Pleasantly surprised to see this arrive in the mail from Spain yesterday, thought I’d share with you all.
http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/9362/57219252.jpg
http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/4349/75135234.jpg
Particularly surprised since I had apparently misunderstood the "simple" certification with Castilla y Leon as being a digital transaction only.
In any event, pleased to have established this heraldic link to the oooold country.
I suppose this is also a good time to point out the new emblazonment of my arms done in a very tight turnaround window by Ljubodrag Grujic (thanks Ljubodrag!), which graces the document.
Very nice, congratulations Mark!
Congratulations!
I like your new emblazonment!
Mark Olivo;93420 wrote:
I suppose this is also a good time to point out the new emblazonment of my arms done in a very tight turnaround window by Ljubodrag Grujic (thank Ljubodrag!), which graces the document.
I recognize that scroll! (with a slightly different tint)! :D
Congratulations Mark.
Any chance of posting Ljubodrag’s original emblazonment?
Congratulations!
Congratulations Mark! Ljubodrag’s emblazonment looks fantastic as well. I thought I had recognized his artwork and was happy to read that I was correct.
Very nice indeed. For some reason I thought that there weren’t anymore Cronista Rey de Armas around!
Thanks guys, I’ll post the images when I get home. In the meantime, any suggestions on how I should be mounting/displaying the certification?
Very nice!
steven harris;93435 wrote:
Very nice indeed. For some reason I thought that there weren’t anymore Cronista Rey de Armas around!
There aren’t. Not the kind that can lawfully certify the right to personal arms. See http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=Registration.Foreign#toc24 and various prior discussions on this forum.
Unfortunately, the Marques de la Floresta, who’s the one who raised this issue to the Council of State in the first place, doesn’t seem to have liked the answer he got and so therefore just ignores it. Presumably issuing certifications without a license is not illegal, merely without effect under Spanish law.
Very cool Mark, it looks excellent.
Joseph McMillan;93444 wrote:
Unfortunately, the Marques de la Floresta, who’s the one who raised this issue to the Council of State in the first place, doesn’t seem to have liked the answer he got and so therefore just ignores it. Presumably issuing certifications without a license is not illegal, merely without effect under Spanish law.
Regarding this, we didn’t get into this subject in detail in our conversations since it didn’t apply particularly to my situation, but the good Cronista did mention that in a full certification it would "va legalizada", which implies that his signature would be notarized in some manner.
In any case I’m quite happy with the simple certification.
I’d also like to thank Ljubodrag Grujic again for his fine work, done very quickly at my request because of my infamous impatience (I wanted to complete the certification process quickly).
Here’s a closer view:
He always does amazing work. Definitely an artist I admire.
Dear Mark, the notarisation would not add anything to the document’s validity; it would be but a confirmation of the signature’s authencity. It was prudent of yours to avoid this unnecessary "additament".
Dear Joseph, with all my immense respect and sincere sympacy, and with my profound unwillingness to sound dull… - your reports of the certifications’ voidness are greatly exaggerated.
First, the Autonomy’s acts (the decree and the patent) that enabled the Chronicler to certify personal arms were never revoked; even the Ministry of Justice’s confirmations (issued for several early certifications in 1991-1993) were never revoked. The State Council’s decision, authoritative (as much as it may be as far as the interested parties were not heard and dubious presumptions were made) but not binding, was ignored rather than followed. Thus as to the "bureaucratic" aspect, the Chronicler is still entitled to issue the certifications.
Second, as regards the doctrine behind the practice. The Council declared that the Autonomy of Castile and Leon obtained a statutory permission to deal, specifically, with municipal heraldry but must not touch private heraldry of which nothing was said.
This approach implies total misunderstanding of the problem.
The Autonomy is empowered (since 1982) to establish (that is, grant or confirm) municipal honours (titles etc) and among them, this time in collaboration with the Academy of History, coats of arms. This power historically belonged to the King but was transferred to the Autonomies. Actually it is still a part of the [all-]national premial prerogative but is delegated to the local administrations. If family or corporate heraldry was not mentioned within this context, this only means that the national powers to award and grant (that is, make obliging gifts) were transferred to the Autonomies only as far as this relates to municipal arms and not the private ones.
Hopefully, dear Joseph, you will agree that it is un-American to see a personal or family coat of arms as necessarily a honour. Well, I daresay that it is almost equally un-Spanish. Any armorial achievement may constitute or contain a honourable/premial phenomenon; but it is by no means necessary. Thus, private arms may be discussed, and indeed dealt with, outside the area outlined by the abovementioned transfer of powers.
The critics say what power was not transferred but fail to recall what power was. The statutes expressly enable the Autonomies to deal with the matters cultural, as much and in such a way as it may please or be interesting for the Autonomies. As far as a coat of arms constitute a cultural phenomenon void of any “obliging gift”, it may be seen as (and mehercule it is) a matter of cultural importance which deserves official attention and protection.
So it is IMHO by no means ultra vires if an Autonomy keeps a record of private arms, provided that all the specifically honourable content of those arms (if any) is founded in their history, not in the inventions of the Chronicler.
Actually what may be assumed may be certified; and what is inherited from the immemorial past or was legally granted before, may be certified as well.
This is a delicate point; in my opinion, many arms certified by the current Chronicler do not meet these criteria. Even in the case of Mark’s lovely arms, purists may argue (excuse me, dear Mark, they may) that a coronet – indeed any coronet, and even if a charge – is essentially a honourable element which cannot be just assumed indiscriminately, or certified in a non-premial way. But all this is a matter of following step; we may debate the quality of the practice if we accept this practice in principle.
Finally, may I express my belief that if a state cares of itself (as a structure) more than of its citizens (not an abstract citizen which does not exist, but the existing humans), it is a lousy state. Then, how may dare a state to protect its own symbolism while leaving the citizens’ symbols in neglect?—[This indeed is my opinion, not a piece of a quasi-populist demagogy ]
To sum up, we may say about the Spanish problem anything but “Roma locuta est, causa finita est”. Sorry, dear Joseph, non est finita, not yet.