In this image taken on April 21 in London at the installation of the new Prior of England for the SMOM we see the banner of the new Prince and Grand Master Fra Matthew Festing. So, as predicted these arms are used although I see now that the eagle is semee of ermine tails which I had not noticed before.
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/5100/img2831tw2.jpg
These arms, quartered with those of the Order also appeared on the very finely decorated Easter candle at the mass.
Wow! Was the eagle’s tincture modified to look more princely?!
Very attractive.
So, technical question, why isn’t this erminois? Is it because there are only a few ermine tails and they are not all over?
Also, how come the window on the tower is not Gules like the portal? Is this the norm and I’ve just missed it before? Would it have to be blazoned to reflect this or would it simply be artistic license?
Finally, I note, with happiness, the tiara on top of the papal arms on the Easter Candle. :D
Good question. I can’t tell if it is intended to be erminois or simply charged with ermine tails and/or whether the number of the ermine tails would then be in question.
I don’t know why the portal and window on the castles are different colors but that would indeed have to be blazoned.
The Order of Malta has now published the Prince and Grand Master’s arms:
http://www.orderofmalta.org/site/img/Stemmi/stemma-GM-Bertie.gif
Here’s a look at what’s on the shield:
http://www.cilialacorte.com/grandmasters/79-Matthew_Festing.gif
Cool. Foppoli the artist?
Not yet
Hi all,
Here are some images and descriptions of an interesting document: a Spanish certification of arms and nobility issued to Fra’ Matthew Festing in 2008 and signed by King Juan Carlos:
http://www.cuadernosdeayala.es/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/CAyala-046.pdf#page=3
http://www.cuadernosdeayala.es/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Cuadernos-de-Ayala-038.pdf#page=30
Are there any implications here for the status of the Cronista’s registrations?
There were several emblazonments which looked like Floresta’s work (especially the borders of each page) which were signed Something R - if those were the King’s signature on documents prepared by Floresta, it suggests at least some level of Royal recognition of MdF’s standing as an official herald in cases involving persons, not just municipal (civic) arms.
It may or may not rub off onto personal arms certified by MdF himself.
Wilfred Leblanc;105179 wrote:
Are there any implications here for the status of the Cronista’s registrations?
No. The Spanish Council of State has been very clear that the King of Spain doesn’t have the kind of catch-all royal prerogatives that the British monarch is allowed to claim. He can do what the constitution says, or what the parliament allows him to do consistent with the constitution, and granting personal arms isn’t one of them. The decision was dated 21 Oct 2004. It concerned the request of a nobiliary association called the Ilustre Solar de Valdeosera for the king to confirm its right to use its ancient arms. The relevant passages of the opinion:
- "The Crown does not grant arms or authorize the use of arms granted in former times."
- "Current legislation does not contemplate any royal power to grant or confirm the right to the use of coats of arms. The power to grant honors and distinctions recognized by art. 62(f) of the Constitution has to be exercised according to the constitutional precept ‘as regulated by law’, that being understood to include the entire range of legal and regulatory dispositions that comprise the juridical regime on this subject. In contrast to the preceding Constitutions, which presupposed the existence of an almost absolute royal power to grant honors and distinctions of all types, at present this power is confined to that established within the legal order, and its exercise is subject to ministerial advice, which precludes any legal lacunae from being interpreted as implicitly attributing to the Monarch any undefined or excessive power."
This doesn’t mean the king was acting criminally by putting his autograph on Floresta’s documents, just that the signature was legally meaningless.
Would it be wrong to interpret the king’s signature as amounting to his saying that the crown looks favorably on so-and-so’s use of the arms in question—and favorably on Floresta’s activities—the attitude of the Spanish state notwithstanding?
Wilfred Leblanc;105182 wrote:
Would it be wrong to interpret the king’s signature as amounting to his saying that the crown looks favorably on so-and-so’s use of the arms in question—and favorably on Floresta’s activities—the attitude of the Spanish state notwithstanding?
I don’t know…does it matter?
Joseph McMillan;105183 wrote:
I don’t know…does it matter?
Does anything that we talk about here matter?
I presume that royal approbation confers some sort of legitimacy, and that if the Spanish state were really interested in suppressing Floresta’s activities, it could easily do so.
I meant, does it matter what the king thinks of Floresta’s standing?
Either Floresta’s certifications have legal force or they don’t. The king’s signature can’t affect the matter one way or the other.