Paul A. Zalonski, member of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre, recently informed Debunked that Guy Stair Sainty is to be stripped by the Pope from his Order of Saint Gregory the Great. The decision follows the Paradise Papers report of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). Expulsion from the Order of Saint John is expected to follow, as Mr. Mark John Rosborough Scott pointed out in an email to Debunked. The ICIJ is a major global collaboration that recently revealed secrets from one of the world’s most prestigious offshore law firms, a specialized trust company and 19 company registries in secrecy jurisdictions. The report lists not less than 8 roles of Guy Stair Sainty in his dodgy offshore companies.
The glory days can only be a dimming memory for art smoothie and nobility admirer Guy Stair Sainty, who, we can disclose, is to be stripped of both his Order of Saint Gregory the Great and his Order of Saint John. They were awarded to him for unknown and obscure reasons. It’s difficult to conceive of anything which could be more painful for Sainty. In his pomp, he was a successful art dealer, but turned to the grey market during the financial crisis.
The Catholic Herald is Britain’s oldest and most trusted Catholic publication. This British periodical has been the gold standard of Catholic news, analysis, and culture, and is published since the 19th century. The Catholic Herald has broken many stories in its time, the biggest of which was the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958. Recently, the Herald exposed the close financial connections between Pedro, self-proclaimed “Duke of Calabria”, and Spain’s scandal-King Juan Carlos.
Working class marriage
Based on investigations by “Excmo Sr. Don Guy-Stair Sainty“, the Catholic Herald reports that the claimant to the dynastic rights to the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, Don Carlos, always wanted his son Pedro to marry a princess. This was the only way, his plan to dispute the rights to the Italian throne could remain intact. However, Pedro ended up falling in love with a simple working-class girl, Sofía Landaluce, and therefore lost all his dynastic claims.
Tax evasion
Prince Pedro, “duke of Calabria” and former king Juan Carlos, who is under investigation for allegations that he accepted illegal kick-backs worth €65 million related to a high-speed rail project in Saudi Arabia and claims he used credit cards linked to foreign accounts not registered in his name for his alleged murky links to offshore funds.
It is exposed that a number of Spanish royals have been added to the – already long – list of Spanish royals that have been evading taxes. This time Infanta Alicia of Spain, Princess of the Two Sicilies, née Princess of Bourbon-Parma is named. The princess is a great-aunt of king Felipe VI. Apart from Infanta Alicia also her son, the late infante Carlos, duke of Calabria and two of her grandchildren (Prince Pedro, “duke of Calabria” and Princess Cristina of the Two Sicilies) have benefitted from a 2012 amnesty on tax evasion: “the Castellana Papers”. In February 2017, police detained the alleged leaker in the Castellana Papers case, an investigation that consisted in the first revelation of documents related to tax amnesty and that implicated at least 21 relevant individuals, among them members of the Borbón family and well-known businesspeople.
The princess and her son and grandchildren paid less than two percent to Spain’s treasury in order to make their previously hidden income official. In 2012, they benefitted from an amnesty on tax evasion to ‘regularize’ previously undeclared assets worth over €4 million.
According to the media, the four royals paid €73,437 to the tax office to declare €4,000,186 held in the Swiss bank Lombard Odier. The newspaper reports that it emerged that the four royal relatives had paid just 1.8 percent of the €4m in order to avoid tax evasion penalties during a time when Spaniards were being asked to tighten their own belts as the nation fought to stave off a bail-out.
The huge sum was reportedly inherited from the estate of María Cristina de Borbón-Parma Habsburgo, who was the niece of king Alfonso XIII (who reigned from 1886-1931). It appeared that Princess Inès of the Two Sicilies, youngest daughter of Infanta Alicia, is being investigated by tax services for tax evasion. The Infanta Pilar was named in the Panama papers. King Felipe VI’s sister Infanta Crisitna and her husband were in the middle of a court trial for embezzlement and fraud.
In 1917, Czar Nicholas II of Russia was deposed. In 1928, the sacred relics of the Order of Saint John were transferred to the Royal House of Karageorgevic and to King Alexander of Yugoslavia who was a close relative of the Czar and was related to many of the Royal Houses of Europe. In 1962, former King Peter II of Yugoslavia was elected “Protector of the Order.” He renewed the Order of Saint John’s royal charter and provided the Order with a modern Constitution. In 1964, former King Peter II was elected Grand Master. He died in 1970 in Denver. In 1973, HRH Prince Andrej, the youngest brother of King Peter, became Protector and later, in 1978, Grand Master of the Order. Alexander’s “statement” is fake news.
“Prince” Alexander II follows in the footsteps of Judas: According to the Gospel of John, Jesus informed his disciples during the Last Supper that one of them will betray him. When they asked who it would be, Jesus said “It is the one to whom I give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.” He then dipped a piece of bread in a dish and handed it to Judas, identified as the “son of Simon Iscariot.” After Judas received the piece of bread, “Satan entered into him.” (John 13:21-27). Alexander betrays the former supporters of his father and defamed his father’s legacy.
Alexander is not the “Crown Prince of Yugoslavia “. He is a simple commoner. Yugoslavia came into existence in 1918 following World War I. In April 1941, Yugoslavia was occupied and partitioned by the Axis powers. A royal government-in-exile, recognized by the United Kingdom and, later, by all the Allies, was established in London. In 1944, after pressure from British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, the King recognized the government of Democratic Federal Yugoslavia as the legitimate government. In 2001, Yugoslavia was dissolved into five nations.
Living the high life in Serbia
Since 17 July 2001, Alexander has lived in the Royal Palace (Kraljevski Dvor) in Dedinje, an exclusive area of Belgrade, while 25 percent of Serbians are impoverished. This percentage translates to 1.8 million people. The Palace, which was completed in 1929, is one of two royal residences in the Royal Compound; the other is the White Palace, which was completed in 1936.
Genocide denial
The “Crown Prince” has increasingly participated in public functions alongside the leaders of Serbia, the former Yugoslav republics and members of the diplomatic corps. Numerous war crimes were committed by Serbian military and Serbian paramilitary forces during the Yugoslav Wars. The crimes included massacres, ethnic cleansing, systematic rape, crimes against humanity and genocide. The International Court of Justice found that the Serbian leaders, with whom Alexander is flirting, had failed to prevent mass killings, rapes, and ethnic cleansing. Currently, several high-profile war criminals have resumed political careers while others have led army parades or written books of revisionist history distributed through state-run publishers.
Guy Stair Sainty defending Hitler’s Pope and defaming Professor Kertzer.
On Twitter, Guy Stair Sainty calls himself an “Art dealer, historian, parent, husband, equestrian, debater, polemicist, Catholic antidisestablishmentarianist, franco-hispano-italo-phile and monarchist.“. Sainty never studied history and therefore is not a historian. In fact, Sainty holds no academic degree at all. His claims are false. However, this does not hold him back from defaming real historian Professor Kertzer, arrogantly called “historian” by Sainty, implying Kertzer is a fake historian. The modus operandi is always the same. Looser Sainty attacking men of achievement, inspired by his working-class background and his jealously.
Below is the biography of a man who is labelled a fake historian by Sainty.
David Kertzer graduated from Brown University in 1969. He received his PhD in Anthropology from Brandeis University in 1974 and taught at Bowdoin College until 1992. That year he joined the faculty of Brown University as Professor of Anthropology and History.
Kertzer is the author of numerous books and articles on politics and culture, European social history, anthropological demography, 19th-century Italian social history, contemporary Italian society and politics, and the history of Vatican relations with the Jews and the Italian state. His book, The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara, was a finalist for the National Book Award in Nonfiction in 1997.
His The Popes Against the Jews, published in 2001, was subsequently described as “one of the most critically acclaimed and contentious books of its genre and generation.” The book analyzes the relation between the development of the Catholic Church and the growth of European anti-Semitism in the 19th and 20th centuries, arguing that the Vatican and several popes contributed actively to fertilizing the ideological ground that produced the Holocaust. The work produced intense discussion among scholars of European history and historians of the Catholic Church.
The follow-up work, The Pope and Mussolini: The Secret History of Pius XI and the Rise of Fascism in Europe (2014), examined documentary evidence from the Vatican archives, arguing that Pope Pius XI played a significant role in supporting the rise of Fascism and Benito Mussolini in Italy, but not of Nazi Germany. The book won the Pulitzer Prize for Biography or Autobiography in April 2015.
In 2020, after decades of pressure, the Vatican archives were finally opened, and David Kertzer was among the first historians to access them. At the time of the death of Pius XII, in 1958, all the documents of the pontificate were locked up: by preventing scholars from consulting them, many questions remained unanswered, making Eugenio Pacelli one of the most controversial popes in history. With the support of thousands of unpublished documents, in his 2022 book A Pope at War: the Secret History of Pius XII, Hitler, and Mussolini , Kertzer uncovered the existence of secret negotiations between Hitler and Pius XII already a few weeks after the end of the conclave. He also showed to what extent Mussolini relied on the Italian clergy and religious institutions to obtain popular support for entering the war, and how both Mussolini and Hitler managed to manipulate the Pontiff to their own advantage. Above all, Kertzer explains why, despite having irrefutable evidence of the ongoing extermination of the Jews, Pius XII never denounced the Nazi atrocities, as he preferred to leave the role of moral guide, rather than put at risk the power of the Church.
The “Holy Roman Empire Association” was established by an Italian in 1963 “to unite in its membership descendants in the male line of individuals invested with nobility of the Holy Roman Empire”. The association only contains Italians and one Englishman: Guy Stair Sainty, who was created a “Count of the Holy Roman Empire” by the association; a bogus title and insult to the genuine nobility of the Holy Roman Empire.
(Above) Screenshot showing Guy Stair Sainty”s appointment as representative of the “Holy Roman Empire Association”. (Below) Anyone on Facebook can become an “ambassador” and “Count of the Holy Roman Empire”, like Sainty. The title can be picked up in London where Sainty lives:
If your budget does not allow the price of a “Count”, we recommend the “Knight of the Holy Roman Empire” for a few GBP.
The article below was written by professor Schmandt (1925-2005). Guy Stair Sainty wrote a follow-up article (“THE NOBILITY of the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE“) to empower his title mill: The Holy Roman Empire Association.
The Holy Roman Empire was the medieval state that embraced most of central Europe and Italy under the rule of the German kings from 962 to 1806. It was considered to be a restoration and continuation of the ancient Roman Empire, although in fact it had little in common with its predecessor. Earlier, the Frankish king Charlemagne had revived the same name. His Roman Empire lasted from 800 to 925. In 962, Otto I of Germany and Pope John XII cooperated in a second revival. Threatened in his possession of the Papal States by Berengar II, king of Italy, John begged Otto to come to his aid. Otto did so, and the Pope solemnly crowned him Emperor of the Romans as a reward. From this time, the German kings claimed the right to rule the empire.
In theory, the Holy Roman Empire (the word “Holy” was added during the 12th century) reflected two important medieval values: the unity of all Christians, or at least all Western Christians, in a single state as the civil counterpart to the One Holy Catholic Church; and a concept of hierarchical political organisation that called for one ultimate head over all existing states. In practice, the empire never fully conformed to either ideal. France and England, for example, never acknowledged any real subordination to the emperor, although they recognised a vague supremacy in him. The empire’s aims varied according to the program and philosophy of the many emperors and popes who controlled its destiny. The German kings—who called themselves kings of the Romans, not kings of Germany, as soon as they were elected by the German princes—considered themselves entitled to become Roman emperor as soon as they could arrange the imperial coronation, which was supposed to take place in Rome at the hands of the Pope. (By later convention, they are called kings of Germany, however, and many of them never secured imperial coronation.) From the ruler’s point of view, the imperial title established his right to control Italy and Burgundy as well as Germany and was thus a potential source of power, wealth, and prestige. The Empire’s vast size and the disparity of its peoples, however, were serious obstacles to effective rule and good government.
The churchmen who crowned the emperors, and thus actually sustained the Empire, considered it to be the church’s secular arm, sharing responsibility for the welfare and spread of the Christian faith and duty-bound to protect the Papacy. This view of the relationship between church and state, which dated from the reign of Roman emperor Constantine I, was generally accepted by both emperors and Popes. In practice, however, this partnership seldom worked smoothly, as one of the partners inevitably tried to dominate the other. Frequent fluctuations in the actual power and vitality of each individual as well as changes in the prevailing political and theological theories gave a fluid, dynamic quality to the empire’s history.
The history of the Holy Roman Empire can be divided into four periods: the age of emperors, the age of princes, the early Habsburg period, and the final phase.
The first age, from 962 to 1250, was dominated by the strong emperors of the Saxon, Salian (or Franconian), and Hohenstaufen dynasties. These emperors made serious efforts to control Italy, which in practical political terms was the most important part of the empire. Their power, however, depended on their German resources, which were never great. Italy consisted of the Lombard area, with its wealthy towns; the Papal States; scattered regions still claimed by the Byzantine Empire; and the Norman kingdom of Naples and Sicily. The emperors generally tried to govern through existing officials such as counts and bishops rather than by creating a direct administrative system. The papacy, weak and disturbed by the Roman aristocracy, needed the emperors, who, during the Saxon and early Salian generations, thought of the Bishop of Rome as subject to the same kind of control that they exercised over their own German bishops. Henry III, for example, deposed unsatisfactory Popes and nominated new ones as he deemed fit.
During the reigns of Henry IV and Henry V in the late 11th and early 12th centuries, the papacy was influenced by a powerful reform movement that demanded an end to lay domination. Popes Gregory VII and Urban II insisted on independence for the papacy and for the church in general during the Investiture Controversy. Later Popes continued jealously to guard their freedom, and this produced conflict with the Hohenstaufen emperors Frederick I and Frederick II, both of whom wanted to exercise control over all of Italy. The later Hohenstaufen emperors gained control of the Norman kingdom in southern Italy and declared it a fief of the popes, who nevertheless worried about their independence and often supported the emperors’ Lombard foes. In the 13th century, Popes Innocent III, Gregory IX, and Innocent IV restricted the authority of Otto IV and Frederick II in many bitter disputes.
During the age of the princes, from 1250 to 1438, the emperors were much weaker. They exercised minimal authority in Italy, and many of them were never crowned emperor by the pope. Even in Germany their power was reduced, for Frederick II had dissipated royal prerogatives and resources in his northern lands while struggling to dominate Italy. The emperors were unable to restrain the German nobles or to resist French encroachments on the western frontiers of the empire, and the Slavic rulers in the east rejected all imperial overlordship. The Guelphs, or anti-imperialists in Italy (see Guelfs and Ghibellines), spoke of ending the empire or transferring it to the French kings. Political theorists such as Engelbert of Admont (1250-1331), Alexander of Roes (fl. late 13th century), and even Dante, however, insisted that the German emperors were needed. Marsilius of Padua, in his Defensor pacis, argued for the end of all papal influence on the empire.
At this time the practice of electing the German king, or emperor, was given formal definition by the Golden Bull (1356) of Emperor Charles IV. This document, which defined the status of the seven German princely electors, made it clear that the emperor held office by election rather than hereditary right. The electors usually chose insignificant rulers who could not interfere with the electors’ privileges, but such rulers could neither govern effectively nor maintain imperial rights. Their power was largely limited to strengthening their own families. The empire consequently began to disintegrate into nearly independent territories or self-governing groups such as the Hanseatic League.
After 1438 the electors almost always chose a member of the Habsburg dynasty of Austria as king; the one exception was the election (1742) of the Bavarian Charles VII. The Habsburg Frederick III was the last emperor to be crowned in Rome; his great-grandson Charles V was the last to be crowned by a pope.
By this time a few of the more farsighted princes saw the need to strengthen the empire’s central government. From 1485 to 1555 these reformers strove to create a federal system. The diet, originally a loose assembly of princes, had been organised into three strata-electors, princes, and representatives of the imperial cities-by the Golden Bull and came to resemble a legislature. In 1500 it was proposed that an executive committee (Reichsregiment) appointed by the diet be given administrative authority. A system of imperial courts was created, and permanent institutions to provide for defence and taxation were also discussed. The various states were organised into ten districts or circles.
These reform efforts seldom worked, however, because the princes would not relinquish their jurisdiction. The situation was further complicated by the advent of the Reformation, which fostered religious conflicts that divided the principalities against one another. In addition, the princes became alarmed at the sudden growth of power of the Habsburgs when that dynasty acquired Spain. Under the guise of the Counter-Reformation, Ferdinand II and Ferdinand III tried to concentrate power in their hands, but defeat in the Thirty Years’ War undid their efforts and proved that the empire could not reform itself.
After the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) the Holy Roman Empire was little more than a loose confederation of about 300 independent principalities and 1,500 or more semi-sovereign bodies or individuals. Threats from the Ottoman Empire or from Louis XIV of France occasionally stimulated imperial cooperation, but usually each state considered only its own welfare. The Austrian-Prussian wars, Hanover’s acquisition of the English throne, and Saxony’s holding of the Polish crown exemplify the particularism that prevailed.
Napoleon I finally destroyed the empire. After defeating Austria and its imperial allies in 1797 and 1801, he annexed some German land and suggested that the larger territories compensate themselves by confiscating the free cities and ecclesiastical states. By the Diet’s Recess (1803), 112 small states were thus seized by their neighbours. Three years later Napoleon compelled 16 German states to form the Confederation of the Rhine and to secede from the empire. On March 6, 1806, Francis II, who had previously assumed the title of Emperor of Austria, abdicated as Holy Roman Emperor and declared the old empire dissolved.
Barraclough, Geoffrey, The Origins of Modern Germany, 2d rev. ed. (1947; repr. 1984) Bryce, James, The Holy Roman Empire, rev. ed. (1978) Heer, Friedrich, The Holy Roman Empire, trans. by Janet Sondheimer (1968) Zophy, Jonathan W., ed., Holy Roman Empire: A Dictionary Handbook (1980)
The Holy Roman Empire, ended by a decision of the last Emperor, Francis II, on 6 August 1806, had already long ceased to be a major political power even though the prestige of the Imperial title conferred immense status and influence. Indeed, its description as neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire was peculiarly apposite. The Holy Roman, or German Empire as it should better be described, could justly claim to be the successor of the Western Roman Empire despite its later foundation. Although the Eastern Empire of Byzantium, which expired in 1453, had enjoyed an unbroken succession from the time of Constantine the Great, its claim to jurisdiction beyond the boundaries of the western Balkans was never acknowledged.
The Empire of the Germans was founded by Charles the Great (Charlemagne), whose coronation on Christmas Day 800 gave Papal approval to the unification of France, most of modern Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg, and northern Italy under his rule. Although his male line descendants had died out within little more than a century, Charlemagne is the ancestor of every existing Christian European ruling or former ruling dynasty. The only modern survivors of the Empire are the ecclesiastical Princes—the German Archbishops and Bishops—and the Sovereign Princes of Liechtenstein. With the death of Charlemagne no ruler until Napoleon ever held sway over his lands and the Imperial title became the legacy of the Germans.
The Emperor, although himself usually an hereditary ruler of one or more states within the Empire, was elected to office. Nonetheless, several dynasties managed to perpetuate their grip upon the Imperial title. The surest means of establishing dynastic rule was for the Emperor to insure that his immediate heir was the inevitable choice of the “Electors” by having him nominated King of the Romans in his own lifetime. Those Princes who, by the early thirteenth century, had established their claim to the title of Electors of the Empire were the Prince Archbishops of Koln (Archchancellor of Italy), Trier (Archchancellor of Gaul) and Mainz (Archchancellor of Germany), the King of Bohemia (Imperial Cup Bearer) the Duke of Saxony (Imperial Marshal), the Count Palatine of the Rhine (Imperial Seneschal), and the MarkGraf (Margrave in English) of Brandenburg. Their number was formerly codified in an Imperial Bull issued by the Emperor Karl IV (of Luxembourg, King of Bohemia). That this Bull was issued without reference to Papal authority indicates the decline of Papal power since the Avignon schism. Henry IV’s humiliation at Canossa would never be repeated.
The Reformation was the greatest blow to Imperial power, resulting in increasing Hohenzollern power with the acquisition of the Duchy of Prussia and the conversion of Church lands into hereditary fiefs. The religious wars of the sixteenth century and the Thirty Years war in the early seventeenth led to a further diminution of Imperial power, even though the Habsburgs’ rule in Bohemia was consolidated. The number of Electors was increased to eight with the elevation of the Wittelsbach Duchy of Bavaria to the status of Electorate (giving that family two Electors, the other being the Elector Palatine) in 1648, following the changes wrought by the Thirty Years war. In 1692 a fourth was added in the person of the Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg-Hannover, who became Elector of Hannover (united with the British crown in 1714). Shortly before the collapse of the Empire, the Emperor Napoleon imposed his own reorganisation of the German states and four more princes were added to the ranks of the Electors (three lay Electors, Hesse-Cassel, Baden and Wurtemberg, and one ecclesiastical, the Archbishop of Salzburg—an Austrian Archduke) while the Archbishops of Mainz, Trier and Köln lost their sovereignty and electoral rank.
From 1438 until 1740 the Imperial Crown was held continually by the Habsburgs, who initially did not hold an Electoral seat. The German Electors, however, chose the first Habsburg Emperors because most of their hereditary territories were outside the formal boundaries of the Empire itself. Until the late fifteenth century the Habsburgs still followed the German practice of dividing their territories between sons so Austria, Styria, Carniola, Carinthia and the Tyrol—which were later to compose part of the Empire of Austria—were often ruled by different members of the family. In 1437, Sigismond of Hungary and Bohemia died leaving an only daughter, to be succeeded by his son-in-law Albrecht V (of Habsburg), Duke of Austria. Albrecht was now elected King of the Romans as Albrecht II but died before the coronation which would have allowed him to take the Imperial style. While the Crowns of Bohemia and Hungary passed first to his short-lived son and then to his son-in-law the King of Poland, in 1440 the Electors chose Albrecht’s cousin and successor as ruler of Austria, Frederick V of Styria (first Archduke of Austria in 1458), to be Emperor. The Imperial Crown remained the privilege of the Habsburgs for the next three hundred years.
Frederick was the last Emperor to be crowned by the Pope in Rome and did much to consolidate the Habsburg possessions. His great-grandson, the Emperor Charles V (1500-1558) united in his person the Imperial Crown, the hugely wealthy Duchies of Burgundy and Brabant, the Duchy of Milan, the Kingdoms of Naples and Sicily and the Crown of Spain. The latter’s brother Ferdinand acquired by marriage the Crowns of Hungary and Bohemia in 1526. Unable to rule this vast Empire effectively, Charles abdicated the Crown of Spain, the Italian possessions and the Burgundian inheritance to his only son, Philip II, in 1556, and resigned the Imperial Crown to insure its inheritance by his brother Ferdinand, who was the first Habsburg to combine the Imperial Crowns with those of Austria, Hungary and Bohemia.
The male line of the Habsburgs became extinct with the death of Charles VI in 1740. The senior line, of Kings of Spain, had died out in the male line with the death of the unfortunate King Charles II in 1700 when his Spanish possessions passed to his Bourbon great-nephew. The Spanish Netherlands (originally part of the Burgundian territories) then passed to Austria, while Naples and Sicily were divided, to be temporarily reunited before being reacquired by the Bourbons in 1734. Charles VI left an only daughter, Maria-Teresa, who had been married off to Francis, Duke of Lorraine, founding the Habsburg-Lothringen dynasty which ruled in Austria, Hungary and Bohemia until 1918. Francis surrendered Lorraine (an Imperial fief) to France as the temporary sovereign Duchy of the French King’s father-in-law, the former King of Poland, from whom it passed to France on his death in 1766. After a five year interregnum, during which time the Elector of Bavaria held the Imperial Crown, Francis was elected Emperor. Following his death his eldest son, Joseph II, succeeded as the first Habsburg-Lothringen Emperor.
The Empire included not only the territories of the nine Electors, but also more than three hundred small lay and ecclesiastical states whose numbers fluctuated when male lines died out and families merged or divided. These petty rulers enjoyed limited “sovereignty” over states which sometimes included no more than a few villages. Many of the Bishoprics governed small territories which gave them the status of “immediate” [1] Imperial vassals. Some of the larger Abbeys and Convents enjoyed similar status—their superiors composed the largest number of “elected” rulers, both men and women, Europe has ever seen, even though only chosen by their fellow religious brothers or sisters. A smaller number of these “immediate” sovereigns had the right to a seat in the Imperial Diet, a jealously guarded privilege which gave them some say in the legislative and governmental affairs of the Empire and considerable prestige. In the middle of the seventeenth century there were forty-three lay members and thirty-three ecclesiastical members of the Diet but their numbers expanded steadily until the Empire’s collapse. The Diet included the Electors, the rulers of the larger Duchies such as Wurtemberg, and Oldenburg, the smaller Saxon states and Anhalt, and a larger number of Sovereign Princes and Sovereign Counts. Some of the ecclesiastical rulers enjoyed the status of Princes, others only that of Counts and were ranked accordingly. The High Master of the Teutonic Knights, the Grand Prior of Germany of the Order of Saint John (Malta), and the Master of the Knights of the Johanniter Order also had seats in the Diet, ranking as Princes of the Empire.
The titles of Duke, Prince, Count, Baron, Knight and Noble of the Empire were conferred by Imperial patent. The vast majority of the lower ranks never enjoyed any kind of sovereignty, however, having been elevated on the basis of services to their superior lord, the Emperor himself, or by right of some territory they owned which was itself subject to an immediate Imperial vassal. Most such conferrals were made at the request of the superior lord of the beneficiary—an Elector or Duke perhaps, but the MarkGraf of Brandenburg as King in and then of Prussia was able to confer titles in his own right. Later the Electors of Bavaria conferred titles as did some of the other greater Princes while many of the rulers of smaller states had been invested with the right to confer nobility. Imperial Nobility and titles always passed by male succession, most titles being inherited by all the male descendants and by females until marriage (or religious profession). Noble territories could pass by female succession but use of the corresponding title would have to be confirmed in a new Imperial patent.
Imperial authority extended also to the Netherlands and Italy, and some of the higher North Italian titles (particularly that of Prince) and Netherlandish titles were conferred by Imperial grant. The Imperial Viceroys, as rulers of the Netherlands, Milan and Naples and Sicily also conferred titles but these were not Holy Roman Empire titles and their recipients did not rank as Reichsherren, Reichsritter, Reichsfreiherr or Reichsgraf.
During the years preceding and immediately following the collapse of the Empire there was considerable readjustment of territories between states—mostly to the benefit of the larger states which were consolidated within contiguous borders—and of the titles of their rulers. The Electors of Saxony, Wurtemberg and Bavaria became Kings, as did the Elector of Hannover following the downfall of Napoleon, although as King of Great Britain he already enjoyed the royal style. The Kingdom of Westphalia was created for Jerome Bonaparte after territories seized from Hannover, Brunswick and various ecclesiastical states on the right bank of the Rhine but ceased to exist in 1814 when its lands were redistributed—those on the Rhine being given as a prize to the King of Prussia.
The Duchies of Mecklemburg-Schwerin, Mecklemburg-Strelitz, the Duchy of Oldenburg, the Duchy of Saxe-Weimar, and the Margravate of Baden were elevated to the status of Grand Duchies as was the Landgravate of Hesse-Darmstadt. The Grand Duchy of Berg and Cleves (given first to Murat and his wife Caroline Bonaparte, then Napoleon-Louis, the second son of Hortense de Beauharnais and Louis Bonaparte), the Grand Duchy of Frankfurt (given first to Emmerich de Dalberg and then Eugène de Beauharnais), and the Grand Duchy of Wurzburg (given to the Grand Duke of Tuscany as compensation for the loss of his Italian states) were all created out of former ecclesiastical states or the territories of Napoleon’s enemies. Their territories were redistributed after 1814 and their rulers deposed, while the Grand Duke of Tuscany was restored to Florence. The Duchy of Luxembourg was raised to the status of Grand Duchy and added to the Kingdom of the United Netherlands (until 1890 when it passed to the Duke of Nassau), as were the former Austrian Netherlands, until they gained their independence as the Kingdom of the Belgians in 1830. Some states which survived the initial dissolution of the Empire, notably the Duchy of Arenberg which was actually enlarged after 1806, and the Principality of Leyen, were unable to hold onto sovereignty in 1814, lacking the close family relationships to the sovereigns of the victorious powers whose influence might have enabled them to hold their thrones.
The Imperial nobility enjoys a more elevated status than the nobilities of the German successor states and, indeed, of the Italian states. The descendants of Italian Holy Roman Empire titles have formed an Association to which every male line descendant of someone ennobled by Imperial Patent is entitled to belong. The Principality of Liechtenstein has also claimed to be able to confirm the succession to Imperial titles and has confirmed the right of a Spanish nobleman to be heir to such a title, for purposes of the Spanish law requiring the successor state to confirm that the claimant to a particular title is in fact the heir. Thus there is a remaining jurisdiction, even though no Imperial titles have been conferred since 1806.
[1] I.e. they held their lands by virtue of a grant from the Emperor, and owed him feudal homage. [2] (this section omitted) [3] Not including those Houses elevated after 1806 to the rank of King or Grand Duke, which ranked accordingly. [4] United with the Crown of the Netherlands until 1890; then ceded to the former reigning Duke of Nassau. [5] Arenberg only; Looz-Corswarem although a Duchy were mediatised by right of the Principality of Rheina-Wolbeck. [6] The Pallavicini, and the Gonzaga, are still Markgrafen of the Holy Roman Empire; the latter are also Princes. [7] Only the Furstenbergs, a mediatised house, and the Hesse family, possess this title although the Saxon Dukes were entitled Landgrafs of Thuringia among their subsidiary titles. [8] The titles of Alt, Rhein and Wild Graf were ancient privileges which have been perpetuated by certain families but do not actually confer any particular precedence between them.
ASSOCIZIONI dei NOBILI del SACRO ROMANO IMPERO(HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE ASSOCIATION) This Association was established in 1963 to unite in its membership descendants in the male line of individuals invested with nobility of the Holy Roman Empire. It also includes a number of honorary members. It was founded by Prince Giovanni Alliata di Montereale and Count Giancarlo Bonifazi di Statte.
The Chancellor (in succession to Prince Alliata) is Prince Mario Pignatelli Aragona Cortes; the President of the Court of Honor is Count Giancarlo Bonifazi di Statte; the Co-ordinators of the Council are Prince Domenico Napoleone Orsini and don Carlo dei Principi Giovanelli; the members of the Historical Council are: Marchese Henri de Thoran, Marchese Cosimo Dragonetti di Torres, Prof Riccardo Capasso, Monsingor Antonio Bittarelli, Monsignor Sandro Corradini; Avv. Giuseppe de Rosa. Representative in the USA: Mr. Guy Stair Sainty. Members (titles not in parentheses are the Holy Roman Empire titles of the Family): Count Clemente Alberti di Poja, Marquess (Prince) don Camillo Aldobrandini; Princes don Francesco and don Gabriele Alliata di Villafranca; Prince don Giovanni Francesco and Fabrizio Alliata di Montereale; Nobile (Count) Carlo Antonielli; Prince don Alessandro d’Aquino; Count Federico Attems; Prince don Francesco Avalos; Nobile Luciano Aventi; Nobile Giangiorgio Barbasetti; Count Guido Barbiano di Belgioioso; Count Ferrante Benvenuti; Nobile Luigi Bertolini; Nobile Lanfranco Blanchetti Revelli; Dama Bona (Marchesa) Bonacossi; Prince don Gregorio Boncompagni-Ludovisi; Count Giancarlo Bonifazi di Statte; Conte Federico Bossi Fedrigotti; Nobile Marc’Antonio Bragadin; Barone Guido Buffa; Count Neri Capponi; Prince Marcello Caracciolo. hrea.htm http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/
Several of Sainty’s republican videos feature a speech given by the UK’s new Prime Minister Liz Truss, who said she wanted to abolish the monarchy as a young politician.
Sainty is a supporter of Republic, a British press group campaigning to replace a hereditary monarchy with a republican constitution. The group has posted #NotMyKing with nearly all of its posts since the Queen died, and has driven a high number of mentions and picked up new followers too.
Martin Goldstraw was born in Leek, a town in rural North Staffordshire. Nobody in the Goldstraw family is especially bright. Their regional gang spans generations and crosses multiple regions, beginning in the early 1920s — with ancestors who were burglars and prostitutes — and involving hundreds of felonies covering just about every genre of lawlessness, from murder and sodomy to burglary and insurance fraud.
Martin Goldstraw jr
In 2019, Martin’s kinsman, Martin Goldstrawjr, was jailed for five years and four months for conspiracy to commit burglary after he assisted the group by stealing cars for them to use in the operation. He was involved in four burglaries involving five vehicles – some of which were high-powered BMWs and Audis. He also provided lifts to the offenders, prior and following the offences. Goldstraw was caught after an investigation – Operation Cass – was triggered by Greater Manchester Police following a spike in ATM offences in mid-2018. Martin Goldstraw jr was part of a ‘brazen’ organised gang that have been locked up for more than 45 years after a series of cash machine explosions and burglaries.
Another kinsman of Martin is Mark Goldstraw, who lived in Leek, our Martin’s birthplace. This honorable esquire killed a woman called Deborah Wheatley by hitting her over the head with a mallet, fracturing her skull in seven places. After she was dead, he hid her body in a cupboard. Goldstraw was angry with Wheatley because she refused to leave her husband for him. He received a sentence of seven years’ imprisonment.
Soon after his release, Goldstraw returned to Leek and formed a liaison with a 16-year-old girl. She then made the mistake of trying to leave him, which he could not accept. One night, when she, her stepfather, her four-year-old brother, and her ten-year-old sister were safely asleep, he broke into the house, doused it with gasoline, and set fire to it. All four occupants died. When the police arrested him, Goldstraw explained his burned, gasoline-soaked clothes by claiming that his motorbike had exploded while he was repairing it.
Shaun Goldstraw, also from Leek
A third member of the Goldstraw criminal family is Shaun Goldstraw, also from Leek, who, in 2017, was sentenced at Mold Crown Court after pleading guilty to killing 49-year-old Tracy Haley and Darren Lowe on the A543 at Pentrefoelas on February 27, 2016. Police analysis of CCTV showed Goldstraw had been travelling at between 103-107 mile per hour when he slammed head-on into their Mercedes with his Renault Clio shortly before 3.45pm on the fateful day. It was the “most serious example” of death by dangerous driving and had left families “utterly devastated”. His “utterly selfish actions caused the deaths of two people”, the judge added. “This was deliberate risk-taking for thrills.” Goldstraw has also been banned from driving for 12 years, to start after he is released from prison.
The 41-year-old, who has a previous conviction for three offences of fraud by false representation, was working for Signs Express at Fenton Industrial Estate when she helped herself to the cash over three years to fund her lavish lifestyle. Julie Goldstraw‘s previous conviction, for three offences of fraud by false representation, was in March 2014 when she stole £6,500 in a series of deceptions. She was sentenced to 12 months in prison, suspended for 18 months.
These are Martin’s arms matriculated in Scotland. The Lord Lyon refused to register Martin’s fake title “of Whitecairns”.
In 2003, Martin Goldstraw adopted the name “Martin Stephen James Goldstraw of Whitecairns” as his proper name, by which he became commonly called and known. He announced his adoption of that name in the Edinburgh Gazette of Tuesday 22 July 2003 under Notice Code 2301. Goldstraw thereafter presented a petition to the Lord Lyon King of Arms (Lyon) in Scotland in the name of Martin Stephen James Goldstraw of Whitecairns narrating that he was “now commonly called and known by the name of Martin Stephen James Goldstraw of Whitecairns”. Lyon recognised that Martin’s legal surname was Goldstraw of Whitecairns but at the same time was not willing to grant official recognition of it. Swindlers often change their name to appear aristocratic. Such an individual adopts the purported title, as a name rather than receiving any formal title. The British Passport Office is aware of this practice and will place an official observation in the individual’s passport stating that the purported title is a name rather than the person’s title.
London-based “art dealer”Guy Stair Sainty criticizes export controls on art, claiming that the delay and expense they cause leads to “corruption by encouraging ways to circumvent the system” (Guy Stair Sainty, What Makes Italy a Major Black Market in Art, N.Y. TIMES). Sainty feels threatened by the fact that the purpose of an export control system is to retain cultural goods judged to be of outstanding national importance that would otherwise be exported. The system is designed to strike a balance, as fairly as possible, between the various interests concerned in any application for an export licence: the protection of national treasures; the rights of the owner selling the goods; the exporter or overseas purchaser; and the position and reputation of the international art market. Sainty obviously gets along a lot better with those in criminal circles than normal citizens.
Dark Side of the Boom – The Excesses of the Art Market in the 21st Century
Chapter 4 of this book features Guy Stair Sainty. It scrutinizes the excesses and extravagances that the 21st-century explosion of the contemporary art market brought in its wake. The buying of art as an investment, temptations to forgery and fraud, tax evasion, money laundering and pressure to produce more and more art all form part of this story, as do the upheavals in auction houses and the impact of the enhanced use of financial instruments on art transactions. Drawing on a series of tenaciously wrought interviews with artists, collectors, lawyers, bankers and convicted artist forgers, the author charts the voracious commodification of artists and art objects, and art’s position in the clandestine puzzle of the highest echelons of global capital. The book’s revelations appear even more timely in the wake of the Panama Papers revelations, for example incorporating examples of the way tax havens have been used to stash art transactions – and ownership – away from public scrutiny.
The London grey market in art
In recent years, the theft and smuggling of artworks and antiques have come to the forefront among lucrative criminal activities, surpassed only by drug trafficking and arms dealing. The total value of stolen art alone has been estimated at EUR 4.5 to EUR 6 billion a year. While some works are stolen in well planned, surreptitious raids, others are taken in broad daylight in surprisingly amateurish ventures. Many of the stolen objects are taken from public collections in institutions such as churches or museums, and a very large number are now coming from the countries of the former Eastern bloc. Not all thefts involve masterpieces of high value; quite often smaller items of modest worth are taken because of their easy portability. Since the chances of getting caught are relatively slight, and even if the thief is arrested, the penalties can be light, the risk is apparently well worth taking. Yet not all smuggled art is stolen from its original owners. In some cases, the art is smuggled out of the country of origin to contravene stringent export or cultural patrimony laws, such as those in effect in art-rich nations like Greece and Italy, where it is virtually impossible to export works of art. Not surprisingly, the burgeoning trade in smuggled art has a fairly obvious motive: profit. Anything that finds buyers on the legitimate market will find them on the illegitimate market. Eventually, a large amount of these stolen works find their way to the galleries and auction blocks of dealers in the United Kingdom.
According to a recent Interpol report, London has become the centre for selling and buying smuggled art. As many as a quarter of all London dealers have knowingly handled smuggled works of art or antiques. These dealers often escape prosecution because they can easily deny that they knew where an object came from and rarely is there any proof that they knew. Among the reasons that have been adduced to explain London’s high volume of trading stolen or illegally imported artworks are Great Britain’s lenient import and export laws governing works of art and antiques. Moreover, London’s large number of renowned galleries and auction houses ensure many potential buyers so that the work will command the highest possible price. London-based Guy Stair Sainty is one of them:
The 17th-century painting, “The Rape of Tamar,” was legitimately owned by a Jewish art dealer, Siegfried Aram. The Metropolitan Museum of Art (Met) in New York has announced it will alter the artwork’s provenance to reflect his ownership.
The evidence was uncorked by German researcher Joachim Peter who discovered that Aram, who passed away in 1978, attempted to reclaim his painting for more than a decade after the Holocaust. Court records show that Aram alleged that his neighbor Oskar Sommer stole the painting after he sold his house to Sommer. The Met bought the painting in an auction in 1984 via Guy Stair Saintyas he confessed in the New York Times recently. The provenance notes that the painting was bought by Aram in Britain in the mid-1920s until it was passed down “to Sommer as a contested part of his purchase of Aram’s villa in Schapbach, Germany.”. Sainty’s 2017 provenance was false.
Guy Stair Sainty’s posts have only one function: to attract the attention of the many people with – for whatever reason – a fascination for Hitler and to hide his true nature and—in this case—the true message of the book he promotes: that the British were wrong by fighting Hitler.
Adolf Hitler is considered to be the most villainous man of the twentieth century. His vile and ruthless deeds are common knowledge. In fact, the name Hitler has now become synonymous with evil. Hitler still is the icon of evil, who is best known for employing concentration camps. His deeds were so monstrous that other mass murderers are shoved into the shadows. Hitler is the subject of numerous and various kinds of films, books etc.; fact as well as fiction. Hitler is also a hobby for many people, and some of these, like Guy Stair Sainty, are even on such a level of involvement that one could definitely label them “fans.”
This is alarming. Media coverage of recent racist riots in the East German city of Chemnitz showed just the tip of the iceberg: what lurks beneath the surface remains hidden. This Neo-Nazism comprises the post–World War II militant, social, and political movements that seek to revive and reinstate Nazi ideology. Neo-Nazis employ their ideology to promote hatred and white supremacy, attack racial and ethnic minorities (which include antisemitism and Islamophobia), and in some cases to create a fascist state.
It is shocking to see that Guy Stair Sainty is “happy” to promote a book about Nazi tea parties in Downing Street, banquets at London’s best hotels, the Coronation of George VI, coffee and cake at Hitler’s Bavarian mountain home, champagne galas at the Berlin Olympics, and afternoon receptions at the Nuremberg Rallies.
Russian President Vladimir Putin invoked World War II to justify Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, saying in televised remarks last week that his offensive aimed to “denazify” the country — whose democratically elected president is Jewish, and lost relatives in the Holocaust.
“The purpose of this operation is to protect people who for eight years now have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kyiv regime,” he said, according to an English translation from the Russian Mission in Geneva. “To this end, we will seek to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation.”
Maria Vladimirovna, self-proclaimed “Head of The Imperial House of Romanoff,” has employed the same rhetoric in a – now deleted – interview on her website (see below).
The Russian invasion, and the language of “denazification” as a perceived pretext for it, quickly drew backlash from many world leaders, onlookers and experts alike.
Criticisms of Russia’s perceived hypocrisy have grown, since Russian strikes hit a memorial to Babyn Yar — the site where Nazis killed tens of thousands of Jews during World War II. The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, among others, said Putin “misrepresented and misappropriated Holocaust history.”
A lengthy list of historians signed a letter condemning the Russian government’s “cynical abuse of the term genocide, the memory of World War II and the Holocaust, and the equation of the Ukrainian state with the Nazi regime to justify its unprovoked aggression.”
They pointed to a broader patternof Russian propaganda frequently painting Ukraine’s elected leaders as “Nazis and fascists oppressing the local ethnic Russian population, which it claims needs to be liberated”. Mrs. Maria Vladimirovna is one of the main followers of Putin’s brutal murder campaigns to terrorize the Ukrainian people:
Unfortunately, there was a revolution in Kiev, and the new leaders have taken a series of extremist and openly vengeful steps, which have led to a split among the Ukrainian people. Extreme nationalists who control the government in Kiev began by passing a number of discriminatory and demeaning measures with regard to the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine, meeting any dissent with brutal violence. There were overt threats against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. There were anti-Semitic speeches with an undisguised Nazi undertone. I consider all this a dreadful and criminal mistake that borders on lunacy.
Mrs. Maria Vladimirovna has refused to condemn Russia’s invasion. Instead, Mrs. Vladimirovna’s servantNicholas B.A. Nicholson, a well known Facebook troll and the current “Curator” of the Russian History Museum, in Jordanville, NY. spreads Mrs. Vladimirovna’s agenda to the English-speaking audience. He is supported by another Putin admirer, Russell E. Martin.
A woman cries in the small basement of a house crowded with people seeking shelter from Russian airstrikes, outside the capital Kyiv, Ukraine. AP Photo/Vadim Ghirda
The rhetoric of Mrs. Maria Vladimirovna is intended to support Mr. Putin’s war crimes. It is a false and misleading account of what really happened in Ukraine and in other annexed states. When the International Criminal Court (ICC) started to investigate Russia’s annexation of Crimea for possible violations of international law, Russia abruptly withdrew its membership in 2016. Nonetheless, in its preliminary 2017 report, the ICC found that “the situation within the territory of Crimea and Sevastopol would amount to an international armed conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation” as well that it “factually amounts to an ongoing state of occupation“. It further found that there is credible evidence that at least 10 people have disappeared and are believed to have been killed on Crimea for opposing the change of its status. On 9 November 2021, Ukraine authorities arrested Denis Kulikovsky, a senior warden of the “Izoliatsiia” detention center in Donetsk People’s Republic, where prisoners were tortured. On February 28, 2022, the ICC prosecutor Karim Ahmad Khan announced that he will launch an investigation into alleged war crimes in Ukraine.
Russia recently announced that it intends to host an “anti-fascist conference” as its forces bombarded a Holocaust memorial site in Kyiv. The surreal announcement came from Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu, who said the Kremlin aims to host the conference in August this year. The UAE, Saudi Arabia, China, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, India and Ethiopia – whose rulers have been accused of committing grave human rights violations – are among the countries invited to the event. Russia struck the Babyn Yar Holocaust memorial, killing five people. The memorial marks the murder of 33,771 Jews by the Nazis in one of the most heinous acts of the Second World War.
Apart from defaming the Ukrainian people, Mrs. Maria Vladimirovna support of Putin’s war crimes is also an insult to the Russian people. Following President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, a sweeping wave of sanctions by the European Union and the U.S. has combined with an exodus of foreign companies and investors, leaving Russia more isolated and economically restricted. Russian citizens are hit hard by the policy that Mrs. Maria Vladimirovna supports. She ignores the damage to civilians, particularly the poor populations of Ukraine and Russia.
Nazi looted art dealer Guy Stair Sainty is a major supporter of Mrs. Maria Vladimirovna and has declared that she is the rightful heir to the headship of the Russian Imperial House: a shameful act of supporting Putin’s mobster gang.
Full 2014 interview (now deleted from Mrs. Maria Vladimirovna‘s website):
Living in Spain, Head of The Imperial House of Romanoff, Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna said in an interview to the columnists of “Interfax”, Vyacheslav Terekhov and Pavel Koryashkin, that joining of Crimea to Russia was a direct result of the events in Ukraine, where, according to her, there was a coup. Grand Duchess dissuade the West from sanctions, but believes that Russia will outlive them. However, she believes that from a new “cold war” all will suffer.
– Maria Vladimirovna, how do you feel about Crimea becoming part of Russia? Has a historical injustice been rectified?
– Over the course of many centuries, my ancestors united many disparate lands into a single Russian State. Crimea is rightfully considered one of the grand “pearls” that adorned our realm.
The Imperial House has always supported the processes of unity and centralization. But if I were simply to say that I was pleased about the return of Crimea to Russia, or that I think that this was the rectification of a historical injustice, then I would be giving a very incomplete and simplistic answer to your question.
I proceed from the firm belief that even with things the way they are today, with the demise of the territorial integrity of the former Russian Empire and USSR and the emergence of new sovereign states, there continues to exist a single spiritual and cultural civilization in this space, which unites these fraternal nations. There may be many states now, but there remains only one Fatherland, in the truest sense of the meaning of that word—one, because our fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers have together offered their blood and sweat for it.
And so we can hardly welcome without reservation every acquisition of a new slice of territory. It is necessary always to consider if this specific instance will not end up damaging our common civilization, will be nothing more than a time bomb that will someday explode, will only spawn new problems in the interrelations between nations.
Each such instance is entirely unique. And if circumstances in Ukraine and Crimea were different, I would think it necessary to act more cautiously. In my address to all my Ukrainian countrymen on February 21, I called upon them to avoid violence, to resist the temptation for revenge, and to do everything within their power to preserve the territorial integrity of Ukraine. As we know, the Crimea was incorporated into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1954 by a totalitarian regime in a completely arbitrary way, without considering the opinion of the people of Crimea or even asking them what they wanted. But it would be just as wrong today to reincorporate Crimea into Russia in the same way. One unlawful act cannot be undone by another unlawful act or by violence. If there had not arisen a very real threat to the welfare of the people of Crimea, to the life and dignity of its citizens, then I would have held to the view that Ukraine should remain within its historic borders as they had been drawn up to the present.
Unfortunately, there was a revolution in Kiev, and the new leaders have taken a series of extremist and openly vengeful steps, which have led to a split among the Ukrainian people. Extreme nationalists who control the government in Kiev began by passing a number of discriminatory and demeaning measures with regard to the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine, meeting any dissent with brutal violence. There were overt threats against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. There were anti-Semitic speeches with an undisguised Nazi undertone. I consider all this a dreadful and criminal mistake that borders on lunacy.
In the current situation, the duty of the legally elected authorities in Crimea was to protect the population from all excesses—not only at present, but also in the future. I know almost all the leaders of Crimea. They are sensible, experienced, and steady statesmen. There is no hint of extremism in them. They did not make this decision on their own authority; they organized a referendum. We know now the results of that referendum. The results are not the result of some passing gush of emotion, but are based on the entire history of Crimea, on its traditions going back many centuries. The people of Crimea have expressed their will. In a democracy, in which the supreme power constitutionally belongs to the people, there is no higher power that exists than the voice of the people.
We can say with complete confidence that the unification of Crimea with Russia was not the result of some political machinations that were dreamt up in advance by someone or other, but the logical result of historical events in Ukraine.
If the number of supporters of the unification of Crimea with Russia were only slightly more than the number of those opposing it, then the results of the referendum could be treated with some circumspection, so that a decision as important as this would not be decided by a small fraction of the vote, but would rather show the need still to form a consensus on the question. But it is evident even with the naked eye that the Crimean referendum was conducted in an atmosphere of unity, jubilation, and honestly. The majority of the people of Crimea want to return their small Homeland to being a part of Russia. It is a fait accompli.
I share the enthusiasm of the peoples of Russia and Crimea over the unity that they have achieved. At the same time, I understand the frustration and disappointment of the people of Ukraine, and I am distressed for them. I can express my feelings best with the words of the Holy Apostle Paul: I “rejoice with others when they rejoice, and I weep with those who weep” (Rom. 12:15).
– In your estimation, where should the capital of Crimea be?
– I had not heard that there was any discussion about this question. From the point of view of historical symbolism, the Crimea has many glorious cities, any one of which could make a good case to be the capital of Crimea. But to transfer the seat of government from one city to another is a costly affair. The Crimea has more important tasks ahead, which must be resolved immediately for the benefit of the people. So I would suppose that the capital would remain in Simferopol. But, in any case, this will be something that will be resolved by the legally elected authorities in accordance with the will of the Crimean people.
– How do you assess the situation in Ukraine? What do you think will be the future relations between Russia and Ukraine?
– The troubles that have gripped Ukraine have brought me and my son, Tsesarevich and Grand Duke George of Russia, tremendous emotional anguish. I have been to Kiev and Odessa; and not long ago George and I were in Crimea. Everywhere we saw how Ukrainians of different ethnic backgrounds, faiths, and political beliefs nonetheless lived together in peace. And this has all now completely changed! And at the moment Ukraine is, without exaggeration, being torn to pieces by revolution, with all the accompanying horrors that accompany it. I pray that all this does not develop into a full-scale fratricidal civil war.
Russia and Ukraine are fraternal countries, and it cannot be any other way. Ukraine is the cradle of the Russian state. No political forces can ever destroy the genetic, spiritual, and cultural kinship that binds together our peoples.
In any case, one cannot see the joining of Crimea to Russia as a “victory of Russia over Ukraine.” “Victory” over one’s own brothers and sisters always turns into defeat. I am certain that the crisis in relations between Russia and Ukraine will be resolved, that the spirit of confrontation will evaporate away, and that love and common sense will prevail.
– How justified is the criticism of the West against Russia over the Crimean situation, and how justified are the sanctions? Will you be asking the royal houses of Europe to intervene to help alleviate the pressures being put on Russia?
– Alas, we see unfairness and an outright double standard.
Naturally, every country defends its own interests and advances its own policies. It would be foolish to resent the fact that the USA or Russia’s other geopolitical rivals take no pleasure in Russia’s expansion and even try to hinder it.
But there are multiple examples of military intervention by the West in the internal affairs of sovereign states. The recognition of the independence of Kosovo and other similar precedents make the current position of Western governments very flimsy, and their argument utterly untenable. Even if we conceded to some degree to their logic, the question nonetheless arises: “Who are they to judge?”
Sanctions are also an unprecedented thing. Even during the “Cold War,” these kinds of sanctions were never imposed against the USSR or its leaders. And back then there really were many more occasions that might have elicited sanctions, with a totalitarian regime in power in our country that really did trample on freedom of conscience and thought and really did repress its people and had many times intervened militarily in the affairs of other countries.
One must bear in mind that sanctions are a two-edged sword. They harm the economy not only of Russia but also the economies of Europe. In the extremely complex circumstances of this global crisis, it makes no sense to play these political games.
Russia is a great country that can withstand the effects of any sanctions. To engage in threats and blackmail with Russia is counterproductive.
В современной политической системе королевские дома, даже правящие, увы, не могут оказать решающего воздействия на политику своих стран. Поэтому мое обращение к ним с призывами по данному вопросу было бы малоэффективным.
In the today’s political system, royal houses, even ones that reign, cannot, alas, exert any decisive influence on the policies of their countries. Therefore any appeals I might make to them about this matter would not be of any help. Of course, in communicating with my royal relatives, I will try to familiarize them with all the aspects of the problem and I will ask them to use all their influence to prevent any escalation of the conflict between Russia and Europe. Many of them were together with me and George in Crimea in September of last year, at the invitation of the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, for the celebration of the 400th anniversary of the House of Romanoff. They met with the Speaker of the Supreme Council, Vladimir Konstantinov, and with other Crimean leaders, and they know firsthand about the life of the people of Crimea. But more than anything else, I am counting on the common sense of Western politicians and on the expression of public opinion among the peoples of Western countries. Everyone would suffer from the resumption of the “Cold War,” and, possibly, the losses and damages to Russia would be less than for others.
Luigi Giuliano de Anna (born 3 August 1946 in Giovinazzo, Italy) is an Italian so-called “cultural historian” who works as a professor of Italian language and culture at the University of Turku (Finland); in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
De Anna’s university has a terrible reputation because it has been infected by the Denial for profit movement. De Anna’s colleague, senile Jyrki Kauppinen, decided to join the shameless, oil-financed gang of climate deniers who founded “Clexit”. Climate Exit (Clexit); a climate change denial group formed shortly after the UK’s decision to leave the EU. According to Clexit’s founding statement:
The world must abandon this suicidal Global Warming crusade. One does not and cannot control the climate.
Climate deniers have managed to get their dung papers “published” in inferior journals, and now they are activating their anti-science propaganda machine and their web of amateur denier trolls around the world. Climate deniers are so ignorant when they send their junk around in their echo chambers of idiot denier blogs, their right wing biased conspiracy sites and anti-science tribe catering ultra conservative libertarian propaganda outlets poorly drag-queened as “newspapers”.
SMOM yes-men
The university has also been infected by SMOM yes-men, like De Anna, pretending that the SMOM and the members of the so-called “alliance” descend from the original Order of Saint John, or Knights Hospitaller; a chivalric order of the Crusades and early modern period:
“Professor” De Anna in: Knights of Fantasy: An Overview, History, and Critique of the Self-styled ‘Orders’ Called ‘of Saint John’ Or ‘of Malta’, in Denmark and Other Nordic Countries by Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard
De Anna tells the reader a shameful lie. Neither the SMOM, nor the members of the “Alliance” can legitimately claim descent from the original Crusader order, because the Order was abolished on 11 August 1790. The SMOM was formed in 1879 by Pope Leo XIII.
The Alliance consists of the following self-styled Orders. None of them has anything to do with the Knights Hospitaller, although they falsely claim otherwise:
The Johanniterorden (Balley Brandenburg des Ritterlichen Ordens Sankt Johannis vom Spital zu Jerusalem), or the “Bailiwick of Brandenburg of the Chivalric Order of Saint John of the Hospital of Jerusalem” formed 1852, based in Germany, as well as the non-German commanderies affiliated with the Bailiwick of Brandenburg, of which four have an autonomous status:
the Johanniter Ridderskapet i Finland, based in Finland,
the Association des Chevaliers de St. Jean, based in France,
the Kommende der Johanniterritter in der Schweiz, based in Switzerland, and
the Johannita Rend Magyar Tagozata, based in Hungary.
The Johanniter Orde in Nederland, formed in 1909, based in The Netherlands.
The Johanniterorden i Sverige, formed in 1920, based in Stockholm, Sweden.
The Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem, based in the United Kingdom, started as a fake order in the 1830’s but gained a royal charter in 1888.
An American judge has put it correctly in a sentence against the SMOM:
The amounts of money each party has raised for charitable purposes are unimpressive, which leads the Court to believe that the members of both SMOM (…) are more interested in dressing up in costumes, conferring titles on each other and playing in a ‘weird world of princes and knights’ than in performing charitable acts.
For the genuine Knights Hospitaller, the French Revolution was the beginning of the end. On 17 March 1790, all Church property in France began to be sold, be it buildings, lands, endowments, or moveable goods—a death blow to the commanderies of the Knights Hospitaller. On 11 August 1790, the National Assembly “decreed that those tithes possessed by secular and religious bodies, including the Maltese and other religious and military orders, were to be abolished;” in a single moment, most of the Knights’ revenue disappeared. The seizure of goods and endowments included the commandery of Manosque, the spiritual heart of the Knights Hospitaller and the burial place of Gerard, founder of the Order, including a lamp that had been maintained for centuries.
The Revolution gutted the Knights’ power base—those Knights who left France for Malta left without wealth or income to bring with them, and those who stayed ceased to be Knights. While financially devastating, the revolutionary disdain for the Knights Hospitaller also removed the protection, support, and training opportunities the French had provided them. The Knights’ best sailors had trained in the French fleet; French aristocratic families had provided the surest source of new knights in addition to some half of their total number; and the French fleet had routinely worked alongside the Knights in their various Mediterranean campaigns.
Sources
Roderick Cavaliero, The Last of the Crusaders: The Knights of St John and Malta in the Eighteenth Century (London: Hollis & Carter, 1960), 6 (for the decline in crusading spirit and opportunity) and 11 (for the number of French knights–3 “Tongues” were in France: Provence, Auvergne, and France, with 272 commanderies, equaling roughly half the total number of Knights Hospitaller).
Frederick W. Ryan, ‘The House of the Temple’: A Study of Malta and its Knights in the French Revolution (London: Burns Oates and Washbourne Limited, 1930), 174.
Al-Jabarti’s History of Egypt. Edited with an introduction by Jane Hathaway. Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers, 2009.
Cavaliero, Roderick. The Last of the Crusaders. The Knights of St John and Malta in the Eighteenth Century. London: Hollis & Carter, 1960.
Cole, Juan. Napoleon’s Egypt. Invading the middle East. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007.
Scicluna, Joe. Malta Surrendered. Valletta, Malta: Allied Publications, 2011.
Testa, Carmel. The French in Malta 1798-1800. Valletta, Malta: Midsea Books, Ltd., 1997.
Sainty’s armorial bookplate shows the membership insignia of the (Spanish) Order of St. Januarius: a false claim.
Look how proud the wannabee is. Most medal collectors are nobodies who bought their bling-bling for a few hundred Dollars. Parnevu Sainty is no exception. He thinks that his bought medals are an indication of wealth and status. All his medals are ostentatious possessions, with no real value.
The Illustrious Royal Order of Saint Januarius (Italian: Insigne Real Ordine di San Gennaro) is a Roman Catholic order of knighthood founded by Charles VII of Naples in 1738. It was the last great dynastic order to be constituted as a chivalric fraternity, with a limitation to Roman Catholics and a direct attachment to the dynasty rather than the state. The founder of the order, Charles VII of Naples, ruled from 1734 until 1759.
On 3 August 2016, Sainty falsely added his own name to Wikipedia’s membership list of the Knights of the Order of Saint Januarius. Sainty (born 9 December 1950) claims that he became a Knight of the Order of Saint Januarius on 19 September 1979, when he was only 28 years old, which is totally impossible.
The Order’s membership consists of only one rank of Knight. The Order is rarely bestowed and consists of a maximum of twenty worthy gentlemen professing the Catholic Faith. Membership is traditionally drawn from the Royal Families of Europe and the high aristocracy of the Two Sicilies. Princes of the Royal House of Bourbon Two Sicilies are considered “supernumerary” knights. Plumber-son Sainty was never part of this elite.
Sainty’s urge to be surrounded by royalty is absurd. He thinks that his reputation improves when he, being the son of a plumber, is surrounded by royalty and nobility. The opposite is true. The plumber’s son defames the genuine members of the Order of Saint Januarius. Sainty is still suffering from an identity crisis and is most likely to come from a stressful or chaotic home. He identifies closely with royalty and nobility but will always be despised by the elite.
Oftentimes, identity crises or other mental health issues can arise due to major life stressors. These stressors do not have to be inherently bad, but they can still cause a lot of stress, which makes Sainty question who he is and what he values. One recent study found that factors such as social support, stress levels, and health issues could all influence the development of an often-called midlife crisis.
Gabriel Zammit runs an imbecile Facebook-group, called: “Against the false orders of Malta/No ai finti ordini di Malta“. Zammit is a sofa seller in Malta and “Vice Delegate” of the self-procaimed “Russian Nobility Assembly (delegation of Malta)”. The surname Zammit is most frequently occurring in Malta, where it is carried by 9,900 people, or 1 in 43.
Zammit’s self-styled “Russian Nobility Assembly”
Zammit caught with some local tart. Zammit’s ancestors are Muslims, which Zammit tries to cover up with exaggerated religious behavior. The Arab period in Maltese history is peculiar because “no other period of Maltese history is so fraught with admitted or hidden psychological complexes, with unconscious fears and hates that imaginary skeletons in the national cupboard should become common property to the delight and scorn of all.” (Malta : studies of its heritage and history. Valletta: Mid-Med Bank, 1986. p.87-104).
The “Russian Nobility Assembly” is a hollow shell, which was established in Malta on 26 February 2018. The objective of Zammit’s “Assembly” is to “revive the greatness of Imperial Russia and to preserve its cultural, historical and spiritual heritage by uniting the descendants of the Russian noble families and other individuals who wish to carry its values“. The Grand Duchess Maria is the “protector” and “high patron” of the Russian Nobility Assembly. She has been a claimant to the headship of the Imperial Family of Russia (who reigned as Emperors and Autocrats of All the Russias from 1613 to 1917) since 1992. Although she has used Grand Duchess of Russia as her title of pretence with the style Imperial Highness throughout her life, her right to do so is heavily disputed. Prince Dimitri Romanov, said of Maria’s assumption of titles, including “de jure Empress of all the Russians”, that “It seems that there are no limits to this charade“. Zammit is a puppet in this ridiculous pantomime.
Zammit’s pseudo knowledge
Zammit quotes Matthew 6:1, which shows that our inner person, including our motivations, is actually more important than actions. The message is not that what we do is unimportant, but that improper motives turn otherwise good deeds into selfishness. This applies very well to Zammit’s personal attacks on members of the upper class.
Zammit calls HIRH Archduke Sandor Habsburg-Lothringen a “genuine count” who is not entitled to the title “archduke”. His sugar daddy, Guy Stair Sainty, makes the same dumb mistake. The truth is different. Archduke (feminine archduchess) is a title, proper in modern times for members of the house of Habsburg. The title of archduke Palatine (Pfalz-Erzherzog) was first assumed by Rudolf IV, Duke of Austria (1339-1365) in the hope of gaining for the dukes of Austria an equal status with the electors of the Holy Roman Empire. The emperor Charles IV refused to recognize the title, and it was not juridically held by the Habsburgs until 1453, when the emperor Frederick III, a Habsburg, confirmed Rudolf ’s privilege and granted the title of archduke of Austria to his son Maximilian and his heirs. All males of the house of Habsburg bore this title; their daughters and wives were archduchesses. The title of archduke or archduchess of Austria also occurred in the royal style of the Bourbon kings and queens of Spain, though they were not descended in the male line from their Habsburg predecessors.
Sandor Habsburg-Lothringen spent his youth in Austria, the Dominican Republic, and Antigua W.I. He graduated with a degree in Mechanical Engineering in the USA with a focus on environmental protection and alternative Energy. His professional life has taken him from his work as a research engineer, where he received several patents, through consultancy, entrepreneurship and from the founding of several companies to his philanthropic work with his wife Herta Margarete. Today, he is on the board of several companies and organizations. Together with his wife he is a trustee of the Association for Furtherance Peace in Vienna, Austria with peace related activities in more than 70 countries.
On 11 September 2021, HIRH Prince Sandor Habsburg-Lothringen, Archduke of Austria, Prince of Tuscany, accepted the patronage of the Order of Saint Stanislaus, a private charitable organisation. Although claiming to follow the “code of chivalry”, the Order of Saint Stanislaus acknowledges itself as a recently founded private organisation without fount of honour, not claiming to be an order of chivalry.
Sandor Habsburg-Lothringen was born in Vienna Austria, on 13 February 1965, to Dominic Habsburg-Lothringen, Archduke of Austria and Verginia Engel von Voss. He is a direct descendent of Maria Theresa – Empress of Austria, Catherine the Great – Empress of Russia, and of Queen Victoria of Great Britain.
Guy Stair Sainty’s barbarous response
Guy Stair Sainty’s response to the event was barbarously. Mr. Nobody insulted His Highness very rudely:
In Guy Stair Sainty’s personality, the persistence of an archaic, grandiose, and omnipotent sense of self is a necessary condition for his pathological manifestations of envy. As a vital element to his mental equilibrium, Stair Sainty must feel or believe that he is entitled to all that is good and valuable.
Given that Guy Stair Sainty depends on an external source of support (praise and admiration by his infantile groupies) for his sense of emotional equilibrium, his “self” becomes envious by the realization in (or projection onto) others (or objects) of the qualities he imagines unique in himself. Inevitably, Sainty experiences each of his envied objects’ successes or attributes as a challenge, and, at times, as a mortal injury to his sense of self.
Bacon, in his ninth essay, Of Envy, considered such “affection” as belonging to “a man that hath no virtue in himself.” In his keen observations, he noted four broad categories of envious individuals: “deformed persons, and eunuchs, and old men”; those who “rise after calamities and misfortunes”; those who “desire to excel in too many matters, out of levity and vain glory”; and “near kinsfolks, and fellows in office”. Sainty perfectly fits into the first category.
Sainty’s low-class origin
Social class is predictive of the frequency of Sainty’s swearing. An investigation of the British National Corpus, a massive collection of written and spoken English from a wide range of sources, found that lower working class speakers, like Sainty, swore significantly more than speakers from higher social classes.
Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint George in Carinthia
According to the Sainty-genealogy, that I downloaded from Wikipedia, Guy Stair Sainty is the son of Christopher Lawrence Sainty. Sainty grew up in the working-class streets of Swallowfield Slough Road, Datchet, Buckinghamshire, England. His family lived in the Sewage Works, Old Windsor, Berkshire.
Parts of Windsor were incredibly foul in mid-Victorian times, according to a Poor Law authority report dated 1842, and a report to the General Board of Health in 1849. An intolerable stench arose from black stagnant ditches, some houses had no drainage and several houses forming one row had two storeys below the level of the street. Portions of the lower regions of the town constituted one vast cesspool into which all the privies discharged. There was no main sewerage system until 1852 and the prevalence of ‘fevers’ is easily explained. The connection between water supply and health was not understood. As late as 1900, Dr Bulstrode lectured the council and officers on housing and sanitation, including the need to clear filth from around houses, and his report following the Government enquiry into sanitary conditions in Windsor at that time is a remarkable document. The works appear to have been often in appalling condition. One report in 1912 refers to the steam plant being extended to the limit, and to the machinery shaking the buildings and being unable to meet the demand, a chronic condition, especially on washdays in the summer and when gardeners were busy watering their plants.
Sainty’s father made money as a ragpicker by buying “antiques” in England and selling these in the United States. It is correct to designate Sainty as the plumber-knight.
Sainty is not a real knight, but a member of the “Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint George in Carinthia” (Sovrano Militare Ospedaliero Ordine di San Giorgio in Carinzia). The original, geneuine order was created in the Austrian province of Carinthia in 1273 and was revived by Italian conmen in the mid-20th Century. In a work entitled ‘L’Ordine di San Giorgio in Carinzia’ published in Rome in 1975 the author, Luciano Pelliccioni di Poli (see below) styles himself ‘Conte di Montecocullo, Gran Cancelliere dell’Ordine’. A later edition of the work has the title ‘L’Ordine Sovrano Militare Ospedaliero di San Giorgio in Carinzia’. In Carinthia, as in many other parts of Eastern Europe, traditionally it is upon St George’s Day that winter ends and the earth is reborn, accompanied by many rites and festivities. The current status, purpose and composition of the pseudo Order are not known, but it is believed that Sainty is one of the last surviving ‘knights’.
Sainty’s Real Curriculum Vitae
I have published before about Guy Stair Sainty’s background:
MR GUY STAIR SAINTY will not remember me, but I do remember him as a self important pompous young man of humble origin, yet desperate to climb the social ladder from the very bottom to the very top.
He showed signs of delusions of grandeur, much to the amusement of fellow onlookers in SMOM who (though many have since died) still peer down the ladder at him, stuck someway below the rungs of the first quarter! That is where he will remain, he will certainly never be admitted to SMOM (the scandal of the headed paper was enough alone!). Some of the British Association SMOM paper disappeared. On paper a statement appeared saying that SMOM did not recognise the Constantinian Order of the Duke of Castro but the Duke is a very senior member of SMOM, with the highest rank of Bailiff Grand Cross of honour and Devotion and the Cross of Profession, of which the only other holder is the King of Spain.
hbbrown49 made an excellent posting in this forum on Wed, Jun 27 2001 5:37 pm headed Canonising Stair Sainty, Which summed the man up to a tee, at least the young Sainy I had encountered so many years before. He observed … an arrogant and pompous ass, ill-mannered, a hater and mocker, incapable of argument, ignorant of the wider Christian world, a lover of braying, disliked by others, even members of his own Orders, many of whom sip champagne with him at the reception, but then, fearful of provoking him, leave to snicker quietly in the next room. Sainty’schivalric “friends” keep him at a distance because they know that he is an intolerant scoffer, one who laughs at the efforts of others and who has the gall to taunt his own “friends” when they indulge in Orders he hates.
Mr Sainty; Mr Stair-Sainty; “Baron” Guy Stair de Carnazet Sainty; “His Excellency” or “Ecc.mo. Sr.” “Don”!!! Guy Stair Sainty, as he been variously described, is indeed an expert on false Orders.
He himself founded the absurd Confederation of Christian Chivalry with Fernando Crociani. Crociani’s current position as knight of SMOM will not be helped by his links to Mr Sainty or the fact that some time ago, the two of them were associated with diplomas which mysteriously appeared bearing the name of Sainy, but elevated to the style of Baron!
Mr Sainty’s close associate, Fernando Crociani, like Mr Sainty has been the beneficiary of marriage annulments, in the case of the later, two, annulled by the Sacra Rota. The second to a pianist resulting in considerable scandal, well known in both Rome and in Lazio. Mr Crocianiuses the style of Professor, Count and Noble, but it is not known what the origins of these styles are. It is only known that he is an employee of the “Confcommercio” of Roma, the merchants trade-union.
Mr Sainty’s partner Mr Crociani was admitted in the SMOM, as knight of grace and devotion (100 years of nobility) in 1983. But recently the heraldry commission of the Rome Grand Priorat SMOM began re-examining his nobility evidences after discovering that he – even if his last name is CROCIANI – altered his anagraphical documents, in order to attach his short genealogy to the family named CRUCIANI, which is properly noble.
Mr Crociani is also linked to the neofascist movement “Ordine Nuovo” http://www.ctv.es/USERS/aje/octubre04.htm on whose website members are seen giving nazi style salutes and seated under posters promoting their counterpart M. le Penn, from France, which is also now Mr Sainty’s country of residence.
At the time of his close collaboration with Mr Crociani, as a young man, Sainty was also known to Luciano Pellicioni.
Pellicioni never married and was never accused of the slightest indiscretion with a woman. Fond of the company of young males, the nineteen year old Sainty appears to have had an intimate enough friendship with Pellicioni for him to have been invested (and to have accepted) the totally false Order of S. Giorgio in Carinzia. Whilst it is unusual for a boy of this age to be invested in any order, false or otherwise, he nevertheless had qualities (which had been hidden from the rest of us at the time) to impress Pellicioni sufficiently for him to be granted the rank of Grand Officer. In the International Herald Tribune in the Services section under ARISTOCRAT NOBILITY and Titles, features an advertisement offering to sell titles and nobility. The reply was the name and address of Mr Guy Stair Sainty. How is this?
The comic Coat of Arms Mr Sainty uses today are not the ones he was born with, they are his own creation. The Granting of arms by the King of Arms of Margud de la Floresta to Mr Sainty is quite impossible. The power to issue arms was restricted to cities or towns, not individuals. If I am not mistaken the Spanish State Council (Supreme Court) said in 1995 that arms could not be issued in this way to private persons. It was ruled that this power never existed and as a consequence these arms cannot be used.
The arms are quite absurd, they use the mantle of a duke, although I have only seen Mr Sainty falsely elevated to the rank of Count. The arms feature some orders of which Mr Sainty is a low ranking member, none are of the rank of Grand Cross. A strange combination with the ducal mantle.
Mr Sainty is no stranger to denouncing people but then claiming that he was wrong. Mr Sainty denounced and then grovelled to and fully accepted the silly claim of the so-called MacCarthy Mor, Prince of Desmond. In a letter of 12 June 1997. He stated… I full and unreservedly accept that you have established your right to the title of MacCarthy Mor, and the tradition and style of Prince of Desmond…..with all the surviving rights that such title implies…. I want to make it clear that any sentiments to the contrary that may be attributed to me in any communication bearing my signature or elsewhere do not reflect my true opinion.
In the Constantinian Order the Grand master is said to be fed up with Sainty and looking for an excuse to dump him. It will not be a shock if he is gone soon, just awaiting the appropriate excuse.
It is known that Sainty announced the marriage of Don Carlos’s son, Prince Don Pedro, without permission and that he made a real scandal when he tried to contact the Prince Antonio in order to manoeuvre the Grand Majestry of the Constantinian Order his way. He was said to have claimed that Don Carlos would renounce everything and cease to be Duke of Calabria. Prince Antonio refused and Don Carlo was said to be enraged by this ungentlemanly plot.
Mr Sainty describes himself as a scholar, but to the best of my knowledge has, or had no academic qualifications? He needs to be treated with a large pinch of salt. he is a mocker and spiteful individual who actions and words betray the fact that he cannot be taken seriously.
The limits to which Mr Sainty will go to be near those of rank knows no bounds, even association with the notorious sorceress Carima (well known trickster) and her drunk son is not too much to get close to the King Kigeli of Rwanda-Urundi at the “ballo dei cento e non più cento”, http://www.ancestraltraditions.org/ballocento2005/carima.htm
The 17th-century painting, “The Rape of Tamar,” was legitimately owned by a Jewish art dealer, Siegfried Aram. The Metropolitan Museum of Art (Met) in New York has announced it will alter the artwork’s provenance to reflect his ownership.
The evidence was uncorked by German researcher Joachim Peter who discovered that Aram, who passed away in 1978, attempted to reclaim his painting for more than a decade after the Holocaust. Court records show that Aram alleged that his neighbor Oskar Sommer stole the painting after he sold his house to Sommer. The Met bought the painting in an auction in 1984 via Guy Stair Saintyas he confessed in the New York Times recently. The provenance notes that the painting was bought by Aram in Britain in the mid-1920s until it was passed down “to Sommer as a contested part of his purchase of Aram’s villa in Schapbach, Germany.”. Sainty’s 2017 provenance was false.
World Jewish Congress President Ronald S. Lauder has been a fierce advocate and leader of the restitution movement for Nazi-looted art. In June of 2016, President Lauder testified in front of a Senate committee about ensuring Holocaust victims’ rights to recover art confiscated from them during the Holocaust, calling the theft “probably the greatest in history,” and referring to the stolen art as “the final prisoners of World War II.”
Later that month, President Lauder voiced his displeasure with the results of an investigation alleging that the German state of Bavaria sold over 10,000 Nazi-looted art to high-ranking Nazi officials, rather than returning the art to its rightful Jewish owners, describing the allegations as “absolutely shocking” and “a great slap in the face to the victims of the Holocaust and their families.” President Lauder called for the efforts to be “made to ensure that the families of the rightful heirs to be fully compensated or receive full restitution of the property.”
Art and cultural property crime—which includes theft, fraud, looting, and trafficking across state and international lines—is a looming criminal enterprise with estimated losses in the billions of dollars annually. To recover these precious pieces—and to bring these criminals to justice—the FBI has a dedicated Art Crime Team of 20 special agents, supported by DOJ trial attorneys for prosecutions. The Bureau also runs the National Stolen Art File, a computerized index of reported stolen art and cultural properties for the use of law enforcement agencies across the world. (Source: Nazi-looted art).
Defaming Lady Diana’s family
Since Sainty’s low-class genealogy has been exposed, the Plumber-Knight Sainty thinks that he is in a position to ridicule the family tree of the Earls Spencer:
The Spencer family is an aristocratic family in the United Kingdom. Founded in the 15th century, it has spawned numerous aristocratic titles including the dukedom of Marlborough, the earldoms of Sunderland and Spencer, and the Churchill barony. Two prominent members of the family during the 20th century were Sir Winston Churchill and Diana, Princess of Wales; a different social class than the Plumber-Knight’s family.
Stair Sainty selling a controversial Degas sculpture
The model for Degas’ sculpture ‘Little Dancer’ was ballet student Marie Van Goethem. Degas first made a wax of her in the nude. Then, aiming for a naturalistic effect, he dressed it in clothing made of real fabrics. When the wax sculpture was first exhibited, contemporaries were shocked by the unprecedented realism of the piece. But they were also moved by the work’s representation of the pain and stress of ballet training endured by a barely adolescent girl. After Degas’ death, his heirs decided to make bronze casts of the wax original (around 1922).
In 2017, Stair Sainty claimed that a bronze cast of the original – as first exhibited at the impressionist exhibition in Paris, 1881 – has ‘resurfaced’. Sainty’s dancer looks more childlike and less elegant than the original sculpture in the Tate Museum.
However, Edgar Degas never worked exclusively in wax, much less cast in bronze. Additionally, Edgar Degas expressly stated his intentions during his lifetime that he did -not- want to cast in bronze. Furthermore, Edgar Degas never signed his original lifetime mixed-media sculptures. More details can be obtained here.
What is highly alarming, is the fact that Sainty’s Little Dancer is less elegant than the original sculpture. Often forgers will go to great lengths to reproduce the materials and processes, or the appearance, of the appropriate historical period. Manufacturing processes leave telltale marks, such as casting where there may be some ‘flash’ or extra metal as a result of the molten material flowing into a small gap between moulds.
Debunking the fake hunters 