The Legitimacy of Non Reigning Royal Families

by Salvatore Caputo

  The amount of the historic, nobiliary, heraldic, knightly research, including the studies and researches for coats of arms, predicates, the pro veritate opinion, dissertations and the notary authentication of the Letters Patent and/or amnesty of antique or ex novo titles, emanated by the Sovereign body – subject to international public law, will be discussed in a private meeting with the maximum guarantee of secrecy.

  The unreliability of official list of Italian nobility

  The Savoy, even before the advent of fascism, resorted to this much coercive form, via the established by law high gabelles (taxes) from Consulta Araldica del Regno (Heraldic Consultation of the Kingdom). Many nobles gave up then to enroll in the Golden Books regional or national; the most available were forced to sell off palaces, villas and estates to pay recognition to each title of their relevance. It clarified that the existence of the title is documented by his concession, while its recognition is a bureaucratic formality. Those lists are just an example of legalized injustice, as noble being tied

  up not only the granting of title but also to the fact that it is in the ability to pay the award. Most medieval Italian heralds were independent; one would never think to associate them with particular houses. Later, when Italy's rulers established courts of chivalry to regulate the use of arms, the courts—and the rulers—were too often foreign ones. Italy had far too many small duchies to allow for widespread heraldic control, and there were no Visitations.

  Thus, we find in Italy today no fewer than half a dozen unrelated families bearing the famous arms "azure a bend or". Doubtless the Lombard and Sicilian families sharing these arms never envisioned the day when both would be subjects of the same monarch, much less citizens of the same republic. Because the lawful possession of an ancient coat of arms by a family of distinta civiltad (distinguished gentility) constitutes lesser nobility in Italy, many nobili (landed, untitled nobles) and patrizi (patricians) lay claim to their rank in this manner. This is significant because the group that Italians consider the "gentry" is little more than a largely non armigerous bourgeosie emerged during the nineteenth century and today provides the vast majority of the political and commercial elite. The bearing of arms takes on even greater importance because Italian lacks onomastic prefixes (such as the French de and German von) designating noble origins.

  With the abolition of the Consults Araldica (Heraldry Consultation) by the Republic, a non-official body Colleggio Araldico (Heraldry College) patronized by the House of Savoy assumed certain heraldic functions—primarily the recording of various families' titles and arms. In practice, the role served by Colleggio Araldico is aptly compared to that of Burke's and Debrett's in England. The Libro d'Oro della Nobiltá Italiana (Golden Book of the Italian Nobility) issued every few years by Colleggio Araldico lists blazons and concise pedigrees of titled families who remit a fee to defray high publication costs—this in addition to the price of the volume itself.

  Hence, numerous names are absent from its pages, having become casualties of the economy or mere oversight. Prominent heraldic scholars, notably Count Guelfi Camaiani and Count Coccia Urbani, both Florentines, assist Italians with armorial claims. Grants of arms are only rarely devised by the two royal houses, and the Italian government exercises no authority in armorial.

  The Golden Book of Italian nobility

  The golden Book of Italian nobility is an official register kept in the State Central State in Rome compiled by Consulta Araldica (Heraldry Consultation) of the Kingdom of Italy, a government body established in 1869 at the Ministry of the Interior.

  The same contains all the families that had the inscription measures of grace and justice, every family has one or more pages, in which are noted: the country of origin, usual residence of the family, noble titles and responsibilities with indications of provenance and transferability, royal and government measures, description of the shield and

  part of the genealogy documented, for the record the names of direct descendants was simply the presentation of acts of civil status of the collateral, provided the connection to the founder had occurred after the finishing of the family, had to provide documentation of marital status, but was also required the consent of the person (or its assignees, if deceased) who had received the first entry of the family. Otherwise, he was also the most frequent case for tax reasons; you must ask a new decree of recognition. It follows that enrollment in the "Golden Book" was a simple administrative act and against the related measures could appeal to the council of state on legal grounds.

  To gain entry in the "Golden Book", in addition to submitting the application, you must have paid their administrative fees, obtaining registration with the Court of Auditors, after which the relevant decree was sent to law. The mere fact of belonging to a noble family was not only necessary, but it also required the positive opinions of the prefectural authorities who had approached the police, and many other things.

  One must remember that each Sovereign House that emerged to the throne required all noble subjects to comply with specific provisions of recognition; the titles of nobility were then confirmed only by conditions not always consistent or conducive to ideological or economic opportunities.

  A title of nobility is by no means subject to international standardization, but rather to national and local differences. A title of nobility, as it is used today, is in most cases honorific, that is, it does only carry honorific privileges. These honorific rights include the rights to be recognized as a nobleman/ noblewoman and belonging to the class of the nobility, the right to, where appropriate, use the title in question, the right to use noble arms with proper noble insignia, and the right by common law to certain appropriate predicates.

  "The historical evidence of an ancestor's nobiliary title is usually obvious and can be confirmed through juridical investigation because of documents creating or recognizing the rank. It is necessary to establish (genealogically) one's descent from a titled nobleman claimed as an ancestor-whether a father or great-great-grandfather-if a claim is to be based upon demonstrable fact rather than whimsical fancy or familial "tradition." (Luigi Mendola is one of the world's foremost experts on Italian heraldry and feudal history).

  François Velde writes about the French situation: Nowadays, anyone descended from a count uses the style of count (although "le comte Pierre de X" is distinguished from "Pierre, comte de X" who is the real title-holder). That makes it seem like many counts. Since there are only

  about 1000 authentic titles, the share of titles/peerages to population is similar to England. In Germany, since the Weimar Republic, all titles are considered part of one's last name. Thus, a real title holder can "adopt" an adult, and the otherwise unrelated person then can become "Joe Schmuck Dukeof Saxony”.

  Then there is the matter of how the nobility of a previous state was incorporated into that of a successor state or regime. This particularly applies to Germany as well as Italy, but also applies to the case of the United Kingdom and in France, how titles granted after the ancient regime is handled.

  The nobiliary element in the Catholic Church (by Jan-Olov von Wowern - Free article) “The oldest still surviving hierarchies are those of the nobility, the Church and the military. What is perhaps not commonly known is how they correspond with each other. Below is an outline of the correspondence between the catholic hierarchy of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and that of the nobility.

  All noblemen are dependent on a Prince or Monarch for their noble rank. Catholic priests have since time immemorial held rank equivalent to that of an untitled nobleman, it is from a nobiliary standpoint interesting to reflect upon the Lateran Pacts of 1929 5 between the Holy See and Italy. The Vatican City State is recognized as a sovereign country and the Supreme Pontiff as its Sovereign, in this capacity equal to the King of Italy. Article 21 of the "Conciliation Treaty “states that "All Cardinals shall enjoy, in Italy, the honours due to Princes of the Blood".

  (For the text, see http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/treaty.htm). (Pic
ture above right: Pietro Gasparri (May 5, 1852 – November 18, 1934) was a Roman Catholic archbishop, diplomat and politician in the Roman Curia and signatory of the Lateran Pacts).

  This means that the two top levels of the noble hierarchy are defined, and they correspond to equal ranks of the priesthood. The other steps follow by extrapolation in the only way possible.

  Catholic Hierarchy Noble hierarchy Pope

  Cardinal

  Archbishop

  Bishop / Aux. Bishop Monsignore/Priest Monarch

  Prince

  Duke/Marquis Count/Baron

  Noble Of course a number of details may be argued. It should however be noted that other codification exists as well. In the Almanach de Gota, all Cardinals are listed as having the rank of Prince (http://www.almanachdegotha.com/ ). In his book "The Holy See and the International Order", that most distinguished diplomat of the Holy See H.E. Archbishop Hyginus Eugene Cardinale has devoted part of a chapter to "Armorial bearings, attire and titles of Catholic priests".

  It should further be noted that the nobiliary hierarchy is usually regarded as logarithmic. The step between noble and Baron is often regarded as greater than that between Baron and Count, etc. I am not competent to judge if this is also the case with the catholic hierarchy of the Church, but it will be evident that for a number of reasons it is only possibly to make approximations when trying to bring the rank systems above in harmony with each other”.

  5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateran_Treaty

  (Cardinal Gasparri and Benito Mussolini (seated) after exchanging treaty ratifications in the Hall of Congregations, the Vatican, June 7th, 1929). Popes have granted a number of nobiliary titles to deserving subjects during the course of the centuries. According to the Lateran Pacts of 1929, in the Concordat Art 42, "Italy shall admit the recognition of titles of nobility conferred by the Supreme Pontiff, even after 1870, and of those that shall be conferred in the future". In 1947 the Constitution of the Italian Republic abolished the use of nobiliary titles, in the sense that they are placed outside the legal system of the Republic (see the excellent article by the Italian lawyer Gherardo Guelfi Camaiani athttp://www.dirittonobiliare.com/titoli.html).

  Although the Italian Republic has abolished all noble titles, only permitting the use of predicati (the territorial designation added to a name) created before the institution of Fascism in 1922, it is compelled by the terms of the Lateran Treaty not to intervene in the conferment of titles created by the Papacy. The successors to Pope Pius XII have generally avoided creating titles and Paul VI abolished all the rights and privileges of the Roman nobility at the Papal Court. The Vatican has continued to intervene periodically, however, in determining the destination of titles extinct in the male line but historically able to pass by female succession, or deciding between co-heiresses, and the present Pontiff, very discreetly, has granted a handful of noble titles to Italians.

  The title of Count Palatine was conferred, recently, by the Cardinal Vicar of Rome and confirmed in a letter from the Papal Secretariat of State. Information on the Papal nobility today has been provided to this author by the Most Rev Monsignor Karel Kasteel, of the office of the Cardinal Camerlengo (conversation, 1993).

  DYNASTIC ORDER OF KNIGHTHOOD

  A dynastic order of knighthood is an order belonging to the heraldic patrimony of a dynasty held by ancient right. These differ from military, religious, and orders of merit belonging to a particular state, having been instituted to reward personal services rendered to a sovereign, dynasty, or an ancient family of princely rank. An example of this difference is seen between the Royal Victorian Order, which is a personal gift of the sovereign (and thus is a dynastic order), and the Order of the British Empire, which is bestowed by the sovereign on the basis of recommendations by the Prime Minister (and thus is a national order).

  Dynastic orders are the exclusive domain of a sovereign and are consequently bestowed by the monarch without the advice of the political leadership (prime minister or cabinet). For instance, a recent report by the British government mentioned that there is "one remaining exercise that has been identified of the Monarch’s truly personal, executive prerogative: that is, the conferment of certain honors that remain within her gift."Generally, Dynastic or House Orders are granted by the monarch for whatever reason the monarch may deem appropriatewhereas other orders, often called Merit Orders, are granted on the recommendation of government officials to recognize individual accomplishments or services to the nation.

  A distinction between dynastic Orders and state Orders is virtually unknown in the common law world, and would appear to be only applicable where there is a legal distinction between the state and the legal person of the Sovereign. Archbishop Hyginus Eugene Cardinale6has given what may be called the classic civil law definition of dynastic Orders:

  “Dynastic Orders of Knighthood are a category of Orders belonging to the heraldic patrimony of a dynasty, often held by ancient right. They are sometime s called Family Orders, in that they are strictly related to a Royal Family or House. They differ from the early military and religious Orders and from the later Orders of Merit belonging to a particular State, having been instituted to reward personal services rendered to a dynasty or an ancient Family of princely rank”.

  A similar situation exists in Italy where the Republican Government regards the orders of the former kings to have been abolished but the last king's heir continues to award them.Italy forbids the public wearing of the former royal orders in Italy. Nevertheless, the last Italian Crown Prince Vittorio Emanuele di Savoia widely distributes the orders that he claims to have inherited from his father.The Italian pretender asserts that control of the Savoy dynastic orders exists separate from the Kingdom of Italy so that he retains the right to award the orders, and accompanying privileges, despite his recognition that "the Italian throne was formally abolished by referendum in 1946 and a republic was instituted in its place”.

  Archbishop Cardinale has observed that: "Dynastic Orders of Knighthood are the exclusive property of a Sovereign, and they remain such even if he goes into exile, and are transmissible to his legitimate successor and Head of the Family. Jurists generally believe that even if a Sovereign abdicates of his own free will, he does not renounce his right to the Grand Mastership of an existing Dynastic Order belonging to his Family, unless he does so explicitly. But even then his renunciation will be of a personal character and such as not to involve his successors who have an inborn right to the Grand Mastership and cannot be deprived of it. A Sovereign in exile and his legitimate successor and Head of the Family continue to enjoy the ius collationis (the right to confer honours) and therefore may bestow honours in full legitimacy, provided the Order has not become extinct. They cannot however found new Dynastic Orders. No authority can deprive them of the right to confer honours, since this prerogative belongs to them as a lawful personal property iure sanguinis (by right of blood), and both its possession and exercise are inviolable".

  A sovereign, whether actually reigning or a Pretender, may not only confer in particular his dynastic Orders, but may also createnew ones and revive those which were founded by his ancestors (this principle has been determined by the Italian Supreme Court of Appeal) without taking into consideration the fact that by the vicissitudes of succession or of politics some of those Orders may have passed in to the hands of another dynasty.

  6Late Archbishop Hyginus Eugene Cardinale, a Vatican diplomat with a particular interest in Papal orders P rof. V. Powell-Smith writes (Submission cit. and « The Criteria for Assessing the Validity of Orders of Chivalry « Nobilitas », Malta, 1970):

  “...there is no valid reason, legal or historical, to define Sovereign status by reference to 1814 or any date at all. The Congress of Vienna merely effected the settlement of Europe after the Napoleonic Wars, and nothing more. Changes in the political structure of Europe have occurred since the Congress of Vienna: for example, the establishment of the Balkan kingdoms and the unification of Italy and t
he sovereigns of these kingdoms acted as fontes honorum. The purpose of the Congress of Vienna was to reorganize the territorial boundaries of European states. Certain states, the existence of which had been effectively terminated the by Napoleonic settlement were not re-established but were integrated into larger units, the sovereign princes willingly accepting such an arrangement which retained their rights as princes but removed their former territorial rights (the case being of numerous small German principalities). The rights of fontes honorum not represented or discussed at the Congress (because they had no interest in its decisions which related to de facto territorial adjustments) could not have been affected by what was decided at the Congress or later arguments ex silentio on the question”.

  The absence of a territory is not a determining factor; its possession is in fact subject to political vicissitudes, which have no bearing on the rights and the legitimacy of the pretension of a Pretender. In his case the concept of a population of subjects is replaced by that of the supporters who, by one means or another, uphold his cause. The international context is subject to political assessments and to the relative policies of governments, which in a changed view of the state (the will of the people has replaced the divine right of sovereigns) do not recognize the pretensions of once reigning Sovereign Houses unless they enter into the perspectives of the pursuit of the well defined ends of international politics.