Re: Armorial register puzzles:
- From: Guy Stair Sainty <guy@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 23 May 2006 09:49:40 -0700
In article <1148394868.638885.207970@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Martin
Goldstraw says...
Because we have not until now replied to this thread it may appear to
readers of this forum that the Armorial Register is not willing or able
to comment. This is not the case.
Mr Sainty has chosen to make public by use of this forum a number of
allegations and assertions some of which, by implication, bring the
name of Burke's Peerage into disrepute; the assertions made by Mr.
Sainty are that Burke's Peerage & Gentry Armorial Register takes
little or no care in who it accepts as registrants and that there
exists no procedures at all to vet any applicants.
Please note that after my first, very polite inquiry posted here, I replied with
details of my concerns in a private email, and sent more details yesterday; you
chose not to reply but instead are posting here.
From the start I posed in extremely polite and non confrontational way aquestion concerning information published on your register which was so
extraordinary as to be to me, at least incredible. But this is a forum where
heraldic issues are discussed by people with an interest in the subject; if you
do not double check the information provided by the registrants (as you admitted
in the case of the Wurttemberg count entry), then that reflects first of all on
the register. You stated that you would have preferred to me to have
communicated with you privately; but your aggressive reply when I did give you
my reasons, in considerable detail, in which you totally rejected what I said,
is evidence that even if I had first inquired in a private email you would still
have maintained that your register was accurate (as you still do).
Mr Sainty has no
knowledge of the extensive vetting procedure taken in each case and his
assertions are unfounded and ill informed. A great deal of research,
care and forethought goes into the acceptance (or rejection) of
applicants and there have been a number of rejections since the
beginning of the project. We do not claim infallibility and where we
have been misled we will act.
Of the three persons so openly criticized by Mr. Sainty one had already
been identified by us as being somewhat suspect and was simply awaiting
removal by the web master at the time Mr Sainty made his post in public
- had he extended us a little courtesy and contacted us privately he
would have been told that this was so. We do not intend to defend the
temporary inclusion of this particular individual; proof of titles was
promised but never materialized. The entry was premature but whilst
waiting for proof of titles to be forwarded our own checks highlighted
the difficulties with the claims and the entry was subsequently
removed.
If they are all so carefully checked, why the error you admit to? I had no
reason to know from the register the Walh-Walther entry had any greater or
lesser scrutiny than any other entry - you do not have a notice "temporary" or
some such. I spotted what seemed to me to be three anomalies: the Wahl-Walther
entry has been withdrawn; the Fani entry represented such a bizarre departure
from the norms of nobiliary law as to send up a huge red flag; and in the
Travaglini case I was pluzzled about the omission of this family from every
published source i was able to trace. I have now been sent a photo of the page
from the Bolletinho Ufficiale della Consulta Araldica of 1900, Regional listing,
which is cited as the authority for the title of "Count" for the Travaglini
family. But this clearly and unambiguously lists the Travaglini as Honorary
Patricians of Ferrara and not Counts as your registry states. You have stated to
me that all patricians of Ferrara became counts, by Papal briefs, but these
pre-dated the 1900 registry. I have also looked in the official list of
patricians of Ferrara, published by the Consulta Araldica of the Kingdom in
1903, and the Travaglini family are not listed there. I have also looked at the
official listing of titled families of Ferrara submitted by the Cardinal Legate,
Cardinal Arezzo, to the Cardinal Secretary of State, dated Ferrara 18 June 1823,
and the Travaglini family is not mentioned among the first or second degree
nobles of the city. You are still insisting you ahve checked this, but have not
sent me any evidence; without finding any other confirmation it seems to me that
the evidence is as yet insufficient.
Mr. Sainty made further allegations that the register had included two
other gentlemen who purported to hold titles to which they had no
right. He is wrong to assert that we simply accepted their word without
any form of checks being undertaken. As with all our applicants, both
of these gentlemen had fulfilled the requirements and fully satisfied
us that they were entitled to use the styles and titles claimed.
Mr. Sainty was informed of all this by private correspondence and yet
continues to publicly challenge the rights of the persons concerned. He
is of the view that his opinion is worth more than the weight of a
properly convened Catholic ecclesiastical court. The Armorial Register
does not set itself above any court of law whatever the jurisdiction.
Well how silly. Woudl you then accept the decrees of Italian courts naming
various people Byzantine Princes? Would you accept decrees of the San Marino
courts naming various petitioners with the titles they have claimed? Would you
accept that a decree of the Roman Rota could affect the succession to a British
Peerage?
I have not mentioned anything other than the Fani title until now; but I have
made what are evidently more thorough inquires than you did and find that the
Holy See still considers the Papal Brief of 1876 governs nobiliary succession.
There is nothing in the code of canon law which changes the requirement that for
the succession to noble titles the successor must be natural, legitimate be
Catholic and born of a Catholic marriage.
Any dispute between Burke's Peerage and the Armorial Register and Mr.
Sainty will be taken forward away from this thread and I am informed
that the gentlemen who have been so openly maligned will be taking
their own remedies in law.
I am simply stupified that what was a simple and reasonable inquiry about the
remainder of a noble title is considered "a matter of dispute" worthy of the
attention of lawyers. This says much more about you, how you view your registry
and your registrants than it does about the merits or otherwise of their case.
Appended to this missive is an explanation of the Apostolic
Constitution and the Code of Canon Law but first readers of this thread
might appreciate a short quote from a Judge in the Catholic
Ecclesiastical Court - the very level of Court whose judgment Mr.
Sainty questions and criticises. I feel it is particularly appropriate
under the circumstances to relay it to the participants of this forum
as it fits perfectly with this particular thread and could almost be
addressed to Mr. Sainty himself who purports to be a good Catholic:
This kind of tone is simply incredible in what should be a reasoned and serious
discussion of issues that relate not only to the case in question but, if your
arguments are correct, to the core of nobiliary succession in numerous other
jurisdictions. That you find it necessary to refer to my religious faith - and
neither here nor anywhere else have I claimed to be a good, bad or indifferent
Catholic - in a matter that concerns Italian and Papal nobiliary law, as if a
decision on a title granted by the late King Umberto II of Italy by the
ecclesiastical tribunal of Perugia was somehow a matter binding the magisterium
of the church and the faithful, demonstrates an extraordinary lack of balance
and judgement.
I have cut your long post about canon law because it has no applicationm in this
matter. If you actually intend to drag me before the Apostolic Segnatura, then
please do so, but I really do not think you should make a bigger fool of
yourself than you hqave done already.
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
.
- References:
- Armorial register puzzles:
- From: Guy Stair Sainty
- Re: Armorial register puzzles:
- From: Martin Goldstraw
- Armorial register puzzles:
- Prev by Date: Re: Armorial register puzzles:
- Next by Date: repeat of original question, was Armorial register puzzles
- Previous by thread: Re: Armorial register puzzles:
- Next by thread: Re: Armorial register puzzles:
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
