George Lucki;58105 wrote:
Fr. Guy, simply put all service to the Papacy by members of the Church is by its essence a religious service.
In your opinion. I don’t agree.
George Lucki;58105 wrote:
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.
That’s not true at all and is, in fact, part of the reason behind why the Popes no longer create nobles. The Holy See is not the successor to the Papal States. Neither is the tiny Vatican City-State. Drawing a line of distinction between the Pope’s religious role (as Head of the Holy See) and his role as a sovereign is also part of the reason that the Pope’s no longer create nobles. So, equating the one-time Papal nobility with the various levels of the Church’s hierarchy is incorrect.
George Lucki;58105 wrote:
All of the Pope’s authority is from God.
No it isn’t. His authority as the sovereign of the State of Vatican City (his only claim to sovereignty because he is not the sovereign of the Holy See) does not come from God. It comes from the Lateran Treaty with the state of Italy and the acknowledgement of the International Community. God doesn’t give a hang who is the sovereign of Vatican City.
George Lucki;58105 wrote:
It is not foreign heraldry but Church heraldry.
But that doesn’t make it religious. The coat of arms of the Colonel of the Swiss Guard is Church heraldry but it isn’t religious heraldry. There’s a difference.
You still have presented no compelling argument to back up your claim that there is heraldry specific to Papal Nobles. I’m continuing to disagree with you because I’d like to see you present heraldic devices that are specifically tied to a noble of Papal creation as opposed to heraldry that is similar to the rest of the European nobility regardless of which sovereign ennobled them. You have pointed out heraldic augmentations and additions but not one of them is specifically tied to Papal Nobility.
As to the MacSweeney (MacSwiney) arms I mentioned earlier, I have just heard back from Charles who was on vacation. Here is what he said and I’m afraid it does not offer much in terms of those particular arms having anything of substantive proof of papal additaments per se except, perhaps, his mother’s memories of them being discussed there, which may mean anything. Anyway, here is basically what he told me:
He says he does not think there is anything that was specifically “Papal” about his grandfather’s arms per se. There was, he says and there is I believe, a clear link to the MacSweeney’s with the boars and battle axes.
However, he also says that it may be that the chief was intended to be a nod to the Vatican given its metal on metal violation. He further says that he remembers his mother telling him that the arms themselves were discussed in the Vatican. What that means exactly I simply don’t know. However, it is of some interest if only for speculative purposes I guess.
He says that as to the coronet that was displayed it was simply that of a “European marquis” and nothing really different to set it apart and indeed it was “puny” when seen next to his grandmothers closed crown.
So, it isn’t much to say in the affirmative that there clearly is evidence of its use and that it only offers more speculative possibilities, but I said I would post what I learn and so am doing that.
The issue is simply heraldic and I am hoping through this discussion to learn more - the issue of the heraldry of Papal nobles and the heraldry of laymen in the service of the Popes is interesting and poorly studied - it is relatively difficult to reach this information (at least from the resources I have at my disposal). I am not setting myself out as an expert in this area and have no thesis to prove, merely seek reasoned discussion of this aspect of teh heraldry of the Church.
Popes have ennobled and granted titles. These have been generally granted with respect to extraordinary service to the Church. Velde treats this well as to why these titles and the arms borne by the individuals involved should be considered in this section.
<ul class=“bbcode_list”>
<li>These nobles were mainly armigerous and their titles came with additaments such as coronets. There were several schemes in place in Italy and a range of such coronets for different grades of the nobility.</li>
<li>In 1746 Benedict XIV set out a legal Constitution for the Papal/Roman nobility. 180 families were listed. Sixty of these families were selected to manage admission to Roman patrician rank. This group needed to prove 200 years of Roman nobility or Roman nobility along with the right to four geneaological grand-quarterings of arms. This is according to Pinches. I would love to learn more about this.</li>
<li>Some nobles acquired the privilege of bearing a Papal chief as an augmentation of allegiance in teh struggles between Papacy and Empire</li>
<li>Some bore a Papal chief with an ombrelino. This included some families taht provided a Pope. I recall when John Paul the Great was elected the commentary that as he had no siblings or parents surviving there would be no family ennoblement as was customary - Pope Benedict XVI’s brother would rank as a noble by custom as the sibling of a reigning monarch and able to incorporate an augmentation to his arms.</li>
<li>Certain Papal nobles held hereditary offices at the Papal court and at least in one case (mentioned above) there appear to be unique insignial elements that pertained either to the office or the family(?). It would be interesting to know if other offices or families had the privilege of adding specific insignial elements.</li>
<li>At least one noble confraternity (Holy Apostles) apparently has the privilege of members adding a quartering of teh Papal arms.</li>
<li>Some laymen (not necessarily noblemen) such as Gentlemen of His Holiness have the right to specific heraldic privileges including a chain of office. Unique heraldic privileges pertain to the professed knights of the Sovereign Order of Malta and the knights of the Holy Sepulchre. Specific heraldic privileges pertain to the Papal orders of merit.</li>
</ul>
The issue of the nature of the sovereignty of the Popes as sovereigns of the Holy See would seem to be a difficult concept -
Quote:
No it isn’t. His authority as the sovereign of the State of Vatican City (his only claim to sovereignty because he is not the sovereign of the Holy See) does not come from God. It comes from the Lateran Treaty with the state of Italy and the acknowledgement of the International Community. God doesn’t give a hang who is the sovereign of Vatican City.
In fact the Pope’s sovereignty is seen by the Church and generally acknowledged by the world community to flow not from his possession fo the Vatican City State but from his possession of the Holy See. Even after the loss of the Papal States and before the Lateran Treaty the Pope’s sovereignty was not in question. The Lateran Treaty did not make the Pope sovereign but rather regulated some of teh questions in dispute between the sovereigns of Italy and the Holy See. God may not give a hang about who is the sovereign of the Vatican City State (I don’t know) but He apparently does give a hang (the guidance of the Holy Spirit) about who is the sovereign of the Holy See and that is the basis of the Pope’s sovereignty!
Joseph McMillan wrote:
Quote:
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.
I think I’m finally understanding - both you and Guy are dismissing the arms of Papal nobles as interesting because the headgear is not unique (like the clerical headgear) but borrows from HRE and Central Italian patterns.
If you look at Pinches book on European Nobility and Heraldry you will see that there is a fair diversity across Europe but that there are also some commonalities. They are not uninteresting because they are not always unique. The heraldry of the Papal nobility is as it is. I would not dismiss German noble heraldry for example because their coronets are not really different from those used in Hungary.
With the null set - what about the arms of the Prince Chigi as hereditary Marshal of the Holy Roman Church and Sacred Conclave? The arms augmented by Papal Chiefs? There may be more, but I’m just learning. This area deserves more study. Unlike yourself or Fr. Guy I have no basis for asserting - there’s nothing there. My position is there is something there that it would be good to know more about and I’ve provided the examples I have.
I for one can’t understand the heat generated by this thread. It might be in the wrong place - better under international heraldry - but surely it should be on topic for a heraldry society to discuss the heraldry of Papal Nobles (titled or not) and of the residents of the Papal States (which made up a large part of Italy for much of its history).
Did the heraldry of the residents of the Papal States have a particular style in the way that can be seen in Scottish, Nordic and other heraldic traditions?
Are there differences in style between the heraldry of residents of the Papal States and those of Florence, Venice, Genoa, The Two Sicilies &c?
Are there typical charges or styles of marshalling?
Are there interesting additments for office, status or allegiance?
Were all/some/any of these the results of a formal granting process or where they just assumed?
There are lots of interesting questions and I’m not seeing many answers.
I’m not interested in discussions of sources of Papal authority - I take it as given.
If the moderators think that the subject line of Papal Nobility is wrong then perhaps they could suggest that the thread be split and perhaps put into different sub-fora. I would have no objections to that. However, it does seem to me that for a group of posters the thread seems to always veer away from heraldry and return to argument over of some aspect of Papal authority. I can’t see that that gets us anywhere.
James
This thread is in the public area of the forum. As such, it has become an embarrasment to this Society on several different levels. THIS IS ABOUT TO CHANGE.
I have re-read this entire thread. There have been several complaints about an "overabundance" of moderating. Sorry, I’m not seeing it. Fr. Guy (who has the ability and the duty to moderate) has not done so. He is simply a participant in the discussion. Just because he disagrees with some of the proposals in this thread does not constitute "moderation" on his part. It is called "dialogue."
Second, several times it has been insinuated that this thread will be closed by "the powers that be." Again, I’m not seeing it. Not once in this thread has it been suggested this thread will be closed. THIS, TOO, IS ABOUT TO CHANGE.
Third, there have been many uncharitable comments made within this thread. When I have time (in the next day or two), I will be removing all comments that have nothing to do with this particular subject. Either learn to "fight nice," or move along. I, for one, am sick of reading this non-sense.
Fourth, this is a heraldry forum. As far as I know, the Vatican has never granted arms to anyone. While the Roman Catholic Church has established guidelines for clergy arms, I have yet to read anything here that suggests that any addidaments assumed by papal nobility were actually "granted" by the Vatican; it would appear these addidaments were assumed by the armiger or granted by the heralds of other countries. Consequently, this thread will be moved to the "Foreign Arms" section. If evidence is provided of the Vatican actually granting arms to go along with these titles, I will cheerfully move this thread back.
Finally, you may discuss this topic till the cows come home. No one said you couldn’t discuss it. However, one more wise-crack, one more disrespectful remark, and I will CLOSE AND DELETE this thread. If you have a problem with any of these rules, kindly send me a PM. Enough is enough, gentlemen.
YOUR FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD CHIEF MODERATOR
(Moderator’s notice: I have made the appropriate deletions and edits in this thread. If a new reader goes through this thread and is totally baffled by my post here, then I have done my job properly. WBH 5/8/2008 )
George Lucki;58118 wrote:
Joseph McMillan wrote:
I think I’m finally understanding - both you and Guy are dismissing the arms of Papal nobles as interesting because the headgear is not unique (like the clerical headgear) but borrows from HRE and Central Italian patterns.
No, we are not dismissing them as uninteresting because the headgear is not unique. I am saying—I will not speak for Father Guy—that if papal nobles use the same style of arms as other nobles from the places in which they live, they are not especially interesting in their own right. They are not a subset of "religious heraldry" but of the heraldry of whatever country they live in. That’s not to say they shouldn’t be discussed; they just aren’t "religious heraldry."
Quote:
With the null set - what about the arms of the Prince Chigi as hereditary Marshal of the Holy Roman Church and Sacred Conclave?
As I have said, I thought very clearly, I consider the insignia associated with offices held under the Holy See to be an interesting subject for discussion. I wouldn’t consider those insignia to be "arms of the papal nobility" as such, any more than a discussion of additaments of office in the UK or ancien regime France would constitute a discussion of the arms of the British or French nobility, but that’s not to say they shouldn’t be discussed.
Quote:
The arms augmented by Papal Chiefs?
Fr. Guy has argued, and I agree, that these have nothing to do with papal nobility. They have to do with the armorial traditions of Italian families that have provided the Holy See with one or more popes. In my view, they are worth discussing; they just aren’t "arms of the papal nobility" and they aren’t "religious arms."
Quote:
This area deserves more study. Unlike yourself or Fr. Guy I have no basis for asserting - there’s nothing there. My position is there is something there that it would be good to know more about and I’ve provided the examples I have.
I didn’t say there’s nothing there. I said that we "believe that ‘heraldic elements specific to the papal nobility’ is a null set. Thus far you haven’t convinced me that we’re wrong." That is a clear statement that I’m open to being convinced that I’m wrong. The only evidence you’ve presented thus far doesn’t meet the challenge: heraldic elements that are distinctive to papal nobles by virtue of being papal nobles. Insignia of office are not held by virtue of being papal nobles but by virtue of holding a specific office.
A parallel: the chief of the Scottish Clan Hay has (1) insignia of office in his armorial achievement as hereditary Lord High Constable of Scotland as well as (2) a coronet as Earl of Erroll. The latter is distinctive of his status as a peer; the former is not. Your example of the Princes Chigi is exactly parallel.
Why not provide more instances of insignia of church offices beyond those of the hereditary marshal? Tell us more about the families who have used papal chiefs and other elements and what these look like, and whether their use is systematic or haphazard, and what rules if any apply to their assumption. For that matter, start populating that null set of heraldic elements distinctive of the papal nobility at large.
I’ll give it a start: there’s information in a couple of Von Volborth’s books about the augmentations used by papal families. I’ll look at it and post whatever looks interesting later tonight in the foreign arms forum. Then maybe we’ll have something substantive to discuss.
Hmmm. By analogy the same arguments would propose that there are no American personal arms. As far as I know the United States has granted no personal arms and the arms used by Americans were either assumed by them or granted by foreign heralds There are no distinctive elements of American personal arms that have been granted by virtue of their being American. So-called American personal arms are really simply the product of general European heraldic practice and really they should be discussed simply as European arms. We can discuss them if someone can actually point out one distinctive set of American personal arms that are granted by the United States or where an element has been specifically authorized by the United States but so far no one has provided an example. The United States grants citizenship but the arms assumed by Americans are not thereby the arms of Americans but rather simply European - generally UK style arms assumed by Americans but these do not make them the "arms of American citizens".
The argument makes no sense and made no sense when it was used to the arguing that the arms of the Papal nobility are not the arms of the Papal nobility.
I guess I won’t even try to figure out how the arms of individuals ennobled for their extraordinary services to the Pope and Church or the arms and additaments of those nobles who hold high lay office in the Church are not "religious heraldry". It has been stated that they aren’t and that should be enough. The folks in charge want this thread in Foreign heraldry and I can live with that.
Rev. Henry, I appreciate your stepping in to moderate the forum and to raise the tone. Thank you for stepping in.
I look forward to Joseph providing the promised examples of arms from the "null set". I’ve provided what I can and I’m interested in learning more.
George Lucki;58126 wrote:
I guess I won’t even try to figure out how the arms of individuals ennobled for their extraordinary services to the Pope and Church or the arms and additaments of those nobles who hold high lay office in the Church are not "religious heraldry".
The relevance of the Holy See’s involvement or lack of involvement is this: on what basis does a papal noble bear arms? If a member of the German Uradel, or of the Polish Szlachta, is granted a papal title, do his ancient arms thereby become "religious arms"?
If a Scottish commoner domiciled in Scotland is created a papal count, what kind of arms does he bear, if any? The same kind of plain old ordinary garden variety secular arms granted by Lord Lyon to any other virtuous and well-deserving Scot who petitions and pays the fees.
In neither case is there a reasonable basis for categorizing the arms borne by these papal nobles as "religious arms," or as having anything special about them other than the status of the people who bore them. It’s more or less in the same category as Markus’s series of arms of prominent Germans of the World War II era. There’s nothing special about the arms themselves, only about the people who bore them.
If there were some characteristic additament that was added to these people’s arms by virtue of their papal titles, I would be the first to concede that this might reasonably be treated as having some religious, or at least quasi-religious nature. Thus far I’ve seen nothing to suggest that this is the case.
Quote:
I look forward to Joseph providing the promised examples of arms from the "null set".
Again: the apparently null set to which I refer is the set of arms containing heraldic elements that are specifically characteristic of the papal nobility. In other words, arms that an expert could look at and say: "Ah! This man is a papal noble. I can tell that by [insert characteristic element here]." The insignia of the hereditary marshal of the papal court do not do this, any more than the lord high constable’s insignia in the arms of the Earl of Erroll tell us that he is a Scottish peer, or the anchors behind Richelieu’s arms that he was a cardinal or a duke.
The examples I’m promising are a different, although possibly overlapping, set: the arms of Italian families from whose ranks popes have come. Neither Fr. Guy nor I have ever asserted that this is a null set.
By the way: are you sure that Prince Chigi is a papal noble? The princely title, if Wikipedia is correct, was an imperial, not papal grant. I find that his collateral papal ancestor Alexander VII raised the family to the Roman patriciate, but I don’t think that equates to membership in the papal nobility. Is there another title that makes the House of Chigi part of the papal nobility rather than a line of imperial nobles recognized for service to the Papacy?
Joseph McMillan;58129 wrote:
By the way: are you sure that Prince Chigi is a papal noble? The princely title, if Wikipedia is correct, was an imperial, not papal grant. I find that his collateral papal ancestor Alexander VII raised the family to the Roman patriciate, but I don’t think that equates to membership in the papal nobility. Is there another title that makes the House of Chigi part of the papal nobility rather than a line of imperial nobles recognized for service to the Papacy?
To answer my own question, yes there is. Melville H. Ruvigny, The Nobilities of Europe lists Prince Sigismondo’s title Prince of Farnese as a papal title. (Ruvigny also says that the papal nobility was "created by the Popes as Sovereigns of the States of the Church," which goes to the question of whether this should be considered a religious or secular institution. Obviously his position is the opposite of Francois Velde’s view as quoted earlier in this thread.)
On the matter of whether this subject has been studied, Francois lists the following book on his page on French nobility:
Dominique Labarre de Raillicourt, Les Comtes du Pape en France, XVIe-XXe siècles. Paris, 1965-67.
And Ruvigny cites L. de Magny, Armorial des Ducs, Princes, Marquis, Barons et Contes Romains en France cree de 1815-1890, et des Titres Pontificaux conferes en France par les Papes, Souverains du Comtat Venaissin.
These would seem to be useful places to begin for someone wanting to know about any possible heraldic peculiarities of the arms of such nobles.
Quote:
By the way: are you sure that Prince Chigi is a papal noble? The princely title, if Wikipedia is correct, was an imperial, not papal grant. I find that his collateral papal ancestor Alexander VII raised the family to the Roman patriciate, but I don’t think that equates to membership in the papal nobility. Is there another title that makes the House of Chigi part of the papal nobility rather than a line of imperial nobles recognized for service to the Papacy?
As I understand it, yes. They were originally a minor Tuscan noble family who when Alexander VII became Pope were entrusted with high offices in Rome and by virtue of their blood relationship with the Pope and Roman offices became part of the Roman nobility as well. They married well and eventually also became princes of the HRE. When in the mid-eighteenth century the Pope laid down a constitution for the Papal/Roman nobility it ennumerated the 180 families that met this qualification and the Chigi were apparently among them. (I don’t have the list of 180 but would like to see it.)
[ATTACH]437[/ATTACH]
The arms of Prince Sigismondo Chigi that I had mentioned earlier. Sorry about the poor quality. I’ve made a telephone photo as I’m without a scanner right now.
I think the specifiic additaments and/or augmentations make for a clear appreciation of his status and role within the Papal Nobility.
Joseph McMillan;58124 wrote:
I’ll give it a start: there’s information in a couple of Von Volborth’s books about the augmentations used by papal families. I’ll look at it and post whatever looks interesting later tonight in the foreign arms forum. Then maybe we’ll have something substantive to discuss.
Well, it turns out the same two examples appear in both of the Von Volborth books I was thinking of, Heraldry of the World and Heraldry: Customs, Rules and Styles. In the first, published in 1973, he places these in the section on "ecclesiastical heraldry." In the second, published in 1981, they are in the section on "Italian princes."
The arms are those of the Princes Odescalchi and Pacelli.
I would blazon the Odescalchi arms as Gules on three bars Argent six [somethings—garbs? eagles?] of the field, 3, 2, 1, on a chief Argent a lion passant Gules, and overall a capo dell’impero (Or an eagle displayed Sable). The shield is placed on the breast of a double headed eagle (signifying a prince of the Holy Roman Empire. Above the eagle’s heads is an ombrellino, which Volborth says "is borne by families who gave a pope to the Church or received it as an augmentation for outstanding services to the Church." The whole is placed on a crimson manteau lined ermine and topped with the hat of a prince of the HRE.
The Pacelli arms are divided per pale, the sinister 60% or so being the family arms (Azure upon a champagne Vert a mount of three coupeaux Argent, thereon a dove close proper holding in its beak a sprig of olive Or, over all in base waves of the sea proper), the dexter 40% being the arms of the Holy See (Gules two keys in saltire, the one bendwise Or, the other Argent, ensigned by the papal tiara Argent garnished Or). The shield is placed on a crimson manteau lined ermine, but without the tails (Volborth says this should be purple rather than crimson, under the rules of the Consulta Araldica for an Italian prince. On top of the mantle is an open helm affronty, topped with a lambrequin Azure doubled Argent, and on top of that an Italian prince’s coronet.
In this case it is the dexter portion that signifies the family as having provided a pope (Pius XII). The family was ennobled by Pope Pius XI in 1929 and by the King of Italy in 1941.
Quote:
The relevance of the Holy See’s involvement or lack of involvement is this: on what basis does a papal noble bear arms? If a member of the German Uradel, or of the Polish Szlachta, is granted a papal title, do his ancient arms thereby become "religious arms"?
AHHH! Mr. McMillan this, for me, is the most important question of all – and I like all of James’ questions.
I would argue that if a noble family of the Germany had arms and then at some point they were ennobled by a pope and then the arms contained some sort of chief, or the keys or other examples George laid out, that this was an indication of the papal nobility heraldry George is speaking of – even if it was not granted by either the Holy See or by a German heraldic authority.
For me, as uneducated in these things as anyone can be, this is an indication of papal nobility heraldry even if it was not formally granted by the Holy See, which does not grant arms as said by others precisely because of what George said about American arms not being American because there is no American granting authority.
When one considers, IMO, that the papal states were surrounded in Italy by other powers with varying forms of culture, governance, aristocracy, and presumably heraldry (I don’t know for sure) there is the possibility that even if the Holy See did not officially grant these with some formal proclamation that their use was known and allowed by the Holy See in some capacity. One could then extend that to the surrounding Italian nation-states and even further out to the rest of Europe.
My evidence for that? No strict evidence really, but an educated guess; these people knew each other or knew of them and would know of their heraldic devices at some point and if the Holy See, at any level, objected to the use of papal additaments as such they would have said so and we would not see them over and over again in their arms.
Of course, I do not have, as I already said, a commanding knowledge of such things as you or Fr. Guy. But, it is logical and reasonable IMO to conclude there is some linkage even if not formally by a proclamation and given no hard facts to the contrary from you or Fr. Guy (not opinion, which may be right, that you are not convinced, but a written example from some source saying specifically these are non papal or non-papal-related additaments but rather additaments of whatever country they are from) I think one can reasonable see them as having some link at some level.
How can I? Because if they are papal related at some level and if the papacy allowed it I fail to see how they are not, at some level, religious arms any more than clerical ones are. Why? Clerical arms is why. Remember that the codification of Catholic clerical additaments did not come about until quite recently…when heraldically speaking of course…since its use in ca. early/mid 11th century – even if Catholics have always used such additaments without formal regulation or proclamation of such use. Does a lack of formal proclamation/granting from the Holy See before the codification of their use, make all clerical arms that bore clerical additaments before such proclamation null as "religious heraldry"? I think not, but that is the reasonable conclusion to yours and Fr. Guys assertion if applied evenly and fairly under the guise of no formal Holy See granting/proclamation/regulations et al.
Great image George. Formally granted by the Holy See or not these are clearly arms that attest to the papal nobility of their additaments IMO.