Martin Goldstraw, who makes a living as a copywriter, claims to have his “Knighhood” from “S. A. R. Don Carlos de Borbón-Dos Sicilias y de Borbón-Parma, Duque de Calabria, Conde de Caserta, Infante de España”. Outside the generally recognized line of grand masters from its origin in the 17th century to the present day, there have been many people claiming to be grand masters who have been forgers and title-seekers hoping to gain support for invented lines of descent from ancient and medieval nobility. “S. A. R. Don Carlos de Borbón-Dos Sicilias y de Borbón-Parma, Duque de Calabria, Conde de Caserta, Infante de España”, who “spontaneously” gave Martin his medal, is one of them. Another famous self-proclaimed “Grandmaster” of the Constantinian Order is Stefan Cernetic, a 63-year-old Italian conman who was arrested in 2017 and charged with fraud and document forgery, after it was revealed that he had been posing as a member of the Montenegro Royal Family for years. His con was so elaborate that he had even managed to fool many real royals and celebrities.
Goldstraw and The Sacred Military Constantinian Order of St George
(too old to reply)
silverdollar
16 years ago
Permalink
Why does Mr Goldstraw insist he is Knighted when he is clearly not
under the Laws of England and Scotland. Did HM confer a Knighthood on
him? Since when did membership of what appears to be a mere
‘masonic’ (and I use that term loosely, no offence to members of the
fraternity) order allude to Knighthood.
I find it distubring how Goldstraw and Plowman seem to dominate the
groups here, same as they do on the HSS boards and back one another up
to the hilt, no matter what rubbish Goldstraw is currently spewing
forth. Goldstraw’s claim to a TD was clearly an abuse of the Heraldic
traditions of Scotland and an attempt to make himself appear of the
peerage. He is in reality no better than anyone else.
As has been already stated of him by another and it’s worth quoting:
“Mr Goldstraw has assumed a TD on the basis of a now worthless piece
of paper referred to as a “superiority” and changed his name to
reflect that in a sort of DIY approach in order, he hopes, to
challenge Lord Lyon’s refusal to approve his self-assumed TD in an
appeal the Court of Session. For this reason, as he has stated
himself, it is essential that he uses his new name with its assumed TD
at all times. He can therefore not be compared to anyone with a real
TD and it is absurd for you to pretend otherwise.”
Regardless of this he assumes an air or superiority and attempts with
the help of Plowman (who backs him to the hilt) to run anyone off the
HSS who does not agree with him or dares to make a comment. I
consider neither of those two to be gentlemen and I find it extremely
ironic that they (both being Englishman) dominate the HSS and put this
down to crass commercialisation. Do not be fooled by this comedy duo
act.
I urge any true Scottish Armgier to withdraw from the HSS since in no
way does it, or those two, represent Scottish Heraldry.
Jamie in Scotland
16 years ago
Permalink
…
I consider the whole thing an outrage and abhor Martin Goldstraw’s
condescending attitude. Thanks for posting this. Just this week he
was telling someone off on that board and now claims (I must parphrase
here) that a new Scottish grant is worth no more than assumed arms in
other countries. This however did not stop Mr. Goldstraw
matriculating his English arms in Scotland. His haughty tones and
evidenced pretentions really are unsettling. I also note that
whenever anyone comments on anything he posts anywhere Plowman is
quick to jump to his defence.
m***@btinternet.com
16 years ago
Permalink
…
Aha, a bus-load of anonymous trolls has arrived. How jolly.
MA-R
Andrew Chaplin
16 years ago
Permalink
<snipped tag-team trollery>
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Aha, a bus-load of anonymous trolls has arrived. How jolly.
Another two overpasses collapsed in Quebec and they had to seek situations
elsewhere.
—
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you’re going to e-mail me, you’ll have to get “yourfinger.” out.)
m***@btinternet.com
16 years ago
Permalink
…
Gentlemen tend not to make anonymous public statements. Are you
ashamed of what you have said?
Jamie in Scotland
16 years ago
Permalink
…
What’s that supposed to mean? No shame on my part. Goldstraw on the
other hand should be rightly assumed of his actions and false claims.
Jamie in Scotland
16 years ago
Permalink
…
Ah I see I thought you were talking collectively to both posters by
the use of the word ‘gentlemen’. Anyway would you rather that no one
commented at all on Goldstraw or any other person who assumes whatever
he pleases and flaunts the Heraldic laws of my nation. He has no more
right to call himself Sir than anyone else who has not been Knighted
by Her Majesty. His order ranks about the same (if even as OSJ) and
no
Your reasoning would suit Goldstraw and Plowman, they’d much rather no
one rocked the boat or pointed the finger at Goldstraw’s outpourings
and bogus claims which make him appear of the peerage. Go on accuse
me of being ungentlemanly, I may well be but I am no imposter
flaunting a bogus Knighthood – that is afterall what Goldstraw and
Plowman like to do (resort to insults of who is a acting like a
gentleman and who is not), is it not? Pot calling the kettle black-
arse…
Neither of them in my opinion qualify as gentlemen. Now may I beg
your indulgence to allow me to speak and agree with a poster who has
the measure of Mr. Goldstraw.
Guy Stair Sainty
16 years ago
Permalink
In article <***@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Jamie in
Scotland says…
Post by Jamie in Scotland
Neither of them in my opinion qualify as gentlemen. Now may I beg
your indulgence to allow me to speak and agree with a poster who has
the measure of Mr. Goldstraw.
None of your waffle explains why you are to cowardly to publish your proper
name, instead of the rather stilly “Jamie in Scotland”. When you do so, perhaps
people might consider your comments worth considering.
—
Guy Stair Sainty
http://www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Nenad M. Jovanovich
16 years ago
Permalink
It was about time you started another mud fight here. It was becoming
rather boring around here…
It seems it’s Martin’s turn…
Well, nothing new here. Use your imagination a bit more, please! Why
not trying of accusing him of cannibalism or something?
But the connection between the Constantinian and masonry is news to
me. Could you elaborate on that one?
silverdollar је написао
…
s***@blueyonder.co.uk
16 years ago
Permalink
…
Once again rec.heraldry and some of its members have made personal
attacks on users to this and other Heraldic forums, there seems to be
personal vendettas against certain people, and I for one think it is
about time that this deplorable behaviour should stop.
This is supposed to be a forum for heraldry not a forum for attacking
people, it just shows how mindless people can act and could eventually
scare everybody away from all heraldry forums.
Turenne
16 years ago
Permalink
I understand that Mr Goldstraw was awarded the status of “Caballero de
Jure Sanguinis, D’ Onore Moto Proprio.” I don’t believe that he
precedes his name with the the title ‘Sir’ though I suppose
technically he could use the title ‘cavaliere.’
Richard Lichten
Nenad M. Jovanovich
16 years ago
Permalink
People trying to slander and spit at people here should be aweare of
this clear statement made by Marting Goldstraw a long time ago now:
”Just for the purposes of clarity, I have never introduced myself,
nor will I ever introduce myself as “Sir [Knight] Martin Goldstraw”. I
am not a “SIR”.”
http://heraldry-scotland.com/HSSforum/viewtopic.php?t=382&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=50
So, is there any need to spell this for those who launch personal
attacks here again and again?
Turenne је написао
Post by Turenne
I understand that Mr Goldstraw was awarded the status of “Caballero de
Jure Sanguinis, D’ Onore Moto Proprio.” I don’t believe that he
precedes his name with the the title ‘Sir’ though I suppose
technically he could use the title ‘cavaliere.’
Richard Lichten
Jamie in Scotland
16 years ago
Permalink
…
Bogus titles are not allowed or recognised in British Law, only the
Queen can confer honours. He had no problem assuming the fake TD name
‘of Goldstraw’, which gives the appearance of a TD or even alludes to
him being of the peerage. We have a saying in Scotland that goes “if
you fly wit the craws, then you’ll get shot down with the craws.’
People like you are quick to jump to his defence because frankly you
are as bogus and made up as he is. I’ve saw your arms Mr. Jovanovich.
Nenad M. Jovanovich
16 years ago
Permalink
Sorry, Mr Mack Wilson,
But I lack imagination to see any connection to my arms in this
matter.
Could you enlighten me, or is this in connection with masonry too?
Jamie in Scotland је написао
…
Jamie in Scotland
16 years ago
Permalink
…
Up the wrong tree. No pun intended.
Jamie in Scotland
16 years ago
Permalink
Post by Turenne
I understand that Mr Goldstraw was awarded the status of “Caballero de
Jure Sanguinis, D’ Onore Moto Proprio.” I don’t believe that he
precedes his name with the the title ‘Sir’ though I suppose
technically he could use the title ‘cavaliere.’
Richard Lichten
Could he really? That’s news to the rest of us that bogus foreign
Knighthoods actually have any bearing on the arms of British
subjects. As it happens they don’t and yet on his arms he displays
this gong. He has no right to call himself with such a courtesy
title.
s***@blueyonder.co.uk
16 years ago
Permalink
…
Funny that Jamie in Scotland is posting from the same IP address as
the racist bigot that posted on the HSS website.
Jamie in Scotland
16 years ago
Permalink
…
Complete and utter garbage.
s***@blueyonder.co.uk
16 years ago
Permalink
…
How would you know, your as bright as a blackout, we know who you are
and who is feeding
you with your information, you better get a rag to wipe the crap
coming from your mouth.
Jamie in Scotland
16 years ago
Permalink
…
Lovely, that’s gentlemanly behaviour and language. You are exposed
Goldstraw of no TD. Give it up.
s***@blueyonder.co.uk
16 years ago
Permalink
On Mar 18, 10:00 pm, “Jamie in Scotland”
…
Just for your information it is NOT Mr Goldstraw.
Jamie in Scotland
16 years ago
Permalink
…
Then you are obviously Plowman, his comedy side-kick who is eager to
defend him at any moment.
s***@blueyonder.co.uk
16 years ago
Permalink
On Mar 18, 10:05 pm, “Jamie in Scotland”
…
And not Mr Plowman either, your location is Texas and your ISP is
Southwestern Bell.
Jamie in Scotland
16 years ago
Permalink
…
I couldn’t cre less who you are. You are one of those two though and
very English. Is that racist is it to call you English and ask why
you are so keen on degrading and dominating Scottish Heraldry? Big
deal really! Is that meant to intimidate me or something? You can
find out a lot of things on the web it’s bo big deal. Makes no
difference to me. I am not the imposter here or the person who
dominates boards and attempts to browbeat others down. Complete and
utter bs. Regularly you gang up on anyone who criticises your little
money making ‘enterprise’. You are a disgrace to Scottish Heraldry.
s***@blueyonder.co.uk
16 years ago
Permalink
On Mar 18, 10:20 pm, “Jamie in Scotland”
…
Would you like me to send you a rag for all that verbal diarrhoea, and
I am not English, I am Scottish, and you are the one who is a disgrace
not only to Heraldry but to Scotland.
Turenne
16 years ago
Permalink
Post by Turenne
He had no problem assuming the fake TD name ‘of Goldstraw’.
Since when has he used the TD name ‘of Goldstraw’? That’s his name.
Richard Lichten
LOL. Pathetic. Are you just plain out of touch with this?
You obviously are. ‘Whitecairns’ is his territorial designation.
RL
g***@yahoo.com
16 years ago
Permalink
I couldn’t care less who you are. You are one of those two though and very English.
========
I haven’t a dog in this fight …. but “scots_heral…..” is a born
and bred Scot who lives (way) north of the England/Scotland border.
–Guy Power
j***@fastmail.fm
16 years ago
Permalink
Look at http://www.iapsr.org – Latest Article – for one view of the use of
titles and honours.
Regarding gentlemanly behaviour, the following might give some
guidance to those who profess to be gentlemen.
Robert E Lee and cardinal Newman give some food for thought.
Short Definitions of a Gentleman
Anonymous
My definition of a gentleman would be one who considers other people’s
feelings, thoughts, situations and how what I do may affect them.
That would determine whether I consider myself to be a gentleman –
that I would be considering others.
I consider a gentleman or lady that person who would consider the
other person’s feelings, the other person’s reactions to what I do.
What I do probably doesn’t bother me at all; but if it bothers you, I
would not do it
Winston Churchill
At dinner one evening in Belgium
I know one when I see one
Robert. Edward Lee
The forbearing use of power does not only form a touchstone, but the
manner in which an individual enjoys certain advantages over others is
a test of a true gentleman.
The power which the strong have over the weak, the employer over the
employed, the educated over the unlettered, the experienced over the
confiding, even the clever over the silly–the forbearing or
inoffensive use of all this power or authority, or a total abstinence
from it when the case admits it, will show the gentleman in a plain
light
The gentleman does not needlessly and unnecessarily remind an offender
of a wrong he may have committed against him. He cannot only forgive,
he can forget; and he strives for that nobleness of self and mildness
of character which impart sufficient strength to let the past be but
the past. A true man of honor feels humbled himself when he cannot
help humbling others.
Cardinal Newman, from The Idea of a University
Hence it is that it is almost a definition of a gentleman to say that
he is one who never inflicts pain.
The true gentleman in like manner carefully avoids whatever may cause
a jar or a jolt in the minds of those with whom he is cast — all
clashing of opinion, or collision of feeling, all restraint, or
suspicion, or gloom, or resentment; his great concern being to make
every one at his ease and at home. He has his eyes on all his company;
he is tender towards the bashful, gentle towards the distant, and
merciful towards the absurd; he can recollect to whom he is speaking;
he guards against unseasonable allusions, or topics which may
irritate; he is seldom prominent in conversation, and never wearisome.
He is never mean or little in his disputes, never takes unfair
advantage, never mistakes personalities or sharp saying for arguments,
or insinuates evil which he dare not say out. From a long-sighted
prudence, he observes the maxim of the ancient sage, that we should
ever conduct ourselves towards our enemy as if he were one day to be
our friend. He has too much good sense to be affronted at insults, he
is too well employed to remember injuries
If he engages in controversy of any kind, his disciplined intellect
preserves him from the blundering discourtesy of better, perhaps, but
less educated minds; who, like blunt weapons, tear and hack instead of
cutting clean, who mistake the point in argument, waste their strength
on trifles, misconceive their adversary, and leave the question more
involved than they find it. He may be right or wrong in his opinion,
but he is too clear-headed to be unjust; he is as simple as he is
forcible, and as brief as he is decisive. Nowhere shall we find
greater candor, consideration, indulgence: he throws himself into the
minds of his opponents, he accounts for their mistakes. He knows the
weakness of human reason as well as its strength, its province and its
limits.
Mark Twain
A letter and a telegram came from a man who has made a will in
Missouri, leaving ten thousand dollars to provide tablets for various
libraries in the State, on which shall be inscribed Mark Twain’s
definition of a gentleman. He hasn’t got the definition-he has only
heard of it, and he wants me to tell him in which one of my books or
speeches he can find it. In which one of your works can we find the
definition of a gentleman?
“I never wrote any such definition, though it seems to me that if a
man has just, merciful, and kindly instincts he would be a gentleman,
for he would need nothing else in this world.”
1714 Steele, in the Tatler (No. 2(37), ” the appellation of Gentleman
is never to be affixed to a man’s circumstances, but to his behaviour
in them”
An old story, told by some, of the monarch who replied to a lady
petitioning him to make her son a gentleman, “I could make him a
nobleman, but God Almighty could not make him a gentleman.”
John A. Duncan
16 years ago
Permalink
Post by g***@yahoo.com
I couldn’t care less who you are. You are one of those two though and very English.
========
I haven’t a dog in this fight …. but “scots_heral…..” is a born
and bred Scot who lives (way) north of the England/Scotland border.
–Guy Power
I have had a few emails from people regarding the comments made here
to Jamie in Scotland, which incidentally is not his real name as
others have pointed out.
Some are under the impression that it is I who have been posting
remarks here. It was not.
If I were to make further comment on this person’s attitude towards
other people, I would have no hesitation in putting my name to it,
just as I have done, as some of you know, on the HSS forum and know
the reason why.
John A. Duncan of Sketraw.
Turenne
16 years ago
Permalink
He had no problem assuming the fake TD name ‘of Goldstraw’.
Since when has he used the TD name ‘of Goldstraw’? That’s his name.
Richard Lichten
Jamie in Scotland
16 years ago
Permalink
Post by Turenne
He had no problem assuming the fake TD name ‘of Goldstraw’.
Since when has he used the TD name ‘of Goldstraw’? That’s his name.
Richard Lichten
LOL. Pathetic. Are you just plain out of touch with this?
barrassie
16 years ago
Permalink
Post by Turenne
He had no problem assuming the fake TD name ‘of Goldstraw’.
Since when has he used the TD name ‘of Goldstraw’? That’s his name.
Richard Lichten
Before the Order of St Lazarus split under two Grandmasters, a number
of Knights of St Lazarus matriculated their Arms in Lyon Court Sir
Hanibal Scicluna after knighted by Queen Elizabeth received a grant of
Arms from Lord Lyon, a year or so later he became a Knight of St
Lazarus and was then stlyled Chevalier Sir Hanibal Scicluna and
mention made of his rank and office in St Lazarus in the Public
Register of all Arms and Bearings in Scotland, another Knight Grand
Cross of St Lazarus was styled His Excellency Chevalier Guy Coutant de
Saissaval with mention of his rank and office and he had granted/
matriculated for his chivalric status on a chief Argent a cross vert
for his chivalric status (the wording in the Public Register etc.),
see Vol II an Ordinary of Arms Lyon Office. I was informed many years
ago that before the split it seemed that the POrder pof St Lazarus was
going the same way towards full recognition as did a similar order
that of St John, which started up in the 19th century came under good
leadership did good works gained the membership of the then Princess
of Wales, after which St John obtained a Royal; Charter in 1888 having
previousl;y been a private raised order. Unfortunately the split in St
Lazarus stopped any further recognition, while having two seperate
Chanelours and GMs. Knigts of St John today receive rthe accolade of
Knighthood from Queen Elizabeth at Buckingham Palace.
CMKH
Tim Powys-Lybbe
16 years ago
Permalink
Knigts of St John today receive rthe accolade of Knighthood from Queen
Elizabeth at Buckingham Palace.
Isn’t this complete rubbish?
—
Tim Powys-Lybbe ***@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
barrassie
16 years ago
Permalink
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
Knigts of St John today receive rthe accolade of Knighthood from Queen
Elizabeth at Buckingham Palace.
Isn’t this complete rubbish?
—
For a miscellany of bygones:http://powys.org/
yr quote Isn’t this complete rubbish? Is it that you have not had the
honour ?
I gather that you have a very low opinion pof the Venerable Order of
St John a 19th century organisation which did excellent work and was
granted the Royal Charter 188 by Queen Victoria. Queen Elizabeth
invests the Knights with the acollade at Buckingham Palace. Her
Majesty is the Sovereign Head of the Order.
Tim Powys-Lybbe
16 years ago
Permalink
Post by barrassie
In message of 20 Mar, “barrassie”
Knigts of St John today receive rthe accolade of Knighthood from
Queen Elizabeth at Buckingham Palace.
Isn’t this complete rubbish?
yr quote Isn’t this complete rubbish?
You don’t have to repeat text on a posting to quite it. Just allow your
software to put in the quote marks and then type below the sentences you
wish to comment on.
Further you, or your software, should learn to cut out the sigs when you
reply: they are not part of the conversation!
Post by barrassie
Is it that you have not had the honour ?
Who ever said I chased honours or was in any way a man of honour?
Being honourable, which I may idly claim to, is not the same as and may
even be the opposite to, a person who goes after honours.
Post by barrassie
I gather that you have a very low opinion pof the Venerable Order of
St John a 19th century organisation which did excellent work and was
granted the Royal Charter 188 by Queen Victoria. Queen Elizabeth
invests the Knights with the acollade at Buckingham Palace. Her
Majesty is the Sovereign Head of the Order.
Are they knighted though?
There seems to be something rather odd here in that a private
organisation creates people to be ‘knights’ and then the sovereign goes
along and makes them a public knight. That has, as I remarked earlier,
to be complete rubbish.
By and large knighthoods in England are either in the gift of the
government or given directly by the sovereign as with Garter and
whatever level it is of the RVO. I did not know that any other
organisation had the power of conferring publicly recognised
knighthoods.
—
Tim Powys-Lybbe ***@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
16 years ago
Permalink
…
Tim
With the greatest respect the Most Venerable Order of St John is not a
“private organisation” as is neither the Order of the Garter or the
Order of the Bath or the Order of St Michael and St George. As has
already been said, the Venerable Order was created by a Royal Charter
promulgated by her late majesty Queen Victoria of blessed and glorious
memory. As such, and like the other Orders I have mentioned, it is an
incorporated body and as such can sue, be sued, own assets, etc.
Through its two “Great Foundations”, St John Ambulance and the St John
Ophthalmic Hospital, the Order of St John owns hospitals, headquarter
and local buildings, ambulance vehicles and equipment, etc., in many
countries through its National Priories as well as an investment
portfolio in excess of £100 million, the income from which goes to
fund the charitable and humanitarian work carried out by the Order.
It is a British Order of Chivalry, headed by the Sovereign of the day,
and makes awards in accordance with the terms of the Royal Charter.
The Venerable Order holds investitures four times a year at the Priory
Church where members are invested with their insignia by either the
Grand Prior or, more usually, by the Lord Prior.
On a less frequent basis a ceremony is held at Buckingham Palace in
which the Sovereign personally confers the accolade on Knights of the
Venerable Order of St John.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan SBStJ
Member, St John Council for London
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Editor – Cracroft’s Peerage
The Complete Guide to the British Peerage & Baronetage
http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk
======================================================
Tim Powys-Lybbe
16 years ago
Permalink
In message of 21 Mar, Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<***@heraldicmedia.com> wrote:
<snip>
Post by Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
On a less frequent basis a ceremony is held at Buckingham Palace in
which the Sovereign personally confers the accolade on Knights of the
Venerable Order of St John.
So we now have two votes that she does do this and two that she doesn’t.
It still strikes me as odd that the nomination for this ‘kighthood’ is
done by a non-government and non-sovereign organisation.
—
Tim Powys-Lybbe ***@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
j***@fastmail.fm
16 years ago
Permalink
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
It still strikes me as odd that the nomination for this ‘kighthood’ is
done by a non-government and non-sovereign organisation.
Tim Powys-Lybbe
One has to recognise that the nature of the Order of St John has
altered considerably since the advent of members of the Commonwealth
who no longer have the British sovereign as head of state, basically
since 1947.
In addition, St John does not fall within the government patronage
system, and I believe it never has been within the patronage system.
The use of “Sir” is very much a British thing, but many former British
Commonwealth countries, even with the Queen as head of state, no
longer permit their citizens to accept awards at “knighthood” level,
where the tile of “Sir” or “Lady” is used. Commanders etc are fine,
but not “Sirs”. This has been the case since the 1930s in Canada and
South Africa, while Australia made the break during the 1980s.
There is nothing illegal in any organisation referring to members as
knights or chevaliers, etc, but by convention in Britain the use of
“Sir” etc goes only with the following: Garter, Thistle, Bath,
Victorian Order, British Empire, Knights bachelor and baronets.
Knights od St John are still knights, but so are the Knights of Coi
\umbus. It is a grade within an organisation.
Turenne
16 years ago
Permalink
…
Also St Michael and St George and discontinued honours like the Star
of India
Richard Lichten
barrassie
16 years ago
Permalink
…
Knights of St ColumBanus are not Knights it is not a chivalric order,
they are perhaps similar to masonic Knights with the one exception
that is the masoNic Knightly order granted by HM The King of Sweden so
I have been informed. An organisation called Knights of the Road does
not make its members Knights.
For those who ae ignorant of H Majesty’s Orders viz St John they
should enquire to the Chancellry of Knighthood in London.
CMKH
CMKH
j***@fastmail.fm
16 years ago
Permalink
Post by barrassie
Knights of St ColumBanus are not Knights it is not a chivalric order,
they are perhaps similar to masonic Knights with the one exception
that is the masoNic Knightly order granted by HM The King of Sweden so
I have been informed. An organisation called Knights of the Road does
not make its members Knights.
I suppose I am trying to say that the word “knight” is not a
restrictive term.
An organisation can create such a grade without breaking any laws.
It is a convention in Britain that only knights in the recogniseed
State orders use “Sir” – plus baronets and knights bachelor of
course. And excepting the knights of St John.
I wonder what the position would be if one registered a new-born son
as, for example, “Sir Richard Brown”.
Just joking.
Tim Powys-Lybbe
16 years ago
Permalink
…
Nothing, I suspect. I have just found a ‘Lord George Hallifax’ and his
brother ‘Prince Leopold J Hallifax’ with their births registered in
Ipswich in 1879-82.
—
Tim Powys-Lybbe ***@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
j***@fastmail.fm
16 years ago
Permalink
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
Post by j***@fastmail.fm
I wonder what the position would be if one registered a new-born son
as, for example, “Sir Richard Brown”.
Nothing, I suspect. I have just found a ‘Lord George Hallifax’ and his
brother ‘Prince Leopold J Hallifax’ with their births registered in
Ipswich in 1879-82.
Tim Powys-Lybbe
I know of a Dickens character, a little dancemaster by name of Prince
Turveydrop, in Bleak House.
Joseph McMillan
16 years ago
Permalink
…
Can’t speak for Tim, but I certainly don’t have a low opinion of the
VOStJ, and I agree that it does excellent work. However, I, too, was
under the impression that its knights do not receive the accolade from
the Queen. The order’s own website <http://www.saintjohn.org/history/
venorder.html> says “New knights of the Order receive the accolade
from the Grand Prior when they are touched on the shoulder with a
sword and receive their robes and insignia.” The present Grand Prior
seems to be the Duke of Gloucester.
Joseph McMillan
j***@fastmail.fm
16 years ago
Permalink
The Order of St. John of Jerusalem is not a State Order, but a Royal
Order of Chivalry. Its decorations can be worn on military uniform of
a commonwealth state, and announcements of appointments or promotions
are made in the official government periodical, the London Gazette, as
with any other Order.
However, no grade confers any title or social precedence outside the
order. Thus a “Knight of Grace” or a “Knight of Justice” is not
entitled to use the title “Sir” which a knight of the State Orders of
Chivalry uses, but are eligible to register coats of arms with
heraldic authorities.
New knights of the Order receive the accolade from the Grand Prior,
HRH the Duke of Gloucester, when they are touched on the shoulder with
a sword and receive their robes and insignia.
Though the Grades of the Order are given specific post-nominal
letters, they only show that the recipient has been honoured unlike
State Orders or Decorations which indicate precedence.
St John post-nominals are to be used only in correspondence on St John
matteres.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
16 years ago
Permalink
On 20 Mar 2007 08:50:43 -0700, “Joseph McMillan”
…
That’s not quite my understanding, but then I have a long long way to
go before reaching the giddy heights of a Knight of Justice!!
Patrick
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Editor – Cracroft’s Peerage
The Complete Guide to the British Peerage & Baronetage
http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk
======================================================
barrassie
16 years ago
Permalink
…
The Queen gives the accolade to St John as she does for other Knightly
and chivalric orders, but on a number of occaIssions another person
gives the accolade, with St John perhaps mostly The Grand Prior HRH
Duke of Glouster, the pwrson giving the accolade of Knighthood does
not even have to be Royal or even a Knight, my gt gt grandfather when
not a Knight gabve the accolade to a Knight of the Bath, all that is
required for a person to give the accolade is authorisation.
CMKH
Jamie in Scotland
16 years ago
Permalink
…
So what is my IP address? And please explain if you were not the
moderator there posting under a different anonymous ID you could see
such a thing. I stopped posting there a long time ago. What racism
is this you speak of? Are you bothered by the fact that I happen to
be a Scot bemoaning that Scottish Heraldry is being misrepresented by
English people who make very bold assumptions, then dominate, bully
and harrass other armigers or anyone who dares comment on their
nonsense?
g***@wp.pl
16 years ago
Permalink
…
Sheesh. More anonymous trolls.
George Lucki
Guy Stair Sainty
16 years ago
Permalink
In article <***@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, silverdollar
says…
Post by silverdollar
Why does Mr Goldstraw insist he is Knighted when he is clearly not
under the Laws of England and Scotland. Did HM confer a Knighthood on
him? Since when did membership of what appears to be a mere
‘masonic’ (and I use that term loosely, no offence to members of the
fraternity) order allude to Knighthood.
Firstly the Constantinian Order is certainly not a Masonic body; indeed it is a
Catholic Order of Knighthood and Freemasonry has been repeatedly condemned by
the Church.
Secondly, it is recognized as an Order of Knighthood by several states which
authorise its citizens to wear the Orders decorations (including Spain and
Italy).
Thirdly, it is ridiculous to suggest that only HM the Queen can confer
knighthoods. Does the author of this post consider the Sovereign Military Order
of Malta, founded long before the institution of any British Orders of
knighthood and centuries before the right to confer knighthoods was limited to
the royal prerogative, to be incapable of conferring knighthoods? Doe he suppose
that the King of Spain, or the Sovereigns of Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium,
etc, are incapable of conferring knighthoods?
Mr Goldstraw is not a member of the Constantinian Order, but has been decorated
with the Cross as a knight of honour. In a similar fashion foreign recipients of
the Orders of the British Empire, Saints Michael and Saint George and the Bath
receive the cross but are not members of the Order and are not included in the
numerary limits. The same restriction applies to non-French recipients of the
Legion of Honour who are decorated with the cross but do not become members of
the Order.
—
Guy Stair Sainty
http://www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Nenad M. Jovanovich
16 years ago
Permalink
Just a question if you please.
The Document signed by HRH the GM (http://heraldry-scotland.com/copgal/
displayimage.php?album=random&cat=10001&pos=-567) styles John
Alexander Duncan of Sketeaw as: ˝Caballero de Jure Sanguinis, Motu
Proprio˝.
None of the ˝of honour˝ bit you mentioned?
And, as I understand both John and Martin recieved the same grade in
the Constantinian…
Guy Stair Sainty је написао
…
Nenad M. Jovanovich
16 years ago
Permalink
The link is broken. Sorry.
Let’s try this one:
http://heraldry-scotland.com/copgal/displayimage.php?pid=567&fullsize=1
Nenad M. Jovanovich је написао
…
Nenad M. Jovanovich
16 years ago
Permalink
As I said, it’s the same with Martin Goldstraw of Whicairns –
˝Caballero de Jure Sanguinis, Motu Proprio˝:
No ˝of honour˝ there either?
Nenad M. Jovanovich је написао
…
a***@yahoo.com
16 years ago
Permalink
…
As I know they are non-catholic. One being a non-catholic may not be a
full member of an Catholic Order of Chivalry. They are decorated with
the degree as ‘honourary knights’. The mention in the decree is
irrelevant, because their position regulated by the Statutes of the
Order.
It is in some similarity with SMOM “honourary knighthood'” for non-
catholic Christian high nobles, for example.
Nenad M. Jovanovich
16 years ago
Permalink
Possibly, but there are other non-Catholic Member at the
Constantinian, and they are ithout a doubt ”ful” Members the way I
see it.
It is obvious and notorious that the Order is Catholic in it’s very
nature, but it seems that there is a number of exceptions…
But, ofcourse, I stand to be corrected.
Just to mention a few of Orthodox Constantinians:
BALI, CAVALIERI DI GRAN CROCE DI GIUSTIZIA:
S.M. Simeone II, Tsar dei Bulgari, Collare (1960)
S.M. Costantino II, Re degli Elleni, Collare (1962)
S.A.R. Alessandro, Principe Ereditario di Yugoslavia, Collare (1984)
CAVALIERI DI GRAN CROCE JURE SANGUINIS:
Principe Serge Sergeivich Obolensky (1982)
CAVALIERI DI JURE SANGUINIS:
Dr Stanislas W. Dumin (2005)
There is yet another Orthodox Constantinian I know of (there could be
more), but he’s ”of honour” indeed – Mr Djordje Andrich who’s a
Knight of Merit of Honour.
…
a***@yahoo.com
16 years ago
Permalink
Post by Nenad M. Jovanovich
S.M. Simeone II, Tsar dei Bulgari, Collare (1960)
S.M. Costantino II, Re degli Elleni, Collare (1962)
S.A.R. Alessandro, Principe Ereditario di Yugoslavia, Collare (1984)
Principe Serge Sergeivich Obolensky (1982)
Dr Stanislas W. Dumin (2005)
You may discovering into the list of SMOM honorees, and you will find
a number of orthodox and protestant foreign monarchs, for example. But
they are not ‘full members’ of the Order, becouse this Order is a
Catholic Religious Order of Chivalry.
No, no one abovementioned is a ‘full member’ of the Order. They are
all ‘honorees’, or ‘honourary knights”. Read Guy Stair Sainty comments
on this matter.
Nenad M. Jovanovich
16 years ago
Permalink
Yes, this might well be the case with the Orthodox Royals listed
above, but neither Prince Obolensky or Dr Dumin fit in to that
category, and aren’t mentioned at the official Constantinian web-site
as being ”of honour”, whilst Mr Andrich is…
This is why I thought that they may well be other exeptions to the
rule.
Whitecairns and Sketraw are an obvious example…
…
Guy Stair Sainty
16 years ago
Permalink
In article <***@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Nenad M.
Jovanovich says…
Post by Nenad M. Jovanovich
Yes, this might well be the case with the Orthodox Royals listed
above, but neither Prince Obolensky or Dr Dumin fit in to that
category, and aren’t mentioned at the official Constantinian web-site
as being ”of honour”, whilst Mr Andrich is…
Obolensky I am not actually 100% sure of as he was admitted before I was
appointed to my post and I have not looked at his file. Dumin, however, is a
Roman Catholic by conversion.
—
Guy Stair Sainty
http://www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Guy Stair Sainty
16 years ago
Permalink
In article <***@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Nenad M.
Jovanovich says…
Post by Nenad M. Jovanovich
Possibly, but there are other non-Catholic Member at the
Constantinian, and they are ithout a doubt ”ful” Members the way I
see it.
It is obvious and notorious that the Order is Catholic in it’s very
nature, but it seems that there is a number of exceptions…
But, ofcourse, I stand to be corrected.
S=2EM. Simeone II, Tsar dei Bulgari, Collare (1960)
S=2EM. Costantino II, Re degli Elleni, Collare (1962)
S=2EA.R. Alessandro, Principe Ereditario di Yugoslavia, Collare (1984)
These three are categorised as Honour, but listed among the other Bailiffs in
the same way as the late grand duke Wladimir of Russia and the late Prince
Bernhard of the Netherlands, were both Bailiffs of the Order of Malta and their
daughter in the first case and wife and daughter in the latter both damnes grand
cross of Honour and Devotion.
Post by Nenad M. Jovanovich
Principe Serge Sergeivich Obolensky (1982)
of Honour likewise.
Post by Nenad M. Jovanovich
Dr Stanislas W. Dumin (2005)
Mr Dumin is Catholic and a full member.
Post by Nenad M. Jovanovich
There is yet another Orthodox Constantinian I know of (there could be
more), but he’s ”of honour” indeed – Mr Djordje Andrich who’s a
Knight of Merit of Honour.
—
Guy Stair Sainty
http://www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Roderick
16 years ago
Permalink
Stanislaw Dumin is not a member of the Russian Orthodox Church but
rather a member of the Roman Catholic Church. H
…
Joseph McMillan
16 years ago
Permalink
Post by Nenad M. Jovanovich
As I said, it’s the same with Martin Goldstraw of Whicairns –
http://goldstraw.org.uk/certificate-constantinian001.JPG
No ˝of honour˝ there either?
Interesting. And the phrase “vengo en concederos el ingreso en la
S.O.M. Constantiniana de San Jorge” means “I come to grant you entry
into” the order, which certainly does imply membership, not just the
receipt of an honorary decoration.
Is it the “motu proprio” part that in this order’s usage implies
“honorary”? (Understanding that there are different branches that may
do things differently.)
Joseph McMillan
Francois R. Velde
16 years ago
Permalink
…
Well, reference needs to be made to the statutes of the Order, although
I remain confused.
According to the statutes, membership in the order requires being a Roman
Catholic (ch. III, art. 1) and various criteria of nobility, merit, and
age (ch. III, art. 2 and 3). The Grand Master can waive the latter of
his own motion (motu proprio), but not the former (ch. III, art. 5).
Thus, a “knight jure sanguinis, motu proprio” would have to be a
Roman Catholic who is not 21 or else does not display “old and
proven nobility”. He would appear to be a full member of the Order
nonetheless.
A decree of Sep 19, 1988 allows the Grand Master to confer on non-RC
Christians an honorary Cross, the recipients of which are not members
of the Order but are considered decorated with the Constantinian cross
(art. 3). The designation of such would be “knight jure sanguinis and
of honor” (art. 2).
Both certificates, however, signed by the Grand Master, omit the designation
“of honor”.
—
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by “heraldica”)
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Nathaniel Taylor
16 years ago
Permalink
…
Back in the earlier thread on this, in December, Mr. Goldstraw clearly
stated that he (and Mr. Duncan) were
Post by Francois R. Velde
… both extremely honoured to be awarded the status of “Caballero
de Jure Sanguinis, D’ Onore Moto Proprio” (though the letter from the
Administrator omits the words “D’ Onore”, these words are included in
the separate letter from the Grand Master).
He also noted that one or both of these letters addressed him as
‘confrere’, which arguably can be taken as implying his membership in
the order, in distinction to merely having been granted an (honorary)
award.
Now the digital images of diplomas effecting these awards are available
online, both of which appear to omit the words “d’onore” (unless some
ingenious soul simply photoshopped them out, which is quite simple.
Somone could similarly replace the arms on the diploma with an
achievement from the family graves of Mr. Akins of that Ilk…).
But it is clear that awards “d’onore” are the only ones available to
non-Catholics, and were created especially by the 1988 addendum to the
order’s statutes (availble online at–
http://www.constantinianorder.org/english/statutes.html
).
Given the apparent internal inconsistency of the diplomata and the
letters noted by Mr. Goldstraw, the only possible explanation is that
there was some careless error in the preparation of some of the
documents Mr. Goldstraw and Mr. Duncan have received. Or is it possible
that the order has quietly changed its practices (without altering the
statutes) and was admitting both men (non-Catholics) to full membership?
But if so, why would some of the correspondence use the phrase “d’onore”?
It is interesting that these diplomata have been placed online
(presumably by their recipients) when there is a clear question about
their statutory correctness.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
StephenP
16 years ago
Permalink
It should be noted, that whilst there is some confusion regarding the
documentation, both recipients display the ribbon of the Order with a
(non-Catholic) blue edge in their achievements.
Yours aye
Stephen
StephenP
16 years ago
Permalink
Post by StephenP
It should be noted, that whilst there is some confusion regarding the
documentation, both recipients display the ribbon of the Order with a
(non-Catholic) blue edge in their achievements.
Yours aye
Stephen
Ooops! Must be going cross eyed. The blue ribbon of the Order has a
red edge to denote non-Catholic.
Guy Stair Sainty
16 years ago
Permalink
In article <nathanieltaylor-***@news.west.earthlink.net>,
Nathaniel Taylor says…
…
No it has not changed its position; I have asked the officer responsible for
drawing up the diploma why the words Honour were omitted – I have a copy of the
registry of admissions and this clearly states these two were admitted as
knights of honour. They were not admitted through the British association,
however, which of itself is also extremely unusual.
Post by Nathaniel Taylor
It is interesting that these diplomata have been placed online
(presumably by their recipients) when there is a clear question about
their statutory correctness.
You may notice, however, that the ribbons are correctly displayed, both with a
narrow red line along the edge denoting the category of honour, rather than full
membership, where these borders on the ribbon are omitted.
In the Order of Malta, like the Spanish Golden Fleece, it has long been the
practice to confer the cross of Honour and Devotion on heads of States and of
Royal Houses without either proof of Catholicity, as exceptional honours; for
example, the Bailiff’s cross was conferred on several past French presidents who
were not conspicuous for their Catholic devotion (the last to receive it was
Giscard d’Estaing, who is of course not noble but received nonetheless the
Bailiff’s Cross and Riband of Honour and Devotion). Since the institution of the
Collar of the Order pro Merito Melitense such awards have become very rare, but
are still given to the heads of royal houses – as awards of the Bailiff’s cross
recently to Crown Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia and the dame grand cross to
Grand Duchess Maria Wladimirovna are testament. The listing in the roll and the
decorations received are identical to those of Catholic members, but the
non-Catholics simply do not benefit from the spiritual privileges of membership.
Similarly non Catholic recipients of the Spanish Golden Fleece receive identical
diplomas and insignia as Catholic ones, even though by a Papal brief of 1817 the
non-Catholic member are designated extra-numerary and do not enjoy the
privileges of membership of the Order.
In the Constantinian case there were occasional admissions of non-catholics from
the early 19th century onwards, including not only Orthodox princes and others
of the orthodox faith, but even a few Anglicans. In the 20th century such
admissions became very rare indeed, and in fact until the award to these two
gentlemen there has been only one admission of a non-Catholic in the past
forty-seven years – of Lady Charlotte Fraser, daughter of the Earl of Warwick
and widow of the Hon Andrew Fraser (son of the late Lord Lovat) who was an
active member tragically killed by a water buffalo in Africa. His widow was
given the cross of honour as a token of appreciation for her husband’s devotion
to the Order. The Franco-Neapolitan Order conferred the grand cross of Merit on
the late Lt Col Gayre of Gayre and Nigg, who was of course not a Ctaholic, but a
Scottish Episcopalian (actually born in Cornwall, an Anglican).
The introduction of the class of honour was done precisely to make it possible
for such occasional awards to be made, but there have never been more than a
handful.
—
Guy Stair Sainty
http://www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Nenad M. Jovanovich
16 years ago
Permalink
Thank you for these clarifications!
But is there any reasonable explanation for dropping the ”of honour”
category at the Diplomas mentioned above?
That would mean that those Diplomas state one thing and Order records
something rather different.
Why would that be?
A simple oversight or what?
Guy Stair Sainty је написао
…
g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
16 years ago
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
In the Constantinian case there were occasional admissions of non-catholics from
the early 19th century onwards, including not only Orthodox princes and others
of the orthodox faith, but even a few Anglicans. In the 20th century such
admissions became very rare indeed, and in fact until the award to these two
gentlemen there has been only one admission of a non-Catholic in the past
forty-seven years
So what prompted the award in these cases?
Greg
16 years ago
Permalink
Post by g***@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
In the Constantinian case there were occasional admissions of non-catholics from
the early 19th century onwards, including not only Orthodox princes and others
of the orthodox faith, but even a few Anglicans. In the 20th century such
admissions became very rare indeed, and in fact until the award to these two
gentlemen there has been only one admission of a non-Catholic in the past
forty-seven years
So what prompted the award in these cases?
In Oct of 2006, Stephen Plowman announced in another forum that Martin
Goldstraw had been made a knight “jure sanguinis” of the Sacred
Military Constantinian Order of St. George.
http://www.constantinianorder.org/english/index.html
it is understood that this is an honorary membership and it none the
less prompted a spirited discussion on what constitutes a legitimate
knighthood: ie a knighthood recognized by a currently ruling monarchy
or other sovereign government outside of a chivalric or military
order. This order is based I believe in Italy, though don’t quote me…
I find this subject endlessly fascinating as well because all sorts of
responses weigh in and I don’t think we ever reached a conclusion.
The crux here is that Mr. Goldstraw for whatever reason (he never
explained what it was) received an honorary membership.
(if you cruise over to the international register you’ll not that Mr.
Goldstraw is now also “Titled Nobility”)…
Regards
Greg
Nenad M. Jovanovich
16 years ago
Permalink
Isn’t he under: Arms Granted by Heraldic Authorities?
Greg је написао
…
StephenP
16 years ago
Permalink
Post by Nenad M. Jovanovich
Isn’t he under: Arms Granted by Heraldic Authorities?
Indeed he is. But why let the facts get in the way…..
g***@yahoo.com
16 years ago
Permalink
Post by StephenP
Post by Nenad M. Jovanovich
Isn’t he under: Arms Granted by Heraldic Authorities?
Indeed he is. But why let the facts get in the way…..
=============
Indeed he is _now_.
I checked last night after reading Mr. McGibbony’s post and Mr.
Goldstraw *was* listed under “Royalty & Titled Nobility”. The Burke’s
International Register appears to have undergone some format changes
recently and I would think that placing Mr. Goldstraw in the “Royalty
& Titled Nobility” category was a bookmarking error — which was
corrected after Mr. McGibbony announced his discovery.
Personally, I would have contacted Mr. Goldstraw privately — but that
is because I have never known Mr. Goldstraw to imply he was royalty or
titled nobility of any sort.
–Guy Power
Greg
16 years ago
Permalink
…
Thank you Guy,
Now that (the facts) are out perhaps Mr. Plowman can answer Graham’s
question.
John A. Duncan
16 years ago
Permalink
…
I you would care to check the Google ‘cache’ for that particular page
you will see the page has not changed.
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:515iS2Kqr4YJ:www.armorial-register.com/surnames-arms-g.html+burke%27s+peerage+and+gentry+G&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=uk
The last Google cache image is dated the 18th March and Martin’s entry
has been there under ‘Arms Granted by Heraldic Authorities’ since the
change was made from 2 categories to 4 a few months ago.
There are also other websites that you can use to check ‘cached pages’
John A. Duncan of Sketraw
John A. Duncan
16 years ago
Permalink
…
You may also like to note, that prior to the change over from 2
categories to 4, Martin’s entry was under ‘Armigers’. The auto last
update of the page also shows the date of the last change as being the
15/01/2007.
http://www.armorial-register.com/surnames-arms-g.html
I think you are reading the page wrong, take a look at
http://www.armorial-register.com/surnames-arms-b.html where it will
clearly show the 4 categories.
You may also like to check the ‘notes on indexing’
http://www.armorial-register.com/indexing-notes.html
John A. Duncan of Sketraw
Greg
16 years ago
Permalink
…
Hi John,
It was listed as such for whatever reason… Guy checked it as well.
I didn’t make it up – I have no reason to. It’s apparently been
corrected. So can we get on with the discussion? Graham asked a
reasonable question, I think the category is a good one (not specific
to Martin) but a continuation of the subject.
So what was the reason for the honorary decoration?
Regards
Greg
g***@yahoo.com
16 years ago
Permalink
Post by John A. Duncan
I you would care to check the Google ‘cache’ for that particular page
you will see the page has not changed.
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:515iS2Kqr4YJ:www.armorial-regist…
The last Google cache image is dated the 18th March and Martin’s entry
has been there under ‘Arms Granted by Heraldic Authorities’ since the
change was made from 2 categories to 4 a few months ago.
There are also other websites that you can use to check ‘cached pages’
=============
John,
I assure you last night I checked and Martin *was* listed in the
“Royalty & Titled Nobility” category! I’ve not logged-on to the
Register for well over a month — perhaps even two…. Is it possible
I was retreiving an old cache version? Was there ever a time when his
entry was incorrectly posted — even for a few minutes? Have you ever
had problems with one entry unexpectedly jumping categories?
The reason I’m so certain I reported correctly is because after seeing
Martin’s category, I immediately checked your entry and saw you were
*not* listed as “Royalty & Titled Nobility” — and I thought to
myself, “Perhaps Martin’s entry is merely a filing error??”
I assure you that I am not making this up. I have no explanation as
to how Martin’s entry showed up on my computer in the “Royalty &
Titled Nobility” section; but it did. And I just now did an
alphabetic check of all entries just to ensure I didn’t mistake Martin
for somebody else whose name is familiar to me. Nothing.
I am sorry for mentioning my finding because I appear to be throwing
dirt on Mr. Goldstraw — and that is not my intention. For that, (to
you, Martin), I apologize. Martin Goldstraw is a person whom I
highly regard — I would never expect him to purposefully
miscategorize his status.
In any regard — I am sorry for causing heartache over my
observation! Indeed, Martin’s entry today is in the correct category.
I just do not understand what happened.
Sincerely,
–Guy Power
John A. Duncan
16 years ago
Permalink
…
Hi Guy,
I there was something wrong, I have no idea what it is, or was,
because Martin’s entry has never been touched since the last update to
the page on the 15th Jan. As you can see by the ‘cache’ it was also
the same on the 18th March.
“Martin Goldstraw is a person whom I
highly regard — I would never expect him to purposefully
miscategorize his status. “
I agree with this Guy, he is a person of integrity.
Regards
John
Greg
16 years ago
Permalink
…
Hello Gentlemen,
It’s certainly not a matter of throwing dirt on anybody. It was an
entry as such; period. It has happened in the past and indeed in the
opening of the register there were many corrections to be made. Any
website gets constant tweaking. Trouble is, when a mistake such as
this is made, it can be lifted by ‘others’ and cause an uncomfortable
situation in the future: very unfortunate but true, ie the opening
post of this thread … and the goings on of Mr. Plowman should be an
example to everybody.
I will press very hard sometimes in the interest of exposing the
underbelly early on and giving the players ample opportunity to
correct a situation and keep it from snowballing. It’s a fair thing
to do. There are those who, of course, question my motives; but I
can assure you that I see many of you simply as friends that I have
not yet met. We’re supposed to be having a good time and I for one
disslike it when a very few actually beat up on others and say
slanderous things for the sake of their own egos and nothing more. (It
has also been shown to me: by email, that there a plenty who feel as I
do).
****The question about what consitutes a legitimate knighthood is
still a good question; because of the heraldic opportunities that go
with it. It is also nobody elses fault that Mr. Goldstraw finds
himself in the unfortunate posistion of ” the target ” because he
seems to display the most feathers one time after another: not a
judgement, just an observation.
Kinghthood is still good question though; don’t you think?
Regards
Greg
StephenP
16 years ago
Permalink
Post by Greg
Now that (the facts) are out perhaps Mr. Plowman can answer Graham’s
question.
Because they were all good chaps?
Greg, how on earth do you expect me to answer the question as to why
various non-Catholics were chosen to be so honoured ? I am not a
member of the Order. It is a bit like me asking Graham when are you
going to be Master of your Masonic Lodge.
Stephen
Greg
16 years ago
Permalink
Post by StephenP
Post by Greg
Now that (the facts) are out perhaps Mr. Plowman can answer Graham’s
question.
Because they were all good chaps?
Greg, how on earth do you expect me to answer the question as to why
various non-Catholics were chosen to be so honoured ? I am not a
member of the Order. It is a bit like me asking Graham when are you
going to be Master of your Masonic Lodge.
Stephen
Your reply makes no sense. Of course you can answer that question:
you got your information from somewhere with regard to the award. You
could’ve asked; although I’m sure you know. And I must say that it’s
a bit ridiculous to take a defensive posistion with regard to a simple
discussion. The entire subject matter is ratter facinating and has
nothing to do with personalities, but since Martin is always it seems
on the vanguard of these things his example is held up as a point of
interest in – the subject – …
BTW: where did you ever get the idea about a masonic lodge?
Nenad M. Jovanovich
16 years ago
Permalink
Maybe this could help clarify the matter:
http://www.calodges.org/no321/TBD/0409/TNcave.htm
And I thought it was you who said that the Constantinian was a masonic
Order?
Greg је написао
…
Nenad M. Jovanovich
16 years ago
Permalink
PS. Isn’t that you with the funny looking apron there?
Greg је написао
…
StephenP
16 years ago
Permalink
Post by Greg
you got your information from somewhere with regard to the award.
I was informed that they had so been honoured but not why.
Post by Greg
BTW: where did you ever get the idea about a masonic lodge?
http://www.calodges.org/no321/TBD/0409/TNcave.htm
Not you?
Guy Stair Sainty
16 years ago
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Both certificates, however, signed by the Grand Master, omit the designation
“of honor”.
Nonetheless, in the register of diplomas, they are both inscribed as knights of
honour and were not admitted to membership in the Order for which proof of
Catholicism is an absolute requirement.
The motu proprio means that they were accorded this grade without the requisite
proof of nobility, an occasional privilege.
—
Guy Stair Sainty
http://www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
https://rec.heraldry.narkive.com/bmgeoFwx/goldstraw-and-the-sacred-military-constantinian-order-of-st-george
Debunking the fake hunters 
