Cronista de Armas

 
Michael Y. Medvedev
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Y. Medvedev
Total Posts:  844
Joined  18-01-2008
 
 
 
27 November 2011 19:11
 

The Spanish law of arms, in its current application to personal heraldry, has its mythology and its counter-mythology. I would like to hope that the following remarks may help making the image less one-dimensional.

There is a natural temptation to consider the flamboyant personalities involved in the story. However there are other aspects to discuss. too.

 

Although the Royal power to grant arms seems to be obsolete in Spain, the King, in principle, still could control the national heraldic practice (as to the family/personal arms) via his constitutional functions. First of all, the King could start (and sometimes restart) approving corporate rolls of arms of the Royal institutions (Orders, Academies etc). Together with the arms already granted or certified, this would form a vivid system under a constant influence of decisions made under Royal authority.

 

In any case, what the King most likely cannot do as a King, he still may do as a citizen Don J.C. Borbón y Borbón: that is, to permit other people to use “heraldic quotations” from the arms of his own. The very idea of honourable augmentations is rooted in private law and necessitate no constitutional requirement. It had been wittily suggested that the Royal signatures on the images of arms (as displayed above) are like purely private dedications and autographs on photos. But well, a photo is not essentially a legal phenomenon. Within the heraldic context (obviously law-related), a signature is effective as an expression of a consent. I do not see what may prevent the royal signature from being an instrument of augmentation’s approval. That the usual three fleurs de lis (without any reference to cadency or to Spain) are probably not the best choice, this is another matter.

 

Much being said about the limits of the King’s powers and the State Council’s restrictive opinion regarding these, it will not be tactless then to consider the power of the State Council itself. This body is immensely authoritative, but it is not a court, and its decisions are not binding. The Council’s “Dictamens” are consultations, not verdicts. They can explain how this or that problem should be solved, but do not solve it by themselves.

Meanwhile there is a legal conflict within the machinery of power. The Autonomy of Castile and Leon claims certain rights (including that of dealing with personal/family arms), trying to derive them from the old Castilian norms and usages. It should be understood that these claims (expressed in both the 1991 act creating the Autonomy’s Chronicler of Arms [art.16] and the patent of the current incumbent) remain neither formally annulled nor revoked. Meanwhile the national government appears willing neither to cede these rights to the Autonomies nor to use them by itself. The Autonomy’s claim may be easily criticised but the Council’s position is, for many reasons, hardly better.

 

First of all, the conflict should be understood as such (if not dealt with in a competent court) properly moderated in a dialogue between comparable parts: the “federal” (I mean, all-Spanish) power and the Autonomy; not between the Council and the privately complaining Chronicler.

 

Then, all the key argumentation presented in the Council’s “Dictamen” is based on a false presumption that the business of the Spanish officers (Kings and Chroniclers) of arms was not related at all to municipal and regional heraldry.

There are also other historical inaccuracies in the “Dictamen” which illustrates how simplifying was the Council’s approach.

 

There is a 18th century law, confirmed in 1802, according to which no one may issue genealogies and certificates of arms but those who have the title of Kings of arms. But this principle was not left immutable; in 1951 these rights and functions were given to Chroniclers of arms who in principle are not necessarily Kings (the Council even erroneously decided that they are, expressly, not Kings). If the Council of State insists that the very idea of the state-administered personal/family heraldry is obsolete and irrelevant, and suggests leaving the matter to private researchers, then the legal exclusiveness of the all-Spanish Kings of Arms looks no less obsolete and irrelevant. And if the title of Chronicler of arms was established as a synonym for that of King of arms in 1915 an then finally turned in the latter’s equivalent in 1951, I doubt that the old ban may be seen as an obstacle for a Chronicler of the Autonomy (unless the very appointment of a Chronicler by the Autonomy will be questioned, but the Council does not go so far).

 

To sum up, the Council’s “Dictamen” related to the Chronicler of arms Castile and Leon is IMHO pretty dissatisfying and rather imports further mess than solves any problem.

 

It is a common bureaucratic delusion that the public arms and personal/family arms form two different “heraldries”. In my view, the Autonomy, entrusted with the former, is totally right in its intention to deal with both – although without additional legislation the attempt remains, in my opinion, rather flawed both legally and in the purely practical aspect. As the “Dictamen” shows, Spain hardly will get such a legislation soon, but this is so far not the end of the story.

 

To this may I add (not pointing at anyone) that in any nation and state there are, among state officials, those who, being armed with politically correct rhetoric, secretly (or not so secretly) disrespect private citizens; disrespect enough to deny the citizens’ demand to have their identities and representation properly protected. And in many cases an improving tendency may came from the local level (provincial, regional etc), just because it may appear closer to the a “simple armiger” smile

 
david
 
Avatar
 
 
david
Total Posts:  211
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
28 November 2011 08:49
 

Michael, thanks for this very thoughtful analysis.

David

 
Dohrman Byers
 
Avatar
 
 
Dohrman Byers
Total Posts:  760
Joined  02-08-2007
 
 
 
28 November 2011 10:23
 

Very interesting. Also a good reason for Americans to pause before wishing for government involvement in heraldry.

 
Donnchadh
 
Avatar
 
 
Donnchadh
Total Posts:  4101
Joined  13-07-2005
 
 
 
28 November 2011 12:38
 

dohrman byers;90190 wrote:

very interesting. Also a good reason for americans to pause before wishing for government involvement in heraldry.


AMEN, Fr. Byers! Amen, indeed.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
28 November 2011 13:06
 

Michael Y. Medvedev;90187 wrote:

Although the Royal power to grant arms seems to be obsolete in Spain, ...


I’m not sure the royal power to grant arms is necessarily obsolete in Spain, but it is dormant until parliament takes measures to provide for its exercise. That’s what the Council of State’s opinion said, and within a constitutional system where the head of state’s powers are limited and defined by law, it makes sense.


Quote:

the King, in principle, still could control the national heraldic practice (as to the family/personal arms) via his constitutional functions. First of all, the King could start (and sometimes restart) approving corporate rolls of arms of the Royal institutions (Orders, Academies etc). Together with the arms already granted or certified, this would form a vivid system under a constant influence of decisions made under Royal authority.


This sounds reasonable, although I’m not sure how it addresses what people seem to think is the problem, namely the lack of an authority for the granting or certifying of personal arms. But even to the extent that these things could be justified as within the king’s constitutional powers, there’s always article 64 that governs all such exercises of royal power (except hiring and firing within the royal household):

 

"The actions of the King shall be countersigned by the President of the Government and, when appropriate, by the competent ministers ... The persons who countersign the acts of the King shall be responsible for them."

 

So to the extent that what Michael is proposing would be official acts, they would still require ministerial advice and approval.


Quote:

In any case, what the King most likely cannot do as a King, he still may do as a citizen Don J.C. Borbón y Borbón: that is, to permit other people to use “heraldic quotations” from the arms of his own.


Again, this may sound reasonable, but there are grounds to question it. I’d suggest that the royal arms are not his as the citizen J. C. Borbón but only as S. M. el Rey de España, since Law 33/1981 (5 Oct 1981) defines these arms as el Escudo de España, the shield of Spain.


Quote:

Much being said about the limits of the King’s powers and the State Council’s restrictive opinion regarding these, it will not be tactless then to consider the power of the State Council itself. This body is immensely authoritative, but it is not a court, and its decisions are not binding. The Council’s “Dictamens” are consultations, not verdicts. They can explain how this or that problem should be solved, but do not solve it by themselves.


This is true for the dictamenes (judgments, rulings, opinions) in question, although it should be noted that the Council also has the power to issue mandatory dictamenes on specific issues defined by law. Even in cases where the ruling is advisory and not mandatory, however, the ministry or agency that sought the opinion is required to state in its final decision on the matter whether it accepted or rejected the Council’s advice ("in agreement with the Council of State" or "having heard the Council of State").

 

So while Michael is correct that the Council of State’s advisory opinion in itself does not resolve an issue, the decision of the minister de acuerdo con el Consejo de Estado does, at least until a higher authority rules otherwise.


Quote:

Meanwhile there is a legal conflict within the machinery of power. The Autonomy of Castile and Leon claims certain rights (including that of dealing with personal/family arms), trying to derive them from the old Castilian norms and usages. It should be understood that these claims (expressed in both the 1991 act creating the Autonomy’s Chronicler of Arms [art.16] and the patent of the current incumbent) remain neither formally annulled nor revoked.


There is no legal conflict. For historical reasons, the autonomous communities have only the powers granted to them by the Constitution and by law. Unlike German Länder, Swiss cantons, Canadian provinces, or American or Australian states, the Spanish autonomous communities are the creatures of the Spanish constitution. In legal terms, they did not exist prior to 1978—or even for the amount of time afterward that it took for them to be constituted under article 143 of the constitution. Under article 149(3), any power that is not vested in the autonomous communities by article 148 [which does not contain anything that could be construed as including personal heraldry] or by their respective statutes of establishment [which we’ve already examined above] continues to reside exclusively in the State, i.e., the national government.

 

There were no free-floating powers to exercise or regulate the old Castilian "norms and usages" available to be claimed by the Autonomous Community of Castille and Leon. Whatever survived of such powers long ago vested in the national State, currently embodied by the constitutional Kingdom of Spain, and are available to the autonomous community only to the degree delegated by the State. The C&L law establishing a cronista with powers beyond those delegated by the national Parliament, as well the Marqués de la Floresta’s letters patent purporting to grant him such powers, are ultra vires. They need not be formally annulled or revoked. They were void ab initio.


Quote:

Meanwhile the national government appears willing neither to cede these rights to the Autonomies nor to use them by itself. The Autonomy’s claim may be easily criticised but the Council’s position is, for many reasons, hardly better.


The unwillingness of the national government to cede or use these powers may be problematic, but it’s hard to see how the Council of State can be held responsible for that. It seems that the councillors construed the law correctly; their job is not to "correct" what some may see as bad policy.


Quote:

First of all, the conflict should be understood as such (if not dealt with in a competent court) properly moderated in a dialogue between comparable parts: the “federal” (I mean, all-Spanish) power and the Autonomy; not between the Council and the privately complaining Chronicler.


The use of "federal" in quotation marks highlights the fallacy here. Spain is not a federal system, and the State and the autonomous communities are not comparable parts.


Quote:

Then, all the key argumentation presented in the Council’s “Dictamen” is based on a false presumption that the business of the Spanish officers (Kings and Chroniclers) of arms was not related at all to municipal and regional heraldry.


No, this is not the argumentation at all. The argumentation is that the statutes constituting the various autonomous communities delegated only one portion of the historic power of Spanish officers of arms, the part having to do with civic arms. This created a new kind of chronicler of arms, one who (unlike a chronicler appointed under the 1915 and 1951 decrees) could not issue certifications or grants on his own authority, but merely advise the autonomous community’s government, which actually grants the arms. Nor do these new chroniclers of municipal arms require qualifications in genealogy and nobiliary law, since their duties do not involve expertise in these subjects. The Council of State never said that the traditional chroniclers had no jurisdiction over municipal arms; it said that the new kind have no jurisdiction over personal arms.


Quote:

If the Council of State insists that the very idea of the state-administered personal/family heraldry is obsolete and irrelevant ...


The Council suggested no such thing, in either opinion. On the contrary, part of the opinion on the La Floresta case at least suggested that the time may have been opportune to reopen the issue: ""It is possible to differentiate clearly between the two competencies [of chronicler of family arms and chronicler of municipal arms] without losing sight of the fact that the circumstances that in large measure were responsible for the issuance of the Decree of 1951, namely the reestablishment of the nobiliary laws in 1948, are replicated today with the [1988 changes to a 1922 decree on nobiliary succession] and with the new stricter norms for the proof of relationships." But the decision was always up to the government, not to the Council.


Quote:

To sum up, the Council’s “Dictamen” related to the Chronicler of arms Castile and Leon is IMHO pretty dissatisfying and rather imports further mess than solves any problem.


"Dissatisfying" only to the extent one believes Spanish heraldry can only continue to exist with cronistas. But again, any dissatisfaction is a matter to be taken up with the government and parliament, not the Council of State.


Quote:

It is a common bureaucratic delusion that the public arms and personal/family arms form two different “heraldries”. In my view, the Autonomy, entrusted with the former, is totally right in its intention to deal with both – although without additional legislation the attempt remains, in my opinion, rather flawed both legally and in the purely practical aspect.


I don’t know that there are two different heraldries, but it is quite common to have official authorities that deal with the former and not the latter (e.g., Germany, Italy, Czech Republic, Sweden). Even in Russia, as I understand it, the Heraldic Council may give advice to private persons, but grants arms only to official bodies.

 

Anyway, flawed or not, it’s difficult for me to accept that a subordinate entity can be "totally right in its intention" to do something that is against the law when there is no conceivable point of high moral principle at stake.


Quote:

To this may I add (not pointing at anyone) that in any nation and state there are, among state officials, those who, being armed with politically correct rhetoric, secretly (or not so secretly) disrespect private citizens; disrespect enough to deny the citizens’ demand to have their identities and representation properly protected.


In a few states there are even state officials called kings of arms who, being armed with specious legal theories, disrespect private citizens enough to deny their right to choose and adopt their own symbolic way of expressing their own personal identity without state interference. At least one of them even persists in leaving on the books and enforcing a statute to this effect, enacted in the darkest days of royal absolutism. My own country threw off this yoke 235 years ago; it seems to me that Michael is advocating that Spain should revert to this dark period of heraldic repression. smile

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
28 November 2011 15:52
 

Two gauntlets now thrown down ... but luckily for us, neither relate to heraldry here!—though one may wish well to one view or the other, as a spectator sport.

IMO for American purposes, where the authority of a foreign herald within his own province is also a spectator sport, a registration by Sr. Floresta—or even by Sr. Borbon—while significant in Spain, merely for us documents that the grantee used thus-&-such arms at least as early as the date of the certificate.  If there is a question of priority based on who (or who’s ancestors) used them first, the certificate is a presumably reliable record.  The arms themselves are as valid as any other assumption here, because outside of Spain they are merely arms assumed subject to the local rules (or lack thereof) and customs of the bearer’s current residence.

 

Still, it is an interesting spectator sport!

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
28 November 2011 17:03
 

Michael F. McCartney;90193 wrote:

Two gauntlets now thrown down ... but luckily for us, neither relate to heraldry here!—though one may wish well to one view or the other, as a spectator sport.

IMO for American purposes, where the authority of a foreign herald within his own province is also a spectator sport, a registration by Sr. Floresta—or even by Sr. Borbon—while significant in Spain, merely for us documents that the grantee used thus-&-such arms at least as early as the date of the certificate. If there is a question of priority based on who (or who’s ancestors) used them first, the certificate is a presumably reliable record. The arms themselves are as valid as any other assumption here, because outside of Spain they are merely arms assumed subject to the local rules (or lack thereof) and customs of the bearer’s current residence.


Absolutely correct.  (I will refrain on this occasion from adducing the "sharpie on a paper napkin" corrollary, because it just gets people upset…)  :p

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
28 November 2011 18:38
 

An interesting series of posts.  Thank you to both Michaels and Joseph.  Government involvement in heraldry is a double edged sword and I found each perspective equally valid.  I think the heraldic tent is big enough for both perspectives.

 
Michael Y. Medvedev
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Y. Medvedev
Total Posts:  844
Joined  18-01-2008
 
 
 
29 November 2011 02:14
 

Dear Joseph, please do not try turning me into another Earl of Surrey with his misinterpreted label. The quotation marks mean that I remember that Spain is not a federation. Let us however recall that the Autonomy’s Junta is not a subordinated element of the all-Spanish administrative system, but an institution of a self-government which partly derives its powers from the local population’s will via the elective legislature. Then we come to the interpretation of what the certifications are.

What strikes me most is that your law-of-arms related views seem, despite of the 235 years of independence, rooted in the most conservative version of the English (not even Scottish) doctrine. Any state interference into private armorial practices is interpreted by you as a matter of restrictive power incompatible with free assumptions of arms. Do me a favour, dear Joseph, or at least a favor. Heraldic repression, you said? The Cronistas’ yoke? They rather correspond to the arrows. The certifications were designed to support the free assumption and do not form an alternative to the latter.

 

Being a convinced advocate of assumed arms, I am still sure that the heraldic total lack of protection is no benefit, and do not see how the sacred liberty may be diminished by, say, defending privately assumed arms via courts of justice. I also do not see what may be wrong in supporting this practice by the state archival services, modo Helvetico. But here we come to the point. The court may decide as it represents the sovereign nation. But the archive’s relevant function may be established in a merely administrative way. The records and certifications of the Chroniclers are not unlike that.
Joseph McMillan;90192 wrote:

I’d suggest that the royal arms are not his as the citizen J. C. Borbón but only as S. M. el Rey de España, since Law 33/1981 (5 Oct 1981) defines these arms as el Escudo de España, the shield of Spain.

This is a fine point which deserves a separate discussion. May we postpone this. Sweets after some meat smile
Finally, as to the Russian parallel case: the Russian federal Heraldry Council is not able to grant anything. The regional and municipal symbols are assumed;  ministries and state agencies, depending on their exact position, have their symbols approved by the President or the Government [federal executive], and in some cases a choice is possible (say, a university may assume proper arms or get an administrative emblem from the responsible ministry). The Heraldry Council registers these symbols, reject registrations if symbols are somehow incorrect, announce and interpret the correspondent rules, and offer consultations. The public arms must be registered and this is obligatory; private arms may be submitted or not submitted for the Council’s expertise and record - but to do it or not to do, this is up to their owners. A recent thread in this forum (bizarrely posted to “Heraldic Arts”) tells a story of a US citizen’s arms just confirmed by the Russian HCouncil.—But this is not Spain anyhow.

 
Michael Y. Medvedev
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Y. Medvedev
Total Posts:  844
Joined  18-01-2008
 
 
 
29 November 2011 02:27
 

Michael F. McCartney;90193 wrote:

Two gauntlets now thrown down ... but luckily for us, neither relate to heraldry here!—though one may wish well to one view or the other, as a spectator sport.

IMO for American purposes, where the authority of a foreign herald within his own province is also a spectator sport, a registration by Sr. Floresta—or even by Sr. Borbon—while significant in Spain, merely for us documents that the grantee used thus-&-such arms at least as early as the date of the certificate.  If there is a question of priority based on who (or who’s ancestors) used them first, the certificate is a presumably reliable record.  The arms themselves are as valid as any other assumption here, because outside of Spain they are merely arms assumed subject to the local rules (or lack thereof) and customs of the bearer’s current residence.

Heartily seconded, dear namesake. And, as I see, here we agree with Joseph.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
29 November 2011 13:00
 

Michael Y. Medvedev;90196 wrote:

Dear Joseph, please do not try turning me into another Earl of Surrey with his misinterpreted label. The quotation marks mean that I remember that Spain is not a federation.


Apologies for being too oblique. What I meant was that your use of quotation marks indicated that you knew Spain is not a federation. I was making that point that that fact had implications for what the autonomous communities could and couldn’t do.


Quote:

What strikes me most is that your law-of-arms related views seem, despite of the 235 years of independence, rooted in the most conservative version of the English (not even Scottish) doctrine. Any state interference into private armorial practices is interpreted by you as a matter of restrictive power incompatible with free assumptions of arms.


Oh, dear, I really do have to get someone to design an emoticon alerting readers to irony, don’t I? The smiley face obviously doesn’t suffice.


Quote:

Do me a favour, dear Joseph, or at least a favor. Heraldic repression, you said? The Cronistas’ yoke? They rather correspond to the arrows. The certifications were designed to support the free assumption and do not form an alternative to the latter.


Very nice reference to the Spanish royal badges, Michael! Bravo!

 

I agree that as the certification system operated by the end of the Cadenas y Vincent era, it certainly supported, or at least countenanced, free assumption, and in any case never approached the level of state regulation of heraldry that exists or existed in some other countries.

 

I don’t know enough of the history of the cronista system to say for sure, but it’s not obvious to me that that’s the way it was supposed to work. I’ve read on Spanish heraldry fora that the role of the cronista was to ascertain the existence of a particular coat of arms and verify the right of the petitioner to use it. The wording of the certifications issued by Cadenas would seem to bear this out: "I certify that the shield of arms appropriate to be used by que_corresponde_usar_al[/I” class=“bbcode_wiki”]I]que corresponde usar al[/I Juan Doe, date and place of birth, description of ancestry, spouse, etc.] is organized and composed in the following manner: [blazon.]" I’ve seen one Cadenas certification to an American citizen that asserts the arms certified to be of "centennial antiquity." While I’m skeptical that that’s true, the statement seems to reinforce the notion that the cronista was supposed to be certifying entitlement to existing arms, not creating new ones.

 

Two conclusions are possible from this: (a) Don Vicente de Cadenas was operating beyond the intended limits of his position; or (b) the assumption of new arms was legally effective prior to, and therefore independent of, the certification.

 

If the latter is the case, then the absence of cronistas today presents no obstacle to unilateral assumption.


Quote:

Being a convinced advocate of assumed arms, I am still sure that the heraldic total lack of protection is no benefit, and do not see how the sacred liberty may be diminished by, say, defending privately assumed arms via courts of justice.


I don’t see any problem with that either, although it’s possible to accord that protection without state registration (see France and Germany). But it doesn’t seem absolutely clear what protection was afforded by the cronista’s certification. The relevant language would seem to be (from the same Cadenas certification) Certifico…de dichas Armas, conforme quedan descritas y pintadas, podrá hacer uso [name of recipient], haciéndolas grabar, esculpir, y pintar en los sitios de costumbre, sin que le ponga impedimento alguno para ello, al quedar por esta Certificación de Blasones…

 

I make that out as meaning that the recipient of the certificate can’t be prevented by anyone from displaying the arms publicly, but it doesn’t state clearly what recourse he has, if any, if someone else uses the same arms. Perhaps that’s implicit in the idea that obstacles (such as a legal injunction?) can be thrown up to prevent display of arms that are not certified by a cronista, but what if (hypothetically) two cronistas certify the same newly assumed arms by two different people?

 

 


Quote:

I also do not see what may be wrong in supporting this practice by the state archival services, modo Helvetico.


I don’t either, although I’m not sure it’s truly the Swiss way. The cantonal archive websites that I’ve looked at assert directly that placing personal arms in the cantonal roll of arms is only for public information and does not afford any legal protection.

 

Let me be clear: if I were Spanish, I’d probably be advocating the appointment of cronistas, and perhaps even that the autonomous communities be given control over matters of personal heraldry. Any solution the Spanish come up with is fine with me, the closer to authentic Spanish tradition the better.

 

But if the total legal value of a cronista’s certificate is to document that the arms were in use by a particular person by a date certain, or that the person bearing the arms has a hereditary right to them, then the first could be accomplished by private publication à l’allemande or private notarial act à la française, and the latter by a qualified private genealogist. I don’t necessarily prefer these solutions in the Spanish context, but their existence as potential options indicates that we shouldn’t hyperventilate about the disinclination of the Spanish Ministry of Justice to appoint new cronistas.

 


Quote:

A recent thread in this forum (bizarrely posted to “Heraldic Arts”) tells a story of a US citizen’s arms just confirmed by the Russian HCouncil.


But were the arms actually confirmed to the person, or did the Council simply certify that they conformed to heraldic norms? I know it did say that they may be used in Russia, but can’t personal arms be used in Russia even without the Council’s approval anyway?

 
eploy
 
Avatar
 
 
eploy
Total Posts:  768
Joined  30-03-2007
 
 
 
29 November 2011 22:27
 

Michael Y. Medvedev;90196 wrote:

What strikes me most is that your law-of-arms related views seem, despite of the 235 years of independence, rooted in the most conservative version of the English (not even Scottish) doctrine. Any state interference into private armorial practices is interpreted by you as a matter of restrictive power incompatible with free assumptions of arms.


I have also gotten this impression from speaking to others in the forum, and not just Joseph.  Whether it is true or not is another issue, but I did also get this impression.  Thank you Michael for raising this point so eloquently.

 

 


Joseph McMillan;90203 wrote:

Two conclusions are possible from this: (a) Don Vicente de Cadenas was operating beyond the intended limits of his position; or (b) the assumption of new arms was legally effective prior to, and therefore independent of, the certification.

If the latter is the case, then the absence of cronistas today presents no obstacle to unilateral assumption.

 

.....

 

But if the total legal value of a cronista’s certificate is to document that the arms were in use by a particular person by a date certain, or that the person bearing the arms has a hereditary right to them, then the first could be accomplished by private publication à l’allemande or private notarial act à la française, and the latter by a qualified private genealogist. I don’t necessarily prefer these solutions in the Spanish context, but their existence as potential options indicates that we shouldn’t hyperventilate about the disinclination of the Spanish Ministry of Justice to appoint new cronistas.

 

 

 


Nice Joseph.  I find myself in complete agreement.  My understanding is that assumption was historically the norm even in Spain.  Certification of arms often went hand-in-hand with certification of nobility and pedigree, which were actually far more important concerns for those Spanairds wishing to confirm their hidalgo status.  The certification could presumably be shown in a court or to inquiring members of the public, but aside from a private declaration made public or as a piece of evidence, I suspect that the certifications had no other legal value.  Assuming this understanding is correct, then a mere notarization of one’s arms and pedigree in Spain achieves the same objectives as a certification.

 
Michael Y. Medvedev
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Y. Medvedev
Total Posts:  844
Joined  18-01-2008
 
 
 
30 November 2011 06:03
 

Joseph McMillan;90203 wrote:

Apologies for being too oblique[...] Oh, dear, I really do have to get someone to design an emoticon alerting readers to irony, don’t I? The smiley face obviously doesn’t suffice.

My sincere apologies, dear Joseph. My emotional attack was just a demi-jocular continuation of your ironical attitude. Sorry if I did overdose. I presumed (and now I see) that we disagree in minor details only, or maybe just observe the matter in different perspectives.
Quote:

Very nice reference to the Spanish royal badges, Michael!

Thank you. I am glad you did not suspect a Falanguist allusion wink
b) marked by certain liberty, justified historically, in approving, from time to time, some honourable elements of arms which could not be assumed by the armiger alone.

In any case, I am used think (and feel) that national heraldic practices usually need lighthouses of their own to minimise the natural effect of entropy; and although a high-reputed private specialist or body may fulfill this “lighthouse function”, a statutorily appointed specialist’s authority is much less disputable.

 

:boohoo: :boohoo:But the main benefit from the certifications is IMHO even simpler, and much simpler. The official acts, issued by cronistas and verified by a ministry, would make apparent that personal arms still constitute an object of the national law. This would be priceless by itself.:boohoo: :boohoo:

 
Michael Y. Medvedev
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael Y. Medvedev
Total Posts:  844
Joined  18-01-2008
 
 
 
30 November 2011 07:08
 

As to the document issued by the Heraldry Council [Russia], the wording is quite simple. It says that the personal arms submitted by Ms Zimberg (it is implied here that she submitted them as the armiger) were examined by the Council, and appeared to be of high-quality design, meeting no crytical remarks and objections, so they may be seen as a full-value coat of arms, and be borne in Russia.

 
Luis Cid
 
Avatar
 
 
Luis Cid
Total Posts:  163
Joined  03-09-2009
 
 
 
30 November 2011 14:07
 

Michael Y. Medvedev;90222 wrote:

As to the document issued by the Heraldry Council [Russia], the wording is quite simple. It says that the personal arms submitted by Ms Zimberg (it is implied here that she submitted them as the armiger) were examined by the Council, and appeared to be of high-quality design, meeting no crytical remarks and objections, so they may be seen as a full-value coat of arms, and be borne in Russia.

But the main benefit from the certifications is IMHO even simpler, and much simpler. The official acts, issued by cronistas and verified by a ministry, would make apparent that personal arms still constitute an object of the national law. This would be priceless by itself.

 

Dear Michael,  the importance of this last point you made cannot be over-stated.  State recognition and protection of family/personal heraldry has been an important aspect of hispanic heraldry for 500 years - longer than the entire history of heraldry in Spain prior to the commencement of armorial certifications by the Cronistas Reyes de Armas!