Papal Nobility

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
05 May 2008 21:38
 

George Lucki;58054 wrote:

The distinction between ‘Italian heraldry’ and Papal heraldry is at best a bit artificial as during the period preceding the loss of the Papal states and the unification of Italy there was no Italy nor any unified heraldic system. In this environment the Papacy was a significant power.


When are people going to learn that "Italian" does not necessarily mean "having to do with the modern nation called Italy"? The peninsula on which the nation of Italy is located has been referred to as "Italian" for centuries. That is what I meant when I said "Italian heraldry". That is, heraldry as it developed and was used by those living on the Italian peninsula, including the Papal States. That kind of heraldry was much broader than just what was being done in the Papal States and it was certainly not controlled by or even inordinately influenced by the Papal States.

 

The people who lived on the Italian peninsula even before there was a nation called "Italy" were still, nevertheless, Italians.

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
06 May 2008 01:59
 

Quote:

When are people going to learn that "Italian" does not necessarily mean "having to do with the modern nation called Italy"? The peninsula on which the nation of Italy is located has been referred to as "Italian" for centuries. That is what I meant when I said "Italian heraldry".

I am not exactly the most intelligent person on many heraldic matters including Italian heraldry. And yet I seem to recall reading that “Italian heraldry” was very fragmented with minimal unifying particulars outside of a desire to show trees and such things as natural as possible. In fact IIRC, which again I probably do not due to my limited understanding of such matters, I remember reading that the “Italian heraldry” found in places that bordered Switzerland were more akin to that nation than their fellow Italians as a simple example. If I am not mistaken I read that at the Master artist Foppoli’s website.  Therefore, it seems rather ‘reaching’ to consider "Italian Heraldry" as a unified practice with a longstanding tradition(s) the whole of the ‘long boot’.  Of course I am not one to know such things with commanding authority and unquestionable knowledge, so I could be wrong.


Quote:

That is, heraldry as it developed and was used by those living on the Italian peninsula, including the Papal States. That kind of heraldry was much broader than just what was being done in the Papal States and it was certainly not controlled by or even inordinately influenced by the Papal States.

Is this not basically what George said? George do I have your posts wrong in surmising that papal states heraldry may have influenced other Italian heraldic practices including that of nobles be they papal or Italian, or both as was quite often the case?  How is it that Italian heraldry can pull an un-denying influence from Switzerland the farther north up the boot one goes, but not for those central areas where the Papal State used to be?  How can it be “broad”, and yet not encompass all sorts of regional flares including that of the papal states heraldic practices even if they were only a practice and not a mandate of some kind?  And if that is even within the realm of mere possibility how can we discount it outright and thereby say there never was a papal heraldic practice for its nobles etc? George listed a few examples that have yet to be completely, reasonably discounted.

I’m not saying there is clear proof that there exists such a merging of such a tradition – or even that a tradition existed with certainty. I am only merely suggesting that it is within the realm of possibility that certain heraldic practices were a part of the heraldic tradition(s) of the papal states and influenced so-called “Italian Heraldry” as such. Given no clear historical standing of a unified Italian heraldic culture like one can see in other places it certainly seems at the very least possible. And if it is then George is possibly correct in noting several nuances such as he’s already mentioned.


Quote:

The people who lived on the Italian peninsula even before there was an nation called "Italy" were still, nevertheless, Italians. I should think that a Canadian who still considers himself an "American" would have picked up on that.

Funny, I read that they were often called and considered themselves Romans, Venetians, Sicilians, etc depending on where they were from. Knowing a couple of Sicilians at my own parish I’ve never once heard them refer to themselves as Italians, though that is what they are, but rather as Sicilians even if they’ve been in America since WWII.

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
06 May 2008 02:45
 

gselvester;58067 wrote:

I’m not sure that’s correct. While the EOHS is uniquely and irrevocably tied to the Papacy membership does not confer nobility. The privileges of the Knights of Malta are based on that Order’s own sovereignty and has nothing whatsoever to do with any noble titles granted by the Pope.


No, I think you misunderstood. I wasn’t suggesting that either has anything to do with ennoblement any more than Papal gentlemen. They were examples of lay insignial elements following on a question.

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
06 May 2008 02:48
 

Guy,  I appreciate that you have little interest in the heraldry of the Papal nobility or the insignia of laymen, whose families in many cases served the Church well for centuries. Looking over for example a Polish armorial there were no less than 21 Polish noble families granted comital titles during the reigns of just two Popes - Piux IX and Leon XIII. This was a significant input into Polish heraldry as well.

One interesting footnote in the armorial was that it omitted the ennoblements or aristocratic titles granted by the Pope to clergymen. I had not realized that Popes had also ennobled clergy in some cases and I’m wondering about the historical insignial elements that might have been used in these cases. Looking through McCarhy’s books I saw examples of arms where ordinaries of certain sees acquired thereby aristocratic titles but I am not sure as to whether these were the gift of local monarchs or also ratified by the Papacy. Perhaps someone knows the answer?

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
06 May 2008 03:47
 

George Lucki;58074 wrote:

...I appreciate that you have little interest in the heraldry of the Papal nobility or the insignia of laymen,


No, that’s not it. I have no interest in discussing Popes ennobling people when there seems little evidence that there was a uniquely religious heraldry side to the issue. Papal ennoblement brought with it no special heraldic privileges and the conferral of some heraldic augmentations and insignia otherwise connected to the Papacy did not carry with it ennoblement.

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
06 May 2008 03:53
 

George Lucki;58073 wrote:

No, I think you misunderstood. I wasn’t suggesting that either has anything to do with ennoblement any more than Papal gentlemen. They were examples of lay insignial elements following on a question.


OK. Point taken.

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
06 May 2008 04:03
 

Looking through Dudzinski’s book in Polish on the Contemporary Heraldry and Heraldic Customs of the Christian Churches I found an illustration fo the arms of the the 1958 arms of the then hereditary Marshal of the Holy Roman Church and Sacred Conclave Prince Sigismund Chigi. Wikipedia (sorry) notes


Quote:

was an hereditary official in the Pontifical Household before Pope Paul VI’s reform of the papal court in his motu proprio Pontificalis Domus. It was vested in Prince Chigi, prince of Farnese, Campagnano, etc., etc. During the conclave, the Marshal had the ceremonial duty of sealing the doors to the Sistine Chapel from the outside.


The arms have several insignial elements. They are born within a red ermine lined mantle surmounted by a ducal coronet conatining a red cap. The arms are flanked, not surprisingly, by two keys palewise Or and over the shield is the ombrelino and crossed keys that might in this case refer to the marshal’s role during the Sede Vacante. The shield is also placed on a Maltese cross representing the Princes knightly/religious profession within the Sovereign Order of Malta.

 

There were a number of high lay offices prior to the streamlining of the Papal court/household - see; http://www.chivalricorders.org/vatican/pplcourt.htm

 

I wonder how many of the others had customary insignial elements like those of the Marshal of the Church?

 

(The same book has an illustration of Fr. Guy’s arms as one of the examples of the arms of simple priests - but wrongly identifies him as Canadian.)

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
06 May 2008 04:13
 

Quote:

No, that’s not it. I have no interest in discussing Popes ennobling people when there seems little evidence that there was a uniquely religious heraldry side to the issue. Papal ennoblement brought with it no special heraldic privileges and the conferral of some heraldic augmentations and insignia otherwise connected to the Papacy did not carry with it ennoblement.


The heraldic privileges of Papal ennoblement were at the very least coronets, and mantles. Were these religious? Not per se - they did flow from ennoblement or conferral of aristocratic rank granted by the Pope - the head of the Church. It is an area that appears relatively neglected (and I don’t have, but rather am seeking the answers) and perhaps merits further discussion for that reason alone. By the way, the study of heraldry is a bit more than armoury but also relates to the related issues of rank, precedence and protocol.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
06 May 2008 14:45
 

George Lucki;58080 wrote:

The heraldic privileges of Papal ennoblement were at the very least coronets, and mantles. Were these religious? Not per se - they did flow from ennoblement or conferral of aristocratic rank granted by the Pope - the head of the Church. It is an area that appears relatively neglected


I have a hard time seeing the neglect. As far as I can tell, these privileges are no different from those enjoyed by other Italian nobles, as spelled out in the technical regulations of the old Royal Consulta Araldica (http://www.cnicg.net/rtca.asp?strrefnome=Legislazione Nobiliare del Regno d’Italia&strRefUrl=http://www.cnicg.net/legnob.asp). There seems to be nothing in this regulation that is specific to the papal nobility. Accordingly, it would make more sense to address these privileges, if they require addressal at all, as aspects of Italian rather than religious heraldry, since they are purely secular, as is the use of augmentations by Italian families that produced Popes. If the heraldry of other countries has or had provisions for special insignia, etc., for papal nobles different from the insignia of other nobles, that would indeed merit discussion, but it still wouldn’t be "religious heraldry."

 

The existence of insignia of office for officials of the Holy See seems more on target for this particular ("Religious Heraldry") forum.


Quote:

By the way, the study of heraldry is a bit more than armoury but also relates to the related issues of rank, precedence and protocol.


As I’m sure George is well aware, there is no universally accepted definition of heraldry. British authors are apt to define it as embracing all the duties of heralds, but even Brooke-Little acknowledged that "heraldry has acquired a limited meaning as the art and technique of insignia associated with defensive armour, especially the shield." From what I can tell, Continental authors, especially those from countries where heralds long ago lost their non-armorial functions, seem to employ this narrower definition. Pastoureau, for instance, defines heraldry as "the science that studies armorial bearings, the coloured emblems pertaining to an individual, a family or a community."

 

It seems to me that, in the context of this society (i.e., a society based in a country where heralds never had any functions at all, let alone any in the areas of rank, precedence, and protocol), it makes sense to follow the narrower definition, and to broaden the discussion to matters of nobility, orders of chivalry, etc., only when they have implications for heraldry in the more limited (armorial) meaning of the term.  If we accept that a particular topic is heraldic just because heralds at some place at some time once had cognizance of it, then we will have to accept the law of armed conflict, modalities of diplomatic communication, and lots of other subjects as also being within the realm of heraldry.

 

That’s not to say that these other topics can’t be discussed in the off-topic area of the forum.

 

Just my personal views; I am neither empowered nor inclined to speak ex cathedra.

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
06 May 2008 15:13
 

George, can you provide an image of this latest find? I am curious how the keys look flanking the shield I wonder if it is like Chris Winkelmann’s father’s arms where the swords flank the shield instead of crossed in saltire behind them. If you can’t that’s OK…just would like to see it is all.

Mr. McMillan, I can understand what you are saying, but where I disagree is that I believe this is “religious heraldry” because of the elements George first dropped in posts #1 where he sets up his primer using Valde’s points to bulster his own with minor differences of opinion. And again in post #3 where he says,
Quote:

Like elsewhere a range of coronets, insignial elements, etc. as well as augmentations or special charges denoting a connection with the Papacy such as tairas, crossed keys and umbrellas.

One of the interesting ones is the Papal chief - not unlike the augmentations of allegiance found in some older Italian arms - the so called Ghibelline or Guelfic chiefs, some of the "Guelphic" chiefs included not the arms of Anjou but that of the Papacy. The ombrellino was also used as an augmentation of allegiance. Umbrellas also appeared in the arms of Gonfalliers, sometimes in the arms of family members of Popes, etc., etc.

 

There’s lots of heraldry there - just as with the achievements of clerics.


Again where he says in post #5 where he attempts to expand on it by answering my first, basic question,
Quote:

The Papal Chief was red. The crossed keys argent and or and an ombrellino was often added if there was a Pope in the family.

There were also concessions of augmentations of Papal arms used as a quarter to members of some noble confraternities like that of the Holy Apostles.

 

There are probably others, but unfortunately it is difficult to find information - I would welcome the advice of others. I’m hoping this thread helps stimulate some discussion of this issue - it seems to have bogged down in a catalogue of one after another prelates arms or diocese’s arms ignoring the historical role of the lay Roman nobility in the Church and the heraldry associated with it.


Now, it may be correct, I simply do not know, that these are more national additaments either by use or by origin though I am not convinced yet given that heraldic influence can go both ways and it is possible that the unwritten tradition of some of these things was transferred from nobles within the papal states to other nations and their heraldic traditions. I, again, simply do not know enough to know for certain. However, what I do know for certain is that there is, at the very least, some merit for this discussion in general and in “religious heraldry” in particular. As I’ve said, I am not the smartest man in dealing with all things heraldic, but to me, from where I sit in the peanut gallery, there is some merit in it being here and being discussed if for no other reason than it helps to continue my own personal growth in better understanding heraldry, in general, and religious, or papal nobility heraldry if one must separate them, in particular. For me (and I am sure others) who is not as knowledgeable of heraldry in all of its national or religious differences as yourself or Fr. Selvester are, that is important to aid me (us) in a more complete knowledge of heraldry (even with my constant, irritating questions). Again just my opinions from the peanut gallery and I am in the same boat with you in not speaking ex cethedra though for me that applies to most every area I know of outside of a handful of things. wink

 
gselvester
 
Avatar
 
 
gselvester
Total Posts:  2683
Joined  11-05-2004
 
 
 
06 May 2008 16:08
 

George Lucki;58079 wrote:

Looking through Dudzinski’s book in Polish on the Contemporary Heraldry and Heraldic Customs of the Christian Churches I found an illustration fo the arms of the the 1958 arms of the then hereditary Marshal of the Holy Roman Church and Sacred Conclave Prince Sigismund Chigi. Wikipedia (sorry) notes

The arms have several insignial elements. They are born within a red ermine lined mantle surmounted by a ducal coronet conatining a red cap. The arms are flanked, not surprisingly, by two keys palewise Or and over the shield is the ombrelino and crossed keys that might in this case refer to the marshal’s role during the Sede Vacante. The shield is also placed on a Maltese cross representing the Princes knightly/religious profession within the Sovereign Order of Malta…

 

I wonder how many of the others had customary insignial elements like those of the Marshal of the Church?


But, again you are simply coming up with example after example of heraldic privileges given to people because of an office they held connected to the Church that has nothing to do with being ennobled by the Pope, which is, supposedly, the topic of this thread. The red ermine-lined mantle surmounted by a ducal coronet has no connection to the office of Marshal of the HRC and the Conclave. It is only the augmentation, or rather additament of the ombrellino and keys that is connected to this office. (which, by the way is still held by the same family just as there is still a Prince Assistant at the Pontifical Throne)

 

As Joseph quite correctly observes:


Joseph McMillan wrote:

If the heraldry of other countries has or had provisions for special insignia, etc., for papal nobles different from the insignia of other nobles, that would indeed merit discussion, but it still wouldn’t be "religious heraldry."

The existence of insignia of office for officials of the Holy See seems more on target for this particular ("Religious Heraldry") forum.


You can find lots of little additions to heraldic achievements that have to do with Lay Officials of the HRC but that’s not Papal Nobility. There has still not yet been one, clear example of someone who was named, say, a Papal Count and was therefore entitled to some specific heraldic device as a result of that title. The fact that those ennobled by Popes, like other sovereigns, used coronets and ermine-lined mantles (like the nobles of other countries) is not "Religious Heraldry" and belongs in the section on "Foreign Arms".

 

The sovereign of England is also the Head of a Church but that doesn’t make the heraldry of all those whose arms were granted by the English sovereign "Religious" heraldry.

 
George Lucki
 
Avatar
 
 
George Lucki
Total Posts:  644
Joined  21-11-2004
 
 
 
06 May 2008 21:17
 

gselvester;58093 wrote:

But, again you are simply coming up with example after example of heraldic privileges given to people because of an office they held connected to the Church that has nothing to do with being ennobled by the Pope, which is, supposedly, the topic of this thread. The red ermine-lined mantle surmounted by a ducal coronet has no connection to the office of Marshal of the HRC and the Conclave. It is only the augmentation, or rather additament of the ombrellino and keys that is connected to this office. (which, by the way is still held by the same family just as there is still a Prince Assistant at the Pontifical Throne)


Actually the office and the high offices of the Papal court and the service in the Noble Guard were all limited to the Papal/Roman Nobility (prior ennoblement or enrollment within the Papal nobility was an absolute requirement and so these aren’t simply arms of office but linked to membership within the Papal nobility). King Alfonso XIII apparently attempted to persuade Pope Pius XII to open some of these offices to loyal Catyholic nobles but without success.


Quote:

You can find lots of little additions to heraldic achievements that have to do with Lay Officials of the HRC but that’s not Papal Nobility. There has still not yet been one, clear example of someone who was named, say, a Papal Count and was therefore entitled to some specific heraldic device as a result of that title. The fact that those ennobled by Popes, like other sovereigns, used coronets and ermine-lined mantles (like the nobles of other countries) is not "Religious Heraldry" and belongs in the section on "Foreign Arms".


Fr. Guy, simply put all service to the Papacy by members of the Church is by its essence a religious service. Membership in the Papal nobility was always on the condition of faithfulness to the Papacy and a religious test - an obligation required of heirs (much as proper marriage and legitimate birth). The Papal nobility is created by the Pope and is of the Church as much as any Cardinal created by the Pope is of the Church. The roles are different but you can’t separate Church and State easily with the Papacy. All of the Pope’s authority is from God. It is not foreign heraldry but Church heraldry. There is a great diversity of coronets and additaments used by nobles and a diversity of schemes of gradations within the nobility of Europe. The additaments used by Papal nobles is similar to that used by some others and different than some. It is worth studying.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
06 May 2008 21:43
 

Joe wrote, "Just my personal views; I am neither empowered nor inclined to speak ex cathedra."

Well. given the recent thread on the heady subject of armorial w.c.‘s I would suggest that any of us, even the most regular Joe among us, has that very right and likely does, or for good health surely should, exercise it daily!

 

(With apologies…:)

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
06 May 2008 22:13
 

George Lucki;58105 wrote:

Actually the office and the high offices of the Papal court and the service in the Noble Guard were all limited to the Papal/Roman Nobility (prior ennoblement or enrollment within the Papal nobility was an absolute requirement and so these aren’t simply arms of office but linked to membership within the Papal nobility).


By this logic, the batons behind the arms of the Earl Marshal of England, or the insignia of any other great officer of state in the UK, are not insignia of office but of nobility. Except that they aren’t: they’re classified as insignia of office. The same could be said for the marshalling of the arms of the SMOM with the personal arms of its higher officers. Nobility is a condition of holding certain grades in the order, but having the arms of the order marshalled with the personal arms is an indicator of the office held, not of the person’s noble status.

 

Thus the question of whether membership in the papal nobility is a criterion of holding an office in the papal household is neither here nor there when considering how to categorize these accoutrements. They are incidental to the office, not to the office-holder’s status as a nobleman.


Quote:

Membership in the Papal nobility was always on the condition of faithfulness to the Papacy and a religious test


And holding of office under the British crown was also, for several centuries, always on the condition of faithfulness to the sovereign as supreme governor of the church and of a religious test. For a time, those who refused to take an oath to this effect were tossed into the Tower of London or worse. To pick up Fr. Guy’s point, that doesn’t turn every British coat of arms with an additament of secular office into a religious coat of arms. The Ottoman Sultan was "Successor of the Successors of the Prophet, Commander of the Believers, Shadow of God upon Earth," but that doesn’t mean all arms from the Ottoman Empire are religious arms.


Quote:

The additaments used by Papal nobles is similar to that used by some others and different than some. It is worth studying.


If it is in fact different, certainly. Thus far you have presented no evidence to that effect, other than the insignia of office, which are not nobiliary additaments.  Fr. Guy (and I) believe that "heraldic elements specific to the papal nobility" is a null set. Thus far you haven’t convinced me that we’re wrong.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
06 May 2008 22:49
 

I had initially determined to avoid getting into the history of on-line sectarian squabbles in heraldic forums.  However, with some trepidation, I think it may be useful to touch on a couple of points, hopefully in as neutral a way as I can manage.  Much if not most of this is from old rec.heraldry days, where the postings were not moderated or policed; and consequently where the level of civility was often in negative correlation to the level of sectarian emotion.

These unpleasant episodes usually began with discussions of what were, or were not, legitimate "orders"  and/or "grants" of arms by, or sponsored by, various religious groups or leaders not in communion with Rome.  Simply put as I’m able, the question/debate/squabble (generally in that order) was whether Eastern Orthodox orders etc. were on a par with those of Rome.  Was the Pope a valid "fons honorum" and if so, on what basis—spiritual leader or temporal sovereign?  Were other (usually Orthodox) patriarchs also legitimate ‘fons honorum" equal to the Pope?  If so, on what basis?  If not, why?  The obvious possibilities for disagreement and hostility were exceeded only by the level to which the discussion frequently sank.

 

One widely held view was that only a temporal sovereign was a legitimate "fons honorum"—a view which also arose in discussions of which Orders of chivalry were legitimate—and that the Pope was in a different category than other religious leaders because he (or his office historically) was or had been a temporal sovereign.  If no temporal sovereignty, then no "fons honorum" & hence no legitimacy of orders or arms bestowed etc.  Obviously not everyone agreed, and the downward spiral raged on until it burned out…until the next time the issue was raised.  Much heat, relatively little light (at least little new light), much animosity and little useful heraldic discussion.

 

In this (current AHS "American") context, discussions of "fons" are irrelevant because both the basic concept, and any serious notion of necessity, are happily quite foreign.  We spend blessedly little time worrying about the "legitimacy" of this or that foreign nation’s grant of arms—all we really care or should care about is the quality and uniqueness of the design, and the merits of the artwork.  Features that are tied to foreign notions of noblesse or inherited status are typically, here at least, kept at arms length and only relevant for their artistic or heraldic merit, not for their foreign nobiliary connotations.

 

Usually we have taken a similar approach to religious or religiously-inspired heraldry—our concern is for the design and art, and not differing perceptions of the legitimacy of this, that or the other church or faith community.  This is necessary IMO to avoid sinking into the same sort of heated squabbles that I came to despise on rec.heraldry.  That’s why, even tho’ I may not always agree with every call & it may occasionally chafe, in balance I welcome the oversight of our moderators.

 

Discussion of papal noble titles concern in a sense a mix of both religion and noblesse - a double whammy!  There is of course valid and interesting heraldic (in the narrower sense appropriate here) material worth sharing and discussing; but I can quite easily understand why our moderators—and at least some of the rest of us!—might be a bit more sensitive than usual when a topic deals with both noble titles and religion.  Questions mixing "fons" and faith, at least potentially, can be a corrosive combination.

 

Anyway, that’s my screed for the day.  I’ve tried to avoid taking sides in the various arguments (on this topic anyway), merely expressing my concern over the existence and potential divisiveness of the arguments in the first place. As usual, I accept the right of the moderators to prune or delete as they deem appropriate.