Death of the Grand Master of Malta

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
17 November 2015 08:14
 

Wilfred Leblanc;105197 wrote:

We’re talking about Matthew Festing here, not Andrew Bertie, right?


Yes, I guess so.  My mistake.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
17 November 2015 08:36
 

The C&L junta pamphlet on the cronista (undoubtedly by La Floresta himself), at the link provided by Seb (http://www.americanschoolofgenealogy.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/01a-Certificaciones_de_Armas_esp.9142557.pdf#page=7) says, in translation:

"Finally, the Chronicler of Arms of Castile and Leon, in his capacity as Dean of Heraldic Counsellors of the Grand Magistry of the Sovereign and Military Order of Malta, arranged and prepared [ha organizado y dispuesto] the arms of His Most Eminent Highness the Prince and Grand Master Fray Matthew Festing, elected and proclaimed in March 2008.  These arms, certified and registered in Castile and Leon with the date of 13 March 2008, earned [ha merecido] the approval of His Majesty the King, who deigned to sign with his royal hand the original document delivered to H.Em.H. as the chief of an internationally recognized state."

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
17 November 2015 09:31
 

The article at the third link posted by Seb is from the genealogical and heraldic journal Cuadernos de Ayala. It says, in translation:


Quote:

Congratulations for the New Arms of Grand Master Fray Matthew Festing

The Friends of the Royal Matritense Academy of Heraldry and Genealogy add our congratulations to the numerous others received by our founder and first director—during whose tenure the Matritense was thankfully a haven of peace and harmony—His Excellency the Marqués de La Floresta, for the honor he received by being charged with organizing the state arms of the Prince and Grand Master of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, Fra Matthew Festing, elected in April 2008.  The Marqués de La Floresta has been, since 1992, a heraldic counsellor to the Grand Magistry, and is now the dean of those counsellors.  The Grand Master subsequently entrusted the Marqués de La Floresta, in his capacity as Chronicler of Arms of Castile and Leon—and for the time being the only practicing officer of arms in Spain—with the issuance of a certification of nobility, genealogy, and arms, which, after being drawn up, earned the highest honor of being signed manu regia by His Majesty the King of Spain.  We like to think of this as a new success of the Royal Matritense, and to make it our own, because everything that is done by one of our comrades—especially if it is one of the most illustrious and active—redounds to the benefit of all the rest.  Congratulations to Floresta and to all.


Building on Fr. Guy’s comment, it is a little hard to understand why Festing could conceivably have needed a certification of nobility from Floresta or anyone else after having been elected grand master, given that he would have had to present suitable proofs of nobility before being admitted as a knight of justice of the order back in 1991, if not earlier.

 

Also note that, other than the artwork, there’s not much involved in organizing, arranging, or composing the grand master’s state arms.  The pattern is long established:  arms of the order in quarters 1 and 4, personal arms in 2 and 3, Maltese cross behind the shield, rosary around it, black mantle and crown.  Festing’s arms were granted to an ancestor in 1827.

 

Beyond that, I think everyone has to judge for himself what this was all about.

 
kimon
 
Avatar
 
 
kimon
Total Posts:  1035
Joined  28-03-2008
 
 
 
17 November 2015 09:35
 

Joseph McMillan;105206 wrote:

The article at the third link posted by Seb is from the genealogical and heraldic journal Cuadernos de Ayala.


Just a note that Alfonso Ceballos Escalera now goes by the title of "Viscount of Ayala"

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
17 November 2015 13:09
 

David - Yes and No.  As to the gift from one head of state to another friendly head of state - two (at least nominal) equals - Yes.

But there are significant differences.  Bertie’s arms were already established, and neither the man nor his arms had AFAIK any Spanish roots - the Spanish certificate was honoring foreign arms and their bearer.  Clinton, like JFK before him, had Irish roots, but AFAIK had no arms there, here, or anywhere.  The arms newly devised and granted were Irish, and the purpose of the grant was to emphasize and honor Irish roots and strengthen ties with the Irish diaspora.

 

All of which, heraldically, matters not much here.

 

(I typed this before seeing the intervening postings; MdF’s role as Herald to the SMOM as well as C&L likely complicates the argument, though not my last sentence)

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
17 November 2015 13:17
 

Yes and no.  As to the gift from one head of state to another friendly head of state - two (at least nominal) equals - Yes.

But there are significant differences.  Bertie’s arms were already established, and neither the man nor his arms had AFAIK any Spanish roots - the Spanish certificate was honoring foreign arms and their bearer.  Clinton, like JFK before him, had Irish roots, but AFAIK had no arms there, here, or anywhere.  The arms newly devised and granted were Irish, and the purpose of the grant was to emphasize and honor Irish roots and strengthen ties with the Irish diaspora.

 

All of which, heraldically, matters not much here.

 
JOSE CARRION RANGEL
 
Avatar
 
 
JOSE CARRION RANGEL
Total Posts:  90
Joined  02-06-2006
 
 
 
17 November 2015 13:25
 

Joseph McMillan;105181 wrote:

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.


Sir: As you know, sure, the opinions of the State Council are not binding in Spanish legislation.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
17 November 2015 14:04
 

JOSE CARRION RANGEL;105210 wrote:

Sir: As you know, sure, the opinions of the State Council are not binding in Spanish legislation.


Certainly, but they are helpful in understanding what the law is.  If the Council of State got it wrong, then it would be helpful for someone to point out the flaw in the logic.  I can’t find it.

 

Also, the history of the case is revealing.  The opinion in this case was issued at the request of the Ministry of Justice, looking for advice on how to handle a petition by Floresta demanding that he be given the examination to qualify for appointment as a cronista under the 1951 decree.  Floresta wanted this expressly because he understood that certifications of arms issued without the MoJ appointment were invalid.  His contention was that, by not offering the exam, the MoJ was preventing him from fulfilling his duties as cronista of C&L.

 

To put it bluntly:  Floresta accepted the logic that the C&L appointment, by itself, was insufficient authority for him to issue certifications of personal arms.  He accepted that logic right up to the point that the ministry, on the advice of the Council of State, declined to offer the examination or to appoint him as a lawful cronista.

 

And, may I point out, that he has the audacity in his certifications to cite the very decrees of 1915 and 1951 under which his certifications lack validity!

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
17 November 2015 14:23
 

Would it be mistaken to perceive something of a cold war going on between the Spanish monarchy and the Spanish state, and, therefore, to perceive debates around the legitimacy of the Viscount de Ayala’s services as a (perhaps inconsequential, vicarious, merely symbolic) proxy in that larger conflict?

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
17 November 2015 14:53
 

The new monarch, Felipe VI, is not likely to sign any of Floresta’s artistic creations.  If there was any tension between the former monarch and the ministry of justice on these matters under Don Juan Carlos the current political climate in Spain makes it even less likely to continue now.

Ultimately, Joe McMillian has it right, the king has no role in Spanish heraldry, only the ministry of justice is given this role by law.  The law gives the king the ability to appoint the minister of justice on advice of the government - but not to appoint the Chroniclers of Arms, nor endorse their certifications.