The Armorial Register Newsletter

 
Nenad Jovanovich
 
Avatar
 
 
Nenad Jovanovich
Total Posts:  408
Joined  24-12-2006
 
 
 
27 July 2007 15:24
 

New issue of ‘‘The Armorial Register Newsletter’‘: http://armorial-register.com/monthly/newsletter-2-2-2007.pdf

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
27 July 2007 15:44
 

The newsletter is interesting. The arms of Kevin Derek Couling, Lord of the Manor of Little Neston are featured. This gentleman lives in New Zealand which actually has a herald extraordinary appointed by the government to the English College of Arms but his arms are not granted but assumed in Serbia. He does advise though that he has been awarded the Humanity Silver Medal from the Red Cross of Mongolia. Hmmm.

The Mongolian Red Cross site mentions the award this gentleman has received.

http://www.redcross.mn/english/awards.html

“NIGUULSEL” SILVER MEDAL

Awarded to individuals, special MRCS members, business enterprises and institutions as a mark of their significant contribution to the capacity building and development of the National Society and International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.

 

I would like to nominate all of the list members for this award. To be invested in the award you should go the the Online shop http://www.redcross.mn/shop/index.php?action=productview&id=3# and pay your passage fee of $100 US plus S&H and you will receive your medal in the mail. Simple. The money will go to a good cause in a very poor country. :D

 
Nenad Jovanovich
 
Avatar
 
 
Nenad Jovanovich
Total Posts:  408
Joined  24-12-2006
 
 
 
27 July 2007 16:05
 

It’s just like you, George.

Averything for a noble cause…

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
27 July 2007 17:11
 

Yes… Nenad, thank you, I think.

This turns out to be sillier than I assumed.

 

A few more details about the noble armiger whose arms were created by Nenad (a beautiful piece of work - the fine armorial charter is on http://www.czipm.org/gal_her174.html - I’ve quibbled about the coronet but…) and blessed by the Orthodox Bishop of New Zealnd and Australia.

 

What surprises me is that this fellow Couling is apparently a monarchist - and on the pages of the New Zealand Monarchist league is identifed as Provincial Representative, Manawatu-Horowhenua: Kevin Couling de St Sauveur, Esq. and Elesewhere as Baron Couling de St. Saveur but did not think it appropriate to obtain arms through the College of Arms and the offices of New Zealand Herald Extraordinary. He does have other honours that he omitted (or perhaps Burke’s Armorial Register wisely omitted) including the silly and completely spurious Order of St. Stanislas where he is identified as His Excellency Baron Kevin D. Couling, the Secretary and Marshal for the Grand Priory of New Zealand - see http://www.angelfire.com/realm/StStanislas/NZCeremony6.html

 

On "THE INTERNATIONAL WEBSITE OF Real Confraria de São Teotónio" http://www.royalconfraternity.org/International_Presence.html

he appears as Prior for New Zealand - Kevin Couling, Lord of Little Neston in Cheshire, Grã Cruz de Justiça . This confraternity is one of recent creation and is a lay association of the Catholic faithful - a religious group dedicated to good works and structured as though it were a chivalric order. Memerbership in a lay religious organization is not in itself an unusal thing for a Catholic gentleman (there are thousands with very different purposes and structures such as Rosary Societies or ST. Vincent de Paul Societies, etc.) were it not for the fact that this fellow works in New Zealand as an independent (freelance) marriage celebrant performing civil marriages (not something that the Church has been a big promoter of :( on http://www.russiancollegeofheraldry.org/gulgowski3.htm where you can see also a group photo of three "Polish counts" none of whom actually are. The author of the account Commodore the Chev. Paul Count Gulgowski-Doliwa looks like he is a US Coast Guard Officer (in teh uniform of a Captain?) http://www.russiancollegeofheraldry.org/gulgowski.htm and certainly appears to be one of the more decorated American officers.

 

A a bit of idle time and Google…

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
27 July 2007 17:16
 

Nenad - what is Heraldry Consultant, Comissão Oficial de Instalação? I had not noticed this one previously.

 
David Pritchard
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pritchard
Total Posts:  2058
Joined  26-01-2007
 
 
 
27 July 2007 17:31
 

Some years ago I was invited to apply for membership in the Real Confraria de São Teotónio, an honour that I decided not to pursue despite my long time interest in things Portuguese. That I made the correct choice in this matter is reinforced every year by photographs similar to the ones that you so kindly provided.

There is nothing wrong at all regarding donations to Red Cross organisations in poor countries, I in fact encourage all of our readers to do this. I however do not believe that having such a decoration is something about which one should publicise or wear at non-Red Cross or Red Crescent gatherings.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
27 July 2007 17:53
 

George Lucki;47895 wrote:

Yes… Nenad, thank you, I think.

This turns out to be sillier than I assumed.

 

(snip)

 

The author of the account Commodore the Chev. Paul Count Gulgowski-Doliwa looks like he is a US Coast Guard Officer (in teh uniform of a Captain?) http://www.russiancollegeofheraldry.org/gulgowski.htm and certainly appears to be one of the more decorated American officers.


US Coast Guard Auxiliary, actually; an organization of civilian volunteers that provides support to the USCG.  Four stripes on the USCGAux uniform indicate the position (not rank) of district vice commodore or district rear commodore.

 

The Wikipedia article on the Auxiliary states (correctly—I’ve seen this in the Auxiliary regulations) that "While Auxiliarists wear military style rank insignia, they do not use military titles."  The exception is full (not vice or rear) commodores, and they use the title only within the framework of the organization.

 

That one issue clarified, may I suggest that we not turn the AHS forum into a venue for outing members of phony orders?  Sympathetic as I am to the cause, let’s please stick to the heraldry.

 
Guy Power
 
Avatar
 
 
Guy Power
Total Posts:  1576
Joined  05-01-2006
 
 
 
27 July 2007 18:18
 

Joseph McMillan;47899 wrote:

US Coast Guard Auxiliary, actually…


[Joe knows all this stuff ... my following comments are for those who don’t]

 

I cannot clearly see his decorations, but he is wearing a Combat Infantryman Badge and an Air Assault Badge; so, he was apparently a soldier at one time and assigned to the 101st Airborne (Air Assault) Division.

 

The CIB is a cherished award—I’ve known vets who were more proud of their CIB than their Bronze Star award.  CIB: http://www.americal.org/awards/cib.htm

 

His top ribbon looks like a Legion of Merit, and an Army Good Conduct Medal on the end of the third row. I can also spot the National Defense Service Medal at "center mass".

 

Any idea what is on his left pocket flap?  This is the prescribed location to wear Jump Wings or Air Assault Badge on a Class-A uniform.

 

—Guy

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
27 July 2007 19:51
 

Joseph McMillan;47899 wrote:

That one issue clarified, may I suggest that we not turn the AHS forum into a venue for outing members of phony orders?  Sympathetic as I am to the cause, let’s please stick to the heraldry.


Well—- if that is how you do things here. It seems a shame to limit heraldry to only armory.

 

The claims people make along with their armorial bearings pendant from them or as additaments to them are of some interest. This Gulgowski for exampel - his arms just like a number of the bizarre ones issued by the CHR are an interesting study in unusual claims made heraldically.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
27 July 2007 22:32
 

I don’t know that it’s how we do things…it was a request/suggestion as a member, not an edict as a moderator.  I’ll defer to my fellow moderators on whether it’s off topic for the forum.

 
Michael Swanson
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Swanson
Total Posts:  2462
Joined  26-02-2005
 
 
 
27 July 2007 22:44
 

Joseph McMillan;47907 wrote:

I don’t know that it’s how we do things…it was a request/suggestion as a member, not an edict as a moderator.  I’ll defer to my fellow moderators on whether it’s off topic for the forum.


I think it’s on topic.  But I think the discussion is risky when people start picking out one or two orders that people have and slamming them.  People get angry and it accomplishes nothing.  And the arguments against the alleged illegitimate orders usually contain sarcasm and, most importantly, express some bias or assumption about what "legitimate" means.

 

What is useful, and more collegial, is to actually spell out the criteria for a "legitimate" order, and then spell out the criteria for which subset of these orders should be displayed with a coat of arms.

 

For example, one might argue "a legitimate order is an order that has the following necessary and sufficient conditions."  This is hard to do, and as far as i know, no one has done this.

 

In the abstract, we can remain collegial.

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
27 July 2007 22:59
 

Joseph McMillan;47899 wrote:

That one issue clarified, may I suggest that we not turn the AHS forum into a venue for outing members of phony orders?  Sympathetic as I am to the cause, let’s please stick to the heraldry.


Very well said, Joe! You took the words right out of my mouth. Thank you indeed.


George Lucki;47902 wrote:

Well—- if that is how you do things here. It seems a shame to limit heraldry to only armory.


That isn’t the problem. This isn’t a forum for discussing phaleristics. Even if it were I find the tone you take to be unhelpful.

 
David Pritchard
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pritchard
Total Posts:  2058
Joined  26-01-2007
 
 
 
27 July 2007 23:31
 

Joseph McMillan;47907 wrote:

I don’t know that it’s how we do things…it was a request/suggestion as a member, not an edict as a moderator. I’ll defer to my fellow moderators on whether it’s off topic for the forum.


A very reasonable request it is Joseph. For the civility and unity of this forum, it is best that fake orders and those who participate in them are not discussed in much detail or at all.


gselvester;47911 wrote:

This isn’t a forum for discussing phaleristics. Even if it were I find the tone you take to be unhelpful.


I tend to follow the rule of not discussing phaleristics on this forum but at times it is useful to post an image or provide some history when describing historic foreign arms or orders that appear consistently with the coat-of-arms of a monarch. As for the tone of George’s post, I think that this comes from his exasperation with this phenomenon. He is after all an expert in Polish coats-of-arms, nobility and orders who has for years seen false Polish orders, false Polish nobles and false Polish nobility societies multiply, spreading in their wake confusion about what is historically real as well as prompted the usurping of historical Polish coats-of-arms. If you were Polish, Father, you might have a stronger opinion of these matters.

 

In regards to the coats-of-arms that are attributed to the men in question, it has been well known for years that coats-of-arms and especially the heraldic addiments accredited to a particular person by the CHR should always be viewed with some suspicion. The best thing that can be said about the CHR is that they have fine heraldic artists, which is why they have been used for many years by the American College of Heraldry to illustrate new registrations.

 

I hope that no one is offended with what I have to write on this matter, it is certainly not my intention to offend anyone.

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
28 July 2007 01:24
 

Michael Swanson;47910 wrote:

I think it’s on topic.  But I think the discussion is risky when people start picking out one or two orders that people have and slamming them.  People get angry and it accomplishes nothing.  And the arguments against the alleged illegitimate orders usually contain sarcasm and, most importantly, express some bias or assumption about what "legitimate" means.

What is useful, and more collegial, is to actually spell out the criteria for a "legitimate" order, and then spell out the criteria for which subset of these orders should be displayed with a coat of arms.

 

For example, one might argue "a legitimate order is an order that has the following necessary and sufficient conditions."  This is hard to do, and as far as i know, no one has done this.

 

In the abstract, we can remain collegial.


First a bit of history. In this case there is nothing controversial about the silliness of the contemporary Order of St. Stanislas. It was a Royal Polish order until 1795 when Poland disappeared from the map of Europe in the course of the partitions and reappeared in the briefly lived Duchy of Warsaw (a Napoleonic puppet state). In 1815 the Crown of Poland was assigned by the Congress of Vienna to the Russian Tsar who ruled also as Tsar of Poland. He continued to award this order as one of his Kingdom of Poland. In 1831 the autonomous Kingdom of Poland was incorporated into the Russian Empire and the order was transformed into a Russian order (lowest in precedence) and was awarded until 1917 and occasionally since then by the pretenders to the Russian throne. After world war I Poland was restored as a republic and while the Virtuti Militari and White Eagle were restored, St. Stanislas was not. The ribbon was retained for the new order Polonia Restituta. The order of St. Stanislas was cheapened by its indiscriminate awards and needed to be replaced. Poland before 1795 was a Republic with an elective monarchy and so there is no royal pretender who might claim to award it legitimately. After 1939 with the Nazi occupation of Poland the legitimate government was in exile in London (the 1935 constitution foresaw the possibility of war and created an appropriate mechanism). One fellow who was involved as minister in this government by the name of Janusz Sokolnicki (who claimed a comital title borne by a different line and more recently claims to have been made a Prince by the long extinct Hohenstaufen Holy Roman Emperors who were in any case elective at the time) who founded an unrecognized rival government in exile and appeared to do a good trade in ‘Polish orders’ - see: http://www.maineworldnewsservice.com/caltrap/once_and_perhaps_still_lucrative.htm for one account. Burke’s World Orders of Knighthood and Merit also covers this issue. In 1979 he came up with an bizarre gambit - as self-styled President he claimed to restore the Order of St. Stanislas (as the successor of Nicholas II no less!) and then by decree transfer this supposed national order into one that was indepndent and under his ‘grand magistracy’. Of course this was without any possible basis - but such a thing appeals to vain individuals and those who may not know better. When Poland was restored to democracy the new government of course arranged for a transfer of power from the government in exile (President Kaczorowski not the Count Prince Grand Master and Bishop (sic) Sokolnicki fellow) to the newly elected government.

 

There is simply no basis for seeing St. Stanislas as anything other than a self-styled order.

 

I also made a statement that ‘Counts’ Doliwa-Sulgowski, Subrzitzky-Kusza and Helon-Zielinski were not Polish counts. This is simple. There are no such Polish comital families and never were. I have seen the noble proofs offered by one and unfortunately these do not establish any claims - including those to the arms he uses by claimed inheritance. The CHR created arms for Gulgowski have Doliwa in the 1st and 3rd quarters and it looks like invented arms in the other two. Two comitally crowned helms is just wrong in Polish heraldry and of course the escutcheon of pretense that dimidates Poland and Silesia is wholly inappropriate. The orders beneath the arms include what lookd like a self-styled Order of Malta, self-styled St. Stanislas, one I don’t recognize and the German Federal Republic’s Order of Merit - a German state order. Helon-Zielinski’s arms are assumed through the CHR although he claims the style de Doliwa which would instead suggest he might use those arms instead if he can establish genealogical descent.

 

The only other group I mentioned was the Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio. This is legitmately a lay Catholic association of the faithful - one of thousands and thousands. This one is structured like an order of chivalry which it is not, but I leave it to folks to decide whether this is their spiritual path (such associations are typically established for their spiritual benefits).

 

 

I think Michael is right that in each case it should be possible to establish why something is referred to as self-styled. I hope that this clarifies the basis for my observations. Each of these gentlemen are free to do as they wish - and well founded criticism of their idiosyncratic armorial and related claims would seem to be fair comment.

 
Michael Swanson
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Swanson
Total Posts:  2462
Joined  26-02-2005
 
 
 
28 July 2007 01:43
 

George Lucki;47915 wrote:

I think Michael is right that in each case it should be possible to establish why something is referred to as self-styled. I hope that this clarifies the basis for my observations.


Actually, I said that we should refrain from discussing particular orders.  And we should discuss abstractly what "legitimate" means.  Examples are not required.

 

My question is, "What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for an order to be legitimate?"  I don’t know the answer, and I can’t tell from any of your posts what you think the definition of a legitimate order is.

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
28 July 2007 02:11
 

Very straightforward.

Orders and decorations can be seen to be legitimate when they are conferred by the authority of governments of a sovereign state.

Orders that are conferred by a governemnt in exile or where an order was once established as a dynastic property by a sovereign (when reigning) who no longer reigns or whose heir no longer reigns is legitimate in a narrower sense (within those who support that cause or prince) where it is governed and awarded in conformity with its statutes and governing laws and its head is the legitimate head of state or heir to the throne according to the once laws of that state. Newly created dynastic orders are less legitimate still and really only to the extent that the dynastic head has the authority to create orders and did so while reigning.

Orders that are awarded by other than the above, including cadets or others who simply lay a claim to a throne cannot be legitimate - orders that are claimed to be revived by other than the founding authority cannot be legitimate. These can be called created simply by private initiative or self-styled.  Awards made by private organizations, churches or other groups may be prized by those who receive them but these are not orders in this sense. (With churches one exception needs be made for the Holy See which also a sovereign state - or church orders made state orders like that created by Abp. Makarios on Cyprus in his capacity as President)

That’s a simple go around - these criteria can be further refined.

 

Legitimate orders may have heraldic privileges and these can be taken advantage of if they are not incompatible with the law of the land. Self-styled orders should not be displayed with legitimate arms.

 

How’s that?