just acquired such an estate, however, would not
> be considered part of the gentry class until his family had enjoyed
> this state for 3 or 4 generations. The heralds when considering a
> petition would have taken into account both the wealth and social
> prominence of the family, and would have expected a certain minimum
> ecpnomic standing. York communicated to me verbally then that "the
> college of Arms when granting Arms to a British subject of foreign
> descent, may grant similar or identical arms to those born by that
> person by right of a foreign jurisdiction, disregarding the fact that
> the original arms might be burgher, rather than noble arms. However
> such grant is only made if the petitioner can demonstrate that he and
> his family are now generally accepted in England as gentle." In a
> written communication York stated: "Within the Earl Marshal's
> jurisdiction the (sometime Continental burghal) family concerned
> holds tesserae gentilitatis as evidenced by the King of Arms patent
> ... following the Naturalization of nthat family as British subjects
> ... therefore there is no attempt to invest the burghal ancestors
> with nobiliary status."

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

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

are indeed different to English>

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

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

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

An armiger is a gent if he is an armiger.

A non-armiger is not a gent.

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

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

From:	Guy Stair Sainty
Subject:	Re: Foreign Arms in England (was Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction)
Date:	17 Jan 2005 12:25:21 -0800

In article <5c92af2e4d.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk>, Tim Powys-Lybbe says...
>
>In message of 17 Jan, Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
>
>> In article <8e7a492e4d.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk>, Tim Powys-Lybbe says...
>> >
>> >In message of 16 Jan, Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <1105828298.353155.278320@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> pritchard_da@hotmail.com says...
>> >> >
>>
>
>Finally it sounds as if you accept the tautologous definition of
>armiger:
>
> An armiger is a gent if he is an armiger.
>
> A non-armiger is not a gent.

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

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

From:	Tim Powys-Lybbe
Subject:	Re: Foreign Arms in England (was Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction)
Date:	Sun, 16 Jan 2005 18:54:52 GMT

In message of 16 Jan, Guy Stair Sainty wrote:

> In article <1105828298.353155.278320@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> pritchard_da@hotmail.com says...
> >
> > I think the issues with the College of Arms recognising Spanish arms
> > are:
> >
> > 2. By denigrating Spanish arms the College of Arms is creating the
> > impression that their grants are superior.
>
> They claim they are superior because Spanish confirmations are not of
> themselves evidence of gentility, whereas the British heraldic
> jursidction is based on this now completely artificial premise (how
> many petitions have been rejected in the last 30 years because the
> petitioner did not meet the social test?).

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

> >
> > 3. A long tradition of anti-Catholicsm in British society is also a
> > contributing factor to the denegration and refusal to recognise
> > Spanish arms.
>
> Actually there has been a conspicuous and disproportionate Catholic
> influence in the College for several generations - the previous
> Garter and several of his predecessors as well as other recent Kings
> and present heralds and pursuivants are or were Catholics. I do not
> think this is anythinh at all to do with it - the second reason is
> the most likely, but the excuse used is that the Cronista's even with
> the most liberal interpretation of their prerogatives could only
> "confirm" arms. What the College refused to accept was that these
> confirmations could be of perfectly lawfully assumed arms, since
> neither England nor Scotland recognise any right of assumption.

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

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

From:	Guy Stair Sainty
Subject:	Re: Foreign Arms in England (was Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction)
Date:	17 Jan 2005 01:26:05 -0800

In article <8e7a492e4d.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk>, Tim Powys-Lybbe says...
>
>In message of 16 Jan, Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
>
>> In article <1105828298.353155.278320@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>> pritchard_da@hotmail.com says...
>> >
>> > I think the issues with the College of Arms recognising Spanish arms
>> > are:
>> >
>> > 2. By denigrating Spanish arms the College of Arms is creating the
>> > impression that their grants are superior.
>>
>> They claim they are superior because Spanish confirmations are not of
>> themselves evidence of gentility, whereas the British heraldic
>> jursidction is based on this now completely artificial premise (how
>> many petitions have been rejected in the last 30 years because the
>> petitioner did not meet the social test?).
>
>I agree that there is evidence that in the times of the visitations
>that people were rejected as armigers on the grounds that they were not
>gentlemen. However nowhere have I seen any definition of Gentleman,
>save perhaps that of "armiger" which little other than tautologous.
>Accordingly I wonder how the "British heraldic tradition can be based on
>this now completely artificial premise"?

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

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

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

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

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

From:	Guy Stair Sainty
Subject:	Re: Foreign Arms in England (was Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction)
Date:	16 Jan 2005 09:25:09 -0800

In article <1105828298.353155.278320@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
pritchard_da@hotmail.com says...
>
>Dear Jonathan,
>
>I think the issues with the College of Arms recognising Spanish arms
>are:

>
>2. By denigrating Spanish arms the College of Arms is creating the
>impression that their grants are superior.

They claim they are superior because Spanish confirmations are not of themselves
evidence of gentility, whereas the British heraldic jursidction is based on this
now completely artificial premise (how many petitions have been rejected in the
last 30 years because the petitioner did not meet the social
test?).
>
>3. A long tradition of anti-Catholicsm in British society is also a
>contributing factor to the denegration and refusal to recognise
>Spanish arms.

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

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

From:	jonathanNOSPAMmakepeace at yahoo.ca
Subject:	Re: Foreign Arms in England (was Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction)
Date:	15 Jan 2005 15:06:30 -0800

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

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

From:	jonathanNOSPAMmakepeace at yahoo.ca
Subject:	Re: Foreign Arms in England (was Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction)
Date:	13 Jan 2005 14:46:11 -0800

Cillian Roberto Fani =D3 Broin wrote:
> I have recently been part in much debate over the legal status of the
> certificates the Spanish chronicler issues. The arguement for legal
status
> has yet to convince me. It is my present understanding that he can
indeed
> certify arms (this is provided for in the decree 3 April 1951),
however,
> while the documents he can issue are considered (nobility, genealogy
and
> arms) their nature is not. The certificates remain therefore private
> documents with no official value.

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

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

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

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

From:	Cillian Roberto Fani Ó Broin
Subject:	Re: Foreign Arms in England (was Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction)
Date:	Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:03:06 GMT

ha scritto nel messaggio
news:1105656371.078260.127740@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>If they are private documents of no official value could anyone issue
>such certificates? If so, what is the point of the government
>decreeing that a particular person can issue them?

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

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

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

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

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

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

From:	jonathanNOSPAMmakepeace at yahoo.ca
Subject:	Re: Foreign Arms in England (was Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction)
Date:	15 Jan 2005 15:15:17 -0800

Sigh. You may well be right.

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

From:	pritchard_da at hotmail.com
Subject:	Re: Foreign Arms in England (was Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction)
Date:	16 Jan 2005 09:51:55 -0800

Dear Joseph,

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

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

David Pritchard

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

From:	jonathanNOSPAMmakepeace at yahoo.ca
Subject:	Re: Foreign Arms in England (was Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction)
Date:	15 Jan 2005 11:47:32 -0800

Cillian Roberto Fani =D3 Broin wrote:
> I do not believe anyone would dare question a grant of arms
> ordered and countersigned by the king himself, however,
> arms themselves have no specific legal protection.

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

From:	Cillian Roberto Fani Ó Broin
Subject:	Re: Foreign Arms in England (was Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction)
Date:	Sat, 15 Jan 2005 21:36:26 GMT

ha scritto nel messaggio
news:1105818452.306668.276180@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>Cillian Roberto Fani Ó Broin wrote:
> I do not believe anyone would dare question a grant of arms
> ordered and countersigned by the king himself, however,
> arms themselves have no specific legal protection.

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

An example would be handy here.

From:	snelson at slis.sjsu.edu
Subject:	Re: Foreign Arms in England (was Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction)
Date:	11 Jan 2005 11:27:47 -0800

Derek Howard wrote:
> Thanks for the web link to the Boletin Oficial de Castilla y Leon.
>
> >If you can't read Spanish, it grants the
> >Chronicler of Arms of Castile and Leon the traditional powers of the
> >ancient Chroniclers, Kings of Arms and Heralds of Castile-Leon. The
> >1991 Decree specifically mentions the Royal and Ministerial Decrees
of
> >29 July 1915 and 13 April 1951 which confirm the Chroniclers' right
to
> >certify private arms:
>
> >Articulo 16.- El Cronista de Armas de Castilla y Leon debera
informar
> >cuantas cuestiones de su especialidad le sometan la Junta de
Castilla
> y
> >Leon y las Diputaciones Provinciales, y ostentara las facultades y
> >competencies tradicionales de los antiguos Cronistas, Reyes de Armas
y
> >Heraldos de Castilla y Leon, contenidas en el Real Decreto de 29 de
> >julio de 1915, y el Decreto de 13 de abril de 1951.
>
> Could you clarify a little further please? The Decree 111/1991 of 9
May
> 1991 is entirely concerned with municipal arms. Article 16 which you
> cite referring to the 1915 and 1951 decrees requires the Cronista to
> "show the faculties and traditional competences of the former
> Cronistas, Kings of Arms and Heralds of Castille and Le=F3n, contained
> in the Royal Decree of 29 July 1915, and the Decree of 13 April
1951".
> This does not at first sight suggest that this decree is granting the
> Cronista the same powers as may have been granted previously. I take
it
> this Article specifies the personal attributes which any Cronista
must
> have before appointment and that these should be the same as in the
> earlier Decrees. Where is mention made of the Cronista's right to
> certify arms? Or have I misread the Spanish or missed something in
the
> earlier decrees?

In July 1915 King Alfonso XIII issued a royal Decree that among other
things confirmed the Chroniclers' right to issue various certificates,
including certificates of armorial bearings, with the authorization of
the Ministry of Grace and Justice. "Tendran validez las certificaciones
de los Reyes de Armas...en material de nobleza, genealogia y escudos de
armas, siempre que vayan autorizadas por el Ministro de Gracia y
Justicia...Dado en Palacio a vientenueve de julio de mil novecientos
quince. =3DALFONSO=3D" (A. de Ceballos-Escalera y Gila, Heraldos y Reyes de
Armas en la Corte de Espa=F1a, Madrid, 1993., pp. 360-361). This Decree
referred to in the 1991 Decree.

The 1951 Decree cited in the 1991 Decree also deals with private arms.
In terms of "escudos de armas, las certificaciones de los Cronistas de
Armas con autorizacion para el uso solo tendran validez con el visto
bueno del Ministerio de Justicia...Decreto, dado en Madrid a trece de
abril de mil novecientos cincuenta y uno. =3DFRANCISCO FRANCO=3D" (Escalera
y Gila, op.cit. p. 363).

> The Official Bulletin also published the same day, 16 May 1991, the
> Decree 111/1991, of 15 May appointing Excma Sr. D. Alfonso de
> Ceballos-Escalera Gila, Marqu=E9s de la Floresta as Cronista de Armas
de
> Castilla y Le=F3n. In signing this the President of the Junta of
> Castilla y Le=F3n specifically refers to the appointment being under
the
> powers given him by Article 15 of the Decree 105/1991, of 9 May 1991,
> by which the procedure and heraldic regulations of approval, change
and
> rehabilitation of shields and municipal flags are regulated. There is
> no mention of the Cronista certifying private arms nor of the powers
of
> earlier Kings of Arms.
>
> I don't deny Marqu=E9s de la Floresta may have the right to issue
> certificates to private individuals but on the face of it this right
> looks to be a private one, or at least not recognised under the
> Castille & Le=F3n legislation.
>
> Derek Howard

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

-Sebastian Nelson

From:	pritchard_da at hotmail.com
Subject:	Re: Foreign Arms in England (was Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction)
Date:	15 Jan 2005 20:06:44 -0800

Dear Don,

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

DAP

Don Aitken wrote:
> On 15 Jan 2005 14:31:38 -0800, pritchard_da@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >Dear Jonathan,
> >
> >I think the issues with the College of Arms recognising Spanish arms
> >are:
> >
> >1. Protecting their turf. Technically England and Ireland were
Spanish
> >territory during the marriage of Queen Mary and Phillip II; then
after
> >Mary's death because Elizabeth I was illegitimate. A cheaper source
for
> >arms would hurt the College of Arms' income.
> >
> Nonsense.
>
> "provided, enacted and established by the authority of this present
> parliament, that your Majesty as our only queen, shall and may solely
> and as a sole queen, use, have and enjoy the crown and sovereignty of
> and over your realms, dominions and subjects, with all the
> preeminences, prerogatives, dignities, authorities, jurisdictions ...
> in such sole and only estate and in as large and ample manner and
form
> in all degrees, acts, exercises and conditions, from and after the
> solemnization of the said marriage, and at all times during the same,
> which God grant long to continue and endure, as your Highness now
> hath, useth, exerciseth and enjoyeth the same ... without any right,
> title, estate, claim or demand to be given, come or grow unto the
said
> most noble prince as tenant by the courtesy of this realm, or in or
by
> any other means by force of the said marriage, of in and to your said
> imperial crown, sovereignty, realms ... by any laws, usage or custom
> whatsoever; the said marriage or any statute, custom, prescription or
> other thing to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding."
>
> Also "in case that no children being left, the said most noble queen
> do die before him, the said lord prince shall not challenge any right
> at all in the said kingdom, but without any impediment shall permit
> the succession thereof to come unto them to whom it shall belong and
> appertain by the right and laws of the said realm".
>
> From the marriage treaty. For the whole thing, see
> http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/ast/mary.html#164
>
> --
> Don Aitken
>
> Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
> read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".

From:	GJKS
Subject:	Re: Foreign Arms in England (was Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction)
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 03:38:06 GMT

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

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

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

wrote in message
news:1105848404.620247.7900@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Don,
>
> That maybe the UK take on the situation but the Kingdom of Ireland was
> transfered to King Phillip II by the Pope. There were no proper heirs
> other than Mary Queen of Scots, Edward VI being a heretic and Elizabeth
> I being a bastard and a heretic.
>
> DAP
>
>
> Don Aitken wrote:
> > On 15 Jan 2005 14:31:38 -0800, pritchard_da@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > >Dear Jonathan,
> > >
> > >I think the issues with the College of Arms recognising Spanish arms
> > >are:
> > >
> > >1. Protecting their turf. Technically England and Ireland were
> Spanish
> > >territory during the marriage of Queen Mary and Phillip II; then
> after
> > >Mary's death because Elizabeth I was illegitimate. A cheaper source
> for
> > >arms would hurt the College of Arms' income.
> > >
> > Nonsense.
> >
> > "provided, enacted and established by the authority of this present
> > parliament, that your Majesty as our only queen, shall and may solely
> > and as a sole queen, use, have and enjoy the crown and sovereignty of
> > and over your realms, dominions and subjects, with all the
> > preeminences, prerogatives, dignities, authorities, jurisdictions ...
> > in such sole and only estate and in as large and ample manner and
> form
> > in all degrees, acts, exercises and conditions, from and after the
> > solemnization of the said marriage, and at all times during the same,
> > which God grant long to continue and endure, as your Highness now
> > hath, useth, exerciseth and enjoyeth the same ... without any right,
> > title, estate, claim or demand to be given, come or grow unto the
> said
> > most noble prince as tenant by the courtesy of this realm, or in or
> by
> > any other means by force of the said marriage, of in and to your said
> > imperial crown, sovereignty, realms ... by any laws, usage or custom
> > whatsoever; the said marriage or any statute, custom, prescription or
> > other thing to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding."
> >
> > Also "in case that no children being left, the said most noble queen
> > do die before him, the said lord prince shall not challenge any right
> > at all in the said kingdom, but without any impediment shall permit
> > the succession thereof to come unto them to whom it shall belong and
> > appertain by the right and laws of the said realm".
> >
> > From the marriage treaty. For the whole thing, see
> > http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/ast/mary.html#164
> >
> > --
> > Don Aitken
> >
> > Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
> > read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
>

From:	Don Aitken
Subject:	Re: Foreign Arms in England (was Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction)
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 04:05:52 +0000

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 03:38:06 GMT, "GJKS" wrote:

>I feel forced to make some comment on the foregoing remarks:
>
>Elizabeth I was not a bastard and to call her such, besides being
>ungentlemanly and unchivalrous, is incorrect because Henry VIII's marriage
>to his first wife was annulled.

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

> If you disagree with this statement, I
>think that you need to again read about the establishment of the Church of
>England and Henry VIII's assumption of the title of 'Defender of the Faith'.
>
Which has nothing to do with it.

>A heretic? She would only be classed as such by members of the Roman
>Catholic faith, of which, she was not.
>
Heresy, especially around that time, is a matter of dates.

--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".

From:	Guy Stair Sainty
Subject:	Re: Foreign Arms in England (was Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction)
Date:	21 Jan 2005 00:52:51 -0800

In article <41f0791d$1@news.comindico.com.au>, GJKS says...
>
>I feel forced to make some comment on the foregoing remarks:
>
>Elizabeth I was not a bastard and to call her such, besides being
>ungentlemanly and unchivalrous, is incorrect because Henry VIII's marriage
>to his first wife was annulled. If you disagree with this statement, I
>think that you need to again read about the establishment of the Church of
>England and Henry VIII's assumption of the title of 'Defender of the Faith'.
>
>A heretic? She would only be classed as such by members of the Roman
>Catholic faith, of which, she was not.

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

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

From:	George Lucki
Subject:	Re: Foreign Arms in England (was Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction)
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:05:08 GMT

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

"GJKS" wrote in message
news:41f0791d$1@news.comindico.com.au...
> I feel forced to make some comment on the foregoing remarks:
>
> Elizabeth I was not a bastard and to call her such, besides being
> ungentlemanly and unchivalrous, is incorrect because Henry VIII's marriage
> to his first wife was annulled. If you disagree with this statement, I
> think that you need to again read about the establishment of the Church of
> England and Henry VIII's assumption of the title of 'Defender of the
Faith'.
>
> A heretic? She would only be classed as such by members of the Roman
> Catholic faith, of which, she was not.
>
>
>
> wrote in message
> news:1105848404.620247.7900@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Dear Don,
> >
> > That maybe the UK take on the situation but the Kingdom of Ireland was
> > transfered to King Phillip II by the Pope. There were no proper heirs
> > other than Mary Queen of Scots, Edward VI being a heretic and Elizabeth
> > I being a bastard and a heretic.
> >
> > DAP
> >
> >
> > Don Aitken wrote:
> > > On 15 Jan 2005 14:31:38 -0800, pritchard_da@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > >Dear Jonathan,
> > > >
> > > >I think the issues with the College of Arms recognising Spanish arms
> > > >are:
> > > >
> > > >1. Protecting their turf. Technically England and Ireland were
> > Spanish
> > > >territory during the marriage of Queen Mary and Phillip II; then
> > after
> > > >Mary's death because Elizabeth I was illegitimate. A cheaper source
> > for
> > > >arms would hurt the College of Arms' income.
> > > >
> > > Nonsense.
> > >
> > > "provided, enacted and established by the authority of this present
> > > parliament, that your Majesty as our only queen, shall and may solely
> > > and as a sole queen, use, have and enjoy the crown and sovereignty of
> > > and over your realms, dominions and subjects, with all the
> > > preeminences, prerogatives, dignities, authorities, jurisdictions ...
> > > in such sole and only estate and in as large and ample manner and
> > form
> > > in all degrees, acts, exercises and conditions, from and after the
> > > solemnization of the said marriage, and at all times during the same,
> > > which God grant long to continue and endure, as your Highness now
> > > hath, useth, exerciseth and enjoyeth the same ... without any right,
> > > title, estate, claim or demand to be given, come or grow unto the
> > said
> > > most noble prince as tenant by the courtesy of this realm, or in or
> > by
> > > any other means by force of the said marriage, of in and to your said
> > > imperial crown, sovereignty, realms ... by any laws, usage or custom
> > > whatsoever; the said marriage or any statute, custom, prescription or
> > > other thing to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding."
> > >
> > > Also "in case that no children being left, the said most noble queen
> > > do die before him, the said lord prince shall not challenge any right
> > > at all in the said kingdom, but without any impediment shall permit
> > > the succession thereof to come unto them to whom it shall belong and
> > > appertain by the right and laws of the said realm".
> > >
> > > From the marriage treaty. For the whole thing, see
> > > http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/ast/mary.html#164
> > >
> > > --
> > > Don Aitken
> > >
> > > Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
> > > read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
> >
>
>

From:	Guy Stair Sainty
Subject:	Re: Foreign Arms in England (was Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction)
Date:	21 Jan 2005 14:22:49 -0800

In article , George Lucki says...
>
>Geoff,
>The title of 'Defender of the Faith' is as I recall a Papal honour granted
>to this English monarch!
>The question of the status in Church Law of Elizabeth's birth is to some
>extent a matter of record and to some extent a matter of one's frame of
>reference.
>It is safe to say that history has overtaken some of the issues raised
>earlier in this thread. I don't see any of the Catholic-Protestant or
>English-Spanish considerations as being particularly relevant today. They
>were certainly during the period of civil war and reciprocal religious
>persecution and perhaps continued for longer than they should have through
>systematic discrimination against those who continued to adhere to their
>ancient faith. Even that is a matter of history. One can only hope that the
>former rifts that are resurrected in such threads will eventually be fully
>healed and Christians reunited in one common (Catholic - in the sense of
>universal) Church.
>
One might dismiss all manner of historical disputes on the grounds of
irrelevance, but that is basically to confine the study of history to thje past
and pretend that too is irrelevant. Of course it is not irrelevant, either to
the past or the present. We see the consequences of the reformation, both good
and bad in many aspects of our cultural life today; we see it in the fate of
Ireland and of whole communities uprooted in different regions of
England and Scotland. The history of much of the continent was completely
reshaped by the reformation.

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

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

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

From:	George Lucki
Subject:	Re: Foreign Arms in England (was Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction)
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:19:41 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kind regards, George Lucki

"Guy Stair Sainty" wrote in message
news:csrvbp04tr@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article , George Lucki says...
> >
> >Geoff,
> >The title of 'Defender of the Faith' is as I recall a Papal honour
granted
> >to this English monarch!
> >The question of the status in Church Law of Elizabeth's birth is to some
> >extent a matter of record and to some extent a matter of one's frame of
> >reference.
> >It is safe to say that history has overtaken some of the issues raised
> >earlier in this thread. I don't see any of the Catholic-Protestant or
> >English-Spanish considerations as being particularly relevant today. They
> >were certainly during the period of civil war and reciprocal religious
> >persecution and perhaps continued for longer than they should have
through
> >systematic discrimination against those who continued to adhere to their
> >ancient faith. Even that is a matter of history. One can only hope that
the
> >former rifts that are resurrected in such threads will eventually be
fully
> >healed and Christians reunited in one common (Catholic - in the sense of
> >universal) Church.
> >
> One might dismiss all manner of historical disputes on the grounds of
> irrelevance, but that is basically to confine the study of history to thje
past
> and pretend that too is irrelevant. Of course it is not irrelevant, either
to
> the past or the present. We see the consequences of the reformation, both
good
> and bad in many aspects of our cultural life today; we see it in the fate
of
> Ireland and of whole communities uprooted in different regions of
> England and Scotland. The history of much of the continent was completely
> reshaped by the reformation.
>
> It is certainly fashionable in today's all-inclusive society where no-one
must
> offend anyone else's sensibilities to pretend that terrible things were
not done
> by one group to another and that there is no historic responsibility.
Perhaps
> you might explain this to the Jews, or the Armenians, or the Ukranians, or
even
> the Poles and Czechs - both of which continue to reap profit from the
forced
> explusion of millions of ethnic Germans, while justifying this on the
grounds of
> their own suffering. All of this must be taken into account and cannot
usefully
> be brushed under the carpet.
>
> In the case of anti-Catholicism in England, you are surely forgetting that
this
> still has a real historical legacy - in this last century there have been
> numerous examples of policy both government and royal being influenced by
> historic (and still real) anti-Catholic prejudice or legal bias; even in
the
> last 20 years. You may not remember the fuss about the Queen's first visit
to
> the Pope, or the public protests when he visited Great Britain - in how
many
> other modern industrial democracies would this still be a factor? The Duke
of
> Fife was refused to permission to marry a Catholic, in the 1950s, even
though
> then only 16th in line of succession. It was not until 1984 that it became
> possible for the Lord Chancellor to be a Catholic - he could have been a
> polytheist pagan, but not a Catholic.
>
>
> --
> Guy Stair Sainty
> www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm

From:	Guy Stair Sainty
Subject:	Re: Foreign Arms in England (was Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction)
Date:	23 Jan 2005 08:51:00 -0800

In article , George Lucki says...
>
>Guy,
>{snip interesting and important comments on Polish-German-Soviet terrirotial
>problems)

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

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

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

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

From:	George Lucki
Subject:	Re: Foreign Arms in England (was Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction)
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:47:43 GMT

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

"Guy Stair Sainty" wrote in message
news:ct0klk02cn9@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article , George Lucki says...
> >
> >Guy,
> >{snip interesting and important comments on Polish-German-Soviet
terrirotial
> >problems)
>
>
> My point is that while there are no absolute wrongs or rights, there were
wrongs
> done and received and they need measured consideration rather than
dismissal.

Absolute agreement!

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

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

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

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

Then both sides can move on
> and be truly reconciled. When you steal something it is not enough to say
sorry,
> you must also recompense the victim.

Actually I agree fully with you and this points us to the problem - there
may be no way to obtain compensation for all of these harms as the criminals
who perpetrated Nazism and Communism have so utterly harmed so many that
such redress is not possible. I have had this discussion with Polish friends
who seek compesation for the losses their families experienced from the
Soviets. I typically make several points - If compensation is to be sought
it should be sought from those responsible following the chain of actual
responsibility and it should not ever be gained from those who were not
responsible or worse still from those who were also victims of the same
evils. When we seek redress for a harm we often must settle for general
rather than specific redress. I will use an example close to home. My
grandfather's former farm in Belarus is apparently now farmed by people who
were forced in collectivization and now have no other livelihood other than
little plots of land. I would not seek compensation from them. They are
victims. The perpetrators of this theft and my grandfather's murder were in
Moscow - but I would also not wish to hold the current Russian government
repsonsible as I (with some justiffication) would see the Soviet state as a
criminal organization who oppressed and robbed and enslaved and murdered
Russian people as well and I would not wish to see them bearing the cost of
repairing the damage done by criminals who victimized them as well. My
paternal grandfather's home became a school building. His land was
collectivized. From what I understand it has been slowly ruined and depleted
under communist rule. In this case there is a twist. In addition to family
members killed by Soviets or Nazis there were also the actions of organized
Ukrainian peasant nation