I have read that this society is seeking information about the legality and status of Blazons and Heraldry in Spain, as well as information about the Marques de La Floresta. I am in a position to affirm that this person was an advisor of the regional government of "Castilla y Leon", only for matters related to municipal heraldry, and not more. Any personal certifications of arms issued by this person as an advisor of this government have a very doubtful validity. He tried to be appointed as the official "Cronista Rey de Armas" of Spain, but he was denied this privilege.

I also can affirm that is not unlawful to bear arms in Spain for several reasons: 1. The government is not concerned about this, and people can do as they wish, as long as they keep some formalities.

2. If you execute a notarial act with a registered Notary, with witnesses, and you register your Coat of Arms in an office of the Ministry of Justice, your Coat of Arms will be protected with a copyright, and it will acquire historic rights. In fact, if the same Family keeps the same Coat of Arms for a long time, you will acquire historic rights over this possession. This incorporeal right is inheritable, and transmissible. This is basically what this Galician society is doing, and it is perfectly legal. The only point of discussion is whether this has the same effects as the Arms granted by a Cronista de Armas. The effects are the same, but i admit that it is more beautiful to have the signature of the Cronista instead of the signature of the Notary.

I can describe the process of acquiring arms legally in Spain in a very simple way.

1. Design your Coat of Arms.

2. Go to a Notary with two witnesses, and ask him to certify that you have made the decision of using some specific arms from now on.

3. Go to the Ministry of Justice with the notary´s certification and register your coat of arms. This only takes a few months ussually, and this will give you official recognition. Not by a Cronista, but by the ministry. It is less beautiful, but it has the same effectiveness. You will have a document legally stamped giving you a copyright, legal protection against theft, and you will acquire rights against third parties. This creation will also develop historical rights as the times goes by.

4. Register this with a reputable heraldic society. They will ensure that all is legal, and they will keep an eye on your Coat of Arms, and they will issue an honorific certification of arms.

5. If you do this, your coat of arms will be legally recognised in Spain, and this is undoubtful and lawful indeed.

Probably, it is far cheaper than the "personal certifications" of the Marques of la Floresta.

If you require further explanations, please do not hesitate to contact me. I even can send documents and quote laws, if someone wants irrefutable proof.

Deleted by moderator; the specific issue raised by David appears to have been a typographical error in the previous post.  Other derogatory personal comments about the Marques de la Floresta have been deleted.

Deleted by moderator; post answered by this one has been deleted; see above for explanation.

Deleted by moderator; see above posts for reason.

I never expressed doubts that the gentleman’s name is Alfonso de Ceballos-Escalera y Gil, or that he is the Marqués de la Floresta, and I know for a fact, as I have read the appointment document in the electronic version of the Spanish Official Bulletin, that he is chronicler of arms of the Spanish autonomous region of Castilla and Leon.  (And of course he is entitled to the honorific "don.")

My only concern about Sr. de la Floresta is regarding his legal qualification to issue certifications of personal arms under the Spanish decrees of 1915 and 1951 governing the office of chroniclers of arms.  The Spanish Council of State found in 1995 that chroniclers of arms appointed by regional governments only had authority over municipal and corporate heraldry and were not legally authorized to function as chroniclers of personal arms.  That, as far as I’m concerned, is the only issue.  I would never endorse putting his name, his title, or the title of his C&L appointment in quotation marks.

Then who was that Joe? Do you remember this spat of threads? I do, but vaguely. I remember that there were concerns about a number of things. Admittedly Spanish nobiliary is not my thing, so I may remember it wrong.

That and the fact that this was dug up form so long ago who in the H - E - double hockey sticks is going to remember it exactly as it was?

Thanks for the correction Joe.

Material deleted by moderator; pertained to material deleted above.

P.S. this all sounds like a fight from another thread/forum spilling over into this one. If I’m wrong I’m sorry. But, if I’m not I ask you to please keep a fight from another forum over there and not bring it here…we have enough of our own fights to deal with.

I wish I could find the article, but I distinctly remember reading that the same question was raised about the registrations that Don Vincente did as well.  I know that the Ministry of Justice stated very plainly in that article that the only person able to Grant new arms was His Majesty King Juan Carlos I and that whatever the Chronista did was a matter of personal record that did not extend any legal protection.  I’ll dig around on the Internet and try to find it again, so I can show the reference.  I do recall that it was mostly correspondance from the Ministry of Justice and the College of Arms.

I also second the concern that this seems to be an argument spilling over from another thread.  Please gentlemen, let’s keep it civil and on point.

Actually, the issue with Cadenas was a different one.  He definitely held an appointment as a chronicler capable of issuing certifications of personal arms.  The main question in his case had to do with the circumstances of his appointment.  Apparently he was never required to take the examination that the decrees on chroniclers require, but received the appointment under the Franco regime anyway.  Nevertheless, the Ministry of Justice did countersign his certifications, which it does not do for La Floresta.

The other question about Cadenas’s activities is whether a chronicler has the power to certify newly assumed arms.  The standard language of a certification does not purport to grant anything; it certifies that the arms shown properly pertain to the person named.  I’m not aware of any Spanish jurisprudence that says these have to be previously existing arms, although it’s fairly clear looking at the legal history that this was the original focus of the chroniclers’ work—they would record the arms in existence (many of which were assumed at some point, as far as I can tell), and then based on those records and genealogical research they would certify that the person claiming the arms was actually entitled to them.  As far as I’ve been able to learn, the question of the legality of certifying newly assumed arms has never been resolved, but I’d love it if someone could produce evidence to the contrary.

Apart from Cadenas himself is the whole question of the legal standing of certifications by any Spanish chronicler, however appointed—are they purely personal, private acts, or delegated exercises of official state authority, or something in between?  In practical terms, the answer only matters when it comes to how Spanish arms are treated by foreign heraldic authorities, particularly British ones.  I have a hard time seeing the question as having any significance from an American point of view.

Donnchadh wrote:

P.S. this all sounds like a fight from another thread/forum spilling over into this one. If I’m wrong I’m sorry. But, if I’m not I ask you to please keep a fight from another forum over there and not bring it here…we have enough of our own fights to deal with.

Denny, you’re absolutely right.  On reflection, I have edited the thread to ensure that we all stay on topic and avoid getting into areas that either cast aspersions on people’s character (as the first post in the thread did) or stray into non-heraldic issues.  I’m going to lock it now; any further discussion on Spanish heraldry is appropriate, but should be pursued in a separate thread.